Public opinion is having an increasing impact on decision-making in China, as witnessed last month when the State Forestry Administration announced it was postponing plans to auction the first ever hunting licenses in the country's history.

This move, brought about by a backlash in the media and online forums, prompted officials to disclose more details to justify the license issuance.

The State Forestry Administration, which also acts as China's wildlife protection agency, said the restricted hunting would help to protect certain species, but added it is keen to involve the public in their decision-making in a bid for more transparency. Many netizens, however, commented that the hunts were mainly profit driven, with Reuters reporting that the auction quotas were for 289 animals of 14 species.

The Beijing Youth Daily said that the licenses were based on species and numbers of game, ranging from about $200 for a wolf, to as much as $40,000 for a yak. The paper also said the list included endangered species.

According to Xinhua News Agency, foreigners were previously allowed to hunt in China only after going through complicated application procedures. By the end of 2005, revenue from hunting in China had reached $36.39 million, involving 1,101 foreigners hunting 1,347 animals in the last 10 years.

As always with emotive topics, there are opinions on both sides of the spectrum.

Hunting helps control numbers

Cao Qingyao (State Forestry Admi-nistration spokesman): When the government decided to auction the hunting licenses, it backed up the decision with a lot of statistics that show that the practice is helpful in many aspects. By the end of 2005, hunting had produced a revenue of $36.39 million. A large number of hunters are enthusiasts of the sport, while others are professional hunters working for museums. According to Chinese regulations, all foreigners involved must be qualified hunters in their own countries and demonstrate hunting skills. These are requirements. Generally speaking, 95 percent of the hunters will complete their hunt within two days.

As far as hunting revenues are concerned, the state only charges management fees, and after the service fees are deducted by agents, the remainder of the money collected is deposited with the wildlife conservation department in the province in which the hunting takes place.

As paid-for organized hunts will bring much more profits to the region than the hunting and illegal poaching done by local residents, the communities involved are more willing to become part of the protection of wildlife resources than in the past.

Wang Wei (Deputy Director of the Wildlife Protection Division of the State Forestry Administration): Hunting is not wanton killing, but a kind of protection. Recent years have seen an expanding wildlife population in many areas around the country, resulting in a big pressure on ecological balance. The natural process of death and migration alone is not capable of dealing with the effective control of the current situation. Human intervention is thus inevitable.

According to laws on wildlife protection, hunting is allowable when the purpose is to balance the population and structure of wildlife.

As the country's market is growing and more stringent administrative standards are required, the management of international hunting should also be strengthened, so that administrative and market rules may be in harmony.

Wildlife and the natural ecology should be protected by strict limitations over the species, quantity, place and life span of each species. This requires the administrative departments to do scientific analysis before granting the hunting licenses and try to ensure that benefits from hunting are used for further wildlife protection.

As for who is to be granted hunting licenses and how to effectively use wildlife resources, the principle of "just, fair and open competition" should be abided by in accordance with market rules. Those who are willing to offer high prices will get licenses first. In doing so, the government means to make the best use of limited resources.

Tan Xuewen (Institute of Rural Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences): In accordance with the law, wildlife belongs to the category of national resources, so only the state (or its representative) has the right to deal with wild animals. That is to say, laws allow the government to treat wildlife resources in the way it does state-owned assets. As laws and regulations on state-owned assets aim to maintain and increase the value of those assets, the same applies to wildlife. Since market-oriented reform of state-owned enterprises is accepted, market-oriented wildlife management should also be accepted. To auction hunting licenses for high prices on a small group of wildlife is equal to making use of existing fixed state-owned assets. This practice will not lead to shrinking species, but instead, wildlife protection departments will have access to more capital for protection programs. Focus should not be limited to the several hunted yaks, but fixed on the overall benefit.

In order to bring wildlife under effective protection, local people's economic activities and also their right to development have been seriously affected. The negative impacts caused by wildlife protection will no doubt be neglected by those who are opposed to the license auction. These people are crying out for wildlife protection in big cities like Beijing or Shanghai, but they never know what price people in natural reserves have paid. Increasing reports of wild animals attacking humans and destroying crops fail to draw attention from environmental protection activists. Local people's losses are not compensated under the excuse of wildlife protection. This is unfair to humans. What's the significance of wild animal protection while human beings themselves can't get a fair deal? Moreover, many residents in natural reserves are deprived of the right to economic development. It's good news that thanks to international hunting activities, economic conditions in some underdeveloped areas have been improved to some extent. This result may be regarded as compensation for the sacrifices they have made for wildlife protection.

Transparency needed

Ou Muhua (Dahe Daily): In China, anyone who kills a panda may face the death penalty, while the killing of an antelope may result in a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment. As far as wild yaks are concerned, they are not only among the animals under key state protection, but the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora also forbids the trade of this species. By trading the hunting rights of this invaluable animal for $40,000, the State Forestry Administration openly violates the convention and also the Law on Wild Animal Protection of China.

In addition, wildlife resources belong to the whole nation, so why does the State Forestry Administration have the right to auction the state's public resources as its own resources? After all, wild yaks are not departmental assets and they should be protected, not auctioned off for killing. The so-called auction right of hunting licenses is assumed by the State Forestry Administration itself, which is a typical example of power for money and an obvious case of corruption.

In response to people's suspicions, relevant departments argue, "Hunting activities is common around the world." This is a lie in the name of international practices. In other countries, most hunting activities are limited to animals bred by man. Even if wildlife are killed in some cases, are there examples of animals under key state protection and endangered species being hunted?

Game hunting is not totally unacceptable, but the State Forestry Administration must make clear whether the targeted animals are national-level protected animals or not and whether it is entitled to auction the hunting licenses. Otherwise, it's ridiculous for the administration to call on people to protect animals while it is also involved in hunting valuable species under the pretext of protection.

Xiao Qi'ao (Beijing resident): It is because the State Forestry Administration has challenged the bottom line of people's morality and legal awareness that heated debates have arisen over the auction of wildlife hunting licenses. That the hunting of endangered and rare species like yaks, especially for the sake of money, is forbidden is widely recognized among the Chinese. In accordance with the law, animals under key state protection are not allowed to be hunted. People's awareness of wildlife protection is growing in the cause of social development and legal progress in the last two decades. If this basic moral awareness is challenged, the core of progress in contemporary civilization is also challenged. It's totally unfathomable that such an authoritative department in wildlife protection has risked challenging the moral and legal awareness of the population.

Some people have proposed the hunting of boars (also a protected animal) or wild rabbits. Why do they have to choose such treasures as wild yaks and bharals (Himalayan blue sheep)? In the United States, hunting licenses are restricted for animals like wild geese. The high price of $40,000 says it all, that is, the right to hunt a strictly protected wild animal is much more expensive than that of killing an ordinary animal.

Zhaxi (journalist with people.com. cn): To balance the population of wild animals, hunting is only one of the many options. Before it takes actions, the government must have a full understanding of the current state of wild animal resources, such as the size of a certain species, whether there is a real surplus and if so, how many to be killed, etc.

A China Wildlife Conservation Association spokesperson said, "Restricted hunting activities are helpful to the protection of wildlife." He explained that in western regions, strict protection has led to fast multiplication of bharals, great pressure on the grasslands and also threatens the survival of other endangered species. In this case, human intervention will be helpful.

What is mentioned above is reasonable, but why don't we leave the imbalance problem to nature? In the case mentioned above, why aren't natural enemies of bharals-large carnivores-brought to the grasslands, so that the problem may be solved in a natural and permanent way?