If 13 Silver Pheasants Were in Thailand, New Zealand, or Indonesia: How Would International Law Respond?
If these 13 white pheasants were in Thailand, the person keeping them could face between three and fifteen years in prison under the Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act, B.E. 2562 (2019) (USAID Wildlife Asia). For species listed as “Reserved Species,” Thai law allows courts to impose severe penalties, including fines of up to one million baht (around USD 27,000).
If in New Zealand, this situation would fall under the Wildlife Act 1953. Section 67A sets a maximum penalty of NZD 100,000 (around USD 61,000) or up to one year in prison — a clear deterrent framework, though relatively limited compared to some other countries (NZ Legislation).
In Indonesia, Law No. 32/2024 on Conservation of Living Resources and Ecosystems increased the penalties for acts involving protected species to between three and fifteen years in prison, plus fines ranging from 100 million to 2 billion rupiah (around USD 6,000–120,000) (WildCats Conservation Alliance).
And in Vietnam, on August 8, 2025, a man keeping 13 white pheasants was sentenced to six years in prison and fined VND 30 million, under Article 244 of the Penal Code 2015 (amended in 2017) and the Group IIB listing in Decree 84/2021/NĐ-CP (Tuổi Trẻ Online).
As CITES member states, all these countries share the obligation to protect endangered wildlife species, yet each implements this duty differently. CITES defines species categories and requires trade controls but leaves it to individual nations to choose their sanctions — from administrative fines to full criminalization. This flexibility creates unique “legal identities,” reflecting each country’s conservation strategy and social context.
The Proportionality principle reminds us that punishment should not only deter but also match the harm caused and the context. The Due Process principle requires that people have clear access to information, the opportunity to obtain legal permits, and timely legal aid.
Severe penalties may create a strong public impact, but that impact travels further — and lasts longer — when accompanied by a robust system of legal education, sustainable livelihood opportunities, and accessible permitting procedures. Laws should not only punish violations, but also guide behavior — encouraging people to stand with the law, rather than face it in a courtroom.
International law grants each nation the right to choose how to fulfill conservation commitments. Vietnam has chosen a strict approach, sending a strong message. But experiences from Thailand, New Zealand, and Indonesia show that conservation’s sustainability is not measured solely by verdicts, but by the ability to turn communities into allies of the law — through education, lawful livelihoods, and approachable legal mechanisms.
When communities become protectors rather than violators, international commitments are truly realized — not only on paper, but in every forest, every birdsong, and every species preserved.
