Behind Wild Boar Attacks: The Reverse Ecological Imbalance Urgently Requires Examination of Human-Animal Relationships
As animal-related infringements become frequent, the law is inevitably confronted with the issue of animal protection.
In recent times, there has been a continuous stream of news about wild boars causing injuries and damage across various regions. As China’s emphasis on ecological conservation continues to increase, the populations of many wild animals have notably risen, with the highly reproductive wild boar population experiencing a surge.
According to a response to “Suggestions on Further Strengthening Prevention and Control of Wild Boar Hazards” released by the National Forestry and Grassland Administration in January 2024, scientific and comprehensive assessments indicate that wild boars are distributed across 28 provinces in China, with a population of 2 million. They are no longer under threat of survival, and their numbers are excessively high in many areas, with 26 provinces reporting damage caused by them.
Recently, incidents of wild boars destroying farmland, invading homes, and injuring people have become frequent again. The former “three-value” (ecological, scientific, and social value) protected animals have become one of the most harmful wildlife species. Some scholars have observed that certain wildlife in some areas actively invade the production and living areas of farmers and herdsmen, seizing their vital resources and disrupting their lives, posing a threat to people’s livelihoods. This suggests that the relationship between humans and wildlife has begun to shift locally, leading to a “reverse ecological imbalance.”
How should humans treat animals now? How can we find a balanced approach to protection? These questions about animal protection face new challenges, and the relationship between humans and wildlife urgently needs to be re-evaluated.
Wild Boar Infringements: Compensation Standards for Personal and Property Damage Are Generally Low
“The increase in wild boar populations is related to improvements in the ecological environment, but the deeper reason is the lack of natural predators,” said Dr. Sun Quanhui, a scientist at the World Animal Protection Association. The frequent conflicts between wild boars and humans are partly due to the rapid growth of wild boar populations in some areas and the insufficient habitat area, and partly to seasonal factors. During autumn and winter, wild boars start to gather and migrate from mountainous and forested areas to rural and suburban areas, significantly increasing the risk of encounters and conflicts with humans.
Sun Quanhui stated that an excessive number of wild boars beyond the environmental carrying capacity can cause harm, such as damaging vegetation and ecosystems, destroying farmland and reducing crop yields, and spreading diseases.
Regarding animal protection, Article 1 of the Wildlife Protection Law states that the purpose of this law is “to protect wildlife,” while Article 2 defines wildlife as precious and endangered terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, as well as terrestrial wildlife with “three values” (ecological, scientific, and social).
In other words, the Wildlife Protection Law limits the scope of protection and publicizes it through a protected animal list, reflecting the law’s predictability and guiding people’s protection efforts.
Article 7 of the Wildlife Protection Law also stipulates specialized wildlife protection departments, with the forestry and grassland administration responsible for terrestrial animals. Chen Jinlin, an associate professor at the Environmental Law Institute and School of Law of Wuhan University, believes that wildlife protection departments have the authority to decide which animals to protect, how to protect them, and how to utilize or control protected animals under specific circumstances. They also bear the obligation to protect and supervise wildlife.
In 1989, the Wildlife Protection Law was officially implemented, and the List of Nationally Protected Wildlife was announced. In 2000, wild boars were included in the “three-value” list and received key protection. In 2021, the National Forestry and Grassland Administration issued the “Notice on Further Improving Prevention and Control of Wild Boar Hazards,” pointing out that wild boars were the most harmful in cases of personal injury, crop damage, or other property loss caused by wildlife in the past five years.
To avoid such conflicts, on June 26, 2023, the National Forestry and Grassland Administration announced a new “List of Terrestrial Wildlife with Important Ecological, Scientific, and Social Values,” removing some animals with rapidly increasing populations (such as wild boars) from the list. Wild boars were officially removed from the “three-value” animal category.
Observers have pointed out that since wild boars have been removed from the “three-value” list, controlling their population and reducing their harmfulness through scientifically organized hunting is a direct approach. However, many wild boar habitats in China are within nature reserves, which, according to relevant laws and regulations such as the Wildlife Protection Law and the Nature Reserve Regulations, are prohibited from hunting.
In reality, to prevent human actions from exacerbating traditional ecological imbalances, the criminal law was amended in 1997 to include the crime of illegally hunting or killing precious and endangered wildlife and the crime of illegally purchasing, transporting, or selling precious and endangered wildlife and their products under state protection. Since the Criminal Law Amendment (XI), the scope of criminal law protection has covered all terrestrial wildlife beyond the list of nationally protected wildlife, making it the strictest wildlife protection law.
For example, according to the second paragraph of Article 341 of the current criminal law, illegal hunting refers to hunting in prohibited areas, during prohibited periods, or using prohibited tools or methods. If the circumstances are serious, it may constitute the crime of illegal hunting, punishable by up to three years of imprisonment, criminal detention, or a fine.
Furthermore, Article 49 of the Wildlife Protection Law stipulates that hunting ordinary animals in nature reserves, prohibited areas, during prohibited periods, or using prohibited tools or methods that damage the ecology may still constitute a crime.
Sun Quanhui also stated that even after removing wild boars from the “three-value” list, current laws do not allow arbitrary hunting of them. With illegal hunting still occurring, if legal hunting is permitted, the protection of wild boars and other wildlife will face even greater challenges.
However, the issue of compensation for damages caused by wildlife infringements has also attracted attention. According to Article 19 of the Wildlife Protection Law, the government provides “compensation” for personal and property damages suffered by farmers and herdsmen, with the standards determined by the provincial people’s government where the incident occurs.
Chen Jinlin pointed out that in reality, this compensation standard is generally low. For example, for crop or economic forest losses caused by wildlife, the compensation standards in Qinghai and Heilongjiang are 50% of the verified losses, 60% in Anhui, and 60%-80% in Beijing. Due to difficulties in obtaining evidence, the actual compensation amount is often even lower than the loss. Additionally, the invisible damage to freedom and mental well-being caused by wildlife is not considered.
It is worth mentioning that due to the high economic value of wildlife and their products, some farmers and herdsmen may take advantage of their interaction with wildlife to overhunt them. Sun Quanhui warned that this “private interest shift” needs to be restrained by administrative and judicial authorities through regulations.
Reverse Ecological Imbalance: Which Is More Important, Ecological Benefits or People’s Livelihoods?
With the improvement of the ecological environment, the populations of some wildlife have surged and frequently invaded human production and living areas, leading to an ecological imbalance opposite to the intended direction of wildlife crime legislation.
Chen Jinlin believes that under conditions of reverse ecological imbalance, farmers and herdsmen who take defensive measures to protect their living spaces and survival foundations, resulting in wildlife casualties, are often deemed criminals. “Courts have not fully considered the reversal of the offensive and defensive positions between humans and wildlife, nor have they seriously addressed defenses based on necessity, only showing some restraint in sentencing.”
Which is more important, ecological benefits or people’s livelihoods? Is sacrificing invasive wildlife to protect crops and livestock a “necessary” measure? Chen Jinlin stated that if farmers and herdsmen facing wildlife disturbances cannot even take effective defensive measures, it means their way of life is negated, and the material life, value system, happiness, and tranquility built on this foundation will be shaken.
He believes that it is necessary to reasonably allocate the dominion over different spaces between humans and wildlife and exclude defensive measures taken by farmers and herdsmen within their dominion from being considered as “hunting” or “capturing.”
It was noted that on April 6, 2022, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued the “Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Destroying Wildlife Resources,” which corrected the previous tendency to focus solely on quantity and established comprehensive criteria for judgment. For preventive measures in situations where wildlife populations increase and cause harm or injury, the supreme judicial authorities believe that “a practical and comprehensive approach should be taken.”
“This approach fails to clarify the rules for judging guilt or innocence, is insufficient for stabilizing expectations, and cannot fully address the aforementioned challenges,” Chen Jinlin said. To address the criminality of human defensive behaviors under conditions of reverse ecological imbalance, it is necessary to reflect on the purpose of wildlife protection in criminal law, clarify the legal interests involved in wildlife crimes, reveal the structure of inconsistent rights and responsibilities, incompatible incentives, and overprotection tendencies among the subjects involved in wildlife protection, and on this basis, clarify the limits of legislative protection of legal interests and use the necessity system to enhance the protection of people’s livelihoods.
Sun Quanhui admitted that people often focus more on the law itself and less on the ethics and ideology behind it. “We should consider the relationship between humans and animals from a broader perspective and reflect on how
