
Kerala Seeks To Amend Wildlife Act To Allow Killing Of Animals. Reasons Explained
Kerala, a state known for its lush forests and biodiversity, has been grappling with a surge in human-wildlife conflicts. These conflicts have led to the loss of human lives, injuries, crop destruction, and economic hardship for farmers. To address this crisis, the Kerala government has been pushing for amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA), seeking legal provisions to allow the controlled killing or culling of certain wild animals that pose threats to human life and livelihoods.
The Forest and Wildlife Department has been tasked with initiating the process to seek central government approval for culling wild animals, such as wild boars, that pose a threat to public safety and livelihoods. The Forest Secretary has been directed to draft a legislative proposal in consultation with the Law Secretary to facilitate the necessary legal provisions, as per a report by Matrubhumi.
Here's why Kerala is advocating for these changes:
Kerala's unique geography, with nearly 30% of its land covered by forests, places human settlements near wildlife habitats. Rapid urbanisation, habitat degradation, changes in agricultural practices, and regional fluctuations in wildlife populations have also intensified human-wildlife conflicts.
From 2016-17 to January 2025, wildlife attacks in Kerala resulted in 919 deaths and 8,967 injuries, according to government data. The state has identified 273 out of 941 village local bodies as human-wildlife conflict hotspots.
Human-wildlife conflict: Frequent encounters between humans and wild animals, such as elephants, tigers, wild boars, macaques, peafowl and bison, have resulted in loss of human life and property damage.
Crop damage: Wild animals, like elephants and wild boars, cause significant damage to crops, affecting farmers' livelihoods.
Public safety concerns: The presence of certain wild animals like monkeys and porcupines in human-dominated areas poses a risk to public safety.
What Does the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Currently Allow?
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is India's cornerstone legislation for protecting wildlife, prohibiting hunting and ensuring conservation of species and their habitats. It also includes provisions for dealing with animals that pose threats. Despite these provisions, the process is slow and bureaucratic.
Only the CWLW, a senior state-level official, can authorise killing, leading to delays in addressing urgent threats.
Non-lethal measures (capture, tranquilization, relocation) are prioritised, but these are often impractical due to logistical challenges or lack of suitable relocation sites.
Court orders and guidelines from bodies like the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Project Elephant Scheme further restrict lethal action.
Why Kerala Finds the Current Law Inadequate?
Kerala argues that the Wildlife (Protection) Act's stringent regulations and centralised decision-making hinder timely responses to human-wildlife conflicts. The exclusive authority of the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) also creates bottlenecks. For instance, in remote areas like Wayanad, waiting for CWLW approval can delay action, endangering lives.
In 2022, Kerala empowered local bodies to use licensed shooters to kill wild boars raiding crops. However, this measure failed due to a shortage of licensed shooters in rural areas and impractical guidelines, such as checking if a boar is pregnant before shooting.
"Before shooting a wild boar, one has to examine whether it is pregnant or not. Such impractical guidelines have failed to serve the purpose. The growing population of wildlife has to be controlled to prevent threats to human lives," State Forest Minister A K Saseendran said.
Here are other reasons:
Declaring wild boars as vermin (under Section 62) was previously rejected by the central government, limiting the state's ability to control their population.
Bonnet macaques, added to Schedule I in 2022, can no longer be captured or relocated without CWLW approval, despite their crop-raiding behaviour.
Animals like elephants and tigers, protected under Schedule I, require exhaustive non-lethal measures before lethal action, even when they pose immediate threats.
Crop losses (e.g., wild boars destroying up to 60% of yields in Wayanad) threaten food security and farmers' livelihoods.
Fear of attacks has disrupted rural life, with 273 villages living under constant threat
Proposed Amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act
1. Decentralising Authority: The proposal is to transfer the power to issue "kill permits" under Section 11(1)(A) and 11(1)(B) from the CWLW to Chief Conservators of Forests (CCFs). Notably, CCFs are senior officials stationed at regional levels, enabling faster, localised decision-making. This would streamline responses to wildlife threats, especially in conflict hotspots.
2. Declaring Wild Boars as Vermin: The government has proposed to declare wild boars as vermin under Section 62 for specific periods and regions, allowing controlled culling without legal repercussions. Wild boars are prolific breeders and cause widespread agricultural damage. Declaring them vermin would enable farmers and local bodies to manage their populations effectively.
3. Removing Bonnet Macaques from Schedule I: To allow capture and relocation without stringent approvals.
4. Legal Safeguards for Farmers and Officials: Protect farmers and field officers from prosecution when acting against wildlife threats, encouraging proactive measures.
5. Region-Specific Culling: Allow controlled culling of "man-eating" animals (e.g., tigers, leopards) in high-conflict zones, with clear guidelines to prevent misuse.
Ethical Concerns
Kerala's proposal to amend the Wildlife Protection Act to allow the culling of wild animals has sparked debates. Conservationists raise ethical concerns, citing potential harm to endangered species and ecosystems. Ecological experts warn of unintended population imbalances and emphasise addressing habitat degradation.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
2 days after rape and murder of minor girl, accused still at large
Two days after the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in north-east Delhi's Nehru Vihar, the search for the accused, who allegedly sexually assaulted the girl and killed her before stuffing her body in a suitcase, continues to remain under way. 'The hunt for the accused is on. Multiple teams of the Special Cell, Crime Branch, and district police unit are conducting raids to nab him,' said a senior police officer. The accused, who ran a food stall in the area, is suspected to have fled the scene immediately after committing the crime. During the preliminary investigation, the police found that the accused had been residing in that area for the past nearly nine months. 'Argument with wife' 'A few days back, during an argument with his wife he threw stones at her, after which she did not come back to him,' said Shakeela, a neighbour. On Sunday, a case was registered under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The incident has sparked widespread protests by residents, who have demanded strict punishment for the accused. Oppn. criticises BJP Meanwhile, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress criticised the BJP governments in Delhi and the Centre over the 'collapse of law and order'. Delhi Police reports to the Union Home Ministry. Leader of the Opposition in the Delhi Assembly and AAP leader Atishi wrote to Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora demanding swift action. Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker Mohan Singh Bisht met the victim's family members. He later told mediapersons that 'such criminals should be dealt with thorough encounters'.


The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Foreign aid and financial woes
When reports last week stated that the Chief Minister's Relief Fund of Maharashtra had been allowed to receive foreign contributions under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the CPI(M)-led Left government in Kerala was quick to depict this as yet another act of discrimination against the southern State by the Centre. It recalled that the Centre had declined the Kerala government's plea for accepting foreign aid in the days following the 2018 floods — a catastrophe that left large-scale destruction in its wake. Kerala Finance Minister K.N. Balagopal said that while his State welcomed the approval for Maharashtra, it believed that it was unbecoming of the Central government to indulge in 'political bias' in moments of great crisis. He stressed that it is important that the Centre treats every State equally. He added that it was unfortunate that politics, and not the scale of disasters, had become the yardstick in such matters. This was an apparent reference to the fact that the BJP-led Mahayuti coalition governs Maharashtra. In the aftermath of the floods, the Centre had sparked a controversy by declining permission for Kerala to accept foreign aid, including a reported ₹700 crore offer from the UAE. Kerala's discomfiture with the foreign aid nod to Maharashtra is the latest episode in a protracted stand-off between the State and Centre. Kerala believes that it is being discriminated against, and denied its fair share of financial resources by the Centre. It has repeatedly complained about drastic cuts in financial allocations to it, and the 'unfair limits' placed on its fiscal space. The Kerala government had taken the battle over restrictions on its borrowing capacity to the Supreme Court. On the political front, the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) has consistently accused the Centre of attempting to 'financially choke' Kerala. It has blamed the Centre's skewed policies for the State's financial woes. The State government believes that recent Union Budgets have also caused disappointment to the State, as they have ignored pressing demands on the financial front. For instance, Kerala's plea for a ₹24,000 crore economic package to prop up its finances were not mentioned in the 2024-25 and 2025-26 Union Budgets. More recently, the government slammed the Union Finance Ministry for cutting a little over ₹3,300 crore from its borrowing limit for the 2025-26 fiscal under the pretext of the Guarantee Redemption Fund. The foreign aid nod to Maharashtra also presented the LDF government an opportunity to reiterate its dismay over the Centre's approach to the deadly July 30, 2024, landslides in Wayanad district. In the aftermath of the tragedy, the Kerala government had announced plans for a structured rehabilitation programme, which included the building of townships with amenities for survivors. Mr. Balagopal said that the people of Kerala had, on two instances, expected Prime Minister Narendra Modi to announce special aid to Wayanad: first, when he visited that district in August last year; and second, when he visited Thiruvananthapuram to inaugurate the seaport at Vizhinjam. On both occasions, their hopes were dashed, he said. Time and again, Kerala has accused the BJP government of paying scant regard to cooperative federalism — the driving spirit of Centre-State relations. It is evident that the trust deficit between the two entities on financial matters persists, notwithstanding the much-discussed breakfast meeting that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan hosted for Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman at New Delhi in March. It remains to be seen how Kerala's financial grievances concerning Union government policies will be addressed, as the southern State inches closer to a frenetic election season. The by-election in the Nilambur Assembly constituency in Malappuram district is scheduled to take place on June 19; elections to the rural and urban local bodies are scheduled to take place towards the end of 2025; and the Legislative Assembly polls are set to take place in the first half of 2026. In matters of State finances, Kerala will be keenly watching the recommendations made by the 16th Finance Commission led by Arvind Panagariya later this year. The State has sought a higher share of resources, arguing that its share of the divisible pool was brought down to 1.92% under the 15th Commission from 3.88% under the 10th.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Bundled consent mechanism likely to end as Meity plans stricter rules
DPDP Act may also ask intermediaries to keep detailed meta data records Aashish Aryan New Delhi Listen to This Article The government is likely to direct data fiduciaries, such as social media platforms and internet intermediaries, to obtain separate user consent for optional and mandatory services, doing away with the 'bundled' consent mechanism, according to people in the know. The move, expected as part of the administrative rules under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, would mean that consent management systems must not include options that allow users to agree to all purposes simultaneously. 'The idea here is that both the data principal (users) and data fiduciaries are clear about the limitations. A user must know what they are