The illegal taking of wildlife: Toward a theoretical understanding of poaching

Abstract

Many types of serious, as well as less serious, crimes have attracted the attention of sociologists and criminologists. However, despite its detrimental effect upon wildlife populations, social science researchers have devoted scant attention to the study of poaching and poachers. Identification of the specific motivations for poaching is necessary for wildlife agencies to effectively address the problem. Despite a paucity of literature on the topic, several sociological studies have been done which provide support for Sutherland's differential association theory (Sutherland & Cressey, 1960) and Sykes and Matza's (1957) neutralization theory as explanations for poaching. This paper reviews literature on poaching and suggests theoretical and methodological advancements that will help to refine our knowledge of the phenomenon. Specific directions for future research on the motivations to poach are discussed.

Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations

“…Simple before-and-after comparisons cannot explain the effects of a myriad of interwoven events (Treves and Bruskotter, 2014). Moreover, illegal take of wildlife is a complex phenomenon with varied motivations that may influence human behavior (Bell et al, 2007;Eliason, 1999;Muth and Bowe, 1998). Therefore, we sought an approach that would permit us to qualitatively and quantitatively compare attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral inclinations at a time of ''no lethal control'' (Time 1) to a time with ''a range of lethal control'' (Time 2).…”

Deterring Defiance: 'Don’t Give a Poacher a Reason to Poach'

“…Second, researchers make connections between differential association and neutralization theory, because during the process of learning illegal behavior, poachers also learn techniques of neutralization that make it acceptable to commit fish and wildlife violations (Sykes & Matza 1957). Although some poachers are members of subcultures, or commit more serious crimes, including violent crime and theft (Green 2002), poachers are often members of conventional society who rely on techniques of neutralization to justify their illegal acts (Curione 1992;Eliason 1999Eliason , 2003Eliason , 2004Eliason & Dodder 1999Forsyth & Marckese 1993a, 1993bForsyth et al 1998;Green 2002;Muth 1998;Muth & Bowe 1998). …”

“…First, differential association explains how family and friends play an integral role in the socialization process that leads to poaching (Curione 1992;Eliason 1999;Forsyth 1993;Forsyth & Marckese 1993a, 1993bGreen 1990). Poachers are orientated into illegal behavior by people close to them, and they often become entrenched in a culture where breaking fish and wildlife laws is normal (Green 1990).…”

Criminalising the right to hunt: European law perspectives on anti-hunting legislation

“…For the purposes of this article, hunting is defined largely by its legal classification and is differentiated from sport and trophy hunting which is primarily motivated by dominion over rare species and also linked to the illegal trade in animal derivatives such as ivory [21,22]. Hunting as defined by this article includes 'traditional' hunting, shooting and fishing practices carried out by countryside or rural community dwellers rather than the subsistence hunting of indigenous peoples carried out specifically as an integral part of their cultural identity [23].…”