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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS