Culling animals to make space for humans

(Douglas Chua Hock Lye): From otters in Bishan to wild boars in Pasir Ris to fowls in Sin Ming, Singaporeans now see more animals invading our already-constrained living space.

Pet-lovers are clamouring for tolerance and advocating protection for these animals, while those who detest animals are putting up with noise pollution and nuisance, and have safety concerns.So where do we draw the line between protecting animals and accepting them as part of our lives, and eradicating them totally because they have no relevance to us?

I readily admit I am not an animal lover. I am also not an animal hater. However, if these wild animals turn on us with aggression and harm us, as crows did at Pasir Ris last month — attacking people — we cannot turn a blind eye and pretend all is part of nature.

As it is, space is scarce in Singapore. For some, going for a jog means the possibility of encountering a wild boar, for instance. Animals will be animals. Do we want to read about someone being attacked by a wild boar before we decide to act?

We need to find a balance to please all parties, and the culling of animals, without bringing them to extinction, is the best option.

Culling is done in other parts of the world whenever an animal population poses a threat to humans. In the end, the safety of Singaporeans comes first, and we must make no apology about reducing the size of these animal populations when it is necessary.

In the 1930s, if there was a report of a mad dog with rabies running around biting people, the animal would be readily “DESTROYED“. These days, the nasty business of animal control is crouched in euphemisms like ‘culling’ or ‘management’, which takes away the sting of what we’re really doing; Killing animals for our own selfish reasons, whether it’s crow-shooting with rifles or putting chickens down ‘humanely’ via euthanasia.

Take the Harambe case, for example. An artificially created space for a wild animal ‘invaded’ accidentally by a human baby. Human judgement decided that shooting the gorilla dead was the best call. Likewise, we dictate how much is too much when it comes to roaming strays, though the fact that Singapore is so land-scarce is no one’s fault except our own. And the animals, the sudden ‘invaders’ of that realm we call civilisation, are paying the price for the progress of our own making.

Experience shows that culling is NEVER the best option. MP and animal activist Louis Ng questions the effectiveness of AVA’s culling of 630 monkeys in 2015. Despite our best efforts, rats continue to plague food establishments. ACRES has even declared that culling is ‘not an internationally endorsed practice‘ and may even be unethical. We are not ‘pretending’ that being attacked by a pigeon is ‘part of nature’. It is, in fact, nature’s response to HUMAN nature. We also can’t predict how culling would affect other flora and fauna. To target a specific animal without due consideration of its impact on biodiversity betrays our lack of understanding of how nature works at all.

Culling of shitty human beings, on the other hand, which is what our judicial courts are already doing to murderers, or what military assassins do to terrorist leaders, would do more good for the world than culling any animal that’s remotely capable of goring a random jogger to death.

So ‘animals will be animals’, and humans, being the worst animal of them all, will still be incorrigibly, ruthlessly, arrogantly, ignorantly – human.