The Legislative Yuan is currently deliberating a draft for a new National Park Law (國家公園法). The proposed reforms are primarily designed to relax existing restrictions and allow hunting, gathering and slash-and-burn agriculture by Aborigines within the boundaries of national parks. Moreover, under the new law, priority would be given to training Aboriginal groups to handle the management of national parks. We fear that these changes will have a major impact on Taiwan's system for protecting our national parks and create an ecological crisis.
The Taiwan Association of University Professors believes that allowing Aborigines to hunt in national parks would be a catastrophe for wild animals for the following reasons:
First, wild animals would lose their last sanctuaries in Taiwan. At present, national parks account for only 8.6 percent of the nation's total area. While these parks are not the only areas where Aborigines can hunt, they are the last sanctuaries for Taiwan's wild animals. Opening the parks to hunting would undoubtedly put severe pressure on the animals.
Most of Taiwan's national parks were founded in the name of conservation and for their natural scenery. In comparison with other places, zoning rules in regard to the parks are very strict for the sake of conservation. Interference from human beings should similarly be even more limited than in other places. In the Cabinet's draft bill, however, the plan is to allow hunting within the parks. This makes a mockery of the so-called "green government."
Second, poaching is common in Taiwan's mountainous areas, and it is primarily done for profit, not for cultural reasons.
In famous national parks abroad, wild animals such as deer and bears can frequently be seen. This has become a special sort of travel experience.
By contrast, in Taiwan it is very rare that anyone gets an opportunity to see large wild animals in their natural habitat. Most employees of national parks have almost never seen any large wild animals, other than rhesus monkeys. Only those who have been very lucky have done so. Needless to say, there is even less chance of spotting wild animals beyond the limits of the national parks.
Although Taiwan's Wild Animal Protection Law (野生動物保育法) was enacted long ago, shops selling "mountain produce" abound in the nation's mountainous regions. Poaching is widespread. The poachers include both Aborigines and non-Aborigines and their aim is not to protect traditional Aboriginal culture, but rather to benefit themselves. So far, the government has been unable to stop poaching or the sale of wild animals by these shops. If restrictions on hunting are further relaxed, it will be tantamount to putting the last straw on the camel's back.
Third, hunting by Aborigines has long been "non-traditional." Aboriginal hunting practices have changed with improvements in technology and marketing tools as well as the failure to pass on traditions. Hunting today is mostly done by picking up a gun or setting traps and snares of all sorts in the forest. This kind of hunting takes place in all seasons and kills animals regardless of their sex, age or species. How can this be called "traditional"?
If the rationale for permitting hunting is to preserve traditional culture, shouldn't the use of traditional tools also be required, in order to bring back hunting in its traditional form and the fair competition that that implies between the Aborigines and their prey?
Fourth, the proposed law could open the door to "hunting tourism." Given that traditional Aboriginal festivals have become tourist-oriented, hunting based on traditional culture and customs also has economic potential as a tourist attraction and it would be impossible to keep the two completely separate. At present, many people are eager to try to develop "hunting tourism." One can quite easily imagine that, given current levels of economic disadvantage among Aborigines, the "economic space" created by the proposed law would obviously be even more attractive to people than the "cultural space" that it would create.
We can foresee that in the future, during traditional festivals, our national parks will be filled with lowlanders on hunting trips with Aborigines, pursuing "traditional culture and customs" and incorporating "eco-tourism" or "cultural tourism," as well as the taste of fresh, wild game. For this reason, if the national park law doesn't regulate such behavior strictly, then in the future, profiteering in the name of preserving traditions will become rampant in our national parks.
We therefore suggest that out of respect for traditional Aboriginal culture, we plan for Aborigines to establish symbolic hunting ceremonies and open them to tourists. It would be inappropriate, however, to open the national parks to Aborigines to hunt freely.
Fifth, the national parks are not a factor in the demise of Aboriginal culture. Certainly, the Aborigines have precious cultural traditions that should be given greater attention. Any cultural tradition, however, must make adjustments to suit changes in space and time. Few traditions remain unchanged. Moreover, there is not necessarily any causal link between the establishment of national parks and the demise of Aboriginal culture. On Orchid Island, for example, although there is no national park, conditions have deteriorated rapidly in recent years, in terms of both cultural traditions and living environment. This is also the case in other Aboriginal villages outside of national park areas.
Amending the national park law to allow hunting and thereby provide an opportunity for traditional Aboriginal culture to survive is therefore a highly dubious proposition. The total area covered by Taiwan's national parks is less than 8.6 percent of the island of Taiwan. Opening up these areas for hunting won't solve the Aborigines' problems.
We believe that the government should use every viable measure to alleviate the difficult living conditions of the Aborigines and to preserve Aboriginal culture. The national parks, however, must not be opened for hunting.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers