I think it is very unclear whether wild animals have positive/​negative lives, so I guess it is fine to neglect the effects on wild animals of interventions aiming to improve the welfare of farmed animals or humans. Ihaveposted about these effects, and I believe their discussion can still be useful as a way of raising awareness for wild animal welfare.
In addition, as with the meat-eater problem, I suspect the effects on wild animals are mostly a distraction for cause prioritisation. If one is confident the effects on wild animals are positive/​negative, and that their magnitude is significant, then I would expect interventions explicitly aiming to improve the welfare of wild animals to be more cost-effective than those targetting farmed animals or humans.
Interesting question, David!
I think it is very unclear whether wild animals have positive/​negative lives, so I guess it is fine to neglect the effects on wild animals of interventions aiming to improve the welfare of farmed animals or humans. I have posted about these effects, and I believe their discussion can still be useful as a way of raising awareness for wild animal welfare.
In addition, as with the meat-eater problem, I suspect the effects on wild animals are mostly a distraction for cause prioritisation. If one is confident the effects on wild animals are positive/​negative, and that their magnitude is significant, then I would expect interventions explicitly aiming to improve the welfare of wild animals to be more cost-effective than those targetting farmed animals or humans.