Forum: Enact wildlife control measures not influenced by animal rights leanings

The recent wild boar attack in Singapore has highlighted the danger posed by wild animals when they have lost their fear of humans (Woman in hospital after boar attack at park in Pasir Ris, Nov 21).

It seems that such attacks happen because people stray too close to wild boar "territories".

If such territories are not demarcated by policymakers, such incidents will continue to occur.

It is puzzling that wild boars, which are known to be dangerous animals, are allowed free rein throughout the island. What conservation purpose does this serve? Do we need them to be scavenging in urban areas where they pose obvious risks to the public?

Animal protection movements here argue for wild boars to be left alone.

Such thinking may be counterproductive to conservation measures such as the removal of invasive species or maintenance of species fitness by keeping wild animals in their natural habitats.

We also lack a watch group to effectively monitor wild boar movements. Without one, how would the public know what places to avoid?

Comparisons have been made with other countries where humans coexist with wildlife.

One difference to note is the population density in Singapore and in other countries. Wildlife conflict and the risk of inter-species disease transmission increase in places of high population density such as Singapore.

It is time that the authorities enacted control measures that are not influenced by animal rights activism.

Ong Junkai