Because of the challenges caused by wild animals and limited laws now in place, Kerala wants to change the Wildlife Protection Act.
In numerous places across India, including Kerala, the issue of human-wildlife conflict is getting more severe. Considering that wild animals have caused around 900 deaths and thousands of injuries in the state recently, the government now faces a lot of pressure to protect its people and their livelihoods. The situation is the most dangerous around forest edges, where wild boars, elephants, and bonnet macaques invade farmlands and villages and risk damaging property or harming people. Because of this, Kerala wants the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, to be amended so there is permission for it to manage and control certain species that are approaching human areas. The state claims that the present laws are not sufficient, are mainly run by the central government, and can’t respond to emergencies quickly. Even though the move has triggered a debate, it highlights that both the environment and humans should be protected. This article examines why Kerala wants the amendment and looks at both the problems with the present laws and what wider results this change could bring for wildlife protection in India. It looks into the ethical, legal, and environmental issues that are part of this proposal.
How Serious the Problem is in Kerala
Conflicts between humans and wild animals in Kerala have become very serious. Starting as individual incidents, these threats are now found in many places and happen regularly across the state.
More geographical regions are being affected by conflict
Despite being environmentally rich, Kerala’s lovely forests and hills are near many populated villages. With the growth of cities and broken habitats, nature and human habitations are getting too near. As per information from the state, out of the 941 village-level local bodies, an alarming 273 are named as locations with a high risk of conflicts. So, nearly 30% of rural Kerala is directly involved in a fast-growing land dispute.
Casualties and properties destroyed
In the period from 2016 to 2025, Kerala saw more than 900 people lose their lives and about 9,000 suffer from injuries because of wildlife. These numbers symbolize people’s lives torn apart, jobs lost, and people who live in fear all the time. Because of wild boars and elephants, small-scale farmers are still losing a large amount of money from crop destruction. Future plans and schemes to protect plants seem necessary because ordinary deterrents are not working against wild animals.
High Frequencies of Conflicts
Different animals are involved in these conflicts, for example, elephants, leopards, wild boars, bonnet macaques, and peafowl. Especially, wild boars and bonnet macaques are causing the biggest challenges due to their ability to adapt and grow rapidly in numbers. Elephants, which are respected in Kerala’s culture, also cause many accidents that are fatal. Because of these different animals, it is hard to make a single strategy that can address every risk.
The seriousness and wide nature of this issue indicate that it requires appropriate and scientific approaches. The motive behind Kerala’s efforts for legislative reform is mainly because things on the ground are becoming too difficult.
What Areas the Current Law Cannot Cope With
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, was an important step to defend India’s variety of animal life. Even so, when the situation has changed over the years, the system’s weaknesses have become apparent.
Over-centralized Decision-Making
The law gives the most power to major wildlife agencies and the leaders in charge of them. People living in conflict areas are largely ignored when decision-makers make strategies to address the problem. It takes a lot of time for authorities to give permission to handle unfavourable animal situations, so urgent action is often delayed, and people may suffer further.
Inflexible organization
A major problem is that the Act strictly organizes every kind of wildlife. At present, bonnet macaques are listed as Schedule I, meaning they get the strongest level of protection. Since animals have this status, it is nearly impossible to respond quickly, even when they keep being a problem. The state’s appeal points out that it is time for the system of classifying different species to be more flexible.
Unrealistic rules
Guidelines provided by the Act are often very tough to follow if an emergency happens. Because things can move quickly in such circumstances, officials are not able to determine if a wild animal is pregnant before ordering a cull. As a result, the response is slower and it puts villagers and forest officials at unnecessary risk.
Less power to Local leaders
Local governing bodies do not have much power to take strong action because of the law. They deal with the harsh outcomes of war, yet they have to wait for top officials to decide what to do. Kerala is proposing to make changes in the law so that local shooters can take part and authority is spread across different regions.
All these gaps make it harder for Kerala to address the crisis properly, so a sensible redesign of the framework is needed.
Proposed Amendments
Kerala has proposed specific changes to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, so that the act can respond better to human–wildlife problems and help local authorities deal with them.
Sorting Out Species into Separate Categories
Kerala wants to place the bonnet macaque and wild boar in different categories compared to how they are listed under Schedules I and III now. Such rules make it hard for anyone to take away these animals, since they are protected by law even when they constantly threaten the area. The state wants the Centre to reconsider these listings so that the area’s downgrading depends on how much the threat has changed locally. As a result, efforts to deal with changes could be considered without jeopardizing nature conservation efforts.
Supporting local government institutions
One of the most important aspects of Kerala’s proposal is to give authority to local bodies. The government hopes that Panchayats can solve issues in no time and without waiting long for clearance from Delhi. The amendment would let trained shooters and local teams respond to sudden threats, which could lower the number of hurt people and destroyed property. It seeks to support decision-makers in the field by making them respond faster and consider more details in their decisions.
Identify species that are problematic
The state of Kerala wants the authority to decide which animals are considered “vermin” in certain parts and periods. The main concern of this request is the wild boars, which love to destroy crops. This way, the special category could approve culling, something that is already sanctioned in other parts of India, like Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. The idea behind this approach is to use good judgment instead of launching careless attacks.
These changes aim to guarantee the safety of people and protect the state’s traditional focus on ecology at the same time. Altering laws to suit the state’s conditions is meant to strengthen how they manage wildlife.
Legal and Political Dimensions
A discussion about Kerala amending the Wildlife (Protection) Act focuses on both ecological concerns and on laws and talks between the state and central governments.
Troubled Relations between the States
In India, the union government is responsible for making legislation related to environmental concerns. For any change to be made, parliamentary approval is needed, which restricts the state’s independence. Considering this structure, Kerala feels that decisions made by government officials in Delhi are not aware of the practical situation in the region. This situation reveals the main issue of federalism since the states are pushing for more authority to handle their areas.
Legal precedent
Prime Minister Mrs Gandhi introduced the Act in 1972, and people appreciated its environmentally friendly purpose. Yet, others point out that it has not kept up with today’s major issues, such as the conflict between humans and wildlife. According to the proposed changes, the Act’s rules are too severe and make it unsuitable for coping with events and situations in progress. The state claims that it is time to replace old, outdated models with adaptive laws to look after both people and the environment.
Public sentiment and Political Narrative
The problem has turned into an important topic in political conversations. Both the ruling party and the opposition view these amendments differently: the former says they are needed for the safety and welfare of people in rural areas, whereas the latter says they might endanger the environment. More media attention and demonstrations often make this issue a political topic instead of a legal one. People are concerned about the damage caused by wars and casualties among civilians; political leaders react by being strong on the issue.
Therefore, amending the Wildlife Act calls for navigating a fine line between supporting democracy at local and national levels, following the constitution, and facing increasing problems in nature.
Moving Ahead
Tackling the rising conflict between humans and wild animals in Kerala means passing laws and coming up with a long-term strategy that protects its environment and the safety of local people.
The use of Scientific and Flexible Management Practices
The first step should be to use management strategies that respond to the latest data as it happens. They can use GPS to track animals that often enter the property, evaluate the ecosystem’s risks, and rely on AI to forecast where the animals are most likely to go. Equipment from science can assist decision-makers in making decisions that protect both animals and people.
Quick Actions
It is very important to strengthen local governing organs. The government should allow Panchayats, forest guards, and trained members of the community to act quickly against any threat they observe. Creating wildlife response units in different locations with tranquilizers, fence resources, and safety kits can help until the authorities intervene. If teams have proper training and sets of rules, both safety and accountability increase.
Supporting efforts for a sustainable future
Many times, human-wildlife conflicts are signs of serious problems in the environment. For any environmental plan to work, we should include re-wilding, the creation of ecological corridors, and the conservation of buffer zones. Incentives should also be created for farmers to grow crops that are less appetizing, and more effective payment plans should be introduced to lower people’s opposition to conservation.
Encouraging co-existence
Collaboration among people depends on trust and their getting involved. If people in the community are sensitized, taught in schools, and allowed to participate in wildlife tourism, it may lead to better attitudes toward conservation. When those affected are part of making policies, people become open about the decisions and take personal interest in saving biodiversity.
The best way to address animal health is to be precise, handle the problem from several sides, rely on science, and include everyone locally.
Conclusion
Trying to amend the Wildlife Protection Act shows how hard it is for Kerala to consider people and nature at the same time. Conflict will rise no matter the process because human-wildlife conflicts can be dangerous and damaging to people’s lives and livelihoods. Yet, the future steps should follow with an approach grounded in care, science, and carefulness. Giving states more opportunity to fix issues in conflict zones, as long as there are strong measures to make sure they don’t abuse their privileges, may work as a solution. We need a new legal system that boosts the strength of local communities, adds ecological information, and aims for harmony instead of conflicts. Not Kerala’s entire stance goes against conservation, but it asks for greater practicality and attention to details. Overall, both India’s plants and animals and its people must be protected, which can be done only if everyone takes part and the environment is also safeguarded.