EDITORIALS

Problem Animals Are Not the Real Problem

The government proposal on culling treats only the symptom; the problem is of a declining animal habitat.

he Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

is planning to allow the hunting of animals which it
deems as vermin. In December last year, the ministry had
issued a circular that proposed legalising hunting of problem
animals. Going by the Environment Minister Prakash Javadekars
recent statements, implementing this circular seems to be one
of the more enthusiastic pursuits of an otherwise somnolent
ministry. In his most recent statement on the issue, Javadekar
said that the ministry will go ahead with the hunting permission as soon as it gets a response from the states.
The minister has hinted that blue bulls (nilgais) and wild boars
would be the likely targets of this vermin extermination programme.
The animals are currently slotted under Schedule III of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Hunting them attracts a fine, but the
offence is not deemed as serious as, say, hunting a blackbuck
an endangered species. Javadekar has cited Section 62 of the act
in support of his plan. The section allows the centre to declare
animals, other than rare and endangered species, as vermin.
The environment ministrys plans are likely to bring cheer to
a large number of farmers in north and central India, whose
crops are ravaged every year by nilgais and wild boars. Crop
depredation is a serious problem in the country. A 2011 study by
scientists from the Wildlife Institute of India noted that nilgai
menace is the most acute in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand,
Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh.
Viewed in this light, the environment ministrys proposal
promises to root out a long-standing problem. It has drawn flak,
unsurprisingly, from animal lovers and a section of conservationists. Some of the criticism has referred to the traditional tolerancereverence tooof farming communities for herbivores,
even when these animals damaged crops. Farmers, it is said,
accepted the damage as a part of life. Such criticism, however
well-intentioned, seems to be blinkered towards an important
difference between what was then and what is now. Studies have
shown the gravity of the humananimal conflict. For instance,
in 2002, a now oft-cited study by H S Pabla, a senior forest officer
in Madhya Pradesh, showed that the state was losing more
than Rs 600 crore every year to crop depredation by wild boars,
chitals and nilgais. A 2003 study by scientists from Haryana
Agricultural University showed that more than 50% of the standing

crop in Rohtak, Jhajjar, Bhiwani, Sirsa and Mahendragarh districts was ravaged by nilgais. It is no surprise, therefore, that
the people who once venerated the nilgai want it exterminated.
How did things come to such a pass? This is where both the
environment ministry and its critics have got it wrong. Both
have identified a symptom as the problem. The Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, accorded protection to animals. At the same time,
animal habitats have continued to shrink. Development projects,
industrialisation and agricultural expansion hacked away at
forests, bringing wild animals in close proximity to agricultural
settlements. Animals that could adapt to this human-altered
scenario multiplied. But they also became ecological dislocates.
The nilgai and the wild boar are prime examples.
Culling such problem creatures seems at best treating the
symptom. Grave as it is, crop depredation by nilgais and wild
boars is part of a problem of much more serious proportions.
The two animals are not the only crop raiders. Monkeys are a
menace in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. In many parts
of the North East, Odisha and Maharashtra, agriculturists fear
elephants. Rhinos are a scourge in many parts of Assam.
Also, humananimal conflict is not just about crop damage. In
Uttarakhand and Maharashtra, leopards are known to take
away livestock. They attack and kill humans too. Last year, a
leopard in Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand, was labelled a man-eater
after it had killed 12 people. In Assam a few weeks ago, people
killed a leopard after the animal had attacked them.
Every animal is different in the way it relates to humans and
it would be wrong to reduce all humananimal conflicts to one
reason. But the fact that such conflict has reached unprecedented
levels is a symptom of an ecological upheaval; a sign that animals
face an acute habitat crisis. It also shows protecting animals in
fragmented reserves can go woefully wrong, when at the same
time large chunks of forests are being destroyed.
The environment ministrys proposals to cull problem animals
must be seen in tandem with its ministers enthusiasm to siphon off
large tracts of forests for industry. Overabundance of some animals
is a serious problem. But dealing with these ecological dislocates
requires a vision that a minister, who equates forest diversion
with reforestation, seems incapable of. That is why one must
treat Javadekars plans to cull problem animals with scepticism.

september 5, 2015

vol l no 36

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly