838 J. S. Kahler and M. A. Rinkus Although women are not often directly involved in
bushmeat hunting, they have been found to encourage it (Lowassa et al., 2012) and comprise the majority of bush- meat traders (Edderai & Dame, 2006) in parts of Africa. Similarities can be seen in both legal and illegal fishing, where women are more likely to be fish processors, traders and retailers (also known as fishmongers, a term that is trad- itionally reserved for women; Turgo, 2015), and only occa- sionally involved in illegal fishing (Medard, 2012). Aside from studies that have discussed women’s involvement in illegal fishing (Medard, 2012) and alluded to the illegal harvesting of sea turtle eggs (Madrigal-Ballestero & Jurado, 2017), news articles indicate more frequent and occasional high-profile examples of organized criminal behaviour, with numerous examples of women’s involvement as inter- mediaries in more localized markets such as the trade of bushmeat and freshwater fish (Table 1). The pathways to offending for women and girls empha-
size their unique set of risks, which can lead to offending or escalations of delinquent behaviour (Dehart, 2018). Socio-cultural differences, such as gender hierarchies and gendered roles in labour and economic markets, and how romantic, familial or personal relationships with co-offend- ers can facilitate the entry of women into crime are prob- ably also relevant in understanding women’s involvement in wildlife crimes (Barlow & Weare, 2019). For example, in the illicit rhinoceros horn markets of South Africa, Vietnamese sex workers were used as bogus hunters, and South African women co-offended as industry insiders with their partners to facilitate this lucrative and organized trade (Hübschle, 2014). This highlights the need to consider the nuances be- tween co-offending, the unique pathways of women to of- fending, and the complex relationship between offending and victimization associated with wildlife crime.
Protectors
For the purpose of clarity, we refer to individuals that may intervene and stop crime collectively as protectors. Protectors include handlers that can serve to influence or control the offender (e.g. a parent), managers that are re- sponsible for protecting a physical space (e.g. park man- ager), and guardians that protect the target or victim (e.g. park ranger). Guardians may have formal, officially as- signed, responsibilities to intervene, or may act in a volun- tary or informal role. Police officers and park rangers are examples of formal guardians, whereas the public through individual bystander interventions (e.g. wildlife tourists) and volunteer opportunities (e.g. community watch groups) comprise the informal guardian sector. Literature on styles of policing and police officers’ decision-making (formal guardians) is abundant, although there is a historical lack of attention to how gender affects officers’ attitudes, phi- losophy and style of policing (DeJong, 2012). Additionally,
research shows strong relationships between masculinity and police culture historically, contemporarily and across cultures, despite the fact that the majority (c. 80%) of police work resembles social work (e.g. conflict mediation) rather than physical crime fighting (Chu, 2018). Findings asso- ciated with the effectiveness, decision-making and policing style preference, such as use of force, by gender are also mixed (DeJong, 2012). Additionally, it is likely that the re- ceptiveness of men towomen as lawenforcement colleagues (e.g. Chu, 2018) and the prevalence of women in law en- forcement and supervisory roles (e.g. Luna-Firebaugh, 2002) is culturally and contextually variable. Peer-reviewed literature on women as formal wildlife protectors is scant, with the best sources of information being organizational reports, websites and news outlets. Until recently, criminologists paid little attention to wild- life-relevant police and policing, with notable exceptions, including understanding ranger motivations (Moreto et al., 2019) and misconduct (Moreto et al., 2015). However, Moreto et al. (2019) pointed out that given the majority of respondents in their Asian ranger study were men, con- clusions could not be made as to the effect of gender on motivations for becoming a ranger, suggesting an area of potential future research. There are increasing opportun- ities for women to serve in formal guardian roles across the illicit market chain (Fig. 1). For example, the Akashinga (Zimbabwe) and Black Mambas (South Africa) are all- women ranger units that have achieved international ac- claim. These units comprise rural women and in the case of the Akashinga often single mothers, survivors of abuse, widows or orphans. However, ethical questions regarding the risks (e.g. the Black Mambas are unarmed), the direct and indirect benefits to communities, short and long-term efficacy (Hübschle & Shearing, 2018), and understanding these women’s motivations, policing style, use of force, and conduct or misconduct remain unanswered. Theoreti- cally, women serving in mainstream police departments, the military or as inspectors for customs and border patrol, can disrupt intermediaries and consumers of illegally sourced wildlife (Fig. 1). To the best of our knowledge, there has been no research on police, military, border or custom agents as it relates to their roles, attitudes and decision- making associated with wildlife crime-related offences, regardless of gender. There has also been limited conservation research on
bystander intervention and reporting associated with wild- life crimes. A review of criminology research on bystander intervention in non-environmental crimes reported mixed results for gender as an explanatory factor, depending on the nature of the incident, degree of risk to the intervener, type of intervening behaviour, and urgency of the situation (Leavitt et al., 2020). In terms of wildlife crime, Leavitt et al. (2020) explored the willingness of citizens in the west- ern USA to call poaching hotlines and found that few
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
