Straits Times Forum 10 Jul 12;
AT A meeting a month ago, the National Parks Board (NParks) informed three non-governmental organisations that the carrying capacity for wild boars in our forests was 500 ('Wild boars: Public safety a prime concern for NParks'; June 30).
It now states that based on numerous studies done elsewhere, the upper limit of the natural population in a balanced ecosystem is 100 in the nature reserves.
Dr Kalan Ickes' research was quoted by NParks as proof of the negative impact of wild boars. However, Dr Ickes has had at least five publications from 2001 to 2005 based on only one particular forest in Malaysia that endured heavy logging.
Which particular study was selected and are such studies completely relevant and applicable to Singapore's context? Careful analysis of Dr Ickes' research will reveal the selectivity of wild boars on vegetation damage, and this can be instead used for more humane management practices.
The negative impact of wild boars on our forests has been highlighted by NParks; is it currently able to clarify the scientific studies that have been carried out to document this?
Wild animals are indeed unpredictable in their behaviour, but this applies to numerous native species in our forests; this cannot be used as a justification for culling.
We sincerely hope that NParks will carry out further studies and consider more humane options before making a decision to cull the wild boars.
Louis Ng
Executive Director
Animal Concerns Research and Education Society
