BJD Lok Sabha MP seeks SC intervention against killing of wild animals declared as vermin

New Delhi: Amid reports of indiscriminate killing of certain wild animals in human-wildlife conflict zones, actor and Biju Janata Dal (BJD) Lok Sabha MP, Anubhav Mohanty, has moved Supreme Court, seeking its intervention against brutal killing of wild animals, declared as ‘vermin’, in different states.
Authorities are allowed to cull certain animals if they are declared as ‘vermin’.
The petition is in response to reported death of several animals using heinous practices such as snares, wire traps, explosives, bomb baits and poison baits. Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Kerala had even financially incentivised killing of Neelgai, Rhesus Macaque and Wild Boar, respectively, when they were declared ‘vermin’.
Mohanty in his petition, filed last week, sought directions from the apex court against states which are rewarding and encouraging killing of wild animals. Use of “bomb baits” and “poison baits” invariably lead to indiscriminate hunting of non-target animals such as elephants, leopards, tigers and jackals.
Seeking “proactive, constructive and a scientific way” to mitigate human-wildlife conflict instead of encouraging citizens to kill such wild animals, the petitioner said, “Currently there are no proper guidelines in place for dealing with man-animal conflict. This has led to the emergence of haphazard, unscientific and excessive policies being exercised by central and state governments.
“This encourages poachers and the public to hunt animals. Man-animal conflict is a serious issue and we must look at scientific methods such as immunocontraception, community sensitization, creation of rapid response teams for coordinating and managing conflict to ensure our animals are not hunted.”
Welcoming Mohanty’s petition, animal rights activist and trustee of the People for Animals (PFA), Gauri Maulekhi, said, “India had banned hunting of wild animals in 1972. Allowing backdoor methods of wildlife slaughter through ‘vermin’ declaration is against the objectives of the Act and the Article 48A of the Constitution.”