Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
and therefore the interests of wildlife conservation themselves require that such losses
be compensated. Here again, though, the 1988 Law neither sets up a procedure by which
such losses can be reported, nor provides for a funding mechanism to support any com-
pensation. In fact, having declared a general policy of compensating for losses caused
by protecting these key species, the central government walks away from the problem,
leaving for provincial governments the task of formalizing such compensation programs,
and for “local” governments (which are not defined) the burden of funding them. Un-
surprisingly, compensation for losses is rare and almost always inadequate when it is
provided, notwithstanding the relatively frequent losses to property and even to human
life caused by such species as macaques, bears, and wild boars.
The final plank of the State's general strategy for wildlife represented by the 1988
Law comes in Article 17, where the State not only permits, but actively encourages,
31
captive breeding. Needless to add, the State reserves various rights to control and monitor
breeding facilities, but the policy implications are clear: raising wildlife in captive settings
is asserted as beneficial in its own right, without necessarily being linked to scientific
research or educational outreach, much less restoration of wild populations.
Finally, Articles 18, 19, and 30 leave to provincial-level governments any additional
details needed to manage all other species.
32
Each province followed up on the 1988 Law
by drafting its own regulations (
tiaoli
) or means of achieving the national law (
shishi
banfa
). Some provinces took the initiative of declaring (if not clearly demarcating) “no-
hunting” areas in addition to the formally designated nature reserves. Among western
provinces, Gansu, Sichuan and Tibet took Article 9 of the 1988 Law at its word and
developed auxiliary lists of species that would also be strictly protected. Thus, Gansu
added muntjaks, tufted deer, and roe deer—the only resident deer not already listed as
national key species—to its list of provincially protected species, as well as the reasonably
abundant bar-headed goose. Tibet and Sichuan added prohibitions against killing both of
their fox species (frequently used in traditional Tibetan dress), throwing in all the resident
species of weasels for good measure. In general, these provincial laws parroted the spirit
(and in some cases, simply copied the wording) of the 1988 Law, providing little beyond
confirmation of its contents at the next-lower level in the power hierarchy.
33
Were it possible to find a species of consumptive value that did not appear on either the
national or provincial protected list and that existed outside a nature reserve or no-hunting
area, these provincial regulations—in theory—provided the legal basis for hunting. Spe-
cific requirements for obtaining a hunting license are not clarified in these provincial-level
documents, save that applications are to be to county-level administrators who, in turn,
are expected to make decisions only with the consent of administrators at the provincial
level. While never spelled out, the emphasis on written plans and lengthy procedures sug-
gests that the hunting envisioned as allowable would be something quite distinct from the
subsistence or recreational pursuits of interest to local pastoralists.
34
In practice, during
my years in the field since the 1988 Law's passage, I have never encountered a single
instance of a Chinese citizen engaged in a licensed and legal hunt.
35
Furthermore, hunting usually requires firearms, and China is a country in which firearms
are not, in general, legally owned by citizens. Indeed, the 1996 Firearms Law in Article
Search WWH ::
Custom Search