Oct 04, 2026 Policy Brief Review: Wild Animal Welfare in Local Policies on Human-Wildlife Conflict
In this policy brief[i], a multidisciplinary team of scholars explores how municipalities can respond to human-wildlife conflict while recognizing wild animal welfare as a central consideration in local policy development and governance. The idea that wild animals living in cities could be differentiated from their counterparts living elsewhere took shape among academics and planners during the environmental movement of the 1970s. However, popular works about “city critters” had long preceded it.[ii] Professional attention meant conferences and symposia, which took place early on in both the U.S. and Canada and initially focused on basics, such as inventorying urban species and asking people how they felt about having wild neighbors. It was clear from the beginning, however, that more than biologists needed to be involved with urban wildlife. Planners and policy experts were also needed, leading to extensive discussion of how to wed biology to management and governance.[iii] A need for guidance for local city governments on how to establish policies on wildlife in cities still exists, one that benefits both the animals and people. That is why we welcome the recent publication of two policy briefs: a first (in 2024) focused on land use and the built environment[iv], and a second (in 2026) focused on human-wildlife conflict, which is addressed here.
Wild Animal Welfare in Local Policies on Human-Wildlife Conflict (Policy Brief/May 2026) is authored by scholars from New York, Yale and Stanford universities who together represent a wide range of expertise across cross-cutting fields that is increasingly demanded when dealing with urban wildlife. While the focus is on human-wildlife conflicts, the policy brief stands on the premise that the welfare of wild animals in cities must be a major driver in any policies aimed at them. The authors take pains to outline what animal welfare science offers in this context, a not inconsiderable task. As they note, some welfare concerns remain aspirational. It will be far easier to create policy to protect migrating birds from window collisions than to protect mice and rats from the agonizing deaths they suffer in glue traps. Still, rats and mice must be included, and perhaps even prioritized, in any discussion about how we treat urban wildlife.
After addressing the conceptual background, the brief focuses on five principal areas of concern and opportunities. These include waste management and food access, humane population management, conflict response and rehabilitation, built environment and land use, and planning and governance. Each is given concise, informative treatment, with specific examples of issues such as bird-window collisions, illustrated by excellent examples of how municipalities have created policies or established educational programs that can serve as templates for others.
The result is a document that will be useful and, we hope, highly influential in setting urban wildlife policy in the future. It strongly complements its predecessor, which focused on land use and the built environment, ranging over issues such as green infrastructure, tree canopy, ecosystems, buildings and development, lawns and open space, and roads. Together, these resources make essential references for urban planners, managers and office holders. Both briefs underscore the need for wildlife specialists to be readily available as staff or through private consulting groups, perhaps along the lines envisioned by pioneering environmental planners such as Robert Dorney.[v] It is a settled question that this need exists. As this brief suggests, it is also a likely political necessity. With the great majority of Americans now living as urbanites, cities have become the places where decisions about all wildlife and, in fact, all conservation will be made.[vi] This larger dynamic will critically shape our future.
[i] Minelli, A., J. Sebo, B. Franks, M. Graham, V. Morris, B. Parent, L. Sellars, A. E. White, and A. L. Caplan. Wild Animal Welfare in Local Policies on Human-Wildlife Conflict. Wild Animal Welfare Program and Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, New York University, and The Law, Ethics & Animals Program, Yale University. 2026.
[ii] Halle, Louis J. Spring in Washington. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1947; Beebe, William. The Unseen Life of New York. Cambridge, MA: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1953; and Kieran, John. A Natural History of New York City. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959.
[iii] Stenberg, K., and W. Shaw, eds. Wildlife Conservation and New Residential Developments. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986; and Adams, L., and D. L. Leedy, eds. Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment. Chevy Chase, MD. : National Institute for Urban Wildlife, 1987.
[iv] https://guarinicenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Wild-Animal-Welfare-in-Local-Policies-Policy-Brief.pdf
[v] Dorney, R. S. (1989). The Professional Practice of Environmental Management. New York: Springer-Verlag.
[vi] This idea may have been articulated as early as Don Gill and Penelope Bonnett’s introduction to Nature in the Urban Landscape. Baltimore: York Press, 1973.