THE current review of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 is timely as it is bedevilled by loopholes and inadequacies.

One of the deficiencies of the Act is that it is incapable of preventing or correcting animal abuse or neglect.

Section 94 of the Act states: “Save as otherwise provided in Section 56, every person who wounds or provokes any wild animal with the object of availing himself to the exception conferred by Section 56, is guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable (in addition to any other penalty provided for any other offence) to a fine not exceeding RM3,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or to both.”

Section 56 relates to the killing of wildlife in self-defence, if there is an “immediate danger to human life”.

No section of the Act is devoted to preventing cruelty to and neglect of wildlife in captivity, for instance, in zoos and amusement parks.

Thus, there are no legislative means of protecting the health, safety and well-being of wildlife as long as they are not actively being killed, injured or visibly “provoked”.

This allows commercial establishments to keep wildlife in deplorable conditions with impunity.

A case in point is the A Famosa Resort in Malacca.

Visitors were offered photo opportunities with a tiger, which was chained to the stage by its ankles with negligible room for movement.

Although some visitors were appalled by the manner in which the tiger was displayed, under the law, there was nothing they could do as long as the resort management had the requisite permits to keep and display wild animals.

More often than not, the permits were granted by the Department Wildlife and National Parks (Perhilitan) on “educational” grounds.

The Act does not regulate the way in which captive wildlife may be displayed or treated.

Although Perhilitan admits that there were guidelines on how wildlife display facilities may be operated, the said document had not been given statutory footing.

There is, therefore, no action one can take against establishments which confine wildlife in small and unsuitable enclosures; subject wildlife to stressful training or photo sessions; and stop wildlife from engaging in their natural behaviour.

The penalty under Section 94 is derisory when one considers that the offence is of wounding or provoking wildlife. Thus, under our outdated law, an offender may get away with a mere fine for grievously injuring an animal.

A profiteer who confines, chains and otherwise fails to provide a healthy and stimulating environment for our national symbol, the tiger, will not even be charged with an offence.

There is little merit in issuing permits to private commercial establishments to display wildlife.

Wildlife photo sessions do not teach visitors anything about the natural history of the particular animal and fail miserably in cultivating love and concern for the animals.

Legislators must take immediate steps to safeguard our fast-vanishing natural heritage.

Perhilitan and other authorities entrusted with the regulation of the wildlife trade must be more circumspect in the issuing of permits and be more vigilant in the monitoring of wildlife displays.

WONG EE LYNN, Petaling jaya

Source: NST – May 29, 2008