Taming the Wild Animal Law

By Wang Hairong

Taming the Wild Animal Law

By Wang Hairong

Legislators seek balance between stewardship and protection of fauna

Chinese cuisine and medicine traditionally prize certain varieties of wild animals as ingredients, but public concern has mounted over the consequences of widespread consumption of wild animal products and exploitation of animal resources.

During this year’s annual session of the National People’s Congress (NPC), China’s top legislature, in March, 37 deputies responded to suggestions from prominent scholars and animal rights activists by submitting a joint motion on amending the Wild Animal Protection Law enacted in November 1988.

Law amendment

Notwithstanding a 2006 amendment concerning hunting grounds open to foreigners, the law remains substantively unchanged in the past 24 years.

The stated purpose of the law is “to protect and save the species of wild animals that are rare or near extinction, and protect, develop and rationally utilize wild animal resources and maintain ecological balance.”

However, the designation of a “wild” animal is left vague, as the law even addresses such activities as domestication and breeding of “species of terrestrial and aquatic wild animals that are rare or near extinction and species of terrestrial wild animals that are beneficial or of important economic or scientific value.”

Luo Shenglian, one of the 37 NPC deputies submitting the motion, said that the law’s imperfections have given rise to cruel and exploitative practices such as extraction of bile from live bears, skinning small animals alive for pelts and grinding bones of endangered tigers for use in medicine.

Wang Song, a researcher with the Institute of Zoology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, lamented that the list of protected animals is so outdated that some animals that weren’t granted first-class protection 24 years ago, such as the pangolin, have become seriously endangered.

The pangolin, or scaly anteater, is considered a rare delicacy in China and its scales reputedly to have medicinal qualities.

The lawmakers proposed that the law should put more animal species under protection, mete out harsher punishments for violators and encourage non-governmental organizations and the public to protect wild animals.

Luo suggested that the law should be expanded to protect all wild animals and their habitats, and should not only punish those who kill wild animals, but also those who trade and consume wild animals.

A report on waterfowl poaching in China published in November 2012 revealed that consumer demand fuels poaching of waterfowl for meat, and every year 80,000-120,000 birds in about 40 species are killed. The report was written by a study group led by Ma Ming, Vice Chairman of the China Ornithological Society and a researcher at the Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography.

Ma found that a wild duck caught in Urumqi, capital of northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, is sold for about $4-5 locally, but nets a far higher price in southern cities like Changsha in Hunan Province and Guangzhou in Guangdong Province.

The motion also included a proposal for setting up a compensation fund for the ecological benefits of wild animal protection.

In many circumstances, local residents near nature reserves have to make sacrifices to protect wild animals. For instance, since last December, wild elephants in Xishuangbanna in southwest China’s Yunnan Province have been reported to frequently roam near villages, munching crops and threatening villagers’ personal safety.

Elephants caused 270 million yuan ($43.52 million) in direct economic losses and killed 33 people in Xishuangbanna from 1991 to 2010, a local forestry official told People’s Daily.

The 1988 law stipulates that the local government should compensate crop damages and other losses incurred as a result of wild animal protection, and charges provincial authorities with formulating such measures.

The Central Government has earmarked 5 million yuan ($806,000) per year to Xishuangbanna for this purpose since 2005 and the State Forestry Administration has allocated an additional 1 million yuan ($161,200) per year since 2009.

In the past three years, the local government of Xishuangbanna has paid nearly 18.6 million yuan ($3 million) in premiums to insure against damages caused by protected animals. Nonetheless, the local branch of the China Pacific Insurance Co. Ltd. asserts that claims paid out exceeded premiums.

The motion to amend the 1988 law proposed a clause saying that the national government should set up funds to protect the natural habitats of endangered species as well as compensate human inhabitants who suffer losses as a result of environmental conservation measures.

The lawmakers submitting the motion also suggested establishing a wild animal protection advisory committee under central government authorities responsible for wild animal protection, and at least two thirds of the committee members should be experts in wild animal protection, ethicists, and representatives from nongovernmental organizations. They expected the committee to take part in producing and adjusting the list of wild animals under state protection.

Controversy of utility

Animal rights activists have also called for changing the 1988 law’s designation of wild animals as resources to be “rationally utilized,”saying it contravenes the law’s purpose to protect wild animals.

He Hairen, a researcher with the Institute of Law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that the term “reasonable utilization” is ambiguous and validates commercial exploitation of wild animals.

Luo said that the current law only prohibits hunting, capturing and killing of wild animals under protection, whereas it has neglected other harms such as mistreatment, which should be prohibited by law to safeguard animal welfare.

Yang Yongjin, Executive President of the Chinese Society for Environmental Ethics, said that Chinese people should change their attitude toward wild animals. “Wild animals are part of nature and deserve our respect,”Yang said.

When the current Wild Animal Protection Law went into force in March 1989, it was mainly meant to save endangered animals from extinction. Yet over more than two decades, the concept of animal protection has evolved, and animal rights activists have advanced the concept of animal welfare.

In 2012, Guizhentang Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., one of the largest producers of bear bile products in China, came under fire after announcing its initial public offering plan in a bid to expand production capacity.

Bear bile is believed to be effective in treating ailments of the liver and eyes, and bears have been hunted for thousands of years for this precious bodily fluid.

When bear hunting was prohibited in the 1980s, hunters turned to farming, inserting catheters into the abdomens of caged bears to extract the bile. Activists have long protested against the practice, and the government has not licensed any new “bear farms” since the 1990s.

But China still has 68 legal bear farms, which are home to over 10,000 bears, 6,000 to 8,000 of which are old and large enough to undergo bile extraction operations, according to Fang Shuting, head of the China Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

“We have ethical principles that human beings and nature should maintain a compatible relationship, and that animals, including experimental ones, should be strictly protected,”said then Health Minister Chen Zhu last year in response to public concern over bear bile extraction.

“When humans and nature have a conflict of interests, we tend to choose the lesser of two evils,” Chen said.

In response to Luo’s proposal to ban “rational utilization” of wild animals, some experts including Wang said that international organizations, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, advocate sustainable use of wild animal resources.

“Now some wild animal species have been well-protected, and can be directly captured from the wild. Some are still too few, and need to be repopulated, and some can be reasonably used,” said Yan Xun, chief engineer of the Wild Animal Protection Department of the State Forestry Administration.

wanghairong@bjreview.com