Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:11 pm
Time: 8:11 pm
Results for illegal hunting
24 results foundAuthor: Martin, Esmond Title: The ivory markets of East Asia Summary: This monograph reports on a survey of the ivory trade in four East Asian nations and one Special Administrative Region: China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong. The purpose of the survey was to establish a set of baseline indicators on aspects of the trade in the selected countries. From this, conservationists will be able to monitor and evaluate future changes, in accordance with CITES Resolution Conf 10.10 (Rev.). The target users are national government officers, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) involved in wildlife conservation, and CITES officials. The information in this report can be used to assess the effectiveness of policies, laws and enforcement activities related to ivory trading nationally and internationally. The data can also be used to infer the demand for illegal ivory, which is correlated with elephant poaching. Two investigators working independently between March and May and in December 2002 carried out the surveys. Martin visited Japan and Hong Kong while Stiles covered China, South Korea and Taiwan. The main findings were: - Over 54,000 ivory items were seen in 413 retail outlets in the 11 cities visited. - Hong Kong had by far the most (35,884), followed by China (9,096 in three cities) and then Japan (7,565 in two cities). Taiwan (1,849 in four cities) and South Korea (36 in Seoul) had small quantities of ivory items. - Japan has the most active legal ivory carving industry in East Asia. Most ivory is used to make name seals (~80%), followed by musical instrument parts (10%). - Almost all Japan's worked ivory production is bought locally and stays in Japan. - The most expensive raw and worked ivory is in Japan. Beijing, China, has intermediately expensive worked ivory, while Guangzhou, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taiwanese cities have roughly comparable, lower prices of worked ivory. - China has emerged as the main ivory manufacturing centre for all Asia, surpassing Hong Kong and Japan. Often with the involvement of Hong Kong businessmen, smuggling rings import African ivory, process it, and re-export it through Hong Kong and Macau to Europe, Japan, North America, Singapore and Thailand (the order of importance is unknown). China is probably also the only country in East Asia that has more worked ivory retail outlets now than in 1990. - China had the largest illegal ivory industry in East Asia and was the main destination of illicit African ivory in 2002. Small, private ivory workshops have replaced the larger, governmentowned factories since 1990. These arc unlicensed to deal with ivory and are therefore illegal. Most are located in Guangdong Province. They often use mammoth ivory, bone and stone as cover for elephant ivory working and exports. - Foreigners buy most of China's ivory items. They purchase it either in China or in neighbouring countries. Chinese nationals have been increasing their share of ivory purchases since 1990 as the economy grows. - Both Taiwan and South Korea were primarily transit and/or processing and re-export centres for ivory in the 1 980s and 1 990s. Today the ivory industry of Taiwan is dying and it is already dead in South Korea because of lower global demand for ivory products and increased government law enforcement. - The main buyers of East Asian worked ivory are ethnic Chinese of various nationalities and Japanese. Europeans and Americans also continue to buy worked ivory in Asia. - The internal ivory markets of all the countries surveyed have declined considerably since the CITES ivory international trade ban in 1990. The number of ivory craftsmen has plummeted in East Asia from about 2,200 in 1989 to fewer than 300 in 2002. Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea have no full-time ivory carvers. - The CITES-approved raw ivory sales to Japan from southern Africa in 1999 were not seen as important by ivory dealers outside Japan. Non-Japanese traders interviewed did not think it heralded a relaxing of the international ivory trade ban. Most ivory business people in East Africa were pessimistic about the future of the industry. Taiwanese vendors of worked ivory (the only ones interviewed after the CITES 12th Conference of the Parties in 2002) were not even aware that a second one-off southern African ivory auction had been approved for 2004, subject to certain conditions. - East Asian ivory business people attribute the decline in the industry to the activities of Western conservationists and journalists, which have resulted in a significant drop in Western buyers, who previously were the principal customers. They do not see this situation as susceptible to change. - In recent years East Asian governments have begun to pay more attention to controlling the ivory trade. China and Taiwan, in particular, have introduced new laws and have increased efforts to stop illegal ivory imports and to prosecute smugglers. - More needs to be done by East Asian governments to control effectively the ivory trade and to implement recommendations made in CITES Resolution 10.10 (Rev. CoP 12) and CITES Resolution 12.39. Details: London: Save the Elephants, 2003, 112p. Source: Internet Source: Accessed April 13, 2018 at: http://www.traffic.org/publications/the-ivory-markets-of-east-asia.html?no_redirect=true Year: 2003 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.traffic.org/publications/the-ivory-markets-of-east-asia.html?no_redirect=true Shelf Number: 116671 Keywords: AsiaIllegalIllegal HuntingIllegal tradeIvoryPoachingTransnational Crime |
Author: Nellemann, Christian Title: The Last Stand of the Gorilla: Environmental Crime and Conflict in the Congo Basin Summary: Gorillas are under renewed threat across the Congo Basin from Nigeria to the Albertine Rift: poaching for bushmeat, loss of habitat due to agricultural expansion, degradation of habitat from logging, mining and charcoal production are amongst these threats, in addition to natural epidemics such as ebola and the new risk of diseases passed from humans to gorillas. Details: Arendal, Norway: United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, 2010. 86p. Source: A Rapid Response Assessment Year: 2010 Country: Africa URL: Shelf Number: 118173 Keywords: Illegal HuntingOffenses Against the EnvironmentPoaching |
Author: TRAFFIC Title: What's Driving the Wildlife Trade? A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDF and Vietnam Summary: South-east Asia is both a center for the comsumption of wildlife products, and also a key supplier of wildlife products to the world. Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and Vietnam are among the south-east Asian countries that act as major sources of wildlife in trade, the trade involving a wide variety of native species, which, in many cases, are declining as a result of unsustainable, and often illegal, harvest. This study was initiated to provide a better understanding of the economic and social drivers of the wildlife trade in these four countries, and to assess the effectiveness of interventions that have been employed to halt illegal and unsustainable trade in their native flora and fauna. Details: Washington, DC: Sustainable Development Bank, World Bank, 2008. 103p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: Asia URL: Shelf Number: 118609 Keywords: Illegal HuntingIllegal TradeOffenses Against the EnvironmentWild Animal TradeWildlife Crime (Asia) |
Author: Hastle, Jo Title: Back in Business: Elephant Poaching and the Ivory Black Markets of Asia Summary: This report presents a catalogue of ivory seizures during calendar year 2002. Sections of the report include: The Singapore Seizure; China's Emerging Ivory Market; The Impact on Elephant Populations; Illegal Ivory on the Move; and Conclusions and Recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: Environmental Investigation Agency, 2002. 25p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2002 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 118754 Keywords: Elephant PoachingIllegal HuntingIvorySmugglingWildlife Crime |
Author: International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Title: Wrap Up the Trade: An International Campaign to Save the Endangered Tibetan Antelope Summary: This report documents the international scope of the illegal trade in Tibetan antelope wool from China and shawls from India - a trade that may force the extinction of the Tibetan antelope. Details: Yarmouth Port, MA: IFAW; New Delhi: WTI, 2001. 79p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2001 Country: Asia URL: Shelf Number: 118628 Keywords: Illegal HuntingIllegal TradeWildlife Crime |
Author: van Vliet, Nathalie Title: Livelihood Alternatives for the Unsustainable Use of Bushmeat Summary: The scale of current hunting is a serious threat to many forest species and ecosystems across the world. This threatens both people and the biodiversity they rely upon. The meat of wild animals has long been a part of the staple diet of forest dwelling peoples and remains a primary source of animal protein for the majority of forest families. Increasingly it can also constitute a significant source of revenue particularly where the trade is driven by increased bushmeat consumption in urban areas. In some areas bushmeat also plays a role in the cultural and spiritual identity of indigenous peoples. Acquisition of animal parts as cultural artefacts, for personal adornment or for hunting trophies is still a widespread practice throughout tropical forest regions and the rest of the world. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has identified unsustainable hunting of ‘bushmeat’, and its effect on non-target species, as a priority for action, with the development of small-scale alternatives to the unsustainable bushmeat harvest and trade of paramount importance. In June 2011, CBD and CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) held a joint workshop to recommend national and international actions to address the most pressing needs surrounding the ‘bushmeat’ crisis. CMS also attended this meeting. The publication lists possible options for small-scale alternatives to the unsustainable use of bushmeat, describes examples of success stories and lessons learned in Africa, Latin America and Asia/Pacific, and provides recommendations relevant at regional and global level. Details: Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; London: TRAFFIC, 2011. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: CBD Technical Series No. 60: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-60-en.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-60-en.pdf Shelf Number: 123188 Keywords: BushmeatIllegal HuntingIllegal Trade, WildlifeWildlife Conservation |
Author: Kessler, Bryce R. Title: Perceptions of Texas Parks & Wildlife Game Wardens about Effectiveness of Law Enforcement Programs Summary: Conserving wildlife and wildlife habitat for future generations has been very important in America. The decline, if not extinction, of native wildlife have become major issues in the conservation field. Youth are vulnerable to following the practices of a society and youth are the future in protecting and conserving natural resources. Illegal hunting and fishing have caused the extinction or demise of many wildlife species. Law enforcement at both federal and state levels has been addressing wildlife crimes for well over a hundred years. Natural resource law enforcement programs are used every day in order to protect this nations’ wildlife for future generations. In Texas, the Texas Parks and Wildlife game wardens have been tasked with protecting Texas’ natural resources. This study was created in order to find out the perceptions of Texas Parks and Wildlife game wardens about effectiveness of law enforcement programs within the department. A survey was sent to game wardens throughout the state of Texas to find out the effectiveness of the following law enforcement programs: fish patrol, game patrol, Operation Game Thief, and educational programs. The effectiveness of the above programs was based on six categories of effectiveness. The six categories of effectiveness used were specific deterrence, general deterrence, detection, cost effectiveness, public support, and Operation Game Thief. Game wardens ranked each program on how well they perceived the program in being effective. An additional survey was added to this research paper as exploratory research in order to explore possible concerns about recruitment and retention within the Texas Parks and Wildlife Division of Law Enforcement. The four law enforcement programs studied received above average support from game wardens throughout the state. Fish and game patrol were considered the most effective in the perception of effectiveness categories. Even though Operation Game Thief and educational programs were considered to be less effective, the programs were still supported by a majority of game wardens. The recruitment and retention survey illustrated that a large number of game wardens were concerned about recruitment and retention within the Texas Parks & Wildlife Law Enforcement Division. Details: San Marcos, Texas: Texas State University-San Marcos, 2005. Source: Applied Research Project, Paper 5, Master's Thesis: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 124175 Keywords: Illegal HuntingLaw EnforcementOffenses Against the EnvironmentWildlife Crime Illegal Fishing |
Author: Lindsey, Peter Title: Illegal Hunting and the Bushmeat Trade in Central Mozambique. A Case-study from Coutada 9, Manica Province Summary: A new TRAFFIC study finds that illegal hunting and the bushmeat trade have resulted in a major decline in wildlife populations in Central Mozambique, significantly undermining potential for viable wildlife-based land uses and resulting in the loss of a traditional source of protein for local communities. The study of Coutada 9 found that wildlife populations in the 4,450 square km protected area in Manica province are currently less than 10% of what the area could support, with several species, including rhinoceroses, Roan Antelopes African Wild Dogs locally extirpated through illegal hunting. Significantly reducing such illegal hunting and allowing wildlife populations to recover would allow the generation of significant economic benefits through trophy hunting and potentially ecotourism. In addition, an additional 86 tonnes of wild meat could be generated from Coutada 9, if hunting was limited to regulated harvesting based on a quota system. “The implications for the food security of local people are obvious, while restoring wildlife populations would have clear conservation benefits too,” said David Newton, Director of TRAFFIC’s East and Southern Africa programme. According to the report, Illegal hunting and the bushmeat trade in Central Mozambique (PDF, 2.1 MB), illegal hunting over time is now costing local communities an estimated USD308,000 per year in lost opportunities, while the current annual cost of anti-poaching measures in Coutada 9 amounts to USD60,000. The estimated annual loss of potential income from safari hunting totals USD1.62 million per year. “Illegal hunting is an extremely inefficient use of wildlife resources because it fails to capture the value of wildlife achievable through alternative forms of use such as trophy hunting and ecotourism,” said Peter Lindsey, author of the new study. “By undermining earnings from wildlife-based land uses, and reducing the supply of legal game meat, illegal hunting is costing local people dearly.” According to the study, illegal hunting is most commonly practiced with the use of dogs and muzzle-loaders, and large gin traps made from car leaf springs, while those carrying out the hunting are typically local poor, food-insecure men in their 30s and 40s. Illegal hunting is indiscriminate and the gin traps used kill females, young animals and non-target species. Predators seem particularly affected, and numerous cases of lions lacking toes or even whole paws have been observed. Sometimes animals suffer for days after being caught in the home-made traps; in 2009, a young elephant was observed in Coutada 9 dragging a gin trap which had closed on its foot. Over a five-year period, an estimated 3,500–4000 gin traps were confiscated and disposed of in Coutada 9. Although some illegally sourced meat is consumed by hunters, most is sold in villages or along roads within 50 km of Coutada 9, with some sold to middlemen, who transport it to more distant urban centres. Typical buyers of bushmeat are those with a cash income, such as businesspeople or teachers. However, according to the report “government officials and police are known to purchase bushmeat despite the clear illegality of the source, creating a conflict of interest which may discourage effective policing of illegal hunting.” The report makes a number of recommendations, particularly aimed at both government and the hunting operators who lease coutadas in Central Mozambique. The Mozambique government is advised to conduct land-use planning and zoning in coutadas to provide for a rational alignment of wildlife areas and that used for settlement and agriculture. In addition, efforts are needed to re-stock the depleted coutada hunting blocks with wildlife to allow for viable wildlife-based land uses. There is also a need for more effective enforcement of laws pertaining to illegal hunting. Hunting operators who lease coutadas should be “encouraged to invest in the development of sustainable and mutually profitable projects involving communities, to provide alternative livelihood options for illegal hunters,” and “required to provide a sustainable legal supply of affordable game meat to communities, as an alternative to illegally sourced supply,” says the report. “Above all, this study amply demonstrates that planned, sustainable use of the wildlife resources available in Central Mozambique makes perfect sense from a human welfare, conservation and economic perspective, but that several changes are needed to achieve these aims,” said Newton. Details: Harare, Zimbabwe: TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa., 2012. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 14, 2012 at: http://www.traffic.org/home/2012/5/9/illegal-hunting-undermining-food-security-and-wildlife-based.html Year: 2012 Country: Mozambique URL: http://www.traffic.org/home/2012/5/9/illegal-hunting-undermining-food-security-and-wildlife-based.html Shelf Number: 125262 Keywords: Bushmeat TradeIllegal HuntingWildlife Crime |
Author: Neale, Ezra Title: Elephant Meat Trade in Central Africa: Central African Republic Case Study Summary: The unsustainable trade of wild meat (‘bushmeat’) has placed significant pressures on populations of wild animals and is recognized by conservationists as a main threat to the preservation of regional biodiversity (Wilkie & Carpenter, 1999; Nasi, et al., 2008). In Central Africa, the African forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) has been widely hunted for its tusks and more recently for its meat, threatening its future survival (Blake, et al., 2007). This pilot study was instigated by the Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programme of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and is being implemented by the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG). It seeks to explore the many causes and motivations driving the illegal killing of elephants, particularly the trade and commerce of elephant meat and ivory. This pilot study aims to lay the groundwork for a long-term study that will explore the meat and ivory trade around the Dzanga Sangha Complex (DSC) in the Central African Republic (CAR). This study was a preliminary survey aimed at laying the groundwork for future long-term work on the impact of elephant meat and ivory trade on illegal elephant killing. The study focused on engaging local stakeholders to build awareness of the goals and objectives of the pilot study, selecting study sites that had high potential to yield useful information, developing and testing data collection tools with research assistants (RAs), and formulating recommendations regarding how best to carry out a long-term study in the Dzanga Sangha Complex MIKE monitoring site. The objectives were to: • establish institutional support and working relationships with cooperating governmental and international and national organizations involved in biodiversity conservation in CAR; • identify international consultants, national experts, technical advisors and field assistants that could contribute usefully to project goals; • test the draft methodology developed by IUCN/SSC AfESG under field conditions with a view to refining the methods and data variables in order to produce improved results in future; • identify the priority data collection localities; • produce a set of quantitative and qualitative data that would present an initial depiction of the causes and circumstances of illegal elephant killing in the project sites; and • generate the information necessary to plan a well focused project, second phase, in which all of the parameters for successful research would be in place. Details: Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2011. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/SSC-OP-045-002.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Central African Republic URL: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/SSC-OP-045-002.pdf Shelf Number: 125467 Keywords: BushmeatElephantsIllegal HuntingWildlife Crime (Central African Republic) |
Author: Stiles, Daniel Title: Elephant Meat Trade in Central Africa: Summary Report Summary: An initial assessment of the 2001-2009 carcass database of the CITES Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programme suggests that the trade in elephant meat, especially in the central African subregion, may be an important factor underlying the illegal killing of elephants. The dynamics, scale and impact of the trade in elephant meat are not well understood and more information is required, both to improve the information in MIKE and the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) and to assist with the development of appropriate management solutions. In the forested countries of the central African subregion, a complex and interconnected variety of development activities take place, such as timber harvesting, mining, building of supporting infrastructure (e.g. roads, schools, clinics) and the inflow of foreign nationals. These attract an influx of immigrants seeking work, both national and foreign, who depend heavily on bushmeat for protein. With little law enforcement capacity and weak governance structures, there is a very real threat to many local elephant populations. At present the primary factors and dynamics in the illegal offtake of elephants in Central Africa and, in particular, the use of not only ivory but also meat, are assumed but not well understood. A deeper knowledge of the scale and extent of the killing and how the ivory and meat markets are interlinked is urgently needed. Therefore gaining greater understanding of these trade dynamics could help to ascertain the key drivers behind the loss of elephants and other species. African elephant range States of the Central African subregion comprise Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, Republic of Congo (ROC), Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. CITES MIKE has requested the assistance of the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) to implement the ‘Elephant Meat Trade in Central Africa Project’. Objectives The overall objective of the study is to enhance knowledge of contemporary elephant meat market dynamics, patterns and trends in Central African countries by undertaking an elephant meat trade impact study. The results aim to establish a baseline data set of variables that can subsequently be monitored to assess trends in meat and ivory trade at the site level. The findings of this study also aim to offer contributions to satisfy elements in CITES Decision 13.11 ‘Bushmeat’, Decision 14.78 (Rev. CoP15), which concern updating information relating to the status of elephant conservation and the data that MIKE is collecting, and Decision 15.74, which is an evaluation of the need to revise CITES Resolution 10.10 (Rev. CoP 15) ‘Trade in Elephant Specimens’. Details: Gland, Switzerland: International union for Conservation of Nature, 2011. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2012 at: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ssc_op_045.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Africa URL: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ssc_op_045.pdf Shelf Number: 125468 Keywords: BushmeatElephantsIllegal HuntingWildlife Crime (Africa) |
Author: Randolph, Shannon Title: Elephant Meat Trade in Central Africa: Cameroon Case Study Summary: The pilot study presented in this report is part of an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) project initiated by the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programme of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The project aims to improve understanding of the impact of elephant meat trade on elephant populations in Central Africa. Case studies were carried out in Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR), Republic of Congo (ROC) and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This Cameroon case study elaborates on bushmeat research already undertaken in the south-eastern Cameroon region by a number of individuals and institutions, but will focus on the African elephant. No studies have ever been carried out that concentrate specifically on elephant bushmeat, and most general bushmeat studies either do not include elephant meat, or treat it differently from other bushmeats because of the atypical aspects associated with elephant hunting and product trade; thus this study hopes to be of particular value to elephant conservation. Details: Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2011. 70p. Source: Supplement to the Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 45: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2012 at http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/SSC-OP-045-001.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Cameroon URL: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/SSC-OP-045-001.pdf Shelf Number: 126104 Keywords: BushmeatElephantsIllegal HuntingWildlife Crime (Cameroon) |
Author: Hansen, Kevin Title: Crimes Against the Wild: Poaching in California Summary: California's wildlife is being slaughtered on an alarming scale by a new breed of criminal who kills wild animals illegally for money- the commercial poacher. The image of a poacher as a poor, uneducated man just trying to put meat on the table is outdated. No longer Simply an occasional deer killed outside the legal hunting season or catching a couple of fish over the legal limit, the age of large-scale commercial poaching has arrived. While more traditional forms of poaching persist, killing wildlife for monetary gain has taken the carnage to a new level and poses a significant threat to our state's wildlife heritage. Skilled, organized, and well-equipped teams of poachers are decimating California's wildlife and reaping obscene profits in the process. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) conservatively estimates that commercial poaching in the state is a $100,000,000 a year business and is now the second greatest threat to our wildlife after habitat destruction. The variety and scope of the killing are staggering: • Black bears in northern California's mountains are tracked relentlessly by packs of trained hounds, run up trees, and shot at pOint-blank range. Their gall bladders are then cut out and paws severed. The gall bladders will bring $5,600 an OUl1ce in the apothecary markets of Korea or China as a medicinal curative. (More than the cost of an equal weighrof gold or cocaine.) The paws will fetch $30 to $100 each as a gourmet delicacy. A bear paw meal could cost $400 in some Asian countries. e In 1989, wardens arrested two men as they pulled their boat into Sausalito harbor with a huge haul of 600 abalone. The confiscated mollusks had a wholesale value of atleast$10,500, double that at retail. Consumers may pay as much as $32 to $37 a pound, making it the costliest seafood on the market. Some abalone poachers boast openly of pulling down $20,000 in a good month (Castle 1989). The mollusk must also contend with natural predation, disease, legitimate commercial and sport harvest, and pollution. Meanwhile, abalone populations are in precipitous decline in central and southern California (Karpov 1990). • In 1980, the Department of Fish and Game reported that 32,377 deer were killed legally in the state and an estimated 75,000 were poached (Sheehan 1981a, 1981 b). Many of the illegal kills are for the sale of the meat, hides, and horns. DFG also estimates that in excess of 1,000 deer valued at $32,500 are taker. and illegally sold annually in southern California. The estimate is based upon known commercial operations and arrests. Similar statistics are found throughout the rest of the state. Studies show that wardens made arrests in only one percent of the illegal deer violations and that only two percent of the illegal activities were even reported to DFG (CDFG 1986). It In the San Francisco Bay and Sacramentol San Joaquin Delta areas, poachers take enormous numbers of striped bass using illegal gill nets and set lines. One year the illegal catch was estimated at 50,000 fish - a number which matched the sport catch. Arrests were made of individuals who had taken up to 1,200 pounds of illegal striped bass in one night's fishing (CDFG 1986). With the fish going for as much as $3.75 per pound at a store or restaurant, a poacher toting several hundred pounds of fish can make a healthy profit after a night's work. Some game wardens estimate that more than 400,000 fish of many different species are poached each year from the Delta (Locklin 1991). I i e In 1988,16 people were arrested by wildlife officers in synchronized raids in California and Arizona, culminating a 2-1/2 year undercover sting operation. California wardens seized 149 venomous snakes, six endangered desert tortoises, a dozen piranhas, a 6-foot crocodile, and other rare and protected animals. Among the snakes was a rare Catalina Island rattlesnake, valued at $400 by collectors (Johnston 1988). Wardens fear that reptile poachers in California's deserts are stripping entire mountain ranges of resident snakes and lizards. Chuckwallas, a large lizard inhabiting the Mojave Desert, bring $75 to $100 in the illicit pet trade. Some wildlife officials suggest that commercial poaching is not new, but rather the latest incarnation of the market hunting that occurred in California and throughout North America in the late 1800s and early 1900s. During this era, wild animal species were decimated to supply the restaurant and fashion trades. The carnage was so extensive that it lead to some of the first wildlife protection laws and the establishment of state agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game. However, modern commercial poaching differs from market hunting in a number of significant ways: 1) the scope of the killing is far greater, involving many more species; 2) foreign markets provide a new and larger demand for California wildlife; 3) new technology allows the commercial poacher to find, kill, process, and hide wildlife more efficiently than ever; 4) commercial poachers are criminals frequently involved in other types of crime; and 5) commercial poaching is extremely lucrative, second only to the drug trade in profits. Well organized and illegal, commercial hunting operations are open for business throughout California (CDFG 1986). If a wild animal or any of its parts can be eaten, worn, stuffed and displayed, caged as a "pet," made into jewelry, or sold as a purported medicine, it probably is falling prey to poachers. Animals that are poached include bear, elk, deer, mountain lion, bighorn sheep, wild pig, bobcat, coyote, rabbit, eagle, and other birds of prey, duck and other waterfowl, most fish and seafood, bullfrog, reptile, and even butterflies (Breedlove and Rothblatt 1987). Poaching has a long tradition in rural America: blinding deer at night with a spotlight, and shooting it with a coffee can over the rifle barrel to muffle the shot; using a barrel of molasses chained to a tree as bait for black bears; shooting a duck or two in the farm pond for dinner. But over the past decade, as wildlife numbers dropped, the stakes have soared. Word is out in the illegal hunting community that fresh black bear gall bladders are worth up to $200 each, a bobcat pelt $100, or a bighorn sheep head $3,000 (the value of each multiplying many times before it reaches the consumer). Poaching has become big business (Poten 1991). Commercial poaching in California is part of the much larger international wildlife trade that, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, grosses at least $5 billion a year. As much as 25 percent ($1.25 billion) may be illegally smuggled birds, reptiles, and mammals. With Los Angeles and San Francisco being major ports of entry, California receives a major portion of wildlife imports from other countries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has only nine wildlife inspectors at the two ports trying to fight off an ever-growing tide of illegal imports. Of the 80,000 wildlife shipments coming into the United States through ten ports of entry each year, 95 percent of the shipments are never inspected, but cleared on paperwork alone (Speart 1993). Estimates put the black market in America's wildlife at $200 million and rising (Hanback 1992a). Wildlife runs second only to the illegal drug trade in profits (Speart 1993). Details: Sacramento: Mountain Lion Foundation, 1994. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2012 at: http://www.mountainlion.org/publications/Crimes%20Against%20the%20Wild.pdf Year: 1994 Country: United States URL: http://www.mountainlion.org/publications/Crimes%20Against%20the%20Wild.pdf Shelf Number: 126997 Keywords: Animal Poaching (California)Illegal HuntingWildlife Crimes |
Author: Chardonnet, P. Title: Managing the Conflicts Between People and Lion: Review and Insights from the Literature and Field Experience Summary: Not long ago, when large mammals harmed people we talked of accidents; when they damaged people’s assets we referred to incidents. Nowadays, human/wildlife conflicts are regarded as common occurrences. It seems that what were once considered exceptional or abnormal events have become normal or usual. Whether this is a result of higher frequency and amplitude is not clear, because we do not have reliable statistics to make accurate comparisons. Similarly, human-eating and livestock-raiding lions might be seen as normal lions expressing their carnivorous nature in particular circumstances. Contemporary lions are not wilder or crueller or more dangerous than before: it is just that these particular circumstances seem to be recorded more frequently. Also, communication is now instant and universal: news of a casualty in a remote wilderness can be reported at once on the internet, spreading the information worldwide. Furthermore, a problem lion seems to have a greater psychological impact than a problem crocodile: a crocodile victim disappears, but a lion victim is more likely to be noticed; also, according to B. Soto, a lion incident might be perceived as an intrusion into the human environment, whereas a crocodile incident might be viewed as a human intrusion into the crocodile environment. The result is that the lion might be regarded as more at fault than the crocodile, even though the consequences are the same. In any case, the interface between humans and wildlife is increasing: growing human population and encroachment into lion habitat have simply augmented the incidence of contact between people and lions. Similarly, the harvesting of wildlife has increased, leaving less natural prey for lions. Obviously, the probability of clashes between people and lions now tends to be higher. Longestablished traditional ways of deterring fierce, fully-grown lions might become partly ineffective, and lethal methods are not always acceptable by modern standards. Triggers for human eaters and cattle raiders are being investigated, and knowledge of behavioural factors is improving. New methods to protect people and livestock from lions are being tested in a number of risk situations; these methods are also designed to conserve the lion itself from eradication over its natural range. Conservation of the lion is now a topical concern because our ancestors, the hunted humans (Ehrenreich, 1999) of the past who were chased by predators have become hunting humans and predators themselves. Interestingly, this study was undertaken during a period of rising general interest in conservation of the lion. Two regional strategies for the conservation of the African lion have been developed under the auspices of the Cat Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union/Species Survival Commission, one for West and Central Africa, the other for Eastern and Southern Africa.1 And more and more lion-range states are developing national action plans. This provides evidence of the effort invested in tackling the diverse issues related to lion conservation. By focusing on the human/lion interactions, the present study is complementary to the work of the World Conservation Union. This study also echoes the dynamic forum facilitated by the African Lion Working Group.2 We hope that this review will contribute to the challenge of long-term conservation of the African lion. Success will be attained when the lion changes from being perceived as vermin or a pest to being regarded as a wealth or an asset. Details: Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Naitons, 2010. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Wildlife Management Working Paper 13: Accessed December 1, 2012 at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7292e/k7292e00.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7292e/k7292e00.pdf Shelf Number: 127084 Keywords: Human-Animal ConflictIllegal HuntingLionsWildlife ConservationWildlife CrimeWildlife Management |
Author: Milliken, T. Title: The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) and the Illicit Trade in Ivory: A report to the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES Summary: Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) mandates “a comprehensive report to each meeting of the Conference of the Parties” on the data held in the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), one of the two monitoring systems for elephants under CITES. The objectives of ETIS, which has been managed and operated by TRAFFIC since 1997, are: i) measuring and recording levels and trends, and changes in levels and trends, of illegal hunting and trade in ivory in elephant range States, and in trade entrepôts; ii) assessing whether and to what extent observed trends are related to changes in the listing of elephant populations in the CITES appendices and/or the resumption of legal international trade in ivory; iii) establishing an information base to support the making of decisions on appropriate management, protection and enforcement needs; and iv) building capacity in range States. Covering the period 1996 through 2011, this report is the fifth major assessment of the ETIS data for presentation to the CITES Parties, and constitutes TRAFFIC’s reporting obligations for CoP16. This analysis was done in collaboration with the United Kingdom’s University of Reading, where Mr. Robert Burn and Dr. Fiona Underwood refined the analytical methods under a Darwin Initiative project and carried out the data analysis for this report. The interpretation of results, conclusions and recommendations draws particularly on research by and experience of TRAFFIC. Prior to submission to the CITES Secretariat, it was reviewed by members of the ETIS Technical Advisory Group. Further, technical papers on the methods and results of this analysis are being submitted to peer-review journals for publication in the scientific literature. TRAFFIC would like to acknowledge with gratitude the funding support from the United Kingdom’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Darwin Initiative programme, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s African Elephant Conservation Fund, the European Union’s MIKE phase two grant to the CITES Secretariat, and WWF for providing support for the operation and management of ETIS since CoP15, including the production of this report. Details: London: TRAFFIC International, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: CoP 16 Doc.xx.x: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://cites.org/eng/cop/16/doc/E-CoP16-53-02-02.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://cites.org/eng/cop/16/doc/E-CoP16-53-02-02.pdf Shelf Number: 127385 Keywords: Animal PoachingElephantsIllegal HuntingIllegal IvoryWildlife Crime |
Author: Lindsey, P. Title: Illegal Hunting and the Bushmeat Trade in Savanna Africa: Drivers, Impacts and Solutions to Address the Problem Summary: In this report, the term ‘bushmeat’ is used to denote meat from wild animals that have been hunted illegally, which aside from being used for personal consumption, is often sold commercially. The bushmeat trade has long been recognized as a severe threat to wildlife populations in the forests of West and Central Africa and is considered a conservation crisis in that biome. Far less attention has been focused on the issue in African savannas, perhaps due to a misconception that illegal hunting for bushmeat in the biome is primarily for subsistence and is largely sustainable. However, there is a growing body of research conducted in the Serengeti ecosystem in Tanzania, and from sporadic studies elsewhere that contradict that perception. This report summarizes a workshop on illegal hunting and the bushmeat trade in the savanna biome organised and sponsored by Panthera, the Zoological Society of London and Wildlife Conservation Society. Growing concern over the impacts of illegal hunting and the bushmeat trade, particularly on large carnivores populations in Southern and East Africa, motivated the workshop. Large carnivores are particularly sensitive to the impacts of illegal hunting and the bushmeat trade and can act as a barometer of the severity of the problem, and also act as a basis from which to catalyze conservation action. Key experts gathered at the workshop to identify the drivers of illegal hunting and the bushmeat trade and the interventions necessary to address the issue. Hunting of wildlife is regulated in most African countries through wildlife legislation and permitting systems which specify restrictions on the times and places that hunting is permitted, the species that may be hunted and the hunting methods that may be used. The large majority of hunting for bushmeat contravenes one or more such restrictions. Snaring is the most common illegal hunting method and is particularly undesirable from a conservation perspective as it is highly effective, difficult to control, unselective in terms of the genders or species of animals captured, wasteful, and has severe animal welfare implications due to the manner of capture and confinement, and frequent incidents of severe, non-lethal wounding of wildlife. Other common bushmeat hunting methods include the use of rifles, muzzle-loaders, shotguns, dogs, fire, and in some cases, gin traps, pitfall traps and poison. Details: London and New York: Panthera, Zoological Society of London/Wildlife Conservation Society, 2012. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed January 25, 2013 at: http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/bushmeat%20report%20v2%20lo_0.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Africa URL: http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/bushmeat%20report%20v2%20lo_0.pdf Shelf Number: 127405 Keywords: Bushmeat TradeIllegal HuntingWildlife ConservationWildlife Crime |
Author: Animal Rights Africa Title: Under Siege: Rhinoceroses in South Africa Summary: Trophy hunting in the 19th century devastated rhinoceros populations in Africa. By the 1920s there were fewer than a hundred of the southern white rhinoceroses left in the Umfolozi region in KwaZulu-Natal. Preservation, overt protection and habitat and range expansion strategies led to the growth in the number of rhinoceroses in South Africa and brought them back from the brink of extinction. An important component of these strategies was the prohibition of hunting. There is now a completely different situation at play, where the hunting, poaching and trade of rhinoceroses, both illegal and legal, are once again not only severely impacting on the species but also causing untold suffering and death for the individuals involved. Rhinoceros poaching has reached a 15-year high in Africa and Asia and there are therefore justifiable concerns about the current protection and management of these animals in South Africa as well as the need for public discourse and involvement. South Africa is currently entrusted with over 90% of the world’s population of white rhinoceroses, but at the same time it has become abundantly clear that not only are rhinoceroses in South Africa facing one of their worst threats ever as a species, but they are literally under siege. According to the Department of Environment rhinoceroses poaching in South Africa has reached the highest levels in decades. In the short space of 19 months, poaching of rhinoceroses in South Africa has accelerated to a rate almost six times higher than that of the previous eight years and at the same time a report by international conservation bodies claims the country has become the conduit of most of the rhinoceros horns leaving the African continent. The threats rhinoceroses are facing are linked to South Africa’s current uncompassionate conservation policies of overt consumptive use and trade and inadequate policing, enforcement measures and resources to protect rhinoceroses. And as with elephants the trade, sale and hunting of rhinoceroses in South Africa is driven by commodification, commercialisation and profit rather than by compassion or robust science. Details: Animal Rights Africa, 2009. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/125/1255419687.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Africa URL: http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/125/1255419687.pdf Shelf Number: 127517 Keywords: Animal Poaching (Africa)Illegal HuntingIllegal Wildlife TradeRhinocerosRhinosWildlife Crimes |
Author: Campbell, Ken Title: Sustainable Use of Wildland Resources: Ecological, Economic and Social Interactions. An Analysis of Illegal Hunting of Wildlife in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania Summary: A common problem for protected area managers is illegal or unsustainable extraction of natural resources. Similarly, lack of access to an often decreasing resource base may also be a problem fo rural communities living adjacent to protected areas. In Tanzania, illegal hunting of both resident and migratory wildlife is a significant problem for the management of Serengeti National Park. Poaching has already reduced populations of resident wildlife, whilst over-harvesting of the migratory herbivores may ultimately threaten the integrity of the Serengeti ecosystem. Reduced wildlife populations may in turn undermine local livelihoods that depend partly on this resource. This project examined illegal hunting from the twin perspectives of conservation and the livelihoods of people surrounding the protected area. The research aimed to improve understanding of factors related to or responsible for the promotion of game meat hunting as a viable livelihood activity. Details: Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute, 2001. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/R7050d.pdf Year: 2001 Country: Tanzania URL: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/R7050d.pdf Shelf Number: 128434 Keywords: Animal PoachingIllegal HuntingNatural ResourcesWildlife Crime (Tanzania)Wildlife Management |
Author: BIO Intelligence Service Title: Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU. Final Report Summary: The European Union (EU) is rich of a diversity of over 500 wild bird species. These species have been facing several threats for a long time: fragmentation and reduction of their habitat, diminution of their food supply linked to an intensification of agriculture, forestry and fisheries as well as direct threat to their population due to a massive use of pesticide, unregulated hunting and the development of illegal practices like poaching. Many species which suffer under an unfavourable population status are impacted by illegal killing (see annex 6). This is important because it increases threats to populations already threatened, but many common species with favourable status are also impacted, which may lead to an unfavourable status of these populations in the future. The Birds Directive (BD) is the legal EU text protecting birds. It has the overall goal to preserve all species of birds naturally occurring in the wild (articles 1 and 2), while allowing sustainable hunting activities for listed bird species (article 7). However, no reporting on this overall goal was found in the summary of the main findings in the report from the European Commission (EC) on the implementation of the Bird Directive (Period covered: 2005 – 2007, EC2009). Similarly to other biodiversity targets at EU and international levels, and considering the population status of several bird species, this overall goal can be considered however not (yet) achieved. The European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, co-organised by the Council of Europe and the Game Fund of Cyprus (Ministry of Interior) in July 2011 concluded that “despite efforts by many governmental authorities, illegal taking and trading in wild birds is still a serious pan- European problem with clear regional patterns, having a considerable negative impact on biodiversity across the continent. In some European countries, the driver for such activities is mainly direct or indirect financial profit for individuals or organised crime, generating illegal (untaxed) benefits not related to basic survival needs. Considering the multiple dimensions of illegal killing, trapping and trading of birds in Europe, such as the ecological/environmental, legal, economic, social and political aspects, a combination of measures, policies and strategies is necessary to solve the problem.” Details: Paris: European Commission (DG Environment, 2011. 215p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2013 at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/BIO_BirdsIllegalKilling.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/BIO_BirdsIllegalKilling.pdf Shelf Number: 128757 Keywords: BirdsIllegal HuntingIllegal Wildlife TradeWildlife ConservationWildlife Crimes (Europe) |
Author: Raine, Andre Title: 2008 Illegal Hunting and Trapping Report Summary: This report outlines all illegal hunting and trapping incidents received by BirdLife Malta in 2008. Incidents are only included in this report if they were seen by BirdLife Malta staff members and volunteers, or individuals directly known by BirdLife Malta, and therefore should not in any way be taken to be the total number of illegal hunting and trapping incidents that occurred in the Maltese islands in 2008. A total of 106 protected birds (of 30 species) with gunshot injuries (compared to 81 in 2007) were reported to or brought into the BirdLife Malta office in 2008, with birds of prey once again being the main targets of poachers (65.1% of the total). The three most common species with gunshot injuries were Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus) and Honey-buzzard (Pernis apivorus), in that order. These are the same top three shot protected species received in 2007. Many of the protected birds targeted by illegal hunters were of conservation concern in Europe, with a large proportion (56.7%) given additional protection under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. The ban on spring hunting resulted in a significant decline, of 80.5% from the previous year, in the number of shot protected birds received by BirdLife Malta during the peak spring migration period of April and May (only 8 birds received in 2008 compared to 41 in 2007). This trend was reversed in the autumn with a significant increase, of 147.8% from the previous year, in the number of protected birds received (57 birds received in September and October 2008 compared to 23 in 2007). It is thought that this is due primarily to the mentality of some hunters who threatened to take their ‘revenge’ on birds in autumn because of the spring hunting ban. A total of 2,401 illegal hunting and trapping incidents were also recorded in 2008, representing a significant increase on the 741 reports in 2007. These consisted of 2,054 illegal hunting incidents (under twelve categories), 243 illegal trapping incidents and 104 illegal electronic lures (being used by either hunters or trappers). The majority of illegal reports consisted of hunters illegally shooting during the closed season in spring, with illegal incidents being concentrated in key areas and on peak migration days. Illegal hunting incidents observed by BirdLife Malta staff, volunteers or individuals known to BirdLife, involved 38 protected species, with the most common species being Marsh Harrier, European Bee-eater (Merops apiaster), Honeybuzzard, Barn Swallow (hirundo rustica) and Common Kestrel, in that order. The report also highlights how widespread illegal hunting was in 2008, with shot protected birds that were delivered to BirdLife office originating from 68 locations in Malta and Gozo and illegal hunting incidents being recorded in 128 locations (compared to 84 locations in 2007). The data shows that the three worst areas for illegal hunting incidents were the limits of Luqa International Airport, Delimara and Miieb. Illegal trapping reports were also significantly higher in 2008, with 243 illegalities recorded. The vast majority of these reports were of trappers trapping illegally in spring. It can therefore be seen that illegal hunting and trapping, particularly during closed seasons, and the shooting of protected species, was once again widespread and at a very serious level in Malta in 2008. However it is equally apparent that the fact that the spring hunting season was not opened in 2008 resulted in an immediate and significant decline in the shooting of protected species, despite the fact that some hunters ignored the ban and attempted to hunt in spring regardless. The presence of BirdLife Malta surveillance teams in spring, working in close co-ordination with the ALE, undoubtedly served to reduce the hunting pressure substantially during the peak spring migration period. Details: Ta’Xbiex, Malta: BirdLife Malta, 2009. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2013 at: http://www.birdlifemalta.org/photos/otherfiles/1294.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Malta URL: http://www.birdlifemalta.org/photos/otherfiles/1294.pdf Shelf Number: 128928 Keywords: BirdsIllegal HuntingIllegal TrappingWildlife ConservationWildlife Crimes (Malta) |
Author: Bio Intelligence Service Title: Stocktaking of the Main Problems and Review of National Enforcement Mechanisms for Tackling Illegal Killing, Trapping and Trade of Birds in the EU. Final Report for the European Commission (DG Environment) Summary: The European Union (EU) is rich of a diversity of over 500 wild bird species. These species have been facing several threats for a long time: fragmentation and reduction of their habitat, diminution of their food supply linked to an intensification of agriculture, forestry and fisheries as well as direct threat to their population due to a massive use of pesticide, unregulated hunting and the development of illegal practices like poaching. Many species which suffer under an unfavourable population status are impacted by illegal killing (see annex 6). This is important because it increases threats to populations already threatened, but many common species with favourable status are also impacted, which may lead to an unfavourable status of these populations in the future. The Birds Directive (BD) is the legal EU text protecting birds. It has the overall goal to preserve all species of birds naturally occurring in the wild (articles 1 and 2), while allowing sustainable hunting activities for listed bird species (article 7). However, no reporting on this overall goal was found in the summary of the main findings in the report from the European Commission (EC) on the implementation of the Bird Directive (Period covered: 2005 – 2007, EC2009). Similarly to other biodiversity targets at EU and international levels, and considering the population status of several bird species, this overall goal can be considered however not (yet) achieved. The European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds, co-organised by the Council of Europe and the Game Fund of Cyprus (Ministry of Interior) in July 2011 concluded that “despite efforts by many governmental authorities, illegal taking and trading in wild birds is still a serious pan- European problem with clear regional patterns, having a considerable negative impact on biodiversity across the continent. In some European countries, the driver for such activities is mainly direct or indirect financial profit for individuals or organised crime, generating illegal (untaxed) benefits not related to basic survival needs. Considering the multiple dimensions of illegal killing, trapping and trading of birds in Europe, such as the ecological/environmental, legal, economic, social and political aspects, a combination of measures, policies and strategies is necessary to solve the problem.” This study describes the situation in the EU related to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds and reviews the enforcement mechanisms of Member States (MS) legislation implementing the Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC and 2009/147/EEC). The information provided through the European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds forms an excellent resource to achieve this goal especially the materials collected by the Council of Europe and BirdLife International. The present report is composed of five main chapters. After a presentation of the main issues related to illegal killing of birds in Europe, the study reports the feeling of the different Member States concerning this issue. In the third chapter, a “country profile” assesses and summarises for each Member states the implementation and the enforcement of the Bird Directive. A focus is then realised on some examples of successful and failed enforcement. Finally, the main findings as well as the proposed recommendations to make more efficient the fight against the illegal killing of birds are available in the last chapter. The Birds Directive is the main EU text, which ensures the protection of threatened bird species. This Directive was adopted first in 1979 and “relates to the conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. It covers the protection, management and control of these species and lays down rules for their exploitation. It shall apply to birds, their eggs, nests and habitats” (article 1). The overall goal of the Birds Directive is, that “Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species referred to in article 1 at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level” (article 2.1). The Birds Directive allows hunting in certain conditions, recognising that it is an important recreational activity in some areas, that it can constitute an acceptable exploitation of species where populations can be maintained, and that it may be used as a tool to reduce ecological damage caused by birds. Hunting is a traditional recreation activity in most EU countries. Given how widespread it is, hunting is also an important economic activity, over and above providing an occasional source of income for landowners, and hunters, if the specimens are sold. The Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE) has estimated that hunting accounts for 100 000 jobs in the EU, based on the approximation that 65 hunters are needed for the creation of one job (Pinet, 19952). In September 2010, FACE says there were 6,571 millions of hunters were recorded in the EU3. Hunting is differentiated from trapping since whereas hunting implicitly refers to the lawful pursuit and killing of wildlife for food, recreation or trade, trapping is usually considered separately since it does not involve the pursuit of the animal (note that trapping is legal under certain conditions). Lawful hunting and trapping of birds if properly managed can constitute a sustainable use of wild species for at least two reasons. Hunting can contribute to the restoration or maintenance of natural areas, through activities carried out by the hunters, and can be enhanced through the revenues raised from the sale of hunting licences. In France for example, the national hunting agency ONCFS manages 31 protected areas4. Hunting can also contribute to regulating or eradicating populations of some damaging species. For example, in France, the Great Cormorant and the Canada Goose can be hunted under a derogation year around for this reason. Not all killing and trapping of birds is performed in accordance with the law. Illegal killing, trapping or trade in the EU may be a significant driver in the decline of some wild bird populations and a cause of wider ecosystem disturbance (see examples in section 1.2). Illegal killing, trapping and trade encompasses: killing/shooting/trapping protected species (most of the species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, but also most of the species not listed in Annex I, unless authorised for hunting (Annex II) or under a derogation), capture of protected species, killing/trapping/capture in areas (e.g. bird sanctuaries) and/or periods during which hunting/trapping is forbidden (e.g. during the spring migration period, without derogation), use of methods prohibited under the Birds Directive without derogation (see annex 1), involuntary killing (using illegal products), killing/shooting/trapping game birds without a hunting licence, and nest robbery or nest destruction. Reasons for illegal killing/ trapping and trade of birds vary. In Mediterranean countries, some traditional delicacies involve songbirds (Franzen, 20105). Despite bans on songbird killing, there is still significant demand from restaurant owners. This demand has encouraged poaching and illegal trade since the sale of songbirds is well remunerated. Throughout the EU, raptors are illegally killed (mainly by the use of poisoned bait), as hunters often consider birds of prey to be “competitors”6. Farmers or fishermen may also consider that birds are reducing their yields. The poisoning of protected birds can also be an indirect, involuntary consequence of other practices. For instance, some hunters used to spread poisoned bait for foxes before breeding since they are considered a pest in several countries. Unfortunately, this bait is eaten by raptors and can kill them. In Ireland, over 20 protected birds of prey have been tested positive for exposure to poisons over the last three years. Many other species are poisoned but never found, which makes it hard to estimate the effect of poisoned bait on local population decline. Trophy hunting and taxidermy are also motivations for poachers. Trophy hunting is an old practice in southern and central Europe, going back to historical times when the head or pelt of an animal was displayed as a sign of prowess. An argument in favour of trophy hunting is based on projected economic benefits for the environment and local communities. Lindsey et al. (2007) developed for example the theory that trophy hunting is viable in countries that receive few conventional tourists. They have shown that compared to the ecotourism, trophy hunting can generate 14 times greater revenues. Consequently, they demonstrate that hunting can potentially generate considerable income without the environmental disagreement usually generated by the tourism (littering, fossil fuel use, habitat conversion for infrastructure development, etc.). The Capercaillie7 in several EU countries and also the migratory bird species on the Greek island of Zakynthos8 are both hunted to serve as trophies. While legal trophy hunting may provide interesting revenues in rural localities, illegal activities must be banned. Illegal trophy hunting and taxidermy can generate high benefits and are often associated with illegal trade. Details: Paris: Bio Intelligence Services, 2011. 215p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/BIO_BirdsIllegalKilling.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/BIO_BirdsIllegalKilling.pdf Shelf Number: 129203 Keywords: Animal PoachingBirdsIllegal HuntingIllegal Wildlife TradeWildlife Crime (Europe) |
Author: Bodega Zugasti, D. de la (ed.) Title: Illegal Use of Poisoned-Baits. Legal Analysis and Investigation Summary: Poisoned-baits have traditionally been used in Spain's countryside as predator control method. Initially used by livestock farmers to protect their animals from attack during their seasonal movements of short- or long-range transhumance, it has over the years been taken up mainly by the hunting community. Poisoning nowadays is commonest on improperly run hunting grounds, although there has also been another upsurge in the use of poisoned-baits in livestock farming. Recent convictions in criminal proceedings show that it has also spread into other activities like beekeeping and pigeon racing. The environmental effects of poison have been devastating and it has now become one of the main threats to biodiversity. Figures recorded from 2005 to 2010 show that poisoning is still a habitual practice, with grave consequences for both wildlife and domesticated animals. Its indiscriminate use against certain species considered until the eighties of last century to be "vermin" has led many of these species, even after the banning of the use of poisoned-baits, to be classified as in danger of extinction or vulnerable. Witness the Iberian lynx, Spanish Imperial Eagle, Red Kite or Cinereous Vulture. After centuries of indiscriminate use, Spanish Criminal Code categorised the use of poison for fishing or hunting purposes as a wildlife crime in 1995 on the grounds precisely of its environmental impact and non-selective nature. Practically all Spanish Regional Governments (hence- forth CCAA), moreover, have passed legislation to forbid and punish the illegal use of poison. This legal framework has been fleshed out by plans and strategies drawn up at regional and national level with varying degrees of participation, measures and actions for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of this crime. Pulling together all these strands, this text plans to work from the legal acquis and accumulated practice built up by various organisations and groups during years of concerted efforts to wipe out the illegal use of poison in Spain's countryside. Some of the chapters of this manual have been written by legal professionals and experts in the investigation of a crime that is often extremely difficult to clear up. It has also been favoured by effective impunity due to the sheer complexity of this investigation and the lack of forthright legal response. Details: Madrid: SEO BirdLife, 2016. 150p, Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2016 at: http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/uploads/meetings/MIKT1/mikt-page-docs/ILLEGAL-USE-OF-POISONED-BAITS_SEO_BirdLife_March2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Spain URL: http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/uploads/meetings/MIKT1/mikt-page-docs/ILLEGAL-USE-OF-POISONED-BAITS_SEO_BirdLife_March2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139973 Keywords: Illegal HuntingOffenses Against the EnvironmentPoisoningWildlife Crime |
Author: Travers, Henry Title: Nature's stewards: how local buy-in can help tackle wildlife crime in Uganda Summary: High levels of illegal resource use in two of Uganda's national parks show the need to rethink current approaches to combatting wildlife crime. Our research suggests that more than 40 per cent of households living adjacent to the Queen Elizabeth and Murchison Falls national parks have been involved in illegal hunting within the past year, mostly to catch bushmeat for local sale and consumption. Most hunters do not typically target high value internationally traded species, but may occasionally kill them as 'bycatch.' Though rare, this phenomenon has a significant cumulative impact. Effectively tackling the root causes of illegal hunting will require longer-term and more focused engagement between the Uganda Wildlife Authority and communities. Local people and wildlife officials identified mitigating human-wildlife conflict, supporting sustainable livelihoods and increasing employment opportunities as promising avenues for further investigation. Details: London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2015. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing: Accessed September 8, 2016 at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17354IIED.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Uganda URL: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17354IIED.pdf Shelf Number: 140240 Keywords: Illegal HuntingIllegal Wildlife TradePovertyWildlife Crime |
Author: Travers, Henry Title: Taking action against wildlife crime in Uganda Summary: In recent years, wildlife crime has come under increasing international scrutiny. A multitude of policy responses has emphasised strengthening law enforcement in order to protect wildlife. In contrast, developing community-based responses to wildlife crime has been given very little attention. The immediate threat escalating wildlife crime poses has been used as a justification, but this one-sided approach risks missing opportunities: both to find long-term solutions by addressing the underlying drivers of crime, and also to alleviate the disproportionate impact living close to conservation areas has on local livelihoods. This report presents the key findings and outputs of the 'Building capacity for pro-poor responses to wildlife crime in Uganda' project, a collaborative initiative aiming to: 1. Understand the current state of wildlife crime in Uganda, and investigate the underlying drivers of this crime 2. Investigate the preferences of local people and conservation staff for different types of interventions aimed at addressing wildlife crime, and assess the likely impact of these interventions on local people's attitudes and behaviour, and 3. Develop new or improved approaches to increase the capacity of the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) to tackle wildlife crime more efficiently and effectively. To understand the current state and drivers of wildlife crime, we started by conducting a review of existing evidence (from journal articles, press coverage and so on), to get a picture of the overall situation within Uganda. We then conducted a large scale socioeconomic household survey in villages bordering Uganda's two largest protected areas, Queen Elizabeth Protected Area (QEPA) and Murchison Falls Protected Area (MFPA). The survey showed that involvement in wildlife crime was widespread. Indirect questioning estimated that 42 per cent of interviewed households had been involved in illegal hunting, and 29 per cent in illegal fishing or grazing of livestock inside one of the two parks. Households most likely to be involved in wildlife crime included those that were better off, those that reported crop raiding or livestock predation by wildlife, and those that reported no benefit from the parks' revenue-sharing schemes. At both parks, activities put in place to combat wildlife crime focus heavily on law enforcement, with ranger patrols receiving a significant proportion of annual budgets. However, interviews with known hunters cast doubt on patrols' effectiveness, suggesting only one or two in a thousand illegal incursions resulted in an arrest. Households told us that patrols did not deter hunters from entering the parks. UWA does run activities to address some of the drivers of wildlife crime - such as human-wildlife conflict mitigation and livelihood support. However, these types of interventions receive far less support than would be required to influence prevalent wildlife crime. Our study investigated a number of alternative approaches to combating wildlife crime using two empirical predictive methods: choice experiments and scenario-based interviews. Both methods allow participants to pick the types of interventions that would be most likely to deter them from wildlife crime. The interventions explored were: - Improved mitigation of human-wildlife conflict - Appointment of local wildlife scouts - Establishment of, and support for, 'wildlife-friendly' enterprises - Increased ranger patrols - Removal of resource access arrangements (around each park, UWA allows for a limited number of certified individuals to access certain resources at certain times of the year) - Regulated hunting. Local people preferred different interventions at the two parks. At QEPA, people preferred increased funding for activities that reduce human-wildlife conflict, whereas people living around MFPA preferred support for creating 'wildlife-friendly' enterprises (ie small enterprises that do not damage wildlife conservation). At both parks there was support for appointing 'wildlife scouts from the community to respond to human-wildlife conflict. When UWA staff were consulted separately and asked which interventions they thought would be most effective, their priorities aligned strongly with the local communities - although they also emphasised continued and improved law enforcement. As well as potentially being more effective, local people thought the three community-focused interventions (wildlife-friendly enterprises, wildlife scouts and human-wildlife conflict mitigation) were fairer than the enforcement-focused approach to tackling wildlife crime. These interventions were also predicted to increase the time local people spend on legal livelihood activities and make them more likely to inform UWA about illegal activities. The findings suggest that greater support for community engagement is likely to significantly improve UWA's ability to combat wildlife crime. The project team then worked with UWA staff at each of the two parks to develop park-specific strategic action plans to combat wildlife crime. The aims were to prioritise addressing offences with the greatest impact on wildlife, identify where these wildlife crimes are most prevalent (and the communities involved), and specify the actions required to combat these offences. Details: London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2017. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2017 at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17604IIED.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Uganda URL: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17604IIED.pdf Shelf Number: 145236 Keywords: Illegal FishingIllegal HuntingWildlife ConservationWildlife CrimeWildlife Protection |
Author: New South Wales. Ministry of Justice Title: NSW Stock Theft and Trespass Review: Final Report Summary: This Review was announced by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Justice and Police on 25 February 2016 along with specific terms of reference. The scope of the Review - stock theft, rural trespass and illegal hunting - represents how intertwined these crime types are. Given this, a series of recommendations are proposed in this Report which address all three of these issues, as well as ensuring Police are appropriately structured, empowered and resourced for the particular challenges posed by rural crime. As Professor Elaine Barclay found in her 2014 Research into farm crime, while other types of crime are on a downward trend, rural crime is increasing and significantly underreported. It is also important to highlight that approximately 25% of NSW residents live outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. Stock theft, rural trespass and illegal hunting are crimes of major concern to rural and isolated communities. These crimes can lead to significant economic loss for primary producers and rural communities, with one incident potentially leading to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in property theft and malicious damage, as well as the loss of future breeding potential. The impact of rural trespass and illegal hunting is also multiplied by opportunistic crimes which accompany these offences, such as firearm theft, diesel theft or animal cruelty. Recent reports, for example, suggest that more than 90% of stolen firearms in NSW being taken from rural areas. As many rural families live and work on the same property, such crimes can generate tremendous fear, as well as a sense of insecurity, and intimidation, due to being unable to control who is able to access their land. And police assistance, particularly in isolated communities, may be hours or even days away, especially if the nearest police station is not staffed 24 hours. The current Police response to crime in rural and remote communities was brought into question at every public consultation held over the course of the Review. It is apparent that the staffing of 24-hour stations is critical to the efficient policing of rural and remote areas right across NSW. Because of industrial agreements, police from smaller stations are routinely used to fill gaps in rosters at larger stations and officers in charge of stations are not appropriately empowered to determine the best policing response for their local communities. Such practices are starving rural communities of the police protection to which they are entitled. It is the opinion of this Review that addressing this issue should be the highest priority of the NSW Police Force. Hunting on private land using knives, dogs or bows continues to grow in popularity across NSW, perhaps fuelled in part by the lack of regulation of such activities, compared with the regulatory scheme in place for hunting with firearms. Often this hunting involves rural trespass. This lack of regulation does nothing to assist Police or the Department of Primary Industries to manage or control such behaviour. When rural crimes are prosecuted, the penalties issued are routinely far below both the maximum penalty and the quantum of the loss suffered by victims of such crime. Victims feel deep frustration that current penalties do not act as effective deterrents and suggest that magistrates and sometimes police officers do not appear to understand or appreciate the impact of such crimes. This Report will propose a number of recommendations aimed at addressing stock theft, rural trespass and illegal hunting. These include enhanced penalties for existing offences, an expansion of current regulatory requirements and significant changes to the way the NSW Police Force is currently structured to address rural crime. Key to addressing stock theft, rural trespass and illegal hunting is ensuring that police in rural and remote areas are engaged with their communities and are properly tasked and resourced to address these crimes. For a number of years, this does not appear to have been the case, most likely since police retreated to 'core business' and relinquished various extraneous duties undertaken on behalf of other government agencies which gave them regular contact with their communities. Current police transfer arrangements mean that police officers accept short-term postings to rural and remote areas, merely as a stepping stone to more desirable positions. Rural officers in non-24 hour stations are also often tasked outside their sectors and rural crime investigators are routinely tasked with jobs which have nothing to do with rural crime, such as child protection register visits. Police policies and structures also mean that if a call for assistance is received at night and/or to attend a remote location, police officers are supported by current policy in determining they should not attend alone, despite their possibly being the only police representative on duty in that sector. Whilst the intent behind this - to protect the safety of officers working in single units - is supported, consideration must also be given to the policing support made available to landowners dealing with trespassers and thieves, who may possibly be intoxicated and also armed. Although Police policies are intended to address both police and community safety, there is considerable confusion in relation to this area of policing, which was clearly expressed by stakeholders during the course of the Review. The content and findings of this Report reflect discussions with and submissions received from a range of different stakeholders, from government agencies, to industry bodies to residents of rural and remote communities. This Report is addressed to the Deputy Premier for his serious consideration. The recommendations made in the Report will, if implemented, greatly assist in empowering both police officers and victims of crime in addressing stock theft, rural trespass and illegal hunting. Details: Sydney: Ministry of Justice, 2016. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2017 at: http://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Media%20Releases/2017/final-report-NSW-stock-theft-and-trespass-review.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Media%20Releases/2017/final-report-NSW-stock-theft-and-trespass-review.pdf Shelf Number: 146923 Keywords: Cattle StealingCattle TheftIllegal HuntingRural Crime |