Poaching in Uganda: Perspectives of Law Enforcement Rangers

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281764386

Poaching in Uganda: Perspectives of Law Enforcement Rangers Article in Deviant Behavior · July 2015 DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2014.977184

CITATIONS

READS

35

566

2 authors, including: William Moreto University of Central Florida 31 PUBLICATIONS 394 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Ranger Perception Study View project

Local community perceptions towards conservation: a global assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Moreto on 10 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Deviant Behavior

ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

Poaching in Uganda: Perspectives of Law Enforcement Rangers William D. Moreto & A. M. Lemieux To cite this article: William D. Moreto & A. M. Lemieux (2015) Poaching in Uganda: Perspectives of Law Enforcement Rangers, Deviant Behavior, 36:11, 853-873, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2014.977184 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.977184

Published online: 11 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 121

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20 Download by: [University of Central Florida]

Date: 16 October 2015, At: 11:39

Deviant Behavior, 36:853–873, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. ISSN: 0163-9625 print/1521-0456 online DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2014.977184

Poaching in Uganda: Perspectives of Law Enforcement Rangers William D. Moreto Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

A. M. Lemieux Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Much of prior empirical research examining poachers and poaching strategies have originated from interviews with poachers and wildlife law enforcement officers within North American settings.

Few studies have empirically analyzed poacher categories and poaching strategies within an African context. Furthermore, most studies have overlooked important situational elements that influence poacher activities. Based on semi-structured interviews and informal conversations with law enforcement rangers and supervisors and, participant observations of routine day foot patrols, this study presents the findings of an exploratory analysis on poaching in a protected area in Uganda.

INTRODUCTION Wildlife crime is recognized to be a serious international problem with significant consequences (Eliason 2012; Schneider 2012; South and Wyatt 2011; Warchol 2004). Although wildlife crime has been on the radar of biologists and conservationists for some time, criminologists have largely neglected the issue until recently. This lack of empirical investment can be partly credited to the perception that such “folk crime” is minor and trivial compared to “traditional” street crimes (Forsyth and Marckese 1993b; Forsyth et al. 1998). Further, many types of wildlife crime are also difficult to study due to the rural nature of such behavior (Forsyth 1993). Moreover, the resources and time required to conduct wildlife crime research, especially involving the international illicit market in wildlife products, is often limited and inadequate (Moreto and Clarke 2014).

Despite the current push from advocates operating from a “green” or “conservation” criminology perspective (see Lynch and Stretesky 2003; Herbig and Joubert 2006; Gibbs et al. 2010), criminological research addressing this topic is in its infancy relative to other topics traditionally Received 17 April 2014; accepted 2 July 2014.

Address correspondence to William D. Moreto, Department of Criminal Justice, College of Health and Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive, Orlando, FL 32816-1600, USA. E-mail: william.moreto@ucf.edu

854

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

examined within the discipline. The current study contributes to the literature by qualitatively exploring law enforcement ranger and supervisor perspectives on poaching in a protected area in Uganda. Our objective is threefold and is focused on examining (a) the drivers of poaching behavior, (b) the techniques used by poachers, and (c) unique spatiotemporal characteristics of poaching within the region. We end by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

OVERVIEW OF THE POACHING LITERATURE Defining Poaching Before we provide a brief overview of the poaching literature, we must first define poaching.

Poaching can encompass a number of interrelated activities, including the hunting, trapping, and killing of animals. We are cognizant of the nuances that distinguish and differentiate between seemingly similar criminal events; therefore, we employ a crime specific approach for the current study. A crime specific approach recognizes that particular crimes have specific purposes and are influenced by different situational elements (Clarke and Felson 1993). Using a crimespecific approach affords the possibility to identify the essential steps or crime script required for the completion of the criminal act (Cornish 1994), which may reveal important pinch points for prevention (Clarke 2009).

The act of poaching has been defined in various ways throughout the literature and at times has been synonymous with the general category of wildlife crime (Crow, O’Connor Shelley, and Stretesky 2013), while others have broadly defined poaching as “[a]ny act that intentionally contravenes the laws and regulations established to protect wild, renewable resources” (Muth and Bowe 1998:11). Although conceptually useful, we believe that such definitions may result in the inclusion of activities, like the illegal killing of wildlife, which have dissimilar objectives than the taking of wildlife for various uses. For example, while some poaching can involve the illegal killing of wildlife (i.e., killing an elephant for its tusks), not all illegal killing of wildlife is motivated for poaching purposes (i.e., retaliatory killings against problem species). As such, we adhere to prior scholars who have defined poaching as the illegal taking of wildlife (Crow et al.

2013; Eliason 1999, 2004; Filteau 2012; Moreto and Clarke 2011).1 Prior Research on Poaching and Poachers The topic of poaching has arguably generated the most attention from scholars interested in wildlife crime. From a quantitative perspective, much of the poaching research has focused on examining the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement and anti-poaching initiatives, particularly within African states (Leader-Williams, Albon, and Berry 1990; Jachmann 1997, 2003, 2008; McShane 1990), economic incentive models for poachers (Milner-Gulland and Leader-Williams 1992), spatial models for poaching (Lemieux et al. 2014; Maingi et al. 2012), and enforcement operations (Albers 2010; Plumptre et al. 2014). Quantitative research has also examined poacher characteristics (Crow et al. 2013), as well as the application of the 1

Although poaching can involve both fauna and flora, we limit our discussion to the poaching of fauna species.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

855

Concealable, Removable, Available, Valuable, Enjoyable, and Disposable (CRAVED) (or Concealable, Removable, Accessible, Abundant, Valuable, Enjoyable, and Disposable (CRAAVED)) models2 to examine offender decision making based on wildlife product characteristics (Petrossian and Clarke 2014; Pires and Clarke 2012).

Qualitative research, on the other hand, has attempted to explain factors that influence poachers using a variety of theoretical frameworks, including neutralization and rationalization (Forsyth and Marckese 1993a; Eliason 1999, 2003, 2004; Eliason and Dodder 1999), differential association (Forsyth and Marckese 1993b; Eliason 1999), and routine activities (Eliason 2012). To the best knowledge of the authors, there is not a definitive, international typology for poaching; however, Muth and Bowe (1998) developed a comprehensive typology on poaching in North America based on a content analysis of academic reports, empirical studies, and other sources. The authors identified ten different poaching motivations within the literature that included: commercial gain, household consumption, recreational satisfactions, trophy poaching, thrill killing, protection of self and property, poaching as rebellion, poaching as a traditional right, disagreement with specific regulations, and gamesmanship. While this typology is conceptually useful in examining poaching activities and poachers by providing a general guideline, the typology might be limited in the analyzing of poaching in other settings. For instance, prior research has highlighted the heterogeneous and context-specific nature of poaching, while displaying its variability within different contexts, including (but not limited to) owl poaching in India (Ahmed 2010), lobster poaching in Canada (McMullan and Perrier 2002), abalone poaching in Australia (Tailby and Gant 2002), snow leopard poaching in Mongolia (Theile 2003), tiger poaching in Indonesia (Shepherd and Magnus 2004), sturgeon poaching in the Russian Federation (Raymakers 2002), and illegal fishing in Greece (Bell, Hampshire, and Topalidou 2007).

These studies have identified a myriad of poaching motivations ranging from survival, thrill seeking, commercial gain, cultural traditions, and even political resistance.

Gaps in the Poaching Literature The current poaching literature provides us with the necessary foundation to further examine the phenomenon by focusing on aspects that have been neglected in the past. In particular, previous research has tended to overly focus on the motivations of poachers and have not thoroughly examined poaching tactics and strategies. We argue that examining the tactics and strategies used by poachers not only illuminates poaching motivations, but such investigations can have significant policy implications. For example, the ivory trade may drive an area that has a large number of gun-related elephant poaching, while the use of traps may be more indicative of poaching for survival. Recognizing the link between motivations, tactics, and strategies is pivotal in determining appropriate enforcement and preventative responses.

In addition, there have been few attempts to qualitatively examine the unique situational (e.g. spatial and temporal) elements that facilitate or influence poaching activities. The importance of time and space has been recognized as a vital component in understanding 2 Recently, Moreto and Lemieux (2014) extended the CRAVED model and developed CAPTURED (Concealable, Available, Processable, Transferable, Usable, Removable, Enjoyable, and Desirable) to further highlight the value of a product-based assessment of the illegal wildlife market.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

856

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

crime (Eck and Weisburd 1995; Johnson et al. 2007; Ratcliffe 2002, 2004; Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger 1989; Townsley and Pease 2002; Weisburd, Bernasco, and Bruinsma 2009) and as noted earlier, prior research has shown that poaching also exhibits unique situational elements.

We contend, however, that a holistic understanding of such situational elements requires examining ground-level perspectives that may not be derived from official data.

Lastly, there have been few in-depth qualitative studies examining poaching within African states. This is surprising given the economic, ecological, and social impact that wildlife resources have for African local communities and states. While prior research on poaching resulting from other settings may be useful in investigating the African context for poaching, fieldwork is required to truly understand the poaching situation within such areas.

RESEARCH SETTING AND STUDY OBJECTIVES Research Setting Data collection occurred between September and October 2012 in Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP). Located in the southwest region of Uganda and bordering the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), QENP is one of ten national parks in the country. With a total land area of 1,978km2, the park is home to one central headquarters and twenty-five ranger outposts, gates, and sub-headquarters located within six sectors. QENP is considered to be an important hotspot of biodiversity within the Albertine Rift. The wildlife found inside the park is rich and diverse including primates such as chimpanzees, carnivores such as lions and leopards, and large herbivores such as elephants, hippopotamuses, and buffaloes. More than 550 species of bird have been documented inside the protected area that has numerous patches of attractive wetlands, forest, and shoreline (Moghari 2009). A unique feature of QENP is the space afforded to eleven fishing villages inside the park (Nampindo and Plumptre 2005). Combined with communities living next to the park, Moghari (2009) estimated a population of 100,000 rural residents living within or near the protected area. The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) has sole jurisdiction over illegal acts committed within QENP and against its wildlife. Of main concern to UWA are crimes such as poaching, illegal wood harvesting, encroachment, cattle grazing, and charcoal burning.

Study Objectives Our overall purpose is to examine drivers, techniques, and situational characteristics of poaching in QENP from the perspectives of law enforcement rangers and supervisors. We address three main research questions: First, what factors do law enforcement rangers and supervisors identify contribute to poaching in QENP? Second, what poaching techniques and strategies are used by poachers in QENP from the perspectives and experiences of law enforcement rangers and supervisors? Last, what situational factors impact poaching behavior in QENP?

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

857

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

METHODS The study utilized an ethnographic case study approach based on semi-structured interviews with UWA law enforcement rangers and supervisors and, participant observations of routine foot patrols. Field notes based on daily informal interactions with rangers taken by the lead author were also used as a valuable supplementary source of information. The results presented here were part of a larger study focused on understanding law enforcement ranger culture and operations, as well as poaching activities within QENP. Purposeful sampling was used to select interview respondents. At the time of the study, there were 79 UWA law enforcement rangers living in QENP. Law enforcement rangers were specifically chosen as their duties place them in direct contact with poachers on a regular basis. Further, when apprehensions occur, it is law enforcement rangers who interrogate suspects and build court cases against them; thus, we believe that their experiences are invaluable for explaining and understanding the continuum of poacher motivations and behaviors. From the administrative staff list provided by the warden of law enforcement, twenty law enforcement rangers were randomly selected and asked to participate in the study.3 Random selection was used in order to increase the credibility of the results by allowing equal chance to all law enforcement rangers within QENP to participate. While it may have been more convenient to select only respondents living within headquarters because of access, randomly selecting respondents also helped reduce potential issues associated with selectivity bias (Patton 2002).

Moreover, randomly selecting respondents may have also lessened suspicion from respondents as to why they were asked to participate. In addition to the 20 law enforcement rangers, four supervisors were approached to participate in the study, resulting in a total sample of 24 respondents. Of the twenty law enforcement ranger respondents, fifteen were located in various outposts located throughout the park and five were based at the park headquarters. All four supervisors were stationed at park headquarters.

The sample size of 24 respondents was chosen for two main reasons: first, from a practical perspective, the authors had limited resources and time to access a larger sample. For example, access to transportation and scheduling conflicts made it difficult to arrange interviews with respondents located outside of park headquarters where the authors stayed. Moreover, the logistics associated with the participant observations of routine patrols (i.e., a daylong event; see below) resulted in reduced opportunities to access more respondents for interviews.4 Second, as with most qualitative studies, it is possible that theoretical saturation can occur and additional interviews may begin to provide diminishing returns (Crang and Cook 2007; Ritchie, Lewis. and Elam 2003). As such, the number of respondents chosen is believed to be sufficient for the objectives of the study.

All interviews were voluntary, conducted privately, and respondents were assured confidentiality. The interview instrument was open-ended and semi-structured, which allowed for further exploration and elaboration when necessary. Respondents were encouraged to answer in their own words (sometimes using local phrases and terms that were subsequently clarified and 3 Of the 20 participants originally selected, one was unavailable due to injury and another potential respondent was selected and asked to participate.

4 Notably, in some cases where a scheduled patrol involved a respondent, the lead author would conduct the interview immediately after the patrol.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

858

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

explained to the lead author) in order to unravel potential in vivo concepts or emic categories (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Maxwell 2005; Strauss and Corbin 1990). All respondents were male and ranged from 23 to 54 years of age.5 The time spent working within QENP and within the organization ranged from six months to 18 years, while the average time spent working within QENP was 7.60 years and 9.27 years for the UWA, respectively.

In addition to interviews, we conducted approximately 70 hours of participant observations of routine foot day patrols. Involvement in routine foot patrols was an important component in reaffirming information derived from interviews, as well as identifying elements requiring further investigation. Additionally observing patrols provided the opportunity for the authors to identify information that may not be recalled by respondents during interviews (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011; Patton 2002), as well as alleviate the potential for selective perceptions (Patton 2002).

This approach also led to a more fluid and natural discussion on poaching within the region since the authors were able to refer to real-time events that occurred throughout the patrol as they occurred or during resting periods. Another added benefit of incorporating participant observations for the current study was the ability to physically see and examine various situational factors related to poaching activities, which helped corroborate, clarify, and guide interviews.

Similar to the interviews, informed consent procedures were also performed for patrol group participants. Participants were also asked whether they consented that photographs be taken during the course of the patrol.6 Photographs were used to visually document the situational characteristics of poaching in QENP, including areas identified by rangers favorable for poaching (i.e., areas nearby watering holes) and areas where poachers may have passed through or stayed (i.e., poacher camp), to further provide a contextual component during analysis.

Photographs also helped mitigate observer fatigue or memory loss. Data from the participant observations were primarily collected through short-hand field notes, which were further elaborated on using “end-point” written or verbal narratives, which helped provide a better overall description of an incident by having a more informed understanding through reflection of events prior to and after the event (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 2011).

Lastly, as we lived in QENP headquarters during the study period, we had the opportunity to informally interact with a number of rangers and supervisors in various departments.7 These daily encounters and discussions provided an important source of supplementary information, as well as guidance for additional probes and appropriate use of language during interviews. All data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using NVivo 10, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) software.8 A two-prong approach for analysis was used: first, initial coding (or open coding) was performed to break down the information into sections and examine each section for commonalities and differences (Saldaña 2009; Strauss and Corbin 5

Average age of respondents was 35.

Study participants were not included in any of the photographs in order to ensure anonymity.

7 Authors’ note: As mentioned, we believe that our informal interactions with rangers throughout our time in the study area yielded invaluable information that otherwise may have not been obtained. In total, we spent approximately 1000 hours engaged in informal participant observations whereby we conversed, dined, and engaged in other activities with rangers.

8 The authors originally performed a manual analysis and hand-coding of the interviews. By hand-coding the interviews, the authors were able to identify preliminary organizational categories useful for guiding subsequent the subsequent analysis in NVivo 10.

6

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

859

1990). Second, pattern coding was performed and used to identify underlying and overreaching themes or constructs useful in the establishment of theoretical categories (Maxwell 2005; Miles and Huberman 1994). All following excerpts are presented verbatim with minor changes (when deemed appropriate) and are representative of respondents’ perceptions. To ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for each respondent.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

FINDINGS The objective of the study was to provide a comprehensive overview of poaching in QENP. The current study contributes to the growing literature on wildlife crime by supporting and extending previous research on poaching within an African context. We begin by presenting the poaching drivers identified by respondents. Next, we examine the poaching techniques and strategies witnessed and experienced by respondents. Finally, we investigate the situational elements that either facilitate or influence conditions suitable for poaching to occur.

We first discuss poaching drivers identified by respondents. Similar to previous research, several factors were identified. It should be noted that the following are not mutually exclusive and poachers are not solely influenced by one category. Indeed, it may be possible that interaction effects may be present. Moreover, poachers may be influenced by different factors at various points in time given their present situation, availability and access to equipment, and opportunity of targets. For ease of discussion, we group poaching motivations within three broad dimensions: necessity, profit, and traditional practices or beliefs.

Drivers of Poaching in Queen Elizabeth National Park Necessity Necessity was identified to be the main reason for poaching in QENP. Specifically, respondents believed that poverty and limited employment forced community members to illegally access wildlife as a means to survive. Respondents distinguished necessity into two subcategories: personal consumption and basic income generation. In his response, Alex explained this “pressure” to survive as he observed: They poach because of the way of living. I mean it’s very hard. Here, I mean you, find somebody in the village is not having anything. He is having the kids, the wife, and himself. So, his own pressure [He might say], “What should I do?” [He’s] Just looking for survival.

Paul referred to such poaching for personal consumption or subsistence poaching as “hand-tomouth,” while Benjamin noted that poachers wanted “to get domestic meat [for] just home use.”

Frank observed how “local people” poached in order to “eat for consumption,” and David suggested that poachers hunted to obtain “game meat [for] domestic use.”

As mentioned, generating basic income was also identified as a driver for poaching in QENP. Respondents highlighted the “lack of employment” within the region and how poachers simply wanted to “earn a living” by selling poached wildlife. In his response, Patrick reflected on his experiences with poachers and recalled how “some [poachers] say they poach because of income,” while Felix reaffirmed how poachers were “unemployed [and were] fighting for

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

860

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

livelihood.” It is important to note that this type of poaching is different from the profit-based motivations explained in the next section, as respondents believed that these poachers were not attempting to go above and beyond obtaining basic necessities. Interestingly, Alex provided a unique perspective on such necessity-based drivers as he surmised how poachers would decide to “steal [from] the park” instead of “stealing people’s properties.” In other words, Alex believed that rather than committing crimes against their fellow community members, poachers would simply commit crimes against the park instead. Additionally, by poaching and selling the meat to the community, poachers would be providing a service that otherwise would not exist.

Respondents also explained how some poachers simply preferred consuming bush or game meat. For example, Felix described that these poachers are “use to that wild meat, so when he spend like a year without tasting wild meat, he feels that is not good. So he has to look for it.”

This preference for bushmeat has been identified in the literature with evidence suggesting that some people would even pay more for bushmeat compared to domestic meat, which can be bought at local markets (Chardonnet et al. 1995).

Profit Respondents also subscribed to the notion that poachers hunt to attain a higher level of wealth. For instance, Alex described how poaching is considered by poachers as “a business” used as a means to “become rich.” Notably, Chris highlighted the species-specific nature of poaching when he observed how “big animals, like the hippopotamus, is for commercial [purposes].” Felix also described how specific animals were targeted because they were considered (at least partly) as “valuable items” or “trophies” and could be easily sold. Jude emphasized that “with elephants, ‘tis for commercial [purposes]. They sell the ivory,” and Paul noted: “I would first of all say that this poaching would be categorized into commercial, because the elephant poaching, buffalo poaching, and hippo poaching are actually commercial.

These people poach because they’re selling [them].”

Alex also speculated that hippopotamuses and buffaloes were specifically hunted for profit as they could be sold in larger markets outside QENP. He surmised that “after killing the animal, [the poacher] takes them across, abroad like Congo, he sells it and gets maybe ten million, eight million [Ugandan shillings].”

Interestingly, some respondents also explicitly contested the notion that poaching was a result of poverty and unemployment. For example, Ivan rejected the idea that villagers poached because of a lack of options; rather he argued that it was a lack of suitable options that led to poaching. As indicated by his response, Ivan believed that poachers wanted a standard of living that was well beyond the means available and accessible to them. Essentially, poachers of this nature were not poaching to survive, but rather, to survive well: I wouldn’t say unemployment. Unemployment wouldn’t be for something to force them to poach.

No, there is so many things to do apart from poaching. See, people always want collar jobs, white collar jobs rather. But jobs are there! People can farm, people can do brick laying, but people don’t want. They want the standard of white collar [but] they don’t meet the qualifications. So, I wouldn’t say there is no jobs. The jobs are there. They don’t want to start from zero level. Someone wants to start from buying a car to buy an airplane [laughs]. . . . But they don’t want that. They want faster way to get to the money. The greed for money now. They want faster, faster money.

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

861

Respondents recognized that local trading or exchanges would not appease the drive for wealth and poachers would often become involved in the lucrative illegal market in wildlife products. In fact, some respondents acknowledged how poachers would poach “for ivory” given the potential for high profit. Such high profit would often originate from middlemen who would hire local poachers on a freelance basis. Intuitively, this makes sense as local poachers have the requisite familiarity and knowledge of the area.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

Traditional Practices or Beliefs Respondents described how cultural drivers of poaching often originated from and were sustained by long-lasting familial and tribal beliefs and traditions. Unlike other drivers, respondents acknowledged, “if somebody has [poaching] in culture, he may not stop poaching.” As Brian further explained how “somebody [who] sees poaching as culture has not poached.” In other words, such beliefs may be so engrained within the local culture that legal definitions of what constitutes as illegal behavior are simply overshadowed. Similar to the previous categories, the species-specific nature of this form of poaching was highlighted by the respondents as well.

Some respondents attributed poaching to the hunting traditions of specific tribes, which had been passed through generations. Benjamin described how the “Bakonjo, formerly they were poachers, hunters. It is their belief. . . . They don’t go and buy. The just go in the park.” In his response, Lawrence reflected: “We normally hear that there is some families that are naturally hunters in their customs. You find that they are hunters. Whenever you take them to court, they penalize them. The day he gets out from the jail, you find him again in the park. So those are the ones are customary hunters.”

Some respondents also indicated how poachers would be inclined to poach in order to achieve a sense of acceptance from their family. Dennis recalled a discussion he had with an elder from a nearby community: “The man told me that some time back when they were still in their youth, ‘If you want your father to love you or to trust you, you have to bring him the jaw of a buffalo.’ Now [today], bringing a jaw of a buffalo means that you will have to go what?

Poaching.”

Other respondents explained that poaching was akin to a rite of passage required to become a man within specific communities. Brian discussed how “if somebody has not yet killed a lion or a buffalo, he’s not regarded as a man”; however, once he does so “he’s seen in the village as a hero.” Specifically, such hunting traditions were used to reveal or solidify the characteristics of the individual. For instance, Isaac described how poaching accentuated the bravery of a person: It is cultural beliefs. In some cultures, they say that if you want to prove that you are brave, you have to kill a certain kind of animal. They can think that you have to kill a lion and somebody will go and look for a lion to kill and he brings the head or what to prove that he has killed it. So that he cannot go and deceive them, “Ah! I have killed it!”

Additionally, respondents described how bush or game meat, specifically hippopotamus meat, was believed to be associated with the fertility of women. Sam offered, “They say if a woman does not eat hippo meat, she is not fertile! [laughs] Yeah! Fertile. That is the thing that comes [from] cultural [beliefs].” And Dennis described how it was also believed that “wild meat” influenced a woman’s ability to give birth to a male child, as well as her

862

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

commitment to her family. However, he also noted how such beliefs were beginning to change as well:

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

Now before the girl produces in the family or in your family, she has to eat wild meat. And the most she eats wild meat, she will produce a baby boy. And she will not what? Leave that family. She will stay there forever. So that is their belief. But then with time, you know, they are changing now from those kind of, you know, beliefs.

Respondents also speculated how poachers would hunt as a result of their medicinal beliefs and superstitions. Tom explained how poachers “want the oil of the lion. The fats. They think its treatment. They go and kill the lion because they want fats from it.” He also described how “tribal superstitions” would result in poaching as well and that poachers would need “lion skins for their kings. They’ll be needing leopard skins to show that the kings are fierce.” In addition, Tom observed that poachers use “the nails of the lion” as a form of protection because “when you’re walking at night, you look fierce to other people, so they don’t come nearer to you.

They don’t attack you.” Additionally, on one patrol where an elephant carcass was found, the authors were told that elephant hair and teeth were used for various cultural trinkets and charms.

Spiritual or divine forces were also identified by respondents as having strong influence over poachers. Specifically, respondents described how some poachers believed that they were driven to poach by their Gods. Dennis noted how poachers would explain that under the control and guidance of an entity, they would become invisible when they poached. In his response, Dennis elaborated: Some do believe that they have their Gods who have always sent them for poaching. You can even enter without even your consent. You just surprise. . . . So they believe that their Gods always send them to hunt. And some of them said after, if he’s there poaching, if he follows what the Gods has told them, even if you are passing, [rangers] can’t see him. Because he’s following the command of what? The God. And if he happens to get meat, the first to benefit the meat is the God. And they said their God is [named] Nyabibwya.

Poaching Techniques We now turn our discussion to the poaching tactics and strategies used in QENP as explained by the respondents. Based on the responses provided, poaching techniques can be separated into three broad categories: (1) initial direct contact, (2) indirect secondary contact, and (3) facilitating. As shown in Figure 1, initial direct techniques require the intersection in time and space between the poacher and animal (e.g., gun or spear), while indirect secondary contact techniques do not require the poacher to be present for first contact. In such cases, a proxy (e.g., a wire snare) is used to initiate contact with the animal.

Another important distinction between initial direct contact and indirect secondary contact poaching techniques is the notion that the latter are an indiscriminate method of poaching.

Tom explained how wire snares “doesn’t select who has come.” In other words, regardless of the intended animal, wire snares can trap and injure a number of different animal species.

Lastly, although not explicitly a direct poaching activity per se, facilitating techniques were also identified by respondents as such activities were performed in order to establish a context favorable for successful poaching endeavors.

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

863

(a)

Poacher

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

Animal

Gun

(b)

Poacher

Animal

Wire snare

FIGURE 1 Comparison of initial direct contact and indirect secondary contact poaching techniques through the intersection of poacher and animal in space and time. (a) Example of initial direct contact: gun. (b) Example of indirect secondary contact: wire snare. Joined polygons indicate intersection of elements in space and time.

Most respondents were quick to point out that “the poaching system is not the same” for all poachers and that poachers would utilize a number of tactics and strategies to target specific species for specific objectives. Similar to poaching drivers, the tactics and strategies used by poachers in QENP are not mutually exclusive. For instance, a poacher may spear an animal caught in a hunting net or a wire snare.

In general, respondents believed that the most utilized poaching techniques in the park were wire snares and spears. Respondents attributed this to ease of access to the necessary materials (e.g., electrical wire, motorcycle brake cable, or spearheads) in order to create these hunting instruments. Some respondents also highlighted how the material used for wire snares would indicate the type of species the poachers would be targeting. Ivan noted how the construction of wire snares “depended on the size and weight” of the intended target.

Sam described:

864

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

[Wire snares] are for specific animals. You find these small wires [made out of] motorcycle brakes.

Like that one can trap a warthog, a kob, even those small antelopes. Then there’s these ones, like electric wires, which can trap a hippo, an elephant, buffalo. Those other big mammals. Yes, so there’s traps [for] specific species or animals.

In addition to wire snares, some respondents also discussed how other techniques were speciesspecific as well. One such technique used by poachers involved the use of an embedded nail within a piece of wood. This technique was used to incapacitate the movement of the animal, which allowed poachers to find the injured animal near the location of the trap. Frank revealed that “for elephants, [poachers] use nails” so that the animal “can’t move very far,” and poachers would then “come and spear it.” Similarly, Sam described how poachers would “target those areas, the routes these animals pass. Then, if [the animal] doesn’t see that trap, then it steps on it.

Then its movement is lowered. So [the poachers] immediately come up or they just go looking along [the path], then they spear it.” Paul also explained: You’ve seen our traditional [wooden] stool, they go and cut really a [big] piece of wood. Cut like that stool. Then they put a six-inch nail. Then, make it stand along the footpath track of elephants. When an elephant comes and it steps on it. You know given [the elephant’s] weight, the whole [nail] will enter. And that makes the [elephant] stand there. It will definitely just get stuck there. And [poachers] just come and hack it either with knives and just kill it. They take the ivory.

Additionally, respondents also described how poachers had recently begun poisoning elephants using fruit.9 The authors later found out during one of the patrols observed that the poison being used was believed to be battery acid. Recognizing the affinity that elephants had for certain fruit, poachers would capitalize on the predictability of these animals. For instance, Michael recalled an incident where rangers “had caught two poachers who put poison in pineapple. Dangerous poison in pineapple.” Jude also referred to how “poachers sometimes they use poison. Mostly with elephants. They poison them.” And Sam illustrated: Mostly, you find that [the poachers] use pineapples. They [have] to put acid. Or they get those jackfruits. So what they do, they put those fruits that I’ve mentioned within the routes of the elephants. So as the elephant passed, they have to get that [fruit], smells it and starts eating it. At times, you find when [the elephant] has just died, within that area.

Respondents also explained how poachers would use nets in the savannah to target kobs and other antelopes. Given the landscape, topography, and terrain of QENP, the use of hunting nets are a particularly effective means to poach. Douglas described how poachers would “lay their nets, then they go and chase the animals” while other poachers would “remain on the nets, then when [the animal] falls into the nets, they spear it.” Sam explained that antelopes were specifically targeted using this tactic since their “horns [would] get stuck in the net.” Daniel further clarified: They just cast the net, you know hunting nets. They use some poles, they place a pole in the middle, they can put like two poles, like three [on each side]. They just cast [the net]. After casting [the net], then they go around. Surround the what? The antelopes, the Ugandan kob. They start chasing them.

And once an antelope, a kob comes, it enters in the net. That net falls down with the animal, then [the poachers] spear it.

9

Poisoning is also used by villagers in retaliation against elephants after their crops have been raided.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

865

It can be argued that the species-specific natures of the aforementioned techniques are influenced by the motivation of the poacher. For example, the poaching of elephants using poison displays the explicit focus on killing elephants for ivory and not for meat.10 Indeed, while some consumption of elephant meat does occur, respondents described it as a relatively rare event compared to elephants being poached for ivory. In such cases, the consumption of elephant meat might simply be through convenience. The use of poison to kill elephants may indicate this reality as it would be unlikely that poachers and community members would consume poisoned meat. This situation highlights the impact of poaching from a public health perspective as well, as it may be possible that people are unknowingly consuming such poisoned animals.

Additionally, study participants described how poachers would also use dogs in a number of ways, including herding and separating the wildlife. Frank said how dogs would “keep on the animal until the animal is tired. Then, the poachers also they come and spear [the animal],” while Felix noted how poachers would “use dogs to scare [the animal]” and once the animal “goes astray [from the herd],” the poachers would “spear it.” Some respondents also described how poachers would use dogs to distract wildlife. For example, Brian believed how “dogs assist in carrying out the hunting [because] when dogs are barking, an animal will not run” and Adam further elaborated: Also, [poachers] come with dogs so whenever a buffalo insists wants to kill a dog, they spear on it.

They spear, they spear until it is down. So the dog convinces that buffalo not to move a step, if he insists on fighting the dog, then it will die there. So this is how they manage to kill the buffalo, these poachers. . .. They go with dogs. They chase a buffalo. The buffalo resists, wanting to fight the what?

The dogs. The poachers comes very close with spears. So this is how the buffalo dies.

Respondents also referred to the use of firearms as a poaching technique specifically used to target larger wildlife. For example, Daniel explained how “many of those poachers that use guns poach elephants for tusks and hippos [for meat]. Those big animals.” Ivan reflected on poacher’s preference of guns “for buffaloes” despite the fact that poachers “can use the dogs and spears, but mostly, they are using guns. Guns are what they will use.” Moreover, some respondents believed that the use of firearms for poaching was increasing due to elephant poaching in the park. In his opinion, Felix described that the use of guns in the park could be attributed to a small group of poachers seeking ivory. He reflected: “Those [using] guns, they are few.

Especially who are getting ivory. Killing elephants. They’re the one who use the gun.”

In addition to initial direct contact and indirect secondary contact techniques, some respondents referred to one facilitating technique utilized by poachers in the region. In particular, respondents described how poachers would start fires during the dry season in order to reduce vegetation in the park, which would force wildlife to search for food near the communities. In other words, poachers would alter the routines and behaviors of the animals to make them easier targets. Tom explained the intention behind the fires caused by poachers: When the poacher puts the fire, the fire can destroy everything. So that means there is no food left for the animal. Then the animal will address for the food in the village. To where the people, the poachers stay. Then the poachers will put their wire snares and target the animal from there.

10

The use of poison was also identified as a means for retaliatory killings as a result of human-elephant conflict.

866

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

Sometimes even hunt them physically at night from there. . . . It’s very easy now. Something has come nearer. You don’t go and look for it in the park. You’ve destroyed the vegetation which it feeds on, the vegetation is now on your side.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

Situational Characteristics Finally, we turn to the situational characteristics of poaching in QENP. Throughout the interviews and observed patrols, it was clear that law enforcement rangers recognized the role that space and time played on poaching within QENP. For ease of discussion, we separate this section into spatial and temporal factors.

Spatial Factors From a macro-level, respondents believed that majority of poachers who operated within the park came from the communities bordering and within the park. Not surprisingly, this was attributed to their proximity to the park and the availability of resources. Notably, some respondents described how community members from the communities bordering the park were more likely to poach than the communities within the park. Sam explained that “at times you find the communities living within the park, they don’t poach. But most those ones that are outside the park, which are just surrounding the park, those are the ones that poach.” This was further explained to the authors during one of the patrols they participated in. One of the rangers on the patrol surmised that since some of the communities within the park are mostly fishing villages and are able to legitimately gain access to specific resources, and the communities bordering the park may not, that the former would be able withstand pressures associated with poverty. Unfortunately, as the ranger further explained, the pressures of illegal fishing are leading to under-sized catch for the fishermen. As a result of this situation, villagers within the park are now beginning to resort to poaching to compensate for limited catch.

Respondents also believed that poachers from the neighboring DRC also operated in QENP as well. Respondents attributed this to the mobility of the animals, as well as the “porous borders” separating the DRC and Uganda. In other words it is not simply the close proximity of QENP to the DRC, but also the ease of crossing undetected which enabled poachers from the DRC to poach relatively undisturbed. Indeed, on one patrol the authors identified several poaching camps near the Ishasha River, which separates QENP from the DRC. At the micro-level, while some respondents believed that poaching could happen “just anywhere,” others believed that poaching occurred in specific areas within the park due to the behavioral patterns and activities of wildlife. In particular, respondents’ described how poachers exploited paths and areas frequented by specific wildlife. For instance, Chris described: Okay you know these, our animals they have some areas where they graze mostly. Like the hippopotamus, they have their routes where they pass. Daily, daily, daily. And that’s why these poachers spot some points where they can get animals. They can’t go where there’s no animals.

Ivan also referred to the animal routes in his response when asked where poachers would most likely place wire snares: “In the routes. They put [wire snares] in the routes of the animals, when they are going for water or when they are going for shade. Or they’re going towards the communities. So [the poachers] put [wire snares] in the routes.” Respondents described that

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

867

since animals have distinct, identifiable routines, poachers would be able to know the prime locations to place wire snares and traps or they would know where to go in order to hunt with guns. In other words, while the park offers a large landscape to operate and offend within, poachers would target specific places that were believed to offer the best chance for success.

As highlighted by respondents, and as witnessed by the authors during patrol observations, the most identifiable type of crime attractor (Brantingham and Brantingham 1995) believed to be within the park were bodies of water, especially watering holes. Douglas described how there were “very many animals along the water place[s]. And you find the poacher goes along that side.” Jude also explained that bodies of water were also places where poaching camps could be found since “poachers also need this water, because they come and sleep in the park.” The authors also had this explained to them during a number of observed patrols as well. For example, the lead author noted on one patrol: During this point in time, we were basically patrolling near the water edge mainly because of the fact that this was a good area for poachers to move back and forth between the DRC and Uganda. . .. We were able to find a camp that was used by poachers. This camp itself was very close to the water and the ranger in command explained that these poachers were probably poaching hippos due to the proximity of the water and since the area had a large number of hippos. In other words, poachers were staying in places where they could actually engage in poaching with the least amount of inconvenience to themselves. The ranger also explained that the camp was close to water because the poachers themselves would need the water as well, either to cook with or to drink. (Fieldnote narrative)

Temporal Factors Respondents also described a number of temporal factors that influenced poaching activity within the park. From a micro-level (e.g. time of day), most respondents believed that poaching could happen at any time. Moreover, respondents thought such activity depended on the tactic being used and the animal being targeted. However, some respondents described how poachers would operate very early in the morning in order to target animals at watering holes, as well as to avoid rangers. As Frank observed, “During daytime, someone can say, ‘No, if I enter maybe at 6AM in the morning, I will be safe [from the rangers].’ That one can also happen.” Conversely, other respondents noted how poachers would mostly “walk at night.”

From a macro-temporal perspective, the relationship between seasonality and crime has generated much empirical research (Cohn and Rotton 2003; Hipp et al. 2004; Quetelet 1842/ 2013; Van Koppen and James 1999) and seasonality was also found to play an important part in poaching in QENP as well. Although some respondents believed that poaching was, as Lawrence described, “a continuous exercise” and that it “has no season,” others described that poaching increased during the harvesting and festive seasons. For instance, Patrick described how poaching increased during the harvesting season “because now the communities, those who have harvested their goods, they get the money [so] that they can buy meat.” In other words, poachers would accommodate the increased demand for meat originating from the community.

Other respondents referred specifically to the role festive seasons (e.g., Christmas and Easter) on poaching activity within QENP. During this time, respondents believed that during festive seasons “we should open our eyes wide.” For instance, Douglas explained how poaching “becomes very serious during festival seasons, especially the 25th of December on Christmas

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

868

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

[and] Easter,” while Daniel said that “during the holiday festive, during Christmas days. When there’s a holiday, like in November and December, poaching is high.” Adam also reflected on the link between festive seasons and poaching: “Yeah, poaching becomes so rampant during Christmas. Big days. When it comes to big days and Christmas. Poachers come so strongly. We don’t sleep. . . . Those days are so busy with illegalities.”

When respondents were asked why they believed that poaching increased during the festive seasons, respondents deduced that poachers were attempting to get meat for consumption or to sell in order to get money to buy gifts for their family and friends. Paul illustrated: “You know towards Christmas season, those festivals. There’s Christmas, there’s Easter. Because people will attach those festive seasons to eating a lot of meat. . . . Because everyone wants meat!” Similarly, Frank pointed out how poaching increased because poachers “are working hard to get meat for Christmas to get money for buying luxuries.” In his response, Brian revealed: People poach for meat to eat during festival seasons. People poach animals to get money to buy dresses for their loved ones. People poach to get mean to sell and they get money to drink during festival season. A lot of things! . . . When we arrest them and interrogate them, that’s the information we get from them.

Lastly, and as mentioned earlier, respondents believed that poaching would increase during the dry season as the limited grass in the park resulted in animals coming closer to the communities in order to graze. Incidentally, this could further increase the divide between the communities from and the law enforcement rangers by potentially increasing human–wildlife conflict. Indeed, it may even be possible that villagers view poachers favorably if they hunt such problem species.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Poaching is a serious threat to the sustainability of wildlife populations and biodiversity around the world. This study was a modest attempt to shed light on the motivations and modus operandi of poachers operating within a specific protected area in Uganda, while also drawing attention to important situational elements of poaching. Moreover, the study provided the opportunity to examine the unique, ground level perspectives of those who are the first line of defense against wildlife crime: law enforcement rangers and their supervisors. Given their first-hand experiences with poachers within QENP, law enforcement rangers and supervisors are ideal candidates for obtaining an in-depth understanding of the poaching situation in a region. Indeed, it has been argued that a better understanding of how authorities perceive criminal behavior may shed light on how they enforce the law (Allen and Jacques 2013). Future research should examine whether rangers respond differently to individuals who they perceive to be poaching for survival compared to those poaching for profit.

In the current study, we identified three broad drivers of poaching: necessity, profit, traditional practices or beliefs. Each of these plays a specific role in motivating offenders to enter QENP to hunt illegally. Once inside the park, the rangers identified various ways poachers hunt and kill animals. These strategies can be subsumed under three main categories: initial direct contact, indirect secondary contact, or facilitating techniques. Finally, the study elucidated rich information about the situational aspects of poaching. Spatially, poachers seek out areas animals frequent regularly such a water holes or well-traveled foraging paths. Temporally, it appears

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

869

poachers prefer to move in the early morning and night to avoid ranger patrols. Moreover, it was found that harvesting, festive and dry season’s results in increased levels of poaching when meat and income are needed most.

Admittedly, the current study is not without its limitations. Given the ethnographic approach used by the authors, methodological issues related to the validity and reliability of the research is not considered appropriate. Conversely, Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that ethnographic research should be evaluated upon its credibility, dependability, and transferability. We believe that by utilizing both interviews and participation observations, we were able to minimize threats against the credibility of our findings. Further, by triangulating data sources, we were able to produce a holistic overview of the poaching problem in QENP through corroboration (Yin 2009), while also limiting issues associated with single method designs (Brewer and Hunter 1989). Moreover, to increase the dependability of our findings, we used a variety of methods to record field notes in a timely manner, and when possible, had interviews digitally voice recorded. The transferability or generalizability of the findings is also another potential limitation. As the study focuses solely on one national park in Uganda, our findings may not be applicable to other national parks. While this may be the case, we believe that our study provides a useful contribution to expanding the current literature on poaching and wildlife crime in general by providing an in-depth analysis on poaching in QENP. Moving forward, the results of this study are useful for a variety of theoretical, methodological, and practical applications. From a theoretical perspective, the findings of this study expand the general literature on wildlife crime, especially poaching. Additionally, the study further extends current criminological perspectives, namely within the environmental criminology literature (e.g., routine activities approach), by testing and adapting such approaches. For example, distinguishing between initial direct contact and indirect secondary contact poaching techniques results in adapting the crime triangle (Felson and Boba 2010), specifically as it relates to the initial intersection between offender and target in time and space. Further, the findings of our study unravel important elements useful for enhancing the analysis of poaching using other methodological approaches. For instance, our findings can contribute to more detailed spatiotemporal analyses of poaching behavior, as well as simulation modeling (Hill, Johnson, and Borrion 2014). Such research may help bridge the gap between academia and practitioners by helping identify and limit search areas; thus, increasing the chances rangers will be in the right place at the right time. The study also highlights the importance of researchers interested in the topic of wildlife crime and wildlife law enforcement to make a concerted effort in conducting on-site fieldwork. We believe that the time spent informally interacting with rangers helped not only supplement our findings for the current study, but also provided us with invaluable information in better understanding the development and feasibility of pragmatic policy recommendations based on our findings.

Practically, the information sheds light on how ranger patrol schedules might be improved to target the times and places poachers exploit. The collective opinions derived from our findings give commanders and supervisors good evidence of how deployments may be made more efficient or increase the deterrent effect of ranger patrols. Of most importance, our findings bring to the forefront the importance of recognizing that poaching activities are undoubtedly driven by a myriad of factors. Species-specific and poacher-specific models are likely to be more realistic and may produce better results rather than general, catch all

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

870

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

approaches. Along the same line of thought, deploying rangers to combat specific hunting strategies may be a useful way to target poachers based on their modus operandi and increase the potential deterrent value of patrols.

It should be noted, however, that policies based on one single philosophical approach (e.g., deterrence) may be limited in its ability to truly address the underlying problems that lead to poaching within a specific area. The current push for policies based on military technology (e.g., drones) or war-like mandates (i.e., “the war on poaching”) may be effective for particular types of poachers (e.g., profit-driven poachers), but may cause more harm than good for others (e.g., survival or traditional poachers). Indeed, the militarization of conservation policies may reduce community perceptions of legitimacy and trust; thus, impacting cooperation and voluntary compliance (Kahler and Gore 2012; Stern 2008). Agencies responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of the world’s protected areas must be vigilant in understanding their local problem and developing multifaceted policies based on effective dialogue between various stakeholders. Moreover, such agencies must be focused on responding to the underlying factors that lead to poaching, and not simply just the act of poaching itself. Indeed, using community-based integrated conservation and development projects (Newmark and Hough 2000) or situational crime prevention (Pires and Moreto 2011) may be more effective than policies solely based on deterrence.

The current study contributes to both the conservation and criminological literature by providing valuable information on poaching in a protected area in Uganda. In particular, the study shows the value of examining wildlife crime from a criminological lens. While such research will undoubtedly continue as the number of criminologists tackling conservation-related topics continues to grow, we stress the need for more interdisciplinary collaborations in the investigation of such crimes. Moreover, practitioners should be actively engaged in the ongoing debate on conservation best practices. By identifying practical responses derived from various perspectives, we may be better able to effectively reduce activities that threaten the world’s wildlife and protected areas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the Uganda Wildlife Authority, the management of Queen Elizabeth National Park, and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology for enabling the present study to be completed. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments. Finally, the authors are grateful to the study participants for their involvement, candor, and insight.

REFERENCES Ahmed, Abrar. 2010. “Imperilled Custodians of the Night: A Study on the Illegal Trade, Trapping and Use of Owls in India.” TRAFFIC India. Retrieved (http://www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_birds12.pdf).

Albers, Heidi J. 2010. “Spatial Modeling of Extraction and Enforcement in Developing Country Protected Areas.”

Resource and Energy Economics 32:165–179.

Allen, Andrea and Scott Jacques. 2013. “Police Officers’ Theories of Crime.” American Journal of Criminal Justice.

39:206–227.

Bell, Sandra, Kate Hampshire, and Stella Topalidou. 2007. “The Political Culture of Poaching: A Case Study from Northern Greece.” Biodiversity and Conservation 16:399–418.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

871

Brantingham, Patricia and Paul Brantingham. 1995. “Criminality of Place.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 3:5–26.

Brewer, John and Albert Hunter. 1989. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Chardonnet, P., H. Fritz, N. Zorzi, and E. Feron. 1995. “Current Importance of Traditional Hunting and Major Contrasts in Wild Meat Consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Pp. 304–307 in Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future, edited by John A. Bissonette and Paul R. Krausman. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society.

———. 2009. “Situational Crime Prevention: Theoretical Background and Current Practice.” Pp. 259–276 in Handbook on Crime and Deviance, edited by Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, and Gina P. Hall. New York: Springer.

Clarke, Ronald V. and Marcus Felson. 1993. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–14 in Routine Activity and Rational Choice, edited by Ronald V. Felson and Marcus Felson. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Cohn, Ellen G. and James Rotton. 2003. “Even Criminals Take A Holiday: Instrumental and Expressive Crimes on Major and Minor Holidays.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 31:351–360.

Cornish, Derek B. 1994. “The Procedural Analysis of Offending and Its Relevance for Situational Prevention.”

Pp. 151–196 in Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3, edited by Ronald V. Clarke. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Crang, Mike and Ian Cook. 2007. Doing Ethnographies. CA: SAGE Publications.

Crow, Matthew S., Tara O’Connor Shelley, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. “Camouflage-Collar Crime: An Examination of Wildlife Crime and Characteristics of Offenders in Florida.” Deviant Behavior 34:635–652.

DeWalt Kathleen M. and Billie R. DeWalt. 2011. Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Eck, John E. and David Weisburd, eds. 1995. Crime and Place, Vol. 4. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Eliason, Stephen L. 1999. “The Illegal Taking of Wildlife: Toward a Theoretical Understanding of Poaching.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 4:27–39.

———. 2003. “Illegal Hunting and Angling: The Neutralization of Wildlife Law Violators.” Society & Animals 11:225–243.

———. 2004. “Accounts of Wildlife Law Violators: Motivations and Rationalizations.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:119–131.

———. 2012. “Trophy Poaching: A Routine Activities Perspective.” Deviant Behavior 33:72–87.

Eliason, Stephen L. and Richard A. Dodder. 1999. “Techniques of Neutralization used by Deer Poachers in the Western United States: A Research Note.” Deviant Behavior 20:233–252.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz. and Linda L. Shaw. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (2nd ed). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Felson, Marcus and Rachel Boba. 2010. Crime and Everyday Life (4th ed.). CA: SAGE Publications.

Filteau, Matthew R. 2012. “Deterring Defiance: ‘Don’t Give a Poacher a Reason to Poach.’” International Journal of Rural Criminology 1:236–255.

Forsyth, Craig J. 1993. “Chasing and Catching ‘Bad Guys’: The Game Warden’s Prey.” Deviant Behavior 14:209–226.

Forsyth, Craig J., Robert Gramling, and George Wooddell. 1998. “The Game of Poaching: Folk Crimes in Southwest Louisiana.” Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 11:25–38.

Forsyth, Craig J. and Thomas A. Marckese. 1993a. “Folk Outlaws: Vocabularies of Motives.” Deviant Behavior 23:17–31.

———. 1993b. “Thrills and Skills: A Sociological Analysis of Poaching.” Deviant Behavior 14:157–172.

Gibbs, Carole, Meredith L. Gore, Edmund F. McGarrell, and Louie L. Rivers III. 2010. “Introducing Conservation Criminology: Towards an Interdisciplinary Scholarship on Environmental Crimes and Risks.” British Journal of Criminology 50:124–144.

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.

New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Herbig, F. J. W. and S. J. Joubert. 2006. “Criminological Semantics: Conservation Criminology—Vision or Vagary?”

Acta Criminologica 19:88–103.

Hill, Joanne F., Shane D. Johnson, and Herve Borrion. 2014. “Potential Uses of Computer Agent-Based Simulation Modelling in the Evaluation of Wildlife Poaching.” Pp. 120–153 in Situational Prevention of Poaching, edited by A. M. Lemieux. UK: Routledge.

Hipp, John R., Daniel J. Bauer, Patrick J. Curran, and Kenneth A. Bollen. 2004. “Crimes of Opportunity or Crimes of Emotion? Testing Two Explanations of Seasonal Change in Crime.” Social Forces 82:1333–1372.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

872

W. D. MORETO AND A. M. LEMIEUX

Jachmann, Hugo. 1997. “Elephant Poaching and Law Enforcement in the Central Luangwa Valley, Zambia.” Journal of Applied Ecology 34:233–244.

———. 2003. “Elephant Poaching and Resource Allocation for Law Enforcement.” Pp. 100–107 in The Trade in Wildlife: Regulations for Conservation, edited by Sara Oldfield. UK: Earthscan Publications.

———. 2008. “Illegal Wildlife Use and Protected Area Management in Ghana.” Biological Conservation 141:1906–1918.

Johnson, Shane D., Wim Bernasco, Kate J. Bowers, Henk Elffers, Jerry Ratcliffe, George Rengert, and Michael Townsley. 2007. “Space-Time Patterns of Risk: A Cross National Assessment of Residential Burglary Victimization.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23:201–219.

Kahler, Jessica S. and Meredith L. Gore. 2012. “Beyond the Cooking Pot and Pocket Book: Factors Influencing Noncompliance with Wildlife Poaching Rules.” International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 36:103–120.

Leader-Williams, N., S. D. Albon. and P. S. M. Berry. 1990. “Illegal Exploitation of Black Rhinoceros and Elephant Populations: Patterns of Decline, Law Enforcement and Patrol Effort in Luangwa Valley, Zambia.” Journal of Applied Ecology 27:1055–1087.

Lemieux, A. M., Wim Bernasco, Aggrey Rwetsiba, Nelson Guma, Margret Driciru, and Haruna K. Kirya. 2014.

“Tracking Poachers in Uganda: Spatial Models of Patrol Intensity Efficiency.” Pp. 120–153 in Situational Prevention of Poaching, edited by A. M. Lemieux. UK: Routledge.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. CA: SAGE Publications.

Lynch, Michael J. and Paul B. Stretesky. 2003. “The Meaning of Green: Contrasting Criminological Perspectives.”

Theoretical Criminology 7:217–238.

Maingi, John K., Joseph M. Mukeka, Daniel M. Kyale, and Robert M. Muasya. 2012. “Spatiotemporal Patterns of Elephant Poaching in South-Eastern Kenya.” Wildlife Research 39:234–249.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 2005. Qualitative Research Design (2nd ed). CA: SAGE Publications.

McMullan, John L. and David C. Perrier. 2002. “Lobster Poaching and the Ironies of Law Enforcement.” Law & Society Review 36:679–718.

McShane, T. O. 1990. “Wildlands and Human Needs: Resource Use in an African Protected Area.” Landscape and Urban Planning 19:145–158.

Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Milner-Gulland, E. J. and N. Leader-Williams. 1992. “Model of Incentives for the Illegal Exploitation of Black Rhinos and Elephants: Poaching Pays in Luangwa Valley, Zambia.” The Journal of Applied Ecology 29:388–401.

Moghari, N. M. 2009. A Survey of Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP) Communities’ Attitudes Toward Human-Lion Conflict and Lion Conservation. Doctoral dissertation. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA. Moreto, William D. and Ronald V. Clarke. 2011. “Reasoning Poachers: A General Typology.” Presented at the 20th Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis Symposium ( July 19–21). Durban, South Africa.

———. 2014. “Script Analysis of the Transnational Illegal Market in Endangered Species: Dream and Reality.” Pp. 209– 220 in Cognition and Crime: Offender Decision-Making and Script Analyses, edited by Benoit Leclerc and Richard Wortley. New York: Routledge.

Moreto, William D. and A. M. Lemieux. 2014. “From CRAVED to CAPTURED: Introducing a Product-Based Framework to Examine Illegal Wildlife Markets.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research (Online First). DOI:10.1007/s10610-014-9268-0 Muth, Robert M. and John F. Bowe, Jr. 1998. “Illegal Harvest of Renewable Natural Resources in North America: Toward a Typology of the Motivations for Poaching.” Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 11:9–24.

Nampindo, Simon and Andrew Plumptre. 2005. A Socio-Economic Assessment of Community Livelihoods in Areas Adjacent to Corridors Linking Queen Elizabeth National Park to Other Protected Areas in Western Uganda.

Kampala, Uganda: Wildlife Conservation Society, Albertine Rift Programme.

Newmark, William D. and John L. Hough. 2000. “Conserving Wildlife in Africa: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and Beyond.” BioScience 50:585–592.

Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Petrossian, Gohar A. and Ronald V. Clarke. 2014. “Examining and Controlling Illegal Commercial Fishing.” British Journal of Criminology 54:73–90.

Pires, Stephen F. and Ronald V. Clarke. 2012. “Are Parrots CRAVED? An Analysis of Parrot Poaching in Mexico.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49:122–146.

Downloaded by [University of Central Florida] at 11:39 16 October 2015

RANGER PERSPECTIVES ON POACHING

873

Pires, Stephen F. and William D. Moreto. 2011. “Preventing Wildlife Crimes: Solutions That Can Overcome the ‘Tragedy of the Commons.’” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 17:101–123.

Plumptre, Andrew J., Richard A. Fuller, Aggrey Rwentsiba, Fredrick Wanyama, Deo Kujirakwinja, Margaret Driciru, Grace Nangendo, James E. M. Watson, and Hugh P. Possingham. 2014. “Efficiently Targeting Resources to Deter Illegal Activities in Protected Areas.” Journal of Applied Ecology 51:714–725.

Quetelet, Adolphe. 1842/2013. A Treatise on Man and the Development of His Faculties. Lexington, KY: HP (Reprint from the collections of the University of California; original work published in 1842).

Ratcliffe, Jerry. 2002. “Aoristic Signatures and the Temporal Analysis of High Volume Crime Patterns.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18:23–43.

———. 2004. “The Hotspot Matrix: A Framework for Spatio-Temporal Targeting of Crime Reduction.” Police Practice and Research 5:5–23.

Raymakers, Caroline. 2002. Study on the Social and Economic Aspects of Illegal Fishing in the Caspian Sea. TRAFFIC Europe: WWF. Ritchie, Jane, Jane Lewis, and Gillian Elam. 2003. “Designing and Selecting Samples.” Pp. 77–108 in Qualitative Research and Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, edited by Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis. CA: SAGE Publications.

Saldaña, Johnny. 2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Schneider, Jacqueline L. 2012. Sold into Extinction: The Global Trade in Endangered Species. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Shepherd, Chris R. and Nolan Magnus. 2004. Nowhere to Hide: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia: WWF. Sherman, Lawrence W., Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger. 1989. “Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place.” Criminology 27:27–56.

South, Nigel and Tanya Wyatt. 2011. “Comparing Illicit Trades in Wildlife and Drugs: An Exploratory Study.” Deviant Behavior 32:538–561.

Stern, Marc J. 2008. “Coercion, Voluntary Compliance and Protest: The Role of Trust and Legitimacy in Combating Local Opposition to Protected Areas.” Environmental Conservation 35:200–210.

Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. CA: SAGE Publications.

Tailby, Rebecca. and Frances Gant. 2002. “The Illegal Market in Australian Abalone.” Australian Institute of Criminology: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 225. Research Paper. Australian Institute of Criminology.

Theile, Stephanie. 2003. Fading Footprints: The Killing and Trade of Snow Leopards. TRAFFIC International.

Townsley, Michael and Ken Pease. 2002. “Hot Spots and Cold Comfort: The Importance of Having a Working Thermometer.”

Pp. 59–70 in Analysis for Crime Prevention, Vol. 13, edited by Nick Tilley. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Van Koppen, Peter J., and Robert W.J. Jansen. 1999. “The Time to Rob: Variations in Time of Number of Commercial Robberies.” Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency 36:7–29.

Warchol, Greg L. 2004. “The Transnational Illegal Wildlife Trade.” Criminal Justice Studies 17:57–73.

Weisburd, David, Wim Bernasco, and Gerben J. N. Bruinsma, eds. 2009. Putting Crime in its Place: Units of Analysis in Geographic Criminology. New York: Springer.

Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). CA: SAGE Publications.

WILLIAM D. MORETO is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida and is a Visiting Scholar at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. His research interests include environmental criminology and crime science, crime prevention, GIS and spatiotemporal crime analysis, wildlife crime, and policing. His work has appeared in Justice Quarterly, the British Journal of Criminology, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, and Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation.

A. M. LEMIEUX is a Researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. His main areas of interest are the spatial and temporal distribution of crime, the use of technology to improve law enforcement operations, and anti-poaching operations in Africa.

View publication stats