836 J. S. Kahler and M. A. Rinkus
the search terms, ‘wildlife poach*’ (101 total, one after filter- ing for ‘gender’, but not relevant), ‘illegal hunt*’ (880 total, six after filtering for ‘gender’, only four relevant), and ‘illegal fish*’ (1,055 total, 10 after filtering for ‘gender’). When using ‘women’ as a filter in place of ‘gender’ few results were found. This indicates that ,1% of articles addressing wild- life crime mention the gender identity of those involved in wildlife crime or consider gender as an integral part of the research. Despite the paucity of peer-reviewed literature on this
subject, technical reports and news articles point to the in- volvement of women in various aspects of wildlife crime. We searched the NexisUni database for news articles using the terms ‘wildlife crime’ and ‘women’, resulting in 168 articles (after the removal of duplicates) for March 2015–March 2020. Fifty-nine per cent (99) of these reported women as offenders, 26%(44) discussed women in some type of guardianship or protection role, and 15%(25) pre- sented instances in which women were victims of wildlife crime and related consequences. These articles ranged from high-profile news such as the so-called Queen of Ivory, a woman arrested for smuggling 860 elephant tusks (Tremblay, 2019), to documenting the involvement of wo- men in everyday wildlife crime, such as a woman smuggling star tortoises in India (Salunke & Chatterjee, 2018). Key technical reports have also discussed the involvement of and implications for women in wildlife crime (e.g. Booker & Roe, 2017; Hübschle & Shearing, 2018). Our exploratory search illustrates the varied involvement
of women in wildlife crime globally and within the fisheries, forestry, and wildlife conservation sectors. Here we discuss some of the underlying assumptions and historical and con- temporary biases thatmay have led to the dearth of gender- based research on wildlife crime. We focus specifically on women, although we advocate for a gendered analysis of wildlife crimemore broadly in peer-reviewed and empirical research. Future research should consider how power and patriarchy influence the involvement of men and women in wildlife crime, and the impacts of wildlife crime, and re- sponses and interventions, on gender relations.
Leveraging the criminology literature
Research in criminology mirrors what we see in other social sciences, including the human dimensions of natural re- sources, in the lingering effects of a historical and overt gender bias towards men as a subject of study and theory formation (e.g. Kruttschnitt, 2013; Hübschle, 2014). Add- itionally, despite some exceptions (e.g. the study of human trafficking by West African women) the majority of the literature that investigates women’s pathways to offending and typologies of female offenders is based on the Global North (e.g. Dehart, 2018; Barlow&Weare, 2019). Regardless of past and present biases, criminology provides us with the
most methodologically and theoretically robust understand- ing of women’s deviant or criminal behaviour. There are numerous theories of crime causation, a review of which is beyond the scope of this
study.However, opportunity-based theories of crime have been applied in multiple contexts to understand wildlife crimes affecting fisheries, forestry and wildlife resources (e.g. Petrossian, 2015). At their core, op- portunity theories focus on three groups of actors (offen- ders, protectors as guardians, handlers and managers, and victims/targets), and how they interact within space and time to create opportunities for crime and crime interven- tion. We centre our discussion on offenders, protectors and victims, to address the significant gap regarding the study of women in wildlife crime. To identify frameworks for robust enquiry into the var-
ied roles of women in wildlife crime, we turned to the crim- inology literature associated with gender and offending, policing and guardianship (i.e. willingness to intervene), and victimization. For the purpose of this study we define wildlife as non-domesticated flora and vertebrate fauna of aquatic or terrestrial origin, primarily within the fisheries, forestry and wildlife literatures. To anchor our discussion of women as offenders we used Phelps et al.’s(2016) ty- pology of key actor roles along illegal wildlife trade market chains. This typology was chosen as it reflects a generalized market chain and actor model informed by review of mul- tiple studies across various geographical contexts and wild- life taxa (Phelps et al., 2016). Considerations of women as wildlife protectors draw on what we know about women in formal (police, rangers) and informal (community moni- tors, citizens) guardianship roles in criminology and conser- vation. Lastly, to anchor our discussion of women as victims of wildlife crimes, we use Cao &Wyatt’s(2016) conceptual framework for examining green victimization, adapted from the United Nations Development Program (1994).
Offenders
The wildlife crime literature is dominated by research to understand offenders, with a heavy focus on poaching and harvesting of wildlife. However, few articles indicate the gender identity of those involved in wildlife crime and fewer still focus on gender or gendered relations as an im- portant lens through which to understand such illegal activ- ities (McElwee, 2012). Masculine behaviour, such as exertion of power, gambling and sport, can be motivators for offend- ing (Nurse, 2011). Fabinyi (2012) found masculinity, risk and economic gain to be important factors for men’s involve- ment in illegal fishing. Similarly, McElwee (2012) reported that men weremore often involved in aspects of illegal wild- life trade when there was greater potential for danger and a need for bribes to customs officials, police and forest ran- gers, who are often men. In certain cultural contexts, the hunting of wild animals and consumption of wild meat is
Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 835–843 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000193
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
