ANIMAL ETHICS AND CULLING: ADDRESSING HUMAN-ANIMAL

CONFLICT IN INDIA FROM AN ECOCENTRIC APPROACH

I. INTRODUCTION

India is home to the world’s largest rural population and some of the most diverse ecosystems
around the world. With ever-increasing development and the expansion of agricultural lands,
human settlements and industries to the core areas of wildlife habitats, human-wildlife
interaction is also on the rise.1 Wild animals coming in direct contact with agricultural farmlands
or native villagers cause widespread crop raidings, man killing, livestock killings, children lifting
etc. Besides undermining the health, safety, security and income of rural, which the rural can
barely afford.

This phenomenon is not new to our country, but rather a global challenge for most developing
nations around the world. The usual response of the government to this issue is to cull the
specified animal species by declaring it as “vermin” under section 62 of the Wildlife protection
act of 1972.2 In our country previously, wild boars in Kerala, 3 Nilgais in Uttarakhand, wild boars
and nilgais in parts of Bihar and even to that extent monkeys in Himachal Pradesh have been
declared vermin.4 The government’s narrowed anthropocentric approach to the problem propels
us to question the efficacy of our wildlife protection laws and the need to address human animal
conflict in India.

II. SECTION 62 OF THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT

The power to cull animals can be derived from section 62 of the act which authorises the
government to declare any animals listed in Schedule 1 and 2 as “vermin”. 5 Declaring an animal

1
Hiranmay Karlekar, The Human Animal conflict on the rise, The Pioneer, 24 July 2021, available at:
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/columnists/the-human-animal-conflict-on-the-rise.html
2
Wildlife Protection act, 1972, Section 62.
3
Hannah M Varghese, Permit Farmers To Hunt Wild Boars Attacking Agricultural Lands : Kerala High Court
Directs Chief Wildlife Warden, Live Law, 23 July, 2021, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/-
permits-farmers-to-hunt-wild-boars-attacking-agricultural-lands-kerala-high-court-178001
4
Shivani Azad, Nilgai declared vermin in U’khand, wild boar again tagged as pest that can be culled, Times of
India, Nov 20, 2020, available at: https://m.timesofindia.com/city/dehradun/nilgai-declared-vermin-in-ukhand-wild-
boar-again-tagged-as-pest-that-can-be-culled/amp_articleshow/79309070.cms
5
Ibid.
as vermin means the animal can be freely hunted without causing any liability. The act divides
species into five schedules based on their utility. 6 Schedule I animals are best protected with
severe punishments meted out to those hunting them. Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 animals are
somewhat less protected and they can be put into the vermin category i.e. Schedule V animals for
a specific time. Animals belonging to this category are- Nilgai, Dolphins, Wild boar, Indian
elephant, Giant squirrels, Langur, Macaques etc. There are no conditions specified in this
provision as to the grounds of inclusion. However, the provision is problematic in many aspects:

First, there is no definition of the term “vermin” anywhere in the act with regards to the meaning
thereof. The act simply states that the Central Government may, by notification, declare any wild
animal other than those specified in Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II to be vermin for any
area and for such period as may be specified in the act and such animals would be deemed to
have been included in Schedule V for as long as the notification remains in force.7

Second, the central government declares these animals vermin on the request of state
governments and the ground which has been invariably provided is that they cause destruction of
crops and pose a threat to human life. Till now, there haven’t been any cases wherein the centre
has withheld the permission. The issue, however, is that there is no test or measure to ascertain
whether the animal is potentially dangerous enough or not to be dumped in the list or to what
extent is it capable of causing harm to the crops and human life.

Third, the listing is utterly unscientific. According to animal rights groups, the drive for killing is
based on popular perception rather than data. 8 No survey is conducted before or after the culling
to determine the population of the animal proposed to be killed. As in the case of Uttarakhand’s
proposal to list wild boar the document spoke, “No scientific survey on the population of wild
boar has been carried out. However, since the crop damage caused by wild boar is increasing, the
wild boar is estimated to be overpopulated.”

Fourth, the act remains silent on what methods should be employed in killing vermin animals.
Though State governments have laid down guidelines governing cullings, there is a lack of

6
Supra, note 2.
7
Ibid.
8
Anupam Chakravartty, Rajeshwari Ganesan, Rajit Sengupta, Enemies of the state? Down to Earth, 15 July 2016,
available at: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/wildlife-biodiversity/enemies-of-the-state--54628
compliance.9 Most of the time, these animals are killed in the most inhumane manner. For
example- In the case of Kerala, where a pregnant elephant died after consuming a pineapple
filled with explosives. Enquiry by officers revealed that the pineapple was meant to be consumed
for a wild boar, which had been declared vermin in the state. 10 Moreover, sometimes while
hunting, animals manage to escape after a gunshot or two, and slowly die of excruciating pain.
When lactating mothers are culled, their children become orphans and die of starvation.

III. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISION

In this frame, it is also worth noting that declaring a whole species of animal as vermin is
repugnant to the letter and spirit of our constitution. The power of the central government to
declare animals as vermin is absolute, arbitrary and unfettered as there is no procedure which is
followed, just on the wimps of the government any animal can be declared vermin. 11 The actions
of the state government are in contravention with the directive principles of state policy
enshrined in part 4 of the Constitution which establishes the policies for the foundation of an
ideal state.12 Article 51A(g) directs central and state governments to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for
living creatures which the centre utterly disregards.13

Observing this, the Andhra Pradesh High court in T. Damodar Rao and Ors v the special officer,
Municipal Corporation, ruled that the state and its organs are obligated to protect the
environment.14 Therefore, the legalisation of culling by the state is a failure to perform its
obligation. The Supreme Court has stated in the case of Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West
Bengal (1987) that whenever an ecological issue is brought before the court, the judgement must

9
Vishnu Verma, Kerala elephant death: Officials suspect pregnant pachyderm ate explosives meant to kill boars,
The Indian Express, June 4, 2020, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kerala-elephant-death-probe-
on-officials-suggest-pachyderm-ate-explosive-meant-to-kill-
10
Ibid.
11
MALAVIKA PARTHASARATHY AND APOORVA, Is It Constitutional to Declare Wild Animals to Be
‘Vermin’? The Wire, 14 August, 2020, available at: https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/animals-vermin-section-
62 wildlife protectionconstitutionality/#:~:text=However%2C%20its%20Schedule%20V%20contains%20a%20list
%20of,Schedule%20V%2C%20opening%20them%20up%20to%20be%20hunted
12
India Const, Part IV, 1950.
13
Indian Constitution, pt. IV, art. 51(g).
14
T. Damodhar Rao And Ors. Vs The Special Officer, Municipal corporation, AIR 1987 AP 171.
be given keeping in mind the objectives of Articles 48A and 51A(g). 15 Moreover, In the
landmark judgement of Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors, (2014), Supreme
court widened the scope of ‘Right to life’ earlier exclusively available to humans, to bring
animals under the purview of Article 21 which means that the same safeguards which apply to
humans i.e. the right to not be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to just, fair
and the reasonable procedure established by law should be observed with animals too. 16 Hence,
judicial precedents bind the state and the central government to not cull animals irrationally.

IV. ETHICS OF CULLING

Many conservationists believe that selective culling of overpopulated animals or disposal of

undesirable animals from the herd is not bad for the ecosystem; rather it helps in genetic
improvement and maintenance of local habitat as overpopulated animals destroy the habitat of
other dependent animals.17 However, they oppose indiscriminate culling of all animals without
weighing the cons on the collective environment. They argue that ecosystems, species and
habitats should be preserved at all costs, biodiversity should be promoted and culling must only
be implemented when it is a necessity.18

Animal welfarists are also concerned with the well-being of all animals based on the belief that
animals are sentient and can experience pain or pleasure. 19 They contend that if inflicting pain on
a human being is morally wrong because of the suffering it causes to that person, then inflicting
pain on a non-human animal is also wrong, especially given their inability to express such pain. 20
Like humans, animals too want to avoid pain and since they are under the care and protection of
humans, it is our moral duty to not cause them unnecessary pain or injuries. Therefore, human
15
Sachidananda Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors [1987] INSC 43 (11 February 1987).
16
Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja&Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014.
17
Mostafa Ghaderi-Zefrehei, Easa Rabbanikhah, Hasan Baneh, Sunday O. Peters & Ikhide G. Imumorin (2017)
Analysis of culling records and estimation of genetic parameters for longevity and some production traits in Holstein
dairy cattle, Journal of Applied Animal Research, 45:1, 524-528, https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2016.1219258
18
PATRICK TOM, THE DEBATE OVER ELEPHANT CULLING: IS IT EVER MORALLY JUSTIFIED TO
CULL ELEPHANTS?, 2002, Department of Religious Studies, Classics and Philosophy, University of Zimbabwe,
Volume XXIX (i). doi https://doi.org/10.4314/zjh.v29i1.6721
19
Animal ethics, accessed online <12 August,2021> available at: https://www.animal-ethics.org/ethics-animals-
section/ethical-theories-nonhuman-animals/utilitarianism/
20
Gary L. Francione, Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance, 1997, Lewis & Clark
Law School, available at: https://www.animallaw.info/article/animal-rights-theory-and-utilitarianism-relative-
normative-guidance.
beings should not act in a way that may cause reckless death or injuries to these sentients as this
is unethical.21

V. DOES CULLING REALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

Many environmentalists consider culling as a violation of the UN Convention on Biological

Diversity, 1992 to which India is a party, for the reason that it violates basic tenets of wildlife
conservation which is the preservation of species and implementation of special measures to
preserve the species.22 Researchers argue that culling as a course of action to resolve human-
animal conflict may not be a plausible policy option. Past studies have shown that culling
programs were unsuccessful in bringing the desired results and produced many
counterproductive effects.23 For example- In Kruger National Park, culling was implemented in
the 1960s to stabilize the population of elephants. Despite culling there was a swell in the
population of elephants and increased immigration of other animals into the culled areas. 24 In
Mauritius, the government began culling Mauritius fruit bats Pteropus niger to protect the
nation’s fruit industry. However, the results have shown that the bat species succumbed to
extinction while the problem persists as the real damage was due to the species of invasive
birds.25 Moreover, scientists have proven that culling greatly impacts the surviving species and
disrupts their social behaviour. The loss of experienced adults in the herd imperils the future of
the coming generations. It disturbs the balance between predator and prey species and may lead
to an abrupt increment in the number of unrelated species unsettling the overall ecosystem.

VI. ALTERNATIVES TO CULLING

21
Supra, note 17.
22
UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.
23
Lazenby Billie T., Mooney Nicholas J., Dickman Christopher R. (2015) Effects of low-level culling of feral cats
in open populations: a case study from the forests of southern Tasmania. Wildlife Research 41, 407-420. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14030
24
Rudi van Aarde, Ian Whyte, Stuart L Pimm (1999) Culling and the dynamics of the Kruger National Park African
elephant population Animal Conservation 2(4):287-294, available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229068835_Culling_and_the_dynamics_of_the_Kruger_National_Park_A
frican_elephant_population
25
ALEXANDRA ZIMMERMANN, EWAN MACDONALD and TIGGA KINGSTON, Why Mauritius is culling an
endangered fruit bat that exists nowhere else, The Print, 29 November, 2020, available at:
https://theprint.in/world/why-mauritius-is-culling-an-endangered-fruit-bat-that-exists-nowhere-else/554053/
Instead of culling animals indiscriminately, there are many viable alternatives available with us
to resolve the human-animal conflict such as-

 Sterilization- Spaying and Neutering are two methods of sterilization. Spaying and
Neutering mean removing the reproductive organs of female and male animals
respectively. They are good measures to control the overpopulation of a particular
species. There are proven benefits of sterilisation in animals. 26 Besides increasing life
expectancy it reduces mounting, urine spraying, risk of tumours etc.
 Bio-acoustics- The method of bio-acoustics to stop animals is still in development in
India. Engineers in Telangana are working to develop a system using the sounds of
predators like lions, tigers and jackals that will be used to distress the prey species and to
keep them at bay.27
 Eco-barriers- Deploying eco-barriers which includes erecting a fence made of wood,
metal or solid materials, like the ones used for pet animals can deter animal intrusion in
crop fields without hurting the animal.
 Virtual fencing- Virtual fencing works by emitting a tone (audio cue) and an electric
shock. If the animal approaches beyond the predetermined barrier, it receives an electric
shock of 800 Volts for less than a sec thereby, deterring the animal from moving towards
the field.28
 Establishment of mega-parks- Establishing mega-parks is perhaps the most viable option
ecologically to resolve the issue. Establishing a park can save the threatened species from
extinction along with safeguarding the interests of the farmers by safely translocating the
species to another natural habitat.
 Relocation- Trapping and relocating the particular species of animal is also an effective
humane solution to mitigate the conflict. Relocating will help the particular species from

26
Darwin animal doctors, IMPORTANCE OF STERILIZATION, November 19, 2018, available at:
http://darwinanimaldoctors.org/importance-of-sterilization/#:~:text=Sterilization%20has%20many%20benefits%2C
%20including,behaviors%2C%20and%20preventing%20unwanted%20animals.&text=By%20neutering%20your
%20male%20animals,tumors%20in%20your%20female%20animals.
27
U SUDHAKAR REDDY, Telangana: A sound way to keep wild animals at bay, The Deccan Chronicle, 2 January
2017, available at: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/020117/a-sound-way-to-keep-wild-
animals-at-bay.html
28
RSPCA Knowledge base, What is virtual fencing (or virtual herding) and does it impact animal welfare?, June 10
2021, available at: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-virtual-fencing-or-virtual-herding-and-does-it-
impact-animal-welfare/
 coming in contact with human settlements without interfering in the population of the
species alongside preserving the species.

CONCLUSION

From the above discussion, we can interpret that human-animal conflict is not a new concept
rather a developing one. Humans must realise that it is their own doing which has given rise to
the conflict. We must see these animals with sympathetic eyes. Our wildlife and indigenous
fauna are bound to vanish if we keep moving on this path. Therefore, the responsibility lies on
our shoulders and the government to take a non-lethal approach to resolve the conflict and not
cause these animals any unnecessary suffering.

The government and the courts must take an eco-centric approach for better resolving the
conflict. The state must set up some rescue units for problematic animals with veterans,
tranquilizers and jeeps ready. The idea is to balance the conservation of natural habitat without
hampering the interests of our farmers and local inhabitants. We must ensure that animals do not
become a victim of eradication in the name of protection given the wildlife protection act is the
only legislation we have. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation can be judged
by the way its animals are treated.” We must reflect upon the principles of the founding fathers
of our nation and uphold them in theory as well as in practice.