LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING HANDLING MONKEYS IN PUBLIC PLACES

Main Article Content

Tanawat Praweenanon
Bandit Khwayota

Abstract

This research aimed to: 1) examine the problems caused by monkeys in public places; 2) study the laws related to monkey management in public places in Thailand and foreign countries; and 3) analyze legal issues concerning monkey management in public places. This study employed a legal documentary research approach by examining Thai laws, foreign laws, academic documents, research studies, and related materials. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. The findings revealed that: 1) monkeys in public places have caused various adverse impacts on the public, including physical injuries and threats to public safety, property damage, disruption of economic activities and tourism, public health problems, as well as damage to the agricultural sector and the quality of life of local residents; 2) Thailand has several laws related to monkey management in public places, particularly the Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019). However, such legislation primarily emphasizes wildlife conservation, whereas India, Japan, and Australia have established legal mechanisms that allow local authorities to play a greater role in managing wildlife-related problems affecting communities; and 3) the major legal issues in Thailand include the absence of specific legislation governing monkey management in public areas, the lack of compensation measures for affected citizens, the concentration of management authority within the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, the absence of clearly defined powers and responsibilities of local administrative organizations, and the lack of legal measures to regulate human behaviors contributing to monkey-related problems and to systematically control monkey populations. The study suggests that legal reforms should be undertaken to support systematic monkey management in communities and public areas, as well as to establish preventive, control, and compensation measures for mitigating the impacts caused by monkeys.

Article Details

How to Cite
Praweenanon, T., & Khwayota, B. (2026). LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING HANDLING MONKEYS IN PUBLIC PLACES. Journal of Social Science Development, 9(6), 247–256. retrieved from https://so07.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JSSD/article/view/11248
Section
Research Articles

References

ไทยรัฐออนไลน์. (2567). สาวแจ้งความ "ลิงลพบุรี" กระโดดถีบ แย่งถุงกับข้าว จ่อฟ้องละเมิด กรมอุทยานฯ. เรียกใช้เมื่อ 8 มีนาคม 2567 จาก https://www.thairath.co.th/news/local/central/2769054

พระราชบัญญัติการสาธารณสุข พ.ศ. 2535. (2535). ราชกิจจานุเบกษา. เล่ม 109 ตอนที่ 38 หน้า 11 (5 เมษายน 2535).

พระราชบัญญัติสงวนและคุ้มครองสัตว์ป่า พ.ศ. 2562. (2562). ราชกิจจานุเบกษา เล่ม 136 ตอนที่ 71 ก หน้า 124 (29 พฤษภาคม 2562).

มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏเทพสตรี. (2567). การศึกษาผลกระทบจากลิงเพื่อพัฒนาแผนการบริหารจัดการลิงเขตห้ามล่าสัตว์ป่าเขาสมโภชน์ จังหวัดลพบุรี. ใน รายงานการวิจัย. มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏเทพสตรี.

สมหญิง ทัฬหิกรณ์. (2562). คู่มือสำรวจประชากรลิง สถานการณ์ และแนวทางการจัดการปัญหาลิงในพื้นที่ชุมชน. กรุงเทพมหานคร: กลุ่มงานวิจัยสัตว์ป่า.

Depret, L. & Sueur, C. (2025). Management of coexistence and conflicts between humans and macaques in Japan. Animals, 15(6), 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15060888.

Dubois, S. et al. (2017). International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology, 31(4), 753-760.

Fuentes, A. (2012). Ethnoprimatology and the anthropology of the human-primate interface. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41(1), 101-117.

Government of India. (1972). The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Retrieved March 30, 2025, from https://share.google/MUJ912LOuFj8jDyGG

Hill, C. M. (2018). Crop foraging, crop losses, and crop raiding. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050022.

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4), 247-257.

Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan. (2010). Annual report on the environment, the sound material-cycle society and the biodiversity in Japan: Our responsibility and commitment to preserve the Earth. Retrieved March 30, 2025, from https://www.env.go.jp/content/900457330.pdf

Ministry of the Environment Japan. (2015). Annual report on the environment, the sound material-cycle society, and biodiversity in Japan 2015. Retrieved March 30, 2025, from https://www.env.go.jp/content/900457410.pdf

Takahashi, M. A. (2015). Analyzing the 2014 revision of the Wildlife Act according to the elements of hunting (The expectation and view toward "Wildlife Protection and Management, and Proper Hunting Act"). Wildlife and Human Society, 3(1), 13-21.

Thirgood, S. et al. (2005). The impact of human–wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz (Eds.), People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? (pp. 13-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Woolaston, K. et al. (2021). A review of the role of law and policy in human–wildlife conflict. Conservation and Society, 19(3), 172-183.