Culling: Where are we headed?

Thoughts on culling after the discussion session last month.

Timeline

December 2015 the Bihar state government for the first time since the Wildlife Protection Act came into being ‘used’ Section 62 of the Act to declare Nilgai and Wild Boar vermin. This was followed by Uttarakhand in February 2016 for Wild Boar and Himachal Pradesh in March 2016, followed by another one increasing the geographical spread during May 2016, for Rhesus Macaque.

These allowed for their being killed, using multiple means, in large numbers. Spat between two central government ministers helped highlight the issue and it was extensively covered by media during June 2016.

Scenario today

What numbers were to be killed to bring conflict to acceptable levels? How many animals were killed in each of these states? Has the culling had any impact on the conflict situation? While all this happens we are yet to get answers to some of the seemingly basic questions. It is easier to move ahead with notifications rather than find answers and solutions. and the news reports give us an idea of what lies in store.

Himachal Pradesh is paying 500/- for one Rhesus Macaque killed and intends to extend the area, where the species is declared ‘vermin’, to the entire state. Bihar, RTI has revealed had planned to declare the species ‘vermin’ for 5 years and is keen to renew the notification once it ends during coming months. States like Tamil Nadu could join in with increasing demands buttressed by the line ‘if they have been allowed why not us’. In the meanwhile, the infamous shikari continues to get press and give gems like, ‘all animals are born with the fear of man, we just need to remind them of it’.

A Discussion

Students Conference on Conservation Science is one of the largest gatherings of the researchers, scientists and conservationists in the country. The recent edition, at Bangalore, was organized during September 2016. This event presented an ideal platform to deliberate on the topic and raise some uncomfortable questions within the community. A community which has been accused of remaining silent on the topic. Participants (researchers, scientists and conservationists) deliberated on a range of issues on the topic. Some questioned the need to accord rights equal to that of humans to wildlife while others discussed the studies that have brought forth that the perception of wildlife conflict is higher than the actual conflict.

Some threads which emerged I share below.

Numbers

Tigers and lions are possibly the only two species of whose numbers we have reasonably good estimates. We do not even have these for our largest mammal, Asian Elephant, so to expect us to have numbers for Blue Bull and Wild Boar, at this point, appeared beyond the realm of practicality.

Also, increase in numbers may not necessarily lead to increase in conflict. There is no direct co-relation and conflict, in most cases, is a result of multiple factors. 

Science

Supreme Court, on the vermin case, had asked each of the three petitioners to make representations to the MoEFCC. In reply to one of these representations the MoEFCC states ‘Blue Bull, Wild Boar or Macaque are known as not very preferred prey either even within the forests’. A couple of days later, in the Court, the petitioners were busy presenting the ‘Status of Tigers, Co-predators and Prey in India’ reports, besides other documents, to the Court. These documents by the Wildlife Institute of India and National Tiger Conservation Authority, both affiliated to MoEFCC, mention Blue Bull and Wild Boar as tiger prey!

If this is how science is put to use by our ‘decision makers’ how does the community make itself relevant today? Is a lot of what it does confined to the campuses, conferences  and the proverbial choir?

Law.

How could the Wildlife Protection Act suddenly come up one fine day, during 1972, and dictate the manner in which we perceived wildlife and dealt with it? An act that was copied from an African country?

How relevant were the Schedules, according varying degrees of protection,  to our wildlife today? We have, for example, Peafowl in Schedule One but the Hyaena is in Schedule Three.

There is a need to deliberate on this.

Engage.

The need to engage with other groups be it forest department, farmers or the decision makers came up on multiple occasions. Interestingly couple of participants use the term ‘they’ when discussing the topic, ‘they should engage’. Who this mysterious ‘they’ is, remains a question.

We need to move beyond our comfort zones and engage. Seldom it happens that those beyond the choir wait for our findings, with open hands, before taking decisions. There is a dire need to shift from ‘they’ to ‘us’ and ‘we’ or else, like was pointed out during a plenary at the conference, there will be little to research and conserve some years down the line.

Other questions

The session closed with more questions than answers as we had hoped.

We look at co-existence (wildlife and human beings) but why do we want it to be harmonious? Has not a degree of conflict ever been there? Is not the concept of ‘harmonious co-existence’ as mythical as that of the ‘pristine untouched forests’?

Why has the ‘community’ accepted culling as an option so easily. Why was it not exploring other options?

What next

This discussion is a small part of a beginning, albeit late, to move towards actions. This includes plenaries during the conference that pointed to taking the findings to larger set of people and recent articles which questioned the silence of scientists.

One of the suggestions has been to come together and have a common voice; akin to the Society of Conservation Biologists but moving beyond biologists. These attempts have not have not worked earlier, but this time, it appears, we have little option.

Culling is just one of the issues confronting wildlife in our country.

Acknowledgements:

Imran Siddiqui, SCCS, FIAPO and discussion session participants.

Thanks Varda for commenting on the draft.