In Defence of Culling

Keeping wildlife in check, where their overabundance threatens life and livelihood, is very much part of the big nature picture

Tehelka, 21 April, 2012

IT IS the litmus test of animal lovers and conservationists. In the past nine weeks, many of them have responded strongly to the idea of culling wild animals when their overabundance threatens life and livelihood (A Time to Cull, 18 February). Some, like veteran Maneka Gandhi, were outraged. Others, like young Divya Vasudev, turned contemplative. Reason does not work in matters of faith. But it may have a chance at clearing misconceptions.

Outside the minefield of ethics, anti-culling outpourings can be summarised into three basic premises. Human development has damaged the natural harmony, pushing wildlife into conflict with people, and a loss of tolerance has led to an exaggerated perception of that conflict. So instead of addressing the effect by culling, we should look into the cause and mend our ways. Anyway, humans do not have any right to control nature.

Let us knock off the first misconception. Nature does not believe in harmony, certainly not in the sense we often misunderstand the term. Otherwise, there would be no evolution, ever. The natural harmony is about equal natural opportunities, a fair game. Beyond that, nature thrives on constant change and shifting balances of power where each species and individual strives to control the other, directly or indirectly, and the fitter live to evolve. There is no sin in that. Otherwise, every predator would be guilty of survival.

Otherwise, the first argument against culling is an understatement. We are indeed responsible for this conflict situation because we moved away from nature and our development destroyed forests. But we also stopped being wild. Our less-civilised forefathers lived in forests, hunted for food or in self-defence and were very much predators themselves. Over time, they became ‘civilised’, developed artificial technology and killed too many animals too easily, even for sport. It was not a fair game anymore.

But if we, the civilised, were guilty of killing for fun, something truly unusual in the wild, our ‘civilised’ streaks also made us conscientious. So, somewhere down the line, we became the only species to curb our natural predatory instincts so that we could protect the few remaining wild animals by law. Of course, many of us broke such laws and game hunting remained legal in many parts of the world. But this, in a nutshell, is the historical drift of the human-wild interface.

What do we do when the equation changes? When the few wild animals become too many in certain pockets (because we stopped killing) and threaten our lives and livelihood? In such a situation, is it not only natural that we return to our ‘predatory selves’ and bring down the numbers till we feel secure again? We may have become a super species but we still have the right to defend ourselves.

It is important that we distinguish between the unreasonable irritation or fear of numerous big farm owners or average city dwellers who are intolerant of wildlife as a nuisance and the bona fide desperation for survival among certain poor farmers who are at the mercy of wildlife, marauding or not. Effective preventive measures and compensation can help many of them. For the rest, culling should be very much an option.

Many argue that a culled population always bounces back because fewer mouths compete for resources. The logic sounds smart on paper, but is defeated by repeated local extinction of several species. Culled or killed well, populations do decrease.

But let’s not miss the bigger picture. A huge rural population still nourishes a cultural bond with nature. It is because of them that a sizeable number of wildlife still survives. The outlandish demands of the fanatically righteous animal welfare lobby and hypocritically preachy conservationists are fast destroying this last constituency. Those who have voluntarily given many a yard will not brook being pressed for miles, particularly by those who do not have an inch to spare.