Deer and Boars Labeled 'Harmful': Who Decided This? [Jeong Jin-a's Differently, Together]

A recent video capturing a wild boar's panicked struggle and injury within a Seoul apartment complex ignited widespread public discussion. While many viewers expressed sadness and empathy for the animal, others mocked it, even nicknaming it "Metgu" after a previously escaped wolf. This starkly reveals how animals branded as "harmful" are treated, with their desperate fight for survival reduced to a spectacle for ridicule.

“

Even if they are harmful wild animals, isn't it too much to treat them like this?

The article argues that while preventing human-wildlife conflict is crucial, the primary issue lies not in a simple "never harm animals" stance. Instead, it calls for a critical re-examination of the "elimination" and "culling" methods consistently employed and the growing insensitivity towards their cruelty. South Korea's current policies for designating and managing "harmful" wildlife are heavily skewed towards human convenience. A prime example is the sika deer, initially introduced for velvet collection in 1985. Their booming population led to resident complaints, prompting a decision to designate them as "harmful" by 2025, alongside stricter penalties for abandoning livestock. This approach, the article contends, essentially creates a legal basis for culling deer to easily dispose of them, shifting responsibility for human-induced problems onto the animals.

The "capture bounty" system exemplifies this problematic approach. Bounties are offered for capturing designated "harmful" species like sika deer and magpies. For wild boars, the bounty, amplified by African Swine Fever prevention funds, can reach hundreds of thousands of won per animal. This has led to a doubling of hunting license holders since the system's introduction, with persistent issues of fraudulent claims and accidental shootings.

“

The phenomenon of consuming the death of an animal desperately seeking a way to live as a laughing matter clearly reveals how animals labeled 'harmful' are treated.

Beyond ethical concerns, this method is also ineffective. The IUCN's guidelines on human-wildlife conflict highlight that simple culling is not a solution. Human-wildlife conflict is a complex web of ecological, social, and economic factors. Relying solely on physical control can escalate tensions and make conflict resolution impossible. While efforts like wildlife corridors exist in South Korea, they often serve limited purposes, such as preventing roadkill, and fail to challenge the dominant paradigm of elimination.

“

Simple culling can never be the solution.

The article concludes by urging a societal elevation in how conflicts are addressed. It criticizes the practice of judging complex ecosystems solely by economic value or quantifiable metrics, leading to a focus on elimination for anything deemed a "problem." This culture, which allows animals labeled "harmful" to be ridiculed, inevitably extends to other vulnerable groups within society. The image of the wild boar struggling against apartment glass is presented as a metaphor for the animal's fight against the "harmful" label imposed by humans. The author questions whether society, too, is trapped behind a similar glass door, too focused on using violence to erase immediate discomfort, and calls for a shift from the ingrained habit of killing towards a path of coexistence.

“

The image of the wild boar struggling to escape, hitting the apartment glass doors, looked like a struggle to break free from the 'harmful animal' label arbitrarily imposed by humans.