This chapter claims that wild animals are morally considerable. Because nonhuman animals are sentient, they have a well-being of their own – a necessary and sufficient condition for having moral consideration. It further claims that this is the case independently of the theory of well-being one might endorse. It then argues that nonhuman interests in not suffering are morally relevant and that equal instances of suffering should be equally considered, irrespective of species membership. It follows that our reasons to prevent or alleviate nonhuman suffering are as strong as our reasons to prevent equal instances of human suffering. Finally, it argues for a conditional claim: If death is bad at all, then under certain theoretical assumptions, death is also bad for nonhuman animals and, sometimes, it may be comparatively worse than for human beings. If so, the nonhuman interest in continuing to live gives us additional reasons to act on behalf of wild animals, by preventing them from dying.