It seems like there’s a conceptual leap from ‘pain is intrinsically bad for wild animals’ to ‘wild animal suffering is a problem that humans should address.’ I don’t see a clear argument for why we, as humans, are morally implicated. “Pain is bad for wild animals” doesn’t imply “the pain of wild animals is bad for humans”.
It seems like there’s a conceptual leap from ‘pain is intrinsically bad for wild animals’ to ‘wild animal suffering is a problem that humans should address.’ I don’t see a clear argument for why we, as humans, are morally implicated. “Pain is bad for wild animals” doesn’t imply “the pain of wild animals is bad for humans”.