Illegal Hunting and Angling:The Neutralization of Wildlife Law Violations
In: Society & AnimalsSearch for other papers by Stephen Eliason in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This study provides a descriptive account of rationalizations for poaching used by wildlife law violators. There has been little research on motivations for poaching. This study uses qualitative data obtained from surveys and in-depth interviews with wildlife law violators and conservation officers in Kentucky to examine rationalizations used by wildlife law violators to excuse and justify participation in this type of illegal activity. Comments from conservation officers and violators revealed widespread use of rationalizations, with denial of responsibility being most common. The study also used claims of entitlement, defense of necessity, and denial of necessity of the law. Findings contribute to our knowledge of why people illegally take wildlife resources.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 2233 | 352 | 34 |
| Full Text Views | 246 | 18 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 286 | 26 | 5 |
Illegal Hunting and Angling:The Neutralization of Wildlife Law Violations
In: Society & AnimalsSearch for other papers by Stephen Eliason in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This study provides a descriptive account of rationalizations for poaching used by wildlife law violators. There has been little research on motivations for poaching. This study uses qualitative data obtained from surveys and in-depth interviews with wildlife law violators and conservation officers in Kentucky to examine rationalizations used by wildlife law violators to excuse and justify participation in this type of illegal activity. Comments from conservation officers and violators revealed widespread use of rationalizations, with denial of responsibility being most common. The study also used claims of entitlement, defense of necessity, and denial of necessity of the law. Findings contribute to our knowledge of why people illegally take wildlife resources.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 2233 | 352 | 34 |
| Full Text Views | 246 | 18 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 286 | 26 | 5 |
