Subscribe
Kerala’s long-running struggle with wild boar crop raids has entered a new phase of policy uncertainty after the state’s Left Democratic Front government put on hold a controversial directive restricting the use of certain licensed firearms in culling operations. What initially appeared to be a technical clarification on licensing has opened a wider debate on wildlife governance, gun regulation, conservation priorities and the intensifying scale of human-wildlife conflict across the state’s agrarian landscapes and beyond.
The immediate trigger was a Forest Department order stating that firearms licensed for sports or institutional purposes could not be used for wildlife culling. Only weapons licensed for crop protection or self-defence would be permitted. The instruction was reportedly based on administrative consultations involving district authorities and the Home Department, which raised legal concerns over whether firearms could be used for activities beyond the specific purpose listed in license categories under the Arms Act.
The directive quickly ran into opposition from several farmer organisations, some local governments in hill regions and shooting associations. Their concern was largely practical. A significant proportion of shooters empanelled for official culling operations hold sports licenses and excluding them would sharply reduce the already limited manpower available to manage crop-raiding animals. With mounting pressure from local bodies reporting stalled culling operations, the state government has decided to keep the order in abeyance pending legal review.
According to highly placed sources, Forest Minister A K Saseendran later directed officials to freeze implementation of the restriction and examine its legal and operational implications. “Licensing authorities must examine the scope and validity of arms licenses before imposing operational restrictions,” the minister said, adding that the legal and practical implications of such directives required comprehensive review to ensure that wildlife-control measures were not disrupted. Politically, Kerala stands on the verge of another Assembly election, with the model code of conduct expected to be announced soon. The government, which is seeking a third consecutive term, is wary of provoking farmer unions that often draw support from influential caste and community organisations.
The episode has also highlighted a structural gap between wildlife policy and arms regulation in India. Wildlife management decisions are handled by forest departments under conservation laws, while firearm licensing is governed by the Arms Act and administered largely through district collectors and the Home Department. When wildlife authorities attempt to mobilise licensed shooters for official culling operations, the two regulatory systems intersect without clearly defined procedural guidance, creating operational confusion at the field level, says environmental lawyer T S Santhosh of the Kerala High Court.
This regulatory disconnect has tangible consequences on the ground. Kerala relies on a relatively small pool of empanelled shooters across districts to undertake controlled wildlife culling under official supervision. Many of these individuals are experienced sports shooters trained in safe firearm handling and precision shooting. Excluding them from participation would significantly weaken the state’s response capacity, particularly in remote agricultural belts where wildlife incursions are frequent and rapid response is essential. Nearly half of the roughly 250 empanelled shooters in the state reportedly hold sports licenses, underscoring the operational impact of the attempted restriction, says Alex Ozhukayil of the Kerala Independent Farmers’ Association, which favours large-scale culling of wild boar.
The policy uncertainty comes at a time when human-wildlife conflict in Kerala is intensifying. Farmers across forest-fringe districts report increasing crop losses caused by wild boar that have expanded into plantations, agricultural fields and even semi-urban areas. Habitat fragmentation, changing land-use patterns, the decline of predators and the steady availability of food in cultivated landscapes have collectively encouraged the spread of boar populations into human-dominated regions. For small and marginal farmers, repeated crop destruction often means the loss of an entire season’s income, creating strong political pressure for visible and immediate control measures.
Farmer organisations say procedural delays aggravate the crisis. Representatives of farmer collectives point out that crop destruction occurs overnight while official permissions for control measures often take weeks, arguing that unless procedures are simplified and more authorised shooters are made available, agricultural losses will continue to rise.
Kerala has periodically declared wild boar vermin in specific regions, allowing district-level authorisations for controlled culling. Local self-government institutions have also been empowered to permit the killing of problem animals under supervision. Yet implementation has remained uneven, often slowed by procedural approvals, shortages of trained shooters and logistical constraints. Several local bodies recently reported that culling drives were not progressing effectively because of insufficient licensed personnel, prompting the Forest Department to instruct wildlife officials to ensure the availability of more authorised shooters across divisions.
Beyond Kerala, the issue reflects a broader national conservation dilemma. Wild boar remain listed under Schedule II of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and only the Union government can formally declare the species vermin under Schedule V for specified regions and time periods. Several states, including Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand and Andhra Pradesh, have periodically sought greater flexibility in managing the species, citing growing crop damage and rising human casualties linked to animal encounters.
The Union Environment Ministry has expressed caution regarding large-scale or indiscriminate culling, arguing that wild boar play an important ecological role and serve as prey for major carnivores. Officials warn that unregulated hunting permissions could disrupt food chains and potentially revive organised poaching networks.
Conservation scientists remain divided over the long-term approach. Environmental scientist V S Vijayan has cautioned that relaxing conservation rules without rigorous scientific assessment can have serious consequences, noting that once hunting or large-scale culling is permitted, misuse becomes difficult to control, and enforcement agencies may struggle to prevent illegal activity. Ecologist Madhav Gadgil, however, had argued for more adaptive policy approaches, observing that regulated responses to wildlife conflict, including carefully monitored legal killing of problem animals, can form part of long-term sustainable management, pointing to international practices where controlled hunting is integrated into wildlife management systems.
Wildlife researchers emphasise that culling alone cannot address the deeper drivers of conflict. T V Sajeev of the Kerala Forest Research Institute argues that the more durable solution lies in participatory forest management, where farmers, forest dwellers and local communities are involved in decision-making while ecological drivers such as food scarcity within forests are addressed. Wildlife researcher P O Nameer similarly notes that while crop-raiding wild boar create genuine livelihood distress, management strategies must combine monitoring, habitat interventions and multiple conflict-mitigation measures rather than rely solely on killing animals.
The debate over wildlife control is not confined to agriculture. Across India, accidents involving wild animals entering roads or settlements have increased, and attacks on humans in forest-fringe regions have intensified public pressure on governments to adopt stronger conflict-management strategies. At the same time, conservation agencies warn that reactive policies driven solely by conflict incidents could undermine decades of wildlife protection efforts if not guided by scientific population assessments.
Kerala’s own data illustrate the complexity of the situation. Surveys over the past decades indicate fluctuating wild boar populations influenced by habitat change, climate pressures and human activity. Forest officials also note that the species’ nocturnal behaviour and adaptability make trapping or corralling difficult, increasing reliance on controlled shooting as the primary conflict-management tool. A 2019 estimate placed the state’s wild-boar population at around 58,000, reflecting the scale of the management challenge confronting authorities.
The current dispute over firearm licensing has therefore exposed a deeper institutional question: how should India align conservation law, wildlife-conflict management and arms regulation in densely populated rural landscapes where agriculture and forests increasingly overlap? Policy analysts suggest that a clearly notified protocol allowing temporary use of sports-license firearms in officially authorised wildlife-control operations, subject to district certification and direct supervision by forest officials, could reconcile legal requirements with practical needs. Such a framework would require coordinated guidelines jointly issued by the Forest Department, the Home Department and licensing authorities, ensuring that operational permissions are explicitly documented and legally defensible.