LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
PERHILITAN NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THE KILLING OF DUSKY
LANGURS
It is a cruel irony that on May 23, just one day after
the International Day for Biological Diversity, which was observed and marked
with a positive-sounding statement from the Department of Wildlife and National
Parks (DWNP / Perhilitan), Perhilitan officers allegedly shot and killed 20 dusky
langurs, which are classified as Protected Wildlife under the First Schedule of
the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010, and as Endangered under the IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species.
The outrage and horror of the public over the alleged
killing of these dusky langurs in Port Dickson is justified and requires an
official response from Perhilitan.
It is unfathomable that trained and armed wildlife
officers called to assist with the problem of aggressive long-tailed macaques
would be unable to tell the difference between the shy and retiring dusky langurs
and the admittedly bolder macaques.
The shooting of the langurs appears to have been
executed unprofessionally, as instead of being merciful and quick, the suffering
and agony of the langurs were unnecessarily prolonged, as described in the testimony
of eyewitnesses. The additionally brutal act of executing a mother langur and
her baby in cold blood has further left citizens wondering if Perhilitan
officers are able to evaluate what does or does not constitute a threat.
This unnecessary and vicious killing is not an
isolated incident. The Perhilitan units in various states have a long history
of being implicated in the killing of wild animals, many of which have not been
proven to be threats to local residents. There is a report of Perhilitan Negeri
Sembilan killing a peaceful herd of wild boars in October 2017, and even
enabling a pack of hunting dogs to maul the wild piglets to death. In 2013, Aljazeera
reported that Perhilitan culled 10,000 long-tailed macaques in 2012, and
Perhilitan confirmed the existence of the culling operations even while acknowledging
agricultural expansion and housing developments near forested areas to be the
causes of human-macaque conflict. We must remember that the population of stray
animals and wild species such as macaques explodes only when humans make
changes to the environment and interfere with the lives of animals so
significantly over a period of time that it changes the availability of food
supply and the existence of predators and competitors of a particular species.
Ironically, the Director-General of Perhilitan had in
an official pronouncement in March 2019 reminded the public not to kill or ill-treat
wildlife, and warned the public that cruelty to wildlife is an offence under
Section 86 of the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010. The D-G had also emphasized the
need to protect wildlife and ensure the survival of endangered species, and
sought the cooperation of the public to contact Perhilitan in the event of a
human-wildlife conflict instead of taking matters into one’s own hands. Can we,
the public, now invoke the same section to demand that the officers who had
shot the langurs be prosecuted for cruelty to wildlife? Considering that even
non-wildlife experts and local residents are able to tell that the langurs are
not a threat to humans, can the Perhilitan officers really be said to have
acted in good faith and to actually believe that they were carrying out their
official duties to protect wildlife and mitigate human-wildlife conflict? If
that were true, then perhaps a retraining of all Perhilitan officers is in
order.
Even in the case of problem wildlife such as
long-tailed macaques, wildlife experts concur that culling may not be the best
solution, and should never be the first option. Culling could destroy biodiversity
by harming unrelated species, for example, in the current case in which complaints
were made about long-tailed macaques but it was ultimately the harmless and endangered
langurs that were slain. Culling could result in unintended ecological
consequences, for example, as in the now-famous anecdote of how China had, in
1949, culled sparrows as a disease prevention measure, which resulted in the
destruction of crops by locusts as there were insufficient sparrows to keep the
locusts in check. Culling may, in fact, lead to the increase in the population
that the authorities is trying to cull, as can be seen in the case of the feral
cat population in Tasmania. Scientists and animal behaviourists have observed
that when older, dominant adult animals are killed, younger animals move in
from the surrounding areas to replace the adult animals, as the older and more
dominant adult animals are no longer around to kill or chase away the younger
animals. Culling some animals from a ‘problematic’ colony also creates more space,
food, and reproductive opportunities for the ones that remain, and within a
short time, their population will bounce back to what it was pre-cull.
To reduce human-macaque conflict, developers need to
build human homes further away from wildlife habitats and forest fringes, create
buffer zones, and install security fences and monkey-proof garbage bins. Perhilitan
needs to monitor areas with reported human-wildlife conflicts and enforce their
threats to fine and punish people who feed wildlife. Without the wildlife
feeders and easy availability of human-generated food waste, much of the
conflict between humans and macaques could have been reduced.
Culling is cruel both to the humans who have to
desensitize themselves to the pain and suffering of animals to perform this
brutal act, and cruel to the animals who are often just the victims of their circumstances
– wild boars and macaques, do not, after all, ask for housing areas or highways
to be constructed through their habitats and do not ask to be fed. Translocation
and relocation to national parks and forest reserves, sterilization of wild
animals by qualified vets, and biological pest control by reintroducing the
natural predators of an overpopulated species are all more humane, more
sustainable, and more responsible options than culling, although more expensive
and time-consuming initially. However, we owe it to the animals to at least find
kinder and gentler resolutions to human-wildlife conflict, considering that the
conflict is a manmade one.
Public confidence in Perhilitan as a wildlife
protection agency is at an all-time low. Those of us working in the
conservation and animal protection sectors have a difficult time convincing
members of the public to report wildlife crimes and urban wildlife sightings to
Perhilitan via its hotline numbers. This does not bode well for the future of
wildlife conservation and rehabilitation in Malaysia, if the general response of the public is that they would rather condone the keeping of wildlife as pets
or release captured wild animals themselves than refer the matter to the country’s
only official agency responsible for the protection and conservation of wildlife.
The D-G of Perhilitan needs to investigate the killing of the langurs immediately
and come up with new SOPs for dealing with human-wildlife conflict to restore
public confidence in the agency. Members of the public will also need to play
their part in learning to coexist with local fauna and reduce the risk of human-wildlife
conflicts instead of reporting encounters with wildlife as problems to be dealt
with and eliminated.
WONG
EE LYNN
PETALING
JAYA, SELANGOR
No comments:
Post a Comment