Exploring the motivations and deterrents of wildlife poachers, the true conservtion costs of wildlife crime, and developing an approach to ensure restitution, fines, and penalties fit the crime.few…

Exploring the motivations and deterrents of wildlife poachers, the true conservtion costs of wildlife crime, and developing an approach to ensure restitution, fines, and penalties fit the crime.few studies have holistically examined the conservation impacts from wildlife poaching. These impacts include the loss of desirable genetic material, loss of opportunity for hunters, and lost revenue for agencies. Tragically, the visibility and notoriety of poaching also exacerbates the tendency of the public to equate "poaching" with "hunting," further degrading the positive conservation benefits derived from lawful hunting. While there is evidence indicating that detection rates for poaching are astonishingly low, accurately estimating the number of undetected violators is problematic. However, these data are critical in understanding the impacts that poaching ultimately has on public trust resources. Likewise, determining why poachers choose to violate wildlife laws is critical for establishing adequate punitive controls that ultimately will help to reduce or deter poaching. Yet, little empirical data exist on what motivates individuals to poach. And while states have statutes and regulations that assign penalties and restitution for poaching, the greatest impact is afforded when those laws are consistent, data-supported, and fairly enforced by prosecutors and judges. The objectives of this study are to 1) quantify the detection rates of poaching activities across the U.S., 2) determine the motivations that cause poachers to take wildlife illegally, 3) determine the degree to which judges and prosecutors pursue and issue fines and penalties that are proportional to the conservation value of poached wildlife, and 4) provides tate wildlife agencies with recommendations, based on the results of this study, to better inform them on best management practices for effectively reducing rates of illegal take of wildlife. These recommendations may include suggestions for consistency in fines, penalties, and replacement costs for poached wildlife as well as recommendations for improving the detection and conviction of criminals that take wildlife illegally.