All wild species deserve saving
In a setback for animal rights activists, a planned provision under the Anti-Cruelty against Animals and Animal Welfare Act by the Ministry of Agriculture will selectively name what species are worthy of protection. When it comes to protecting animals, what is the protocol for picking and choosing which should be saved? How can some species be deemed more deserving of protection from acts of cruelty like hunting and poaching than others? The Act, which came into effect in 2000, focuses on domesticated animals, as well as those working in trades like transport, tourism and entertainment, or those living in zoos.
Animal rights experts insist the law already protects wildlife animals and redundancy should be avoided in the drafting of future protection measures. Those who break the law can already face a maximum fine of 40,000 baht.
However, authorities may have failed to take into consideration a clause in the law that stipulates protection for wild animals be identified by the Minister of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, including the Animal Welfare Board.
It seems unwise, however, for board members to go through the long list of endangered species and try to prioritise one’s existence over the other.
The move has caused widespread debate. Last week, a wildlife welfare activist released a list of five animals about to be placed on the list — cuckoo doves, wild boars, hybrid tigers, squirrels and palm civets.
However, other rare, endangered species like Indochinese leopards — recurring victims of poachers, including construction tycoon Premchai Karnasuta this year — remain ignored.
Roger Lohanan, a representative from animal activist group Thai Welfare Guardians, cried foul over the selective listing process that leaves out tens of thousands of animals at risk of being hunted.
Mr Lohanan’s concerns are well founded.
Cases like Mr Premchai’s demonstrate what is at stake with this law. The tycoon, known for his passion for hunting, was charged in a reported poaching incident that took place on Feb 4 at Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary in Kanchanaburi. He was visiting an area of the park reserved for nature-studying purposes, where he allegedly partook in hunting. He denies involvement in any such activity despite the fact weapons believed to belong to him were found nearby.
Carcasses of various animals, including a wild fowl and barking deer, were found in the protected area where Mr Premchai was apparently wandering.
Shortly after the tycoon and his three camping companions were detained, they were released on a 150,000-baht bail. A park officer sought to charge the men with animal cruelty, among other charges.
How can some species be deemed more deserving of protection from acts of cruelty like hunting and poaching than others?
The Natural Resources and the Environment Ministry estimated the losses caused by the suspects’ poaching, resulting in the deaths of protected species, stands at 3 million baht.
A police officer at Thong Phaphum station accepted the charge only to find himself in trouble later. He was reprimanded by his boss, deputy police chief Srivara Ransibrahmanakul, who ordered the officer drop the charge, explaining that leopards are not protected by the Anti-Cruelty against Animal Act.
The deputy police chief punished his subordinate, putting him under probation for not exercising sufficient caution in accepting a complaint and accepting a charge that does not exist.
Pol Gen Srivara’s act sparked a public outcry, as many saw it as an over-reaction. Some even believe that he had an ulterior motive and tried to protect the wealthy suspect.
Later on, prosecutors decided to press six out of 11 charges against Mr Premchai, including carrying firearms in public without permission, colluding to hunt animals in a wildlife sanctuary without permission, hunting protected wildlife without permission, possessing protected wildlife carcasses without permission, concealing wildlife carcasses obtained illegally, and collecting objects belonging to the wild in a national forest reserve without permission.
Such acts of slaughter are unambiguously cruel. Indochinese leopards deserve protecting in their homes. However, on this list being drawn up, they are not entitled to such protection.
They are just one of several species facing the same predicament. Tackling this issue demands a different approach. The minister of agriculture and other authorities shouldn’t waste time picking and choosing which species can be deemed more deserving of legal protection. They must understand the basic principle of the standing law, which is to protect animals against cruelty, and take any measures to uphold it.