As climate change moves suitable habitats northward and upward, some species cannot track these changes fast enough. Assisted migration — deliberately moving species to future-suitable habitats — is a controversial but potentially welfare-positive conservation tool.
Assisted migration welfare considerations mirror those of conservation translocations generally: handling stress, transport mortality, and adjustment to novel environments are all welfare risks that must be managed carefully. The alternative — allowing populations to decline and go extinct in warming habitats — represents a different but equally real welfare harm at the population level: animals facing nutritional stress, disease pressure, and mortality as habitats become unsuitable. The most defensible welfare position is careful, monitored assisted migration with robust protocols for minimising handling stress, selecting appropriate release sites, and post-release monitoring. This provides a more welfare-positive outcome than inaction while acknowledging the welfare costs of intervention. Climate change itself is the primary welfare threat — mitigation remains the most important intervention.