In a move to address escalating human-wildlife conflict, Kerala’s government is considering a controversial new bill that would grant local authorities the power to kill certain animals that stray into populated areas. The proposed legislation, which allows for reclassifying animals as “vermin,” is being framed as a solution to the genuine suffering of rural communities facing crop losses and attacks. However, critics warn that the bill risks undermining the state’s conservation legacy and could trigger a new cycle of ecological and social problems.
A Short-Term Fix with Long-Term Risks
The draft bill is a response to immense political pressure from farmers and residents grappling with raids by wild boars and elephants. By empowering local panchayats to sanction the killing of animals, the government hopes to provide a quick and direct solution. However, experts argue that this approach ignores the deeper, systemic causes of the conflict.
Declaring species like the wild boar as vermin, for example, could have severe cascading ecological consequences. Wild boars are a key food source for carnivores such as tigers and leopards; their removal could force these predators to seek prey, including livestock and even humans, closer to human settlements.
Furthermore, the bill raises significant federal and constitutional questions. Since wildlife is on the Concurrent List, the state’s proposed law directly conflicts with the central Wildlife (Protection) Act. If passed by the state assembly, the bill would require the President of India’s assent, which may be withheld, potentially creating a Centre-state conflict over conservation policy.
Seeking a More Balanced Approach
Instead of resorting to lethal force, conservationists and scientists are advocating for a more balanced strategy. They propose investing in non-lethal deterrents like beehive fences and chilli-rope barriers, which have proven successful in other parts of the world.
They also recommend expanding community-based conservation models where local residents are compensated not only for losses but also for protecting habitats. These long-term measures, along with a focus on restoring wildlife corridors and addressing the ecological damage from unregulated development, could foster genuine coexistence and prevent future tragedies without sacrificing the state’s valuable biodiversity.