← Back to home

Poaching

Poaching is the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals, a practice deeply intertwined with historical notions of land use rights. It's a term that conjures images of shadowy figures in moonlit forests, but its reality is far more complex, stretching back centuries and evolving with societal structures.

Historical Context

Historically, poaching was often a desperate act of survival for impoverished peasants. For them, it was a means to supplement meager diets and eke out an existence. This subsistence poaching stood in stark contrast to the exclusive hunting privileges enjoyed by the nobility and territorial rulers of the time, creating a persistent tension between the common folk and the landed gentry. The act of taking game was not merely about sustenance; it was a transgression against the established order, a subtle rebellion against the feudal system that dictated who could and could not hunt.

The advent of the 1980s saw the term "poaching" broaden its scope, extending beyond the realm of animal capture to encompass the illegal harvesting of wild plants as well. This expansion reflects a growing awareness of the multifaceted ways in which natural resources can be exploited. Furthermore, in agricultural contexts, "poaching" takes on a different meaning, referring to the damage inflicted on soils or grasslands by the hooves of livestock. This agricultural form of poaching can degrade land, leading to increased water runoff and pollution, and negatively impacting the welfare of the animals themselves. It's crucial to distinguish this from livestock theft, such as cattle raiding, which falls under the purview of theft, not poaching.

The global community has recognized the severity of this issue, with [United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 15](/Sustainable_Development_Goal_15) explicitly aiming to promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation, while also aiming to halt biodiversity loss. A key target within this goal is to take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity, and protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species. This includes tackling the pervasive problem of poaching and the illegal trafficking of protected flora and fauna, ensuring that these precious resources are available for both present and future generations. It’s a monumental task, one that requires a global effort and a deep understanding of the intricate web of factors that drive these illicit activities.

Legal Aspects

In 1998, a pivotal moment occurred when environmental scientists from the University of Massachusetts Amherst proposed a more formal conceptualization of poaching as an environmental crime. They defined it as any illegal activity that violates the laws and regulations established to protect renewable natural resources. This definition specifically includes the illegal harvest of wildlife with the explicit intention of possessing, transporting, consuming, or selling it, and utilizing its body parts. Their research underscored the profound threat poaching poses to the survival of plant and animal populations, a perspective echoed by wildlife biologists and conservationists worldwide. They view poaching as a direct assault on biodiversity, leading to the decline of wildlife populations both within and outside protected areas, the local depletion of species, and the disruption of vital ecosystem functions. It’s a cascade of negative consequences, each more devastating than the last.

Continental Europe

In nations like Austria and Germany, poaching is not simply considered theft, but rather an infringement upon the hunting rights of another party. The historical roots of this legal distinction can be traced back to ancient Germanic law, which, unlike Roman law that reserved hunting for rulers, generally permitted any free man, including peasants, to hunt, particularly on common land. However, during medieval Europe, rulers and territorial lords systematically attempted to enforce exclusive hunting and fishing rights for the nobility across their domains. While poaching was officially a serious crime, often punishable by imprisonment, its enforcement was notably lax until the 16th century. Even then, peasants were often permitted to hunt small game, but the nobility's hunting rights became increasingly restricted and eventually tied to land ownership. The rudimentary firearms of the era necessitated a close approach to game, often within 30 meters (100 feet). Poachers in regions like Salzburg were typically solitary figures, often unmarried men around 30 years of age, engaged in their clandestine trade.

The evolution of modern hunting rights is inextricably linked to the concept of exclusive private land ownership. During the 17th and 18th centuries, gamekeepers and foresters were employed to rigorously enforce restrictions on hunting and shooting rights on private properties. This often meant denying peasants traditional rights to forest usage, such as resin collection and wood pasture, and their right to hunt and fish. However, by the close of the 18th century, the increasing accessibility of rifles empowered peasants and servants to engage in poaching with greater frequency. Hunting itself was not merely a sport but also a theatrical clarification needed demonstration of aristocratic power and a significant influence on land use patterns. Poaching, therefore, not only encroached upon property rights but also served as a symbolic challenge to the authority of the nobility. The period between 1830 and 1848 witnessed a surge in poaching incidents and related fatalities in Bavaria. The German revolutions of 1848–49 were, in some interpretations, perceived as a tacit permission for poaching in Bavaria. However, the subsequent reform of hunting laws in 1849 disappointed the general public by restricting legal hunting to wealthy landowners and the middle classes who could afford hunting fees. This continued public sympathy for poachers persisted, particularly in frontier regions where smuggling was prevalent and resistance to state authority was strong. In 1849, Bavarian military forces were deployed to quell disturbances in several municipalities bordering Austria. In areas like Wallgau (now part of Garmisch-Partenkirchen) and Lackenhäuser in the Bavarian forest, each household was compelled to house a soldier for a month as part of a military mission to suppress unrest. The inhabitants of Lackenhäuser engaged in skirmishes with Austrian foresters and military personnel, often stemming from incidents involving poached deer. These well-armed individuals, defiant against state representatives, became known as bold poachers (kecke Wilderer).

Certain poachers, such as Matthias Klostermayr (1736–1771), Georg Jennerwein (1848–1877), and Pius Walder (1952–1982), achieved a notoriety that transcended their criminal activities, becoming figures of legend and leaving a significant cultural imprint that endures to this day. Poaching also became a form of daring, imbued with a certain erotic allure, as seen in Franz Schubert's Hunter's love song (1828, Schubert Thematic Catalogue 909). The lyrics, penned by Franz von Schober, romanticized unlimited hunting as a metaphor for the pursuit of love. Further legends and stories surrounding poaching emerged, from the 1821 opera Freischütz to Wolfgang Franz von Kobell's 1871 tale of the Brandner Kasper, a Tegernsee locksmith and poacher who famously struck a deal with the Grim Reaper. [5]

While poachers enjoyed considerable local support well into the early 20th century, the case of Pius Walder marked a discernible shift in public attitudes. Although urban dwellers might still harbor some sympathy for the romanticized image of the rural rebel, local communities began to demonstrate less support.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, poaching, much like smuggling, has a deeply ingrained history. The very verb "poach" originates from the [Middle English](/Middle English) word "pocchen," meaning "bagged" or "enclosed in a bag," a term linguistically related to "pouch." [17] [18]

Early records of poaching in England appear dispassionately in documents like "Pleas of the Forest," detailing transgressions against the stringent Anglo-Norman forest law. William the Conqueror, an avid hunter, established and rigorously enforced these laws. Operating outside the framework of common law, this system was designed to protect game animals and their forest habitats from the common populace, while exclusively reserving hunting rights for the newly arrived French-speaking Anglo-Norman aristocracy. Consequently, any commoner caught hunting game in royal forests faced the severe penalty of hanging. The indignation of the English people at these draconian laws was captured in the 1087 poem "The Rime of King William," found within the Peterborough Chronicle.

Poaching was often romanticized in literature, notably in the ballads of Robin Hood, becoming an integral part of the idealized "greenwood" of Merry England. One narrative depicts Robin Hood offering King Richard the Lion Heart venison obtained from deer illegally hunted in Sherwood Forest, with the King tacitly overlooking the fact that such an act constituted a capital offense. The widespread societal acceptance of this criminal activity is encapsulated in the observation attributed to Guillaume Budé in his Traitte de la vénerie: "Non est inquirendum, unde venit venison" ("It is not to be inquired, whence comes the venison"). [20]

However, over the long term, the English nobility and landowners proved exceptionally successful in solidifying the modern concept of private property. This was powerfully manifested in the enclosures of common land and, later, the Highland Clearances, both of which involved the forced displacement of people from their traditional land tenancies and communal territories. The 19th century saw the proliferation of legislative acts, such as the Night Poaching Act 1828 and the Game Act 1831 (1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32) in the United Kingdom, alongside similar laws enacted in other jurisdictions. [ citation needed ]

United States

In North America, the blatant defiance of hunting laws by poachers escalated at times into armed confrontations with law enforcement. Notable examples include the Oyster Wars in the Chesapeake Bay and the joint US-British Bering Sea Anti-Poaching Operations of 1891, which targeted the hunting of seals. During the 1930s in the Chesapeake Bay, one of the most significant threats to waterfowl came from local poachers utilizing flat boats equipped with swivel cannons capable of killing entire flocks with a single shot. [21] [22] [23]

Violations of hunting laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife management, as well as breaches of local or international wildlife conservation schemes, are classified as wildlife crimes and are typically subject to legal penalties. [24] [25] In the US, the following acts are considered poaching offenses:

Africa

Stephen Corry, the director of the human rights group Survival International, has argued that the term "poaching" has, at times, been weaponized to criminalize the traditional subsistence practices of indigenous peoples. This often occurs when their ancestral lands are designated as wildlife-only zones, effectively barring them from hunting. Corry contends that parks like the Central Kalahari Game Reserve are managed primarily for the benefit of foreign tourists and safari groups, often to the detriment of the livelihoods of indigenous peoples such as the Kalahari bushmen. [28] [29]

Motives

Sociological and criminological research into poaching reveals a diverse array of motivations. In North America, individuals engage in poaching for various reasons, including commercial gain, home consumption, the acquisition of trophies, personal pleasure, the thrill of killing wildlife, or as a form of protest against specific hunting regulations. Some claim a traditional right to hunt, while others harbor negative dispositions toward legal authority. [6] In rural areas of the United States, poverty is frequently identified as a primary driver of poaching. Interviews with 41 poachers in the Atchafalaya River basin in Louisiana indicated that a significant majority (37) hunted to provide food for their families. Eleven participants cited poaching as part of their personal or cultural heritage, nine earned money from selling poached game to support their families, and eight admitted to experiencing exhilaration and thrill from outsmarting game wardens. [31]

In rural Africa, the lack of employment opportunities and limited potential for agriculture and livestock production are key motivators for poaching. Impoverished communities often rely on natural resources for their survival, generating cash income through the sale of bushmeat, which commands high prices in urban centers. Furthermore, body parts of wildlife are in demand for traditional medicine and ceremonial purposes. [10]

The existence of a robust international market for poached wildlife fuels the operations of well-organized gangs of professional poachers. These groups often infiltrate vulnerable areas to hunt, and crime syndicates orchestrate the trafficking of wildlife body parts through complex networks to markets far beyond their countries of origin. [32] [33] The link between armed conflict in Africa and intensified poaching, leading to significant wildlife declines within protected areas, is also a concerning factor. This is likely exacerbated by the disruption of traditional livelihoods, forcing people to seek alternative food sources. [34]

Surveys conducted in villages across Tanzania suggest that a primary reason for poaching is the consumption and sale of bushmeat. [35] Bushmeat is often considered a subset of poaching due to the hunting of animals irrespective of conservation laws. Families are more likely to consume bushmeat when alternative protein sources, such as fish, are unavailable. [36] Proximity to reserves also plays a role; families living further from reserves were less likely to engage in illegal wildlife hunting for bushmeat. Poaching for bushmeat often increased before the harvest season, when agricultural work was scarce, and during periods of heavy rainfall, which obscured human tracks and made it easier for poachers to evade detection. [37]

Poverty appears to be a significant driving force behind poaching, affecting both African and Asian populations. In Thailand, for instance, anecdotal accounts reveal that the aspiration for a better life for their children compels rural poachers to risk engaging in illegal activities, even if they personally disapprove of exploiting wildlife. [38]

Another major contributor to poaching is the cultural demand for wildlife products, such as ivory, which are perceived as status symbols and indicators of wealth in China. According to Joseph Vandegrift, China experienced a marked increase in ivory demand during the 21st century. The economic boom empowered a growing middle class with greater purchasing power, leading many to display their newfound wealth through the use of ivory, a commodity that has been considered rare since the Han dynasty. [39]

In China, significant challenges exist in wildlife conservation, particularly concerning tigers. A collaborative study, "Public attitude toward tiger farming and tiger conservation in Beijing, China," explored whether tiger farming or conservation in natural habitats offered a superior strategy for species preservation. A survey of 1,058 Beijing residents, comprising 381 university students and 677 general citizens, aimed to gauge public opinion on tigers and conservation efforts. While questions covered ecological, scientific, educational, aesthetic, and cultural values, one key reason for the persistent demand for tigers in the illegal trade emerged: culturally, tigers remain potent symbols of wealth for the upper class, and they are still believed to possess mysterious medicinal and healthcare properties. [40]

Effects

The detrimental impact of poaching is far-reaching and multifaceted:

  • Defaunation of forests: Predators, herbivores, and fruit-eating vertebrates are removed from forest ecosystems at rates faster than their populations can recover. This decline alters patterns of seed predation and dispersal, leading to a dominance of tree species with large seeds and the local extinction of smaller-seeded plant species. [41]
  • Reduction of animal populations and potential extinction: Poaching directly contributes to the decline of animal populations in the wild, pushing many species towards the brink of extinction. [42]
  • Reduced effectiveness of protected areas: The effective size of protected areas is diminished as poachers exploit the edges of these zones as open-access resources, undermining conservation efforts. [43]
  • Impact on wildlife tourism: Destinations reliant on wildlife tourism suffer negative publicity. Businesses holding permits for wildlife-based land uses, including tour operators and lodging providers, experience income losses, and employment opportunities are curtailed. [10]
  • Emergence of zoonotic diseases: The transmission of highly variable retrovirus chains can lead to the emergence of zoonotic diseases:

Products

The trade in poached wildlife products is driven by a complex interplay of traditional beliefs, cultural practices, and economic incentives.

The body parts of numerous animals, including tigers and rhinoceroses, are believed in some cultures to possess medicinal properties, such as enhancing virility or curing cancer. These parts are then channeled into the black market, primarily in Asian countries, particularly Vietnam and China, where these beliefs are prevalent. [48] It is crucial to note that such alternative medical practices are often pseudoscientific and lack support from evidence-based medicine. [49] [50]

Traditional Chinese medicine frequently incorporates ingredients derived from all parts of plants—leaves, stems, flowers, and roots—as well as animal and mineral components. The use of parts from endangered species, such as seahorses, rhinoceros horns, binturongs, pangolin scales, and tiger bones and claws, has ignited considerable controversy and fueled a black market operated by poachers. [51] [52] [53] Deep-seated cultural beliefs regarding the efficacy of tiger parts are so widespread across China and other East Asian nations that laws protecting even critically endangered species like the Sumatran tiger have proven insufficient to halt the open display and sale of these items in markets, according to a 2008 report by TRAFFIC. [54] Among the most sought-after "medicinal" tiger parts from poached animals are tiger genitals, believed to improve virility, and tiger eyes.

Rhino populations are critically endangered due to demand in Asia (for traditional medicine and as a luxury item) and in the Middle East (where horns are used for decorative purposes). [55] A sharp increase in demand for rhino horn in Vietnam was fueled by unsubstantiated rumors that the horn could cure cancer. [56] [57] In 2012, one kilogram of crushed rhino horn fetched prices as high as $60,000, exceeding the value of gold. [58] Vietnam is notably the only nation that mass-produces bowls specifically designed for grinding rhino horn. [59]

Ivory, a natural material derived from the tusks of various animals, plays a significant role in the illegal trade of animal materials and poaching. Ivory is a material prized for crafting art objects and jewelry, often intricately carved with elaborate designs. China is a major consumer in the ivory trade, accounting for a substantial portion of ivory sales. In 2012, The New York Times reported a significant surge in ivory poaching, with approximately 70% of all illegal ivory destined for China. [60] [61]

Fur is another natural material highly sought after by poachers. A Gamsbart, which translates to "chamois beard," is a tuft of hair traditionally worn as a decoration on trachten-hats in the alpine regions of Austria and Bavaria. Historically, it was exclusively crafted from the hair of a chamois's lower neck and served as a hunting (and poaching) trophy. [62]

Anti-poaching Efforts

Various anti-poaching initiatives are underway globally. Some research suggests that these efforts may be more effective in improving populations affected by poaching than the expansion of protected areas alone. [63] [64]

Africa

The Traffic conservation programme endeavors to illuminate poaching hotspots and trafficking routes, aiding in the disruption of smuggling networks used by poachers to transport ivory to high-demand markets, predominantly in Asia. [65]

An estimated 35,000 African elephants are slaughtered annually to satisfy the demand for their ivory tusks, which are then used in the creation of jewelry, musical instruments, and other decorative items. [66]

In South Africa, members of the Rhino Rescue Project have implemented a novel technique to combat rhino poaching. This involves injecting a mixture of indelible dye and a parasiticide into the animals' horns. This method allows for the tracking of horns and deters potential buyers from consuming them, as rhino horn is composed of keratin, and advocates claim the procedure is painless for the animal. [ citation needed ]

Another strategy employed to counter rhino poachers in Africa is RhODIS, a database that compiles rhino DNA from confiscated horns and other illegally traded items, as well as DNA recovered from poaching sites. RhODIS cross-references this DNA to identify matches, aiding in the apprehension of poachers.

Africa's Wildlife Trust is dedicated to protecting African elephant populations from poaching activities in Tanzania. Although the hunting of elephants for ivory was banned in 1989, poaching continues in many parts of Africa grappling with economic decline. The International Anti-Poaching Foundation adopts a structured, military-like approach to conservation, utilizing tactics and technology often associated with the battlefield. Its founder, Damien Mander, advocates for the deployment of military equipment and technologies, including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, in military-style anti-poaching operations. [67] [68] [69] While these militarized approaches have been criticized for failing to address the root causes of poaching and for not tackling the "role of global trading networks" or the persistent demand for animal products, proponents argue they are necessary for effective conservation. Critics contend that such methods "result in coercive, unjust and counterproductive approaches to wildlife conservation." [70]

Chengeta Wildlife is an organization focused on equipping and training wildlife protection teams and lobbying African governments to implement anti-poaching campaigns. [71]

Jim Nyamu's elephant walks, held in Kenya, are part of broader efforts to reduce ivory poaching. [72]

In 2013, Tanzania's Minister of Natural Resources and Tourism called for poachers to be shot on sight as a measure to combat the rampant killing of elephants. [73] Since December 2016, anti-poaching police units in Namibia are authorized to use lethal force against poachers if fired upon. [74] The government of Botswana implemented a shoot-to-kill policy against poachers in 2013, characterizing it as a "legitimate conservation strategy" and a "necessary evil." This policy is credited with reducing poaching to near-zero levels in the country, prompting calls for neighboring nations like South Africa to adopt similar measures to protect wildlife from extinction. [75] [76] In May 2018, the Kenyan government announced that poachers would face the death penalty, stating that existing penalties of fines and life imprisonment had proven insufficient deterrents. [77] While human rights organizations oppose this stance, wildlife advocates support it. Save the Rhino, a UK-based wildlife advocacy organization, noted that in Kenya, 23 rhinos and 156 elephants were killed by poachers between 2016 and 2017. As of March 2019, Kenyan lawmakers were fast-tracking the implementation of this measure. [78]

Asia

Significant quantities of ivory are periodically destroyed in symbolic acts against poaching, a practice known as "ivory crush". [79] In 2013, the Philippines became the first country to destroy its national stock of seized ivory. [80] In 2014, China followed suit, crushing six tons of ivory in a symbolic demonstration against poaching. [81] [82]

According to Frederick Chen, two primary strategies can address the supply side of the poaching problem: strengthening and enacting more conservation policies and laws, and empowering local communities to protect wildlife by granting them enhanced land rights. [40]

However, Chen also discusses the influence of demand-side economics, specifically the bandwagon and snob effects. The bandwagon effect occurs when people desire a product because it is popular, while the snob effect involves individuals seeking out items that signify exclusivity and wealth affordable only to a select few. Consequently, the snob effect could potentially counteract the gains made by anti-poaching laws and regulations. If a portion of the supply is restricted, the rarity and price of the item may increase, making it even more desirable to a limited group with the purchasing power. While supply-side interventions might not be the most effective solution, especially in countries experiencing economic growth and thus increased demand for illicit goods, Chen advocates for a concurrent focus on reducing consumer demand for these products as a more comprehensive approach to combating poaching. [83] Indeed, evidence suggests that interventions aimed at reducing consumer demand may be more effective in curbing poaching than continuous increased policing efforts. [84] Nevertheless, very few organizations that implement demand-reduction interventions rigorously evaluate their impact. [85]

Another proposed solution, outlined in Tigers of the World, involves implementing a multilateral strategy that targets various stakeholders to conserve wild tiger populations. This approach includes collaborating with different agencies to combat and prevent poaching, as organized crime syndicates profit significantly from tiger poaching and trafficking. Therefore, raising public awareness and enhancing protection and investigative techniques are essential. For example, conservation groups have increased awareness among park rangers and local communities regarding the impact of tiger poaching through targeted advertising campaigns designed to resonate with the intended audience. The use of more graphic imagery to highlight the disparity between tigers in their natural habitat and as commodities proved impactful in galvanizing public opinion against poaching and indifference. The involvement of spokespeople such as Jackie Chan and other prominent Asian actors and models who advocated against poaching has also bolstered the conservation movement for tigers. [38]

In July 2019, rhino horns encased in plaster were seized in Vietnam during transit from the United Arab Emirates. Despite a trade ban in place since the 1970s, rhino horn poaching levels have escalated over the past decade, pushing rhino populations into crisis. [86]

Poaching in both Africa and China stems from a multitude of causes. It is not a simple issue to resolve, as traditional anti-poaching methods have often overlooked the impact of poverty on poachers and the substantial profits generated by organized crime syndicates involved in illegal wildlife trafficking. Conservationists hold out hope that the emerging multilateral approach, which integrates the public, conservation groups, and law enforcement, will prove successful in safeguarding the future of these species. [87] [88]

United States

In the United States, some game wardens have employed robotic decoy animals in high-visibility areas. These decoys are designed to lure poachers into shooting them, thereby facilitating their arrest. [89] Robotic decoys programmed to mimic natural animal movements are also utilized by law enforcement agencies. [90] The Marine Monitor radar system is deployed to monitor sensitive marine areas for illicit vessel activity. [91]

See Also