Taiwan group challenges rejection of wild boar trap ban proposal

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Taiwan One Ecology Coalition on Tuesday said the Central Election Commission overstepped its authority by rejecting a proposed referendum to ban wild boar traps.

Group spokesperson Pan Han-chiang (潘翰疆) said the CEC misinterpreted Constitutional Interpretation No. 803 and the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law. He announced plans to file an administrative lawsuit Wednesday.

The CEC stated that Pan had submitted a proposal for a “comprehensive ban on the use of wild boar snares.” After requesting corrections, the commission ruled the proposal did not meet regulations and rejected it.

Pan said the referendum was initiated by the Taiwan Animal Coexistence Alliance, with him as the lead petitioner. The proposal asked voters whether they agreed to a complete ban on the use, possession, sale, manufacture, display, and import and export of wild boar snares.

The petition exceeded the required number of signatures, and the first phase was submitted to the CEC on July 12, 2024. After requesting corrections, the commission rejected the proposal, arguing that banning wild boar snares would infringe on Indigenous hunting rights.

Pan countered the Animal Protection Act and Wildlife Conservation Act already ban leg-hold traps. He questioned whether those laws also violated the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law and argued that wild boar traps should not be treated differently.

Wild hog traps consist of metal wires with spring-loaded mechanisms that tighten as an animal struggles. This can cause severe injuries or death to non-target animals.

Taiwan has not yet banned wild boar snares. The alternative solutions offered have also failed to gain widespread approval.

Animal welfare organizations continue to advocate for a full legislative ban, citing the environmental damage and the risk to non-target animals posed by these boars.

The legal debate centers on balancing wildlife conservation with Indigenous cultural rights, particularly hunting practices. Key concerns include clarity and fairness for hunting regulations and whether they adequately protect both wildlife and Indigenous traditions, according to the Constitutional Court.

One issue involves the Firearms, Ammunition, and Knives Control Act, which exempts Indigenous people from penalties for possessing self-made hunting guns but not air guns. The distinction raises questions about legal clarity and proportionality.

Additionally, the definition of “self-made hunting guns” has been challenged for its adequacy. Critics argue it may infringe on Indigenous cultural rights and contradict constitutional protections related to life and bodily integrity.

Interpretation No. 803, issued on May 7, 2021, ruled that decriminalizing self-made hunting guns does not violate the principle of proportionality. It also found that the term "self-made hunting gun" does not conflict with the principle of legal clarity.

Authorities were required to revise and clarify these regulations within two years to align with constitutional protections and ensure Indigenous people could safely use self-made hunting guns.