Proposed Amendments to the Wild Animals and Birds Act

 1.

70% felt that the feeding of wild animals should not be allowed throughout Singapore.

Reasons cited by respondents for disallowing the feeding of wild animals were that it increased the potential for human-wildlife conflict, disrupted natural feeding behaviours, and involved risk of feeding the wrong foods to animals. 

Those who did not support disallowing the feeding of wild animals gave reasons that they wanted responsible feeding of cats and dogs to be allowed, that they wanted to be able to feed wild animals such as birds and butterflies, and that they preferred to teach people not to feed animals through educational efforts.

There were some misconceptions as to the scope of the Act. The current Act and proposed amendments do not and will not penalise the responsible feeding of stray cats or dogs.

 2.

81% of respondents felt that the release of wild animals without a permit should be disallowed throughout Singapore.
Respondents who supported disallowing the release of wild animals without a permit cited reasons including disruption to the eco-system, harm caused to native species, and cruelty as the released animals are unlikely to survive. 

Those who did not support the proposal suggested differentiating between releasing native and non-native species. They also cited sensitivity to religious organisations whose practices include the release of animals, and preference for educational efforts to teach people not to release wild animals.

The WALRC held a consultation with religious organisations on 25 June 2019 to explain the proposed amendments to the religious leaders. All the religious leaders who attended the consultation supported the proposed amendments.

 3.

61% felt that all wild birds including crows, mynahs and pigeons should also be protected from killing, keeping or capturing without a permit throughout Singapore.

Respondents who agreed with extending the protection to all birds were of the view that all life should be protected and respected. 

Reasons given by those who did not support the proposal included that pest birds dirty the environment and spread diseases and that some species of birds are very common and do not need protection. 

Some respondents suggested allowing the killing, keeping, or capturing of crows, starlings, mynahs, and pigeons only with a permit.
 

 4.

90% felt that at least those invertebrates which are globally or nationally endangered should also be protected from killing, keeping or capturing without a permit throughout Singapore.

Those who supported protecting invertebrates gave examples of species such as horseshoe crabs and corals that should be protected. 

Respondents who did not support the proposal felt that it would be absurd to protect insects and impossible to enforce, and that there were benefits in allowing the catching of shellfish and insects for leisure and education. 

 5.

81% felt that the deployment of nets and traps outside of private premises and nature reserves should be regulated.

Respondents who supported regulating the deployment and usage of nets, traps, and such equipment everywhere outside of one’s own property gave reasons that this would deter poaching, prevent harm to wildlife, and reduce hazards to humans. 

Respondents who did not support the proposal suggested making exceptions for traps for research purposes, getting rid of pests, capturing lost pets, and recreation fishing. These respondents also suggested differentiating between various nets and traps.

 6.

57% felt that selected citizens should be given the power to assist the government in enforcement.

Those who did not support giving citizens such powers cited concerns such as the abuse of power, vigilantism, and danger for citizens. These respondents preferred for enforcement powers to be left to the authorities.  

The WALRC notes the concerns that were strongly expressed by the public in relation to the potential abuse of power. In light of the concerns raised, the Wild Animals and Birds (Amendment) Bill will not give citizens enforcement powers.

This proposal can be studied for future reviews of the WABA.

 1.

66% felt that the current penalties are not adequate to deter individual offenders.

Respondents who felt that the existing penalties are sufficient preferred for offenders to undergo education or community service. 

Respondents who did not feel that the existing penalties are sufficient gave the reasons that the value of animals is greater than the current fines and that $1,000 is not a large sum in the present day. 

Many respondents who felt that the existing penalties are not sufficient also suggested a possible jail term for offenders.
 

 2.

90% felt that the penalties for repeat offenders should be more severe.

Some respondents who supported more severe penalties for repeat offenders also suggested a possible jail term for repeat offenders.
 

 3.

89% felt that the penalties for corporations should be more severe than for individuals.

Some respondents who supported more severe penalties for corporate offenders also suggested a possible jail term for corporate offenders.
 

 4. 

80% felt that organisations need to be specifically trained and licensed if they wish to provide wildlife removal services.

 5.

83% supported having a code of conduct for wildlife photography.

Respondents who did not support the proposal suggested that the proposal would be too restrictive for the enjoyment of nature and preferred educational efforts.

89% supported having a code of conduct for general activities in nature areas.

Respondents who did not support having a code of conduct for general activities in nature against suggested that the proposal would be too restrictive for the enjoyment of nature and preferred educational efforts.