Are Wild Animals the Sole Property of the Government?

Wildlife conservation and management are critical for preserving ecological balance and biodiversity. In India, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is a landmark legislation aimed at safeguarding the country’s flora and fauna. Among its many provisions, the Act categorically states that wild animals, under certain conditions, are the property of the government. 

This raises an important question: Are wild animals truly the sole property of the government? This article explores this concept in detail, examining the legal framework, implications, and practical realities of wildlife ownership in India.

Legal Framework: Wild Animals and Government Ownership

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 provides the foundation for wildlife conservation in India. Section 39 of the Act explicitly states that wild animals are deemed government property under specific circumstances. This provision is central to understanding the ownership of wild animals and the responsibilities it entails.

Conditions Under Which Wild Animals Are Declared Government Property

Hunting and Captivity Violations

Wild animals hunted under specific provisions of the Act (e.g., Sections 11, 29, and 35) or kept in captivity in violation of the law are considered government property. This includes animals bred in captivity or hunted illegally.

Dead or Mistakenly Killed Animals

Wild animals found dead or killed accidentally also become the property of the government.

Associated Articles

Items such as trophies, meat, or uncured trophies derived from wild animals in connection with an offence are declared government property. Imported ivory or articles made from ivory linked to violations of the Act are similarly categorised.

Tools and Vehicles Used in Offences

Any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap, or tool used to commit an offence under the Act is considered government property.

Ownership in Protected Areas

Wild animals hunted in state-managed areas are owned by the respective State Government. In national parks or sanctuaries declared by the Central Government, the ownership lies with the Central Government.

The Scope of Government Ownership of Wild Animals

The ownership of wild animals by the government is not absolute but conditional. It serves a broader purpose of conservation and regulation rather than mere possession. The following aspects elaborate on the scope and limitations of this ownership:

Custodial Ownership

The government acts as a custodian of wild animals, holding them in trust for the public. This custodial ownership ensures:

• Protection of biodiversity.
• Prevention of exploitation and illegal trade.
• Regulation of human-wildlife interactions.

Reporting and Surrender Obligations

Under Section 39(2), any person who obtains possession of government property, whether through discovery or other means, must:

• Report it within 48 hours to the nearest police station or authorised officer.
• Hand over the property upon request.

This provision reinforces the idea that wild animals are not privately owned but belong to the collective care of the state.

Restrictions on Handling Government Property

The Act imposes stringent restrictions on acquiring, transferring, or damaging government property without prior written permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden or an authorised officer. This ensures that the wildlife remains protected from exploitation or harm.

Philosophical and Ethical Perspectives on Government Ownership of Wild Animals

The notion of wild animals as government property raises philosophical and ethical considerations. While the legal framework establishes government ownership, it is important to view this in the context of conservation ethics and public trust.

Wild Animals as Public Trust

The public trust doctrine suggests that certain natural resources, including wildlife, are preserved for public use, and the government acts as a trustee to manage them. This aligns with the custodial role of the government under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Inherent Freedom of Wildlife

Despite being designated as government property, wild animals inherently belong to nature. The concept of ownership is primarily a legal mechanism to protect them rather than to assert control over their existence.

Implications of Government Ownership of Wild Animals

The declaration of wild animals as government property has several implications for wildlife conservation, management, and human-wildlife interactions.

Conservation and Protection

• Deterrence Against Poaching and Illegal Trade: By declaring wild animals as government property, the law strengthens deterrence against poaching, illegal trade, and exploitation.
• Facilitation of Conservation Efforts: Government ownership enables centralised and regulated conservation programs, including habitat protection and wildlife rehabilitation.
• Accountability and Governance: Designating ownership ensures that the government remains accountable for the protection and management of wildlife.

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

The ownership of wild animals by the government also impacts how human-wildlife conflicts are addressed. While the government is responsible for protecting wildlife, it must also balance the safety and livelihood of communities living near wildlife habitats.

• Compensation for Damages: In cases where wildlife causes damage to crops or property, the government often provides compensation, as it is deemed the owner of the animals.
• Permission for Capture or Killing: The Act allows for the capture or killing of wild animals only under specific circumstances, such as when they pose a proven threat to human life or are incurably diseased. This prevents unnecessary harm to wildlife.

Challenges and Criticisms on Wild Life Ownership

While the concept of government ownership has its benefits, it is not without challenges:

• Enforcement Issues: The vastness of India’s forests and wildlife habitats makes it difficult to enforce the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act uniformly. Poaching and illegal wildlife trade continue to be significant challenges, despite stringent laws.
• Overlapping Jurisdictions: The division of ownership between state and central governments in protected areas can lead to confusion and inefficiencies in wildlife management.
• Human-Wildlife Conflicts: Increased human encroachment into wildlife habitats has escalated conflicts, making it difficult for the government to balance conservation with the needs of affected communities.
• Ethical Concerns: Treating wild animals as property, even for conservation purposes, raises ethical questions about their inherent rights and freedom.

Global Comparisons on Wild Life Ownership

The concept of government ownership of wildlife is not unique to India. Many countries have similar laws to regulate wildlife conservation. For instance:

• In the United States, the public trust doctrine governs wildlife management, with states acting as trustees.
• South Africa follows a community-based approach, where wildlife ownership is often tied to land ownership.

These systems highlight different approaches to balancing conservation, ownership, and community involvement.

Conclusion

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, establishes that wild animals are the property of the government under specific conditions. This legal provision plays a crucial role in deterring exploitation, regulating human-wildlife interactions, and ensuring accountability for wildlife conservation. However, it is essential to view this ownership as custodial rather than absolute, with the government acting as a trustee for the protection of biodiversity.

While the law has its challenges, it serves as a cornerstone for India’s wildlife conservation efforts. Moving forward, a holistic approach that includes community involvement, stricter enforcement, and ethical considerations will be essential to preserve the country’s rich biodiversity for future generations.