Arguments by animal welfare activists against culling |
Arguments by Culling lobby |
- Ethical grounds: we do not have the right to cull other species.
|
- They support a practical and realistic approach.
|
- Animal welfare activists believe that every individual animal is ethically indispensable, even at the cost of putting entire species at risk.
|
- Conservationists are concerned about the integrity of the ecosystem and the future of entire species.
|
- Culling is against animal conservation.
|
- Culling is for conservation
- By law, wildlife is protected because they are too few and require protection.
- But when certain pockets see a population boom in herbivores, farmers cannot wait for predators to reoccupy such areas.
- The absence of lawful intervention often triggers retaliation by illegal means.
- In anger, farmers may indiscriminately target wildlife, including those that may not be causing any problem.
|
- Culling drives are often not well monitored frequently leads to free-for-all shooting sprees.
|
- Can be monitored easily using strict guidelines and law enforcement.
|
- Culling can increase people’s apathy (lack of interest or enthusiasm) for the conservation of other forms of life.
- (Some people recruited to cull animals post their pictures along with their prey on social media. This is totally unprofessional as it glorifies killing an animal.)
|
- No concrete evidence to prove that culling increases insensitivity among people.
- (But practically it does. A lot of people enjoy hunting animals and others might take inspiration from culling)
|
- Culling creates a conducive atmosphere for the poaching mafia to move in.
|
- It is specious (misleading) to claim that time-bound, limited permissions to cull create an atmosphere for poaching.
- This is because most of the cropland areas may not host commercially lucrative wildlife species.
|
- They argue that man-animal conflict can be controlled through non-invasive means, including
- fencing crop fields,
- planting chilli around cropland,
- creating buffer areas between croplands and the forest’s edge,
- selecting non-edible crops,
- providing adequate and regular compensation for crop loss, etc.
|
- Fencing merely shifts conflict to the next accessible cropland.
- Fencing is expensive and its maintenance is not effective.
- Even the selection of crops that traditionally repelled animals does not seem to work any longer. For example, farmers in Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, now complain that monkeys raid garlic fields that they avoided until recently.
- Other measures are mostly long-term and can keep a check on conflict only in situations where crop damage is still reasonable.
- But in pockets where the situation is already out of hand, the only option is often to reduce the number of habitual crop-raiders.
|