Nagaland’s conservation story has always been inseparable from its communities. Nearly 88% of the State’s recorded forest area is privately or community owned, while hundreds of villages have established their own conservation rules, protected forests and community-conserved areas.
Yet the traditional hunting season presents an increasingly difficult question. In many parts of Nagaland, the period from September-October to February-March has traditionally been regarded as an open season for hunting. But wildlife populations, habitats and the pressures on them are no longer what they were when such practices evolved. The State has already made its legal position clear: hunting of wild animals and birds in Nagaland is prohibited under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, with only narrowly defined exceptions.
The answer, however, cannot be enforcement alone. Government must work with village councils, tribal bodies, youth organisations, churches and conservation groups to establish village-specific conservation plans. Communities should be encouraged to voluntarily declare hunting-free seasons or zones, protect breeding habitats and regulate access to vulnerable species. Existing customary institutions should become partners in enforcement, not merely recipients of government orders.
The Forest Department should provide scientific information on declining species, conduct regular wildlife surveys and strengthen village-level monitoring. It should also create incentives for communities that successfully conserve wildlife, including conservation grants, livelihood support and public recognition.
Most importantly, the Government must recognise that community participation is not an optional addition to conservation in Nagaland. It is the foundation on which conservation must be built. The State cannot place a forest guard in every village forest. It can, however, help every village become its own first line of defence.
The traditional hunting season may have historical legitimacy. Conservation policy must now ask whether it still has ecological legitimacy.
