In response to some comments originating from the poaching incidents, some factors for consideration: Occasionally, on the internet, remarks from concerned supporters are received apparently ‘celebrating’ the death of poachers, shot by rangers or killed by the animal the poaching is attempted on. More often, they call for the death of the poachers by the same means as he inflicts on the animals he poaches. Policy or law imposed on most conservancies is usually that shoot-to-kill is only as a last act and in self-defence. Rangers must first do all they can to avoid this. In the event of a contact (a ranger meeting a poacher), it is assumed that it would be much more beneficial if they were caught and arrested, giving the opportunity to recover valuable information about who has commissioned them to turn to poaching, information about the supply chain, and smuggling routes. If a poacher fires – they virtually all carry guns these days – and endangers the ranger’s safety, then rangers may fire back, with the chance that lives may be lost in this exchange. Many management, anti-poaching and monitoring program staff in the field are armed but not all. Those protecting National Parks or Game Reserves usually are, while those protecting wildlife in conservancies (private or community-owned) usually are not. It’s a tough task to face a poaching gang when all you possess is a torch, a phone and possibly a GPS. Some rangers are applying for Police Reservist status, which would allow named individuals to bear arms; others have come to arrangements with local police forces or the government department to carry out joint patrols. Protecting wildlife endangers lives. There are casualties on both sides. Why we don’t hear of more poachers going to prison, and why is it so hard to convict a poacher? • The disparity between sentencing in different countries is great. The law in many countries does not assign long prison sentences to wildlife crime. In Zambia, possession of rhino horn or a conviction of poaching can receive a sentence of 20 years, while in Kenya, the penalty for poaching is sometimes simply a fine (and a relatively low fine at that), although under the new legislation, this may change. • Even where tough laws do exist, for a criminal case, it is difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a poacher is guilty. To do so would require DNA analysis linking the carcass, the trophy and the poacher. Too often, the expertise is not available for this type of sophisticated analysis. If a poacher is apprehended before an attack, there is very little to prove, except armed trespass. There is general frustration about the prosecution of poachers. It is important to build the political will to ensure that prison sentences are given. Time and time again, poachers are acquitted at trial. If this is the case, then legal measures to crack down on poaching are not working. Poachers who do not receive a prison sentence are free to return to reserves and poach more wildlife. The highly organised nature of poaching syndicates means that the poacher ‘on the ground’ is doing the dirty work, but somewhere much higher up the chain is a criminal gang, very literally, calling the shots. This makes convicting poaching offences harder, and means that killing a poacher may achieve very little in terms of reducing the number of poaching incidents. Syndicates can easily find another person willing to take the risk, and that puts those who protect the wildlife in an unenviable position. In short, prejudicial actions on a poacher are often detrimental to the protector, themselves, or whose staff risk being caught up in lengthy court cases and even prison, while acting in the line of duty. The historic version of a typical poacher was someone down on his luck who is just trying to put some meat on the family table. While there is still some of that taking place, it’s as common as other breeds of poachers, like the serial criminals who poach because it’s what they’ve always done for financial benefit. Serial poachers have been poaching for so long they often have a normal route that includes prime spots. Serial poachers are as passionate about poaching as others are about legal and ethical hobbies. Unfortunately, many are smart enough to change their routine, making it difficult to catch them. They tend to be older, and they do most of their poaching not far from their homes. Occasional poachers are the most difficult to catch. Rangers usually have to rely on a solid tip from a witness, or they simply have to be in the neighbourhood when the crime is taking place. With all this in consideration, the lack of equipment on the law enforcement side is also a factor, not to mention other well documented factors leading to the unsuccessful conviction of apprehended suspects. Some other factors, above those mentioned, are shortage of personnel, size of the area, landscape, vegetation, long hours and many others. We as rangers and conservationists are often critisised when an animal is poached but does anyone take into consideration the fact that we cannot quantify the amount of wildlife we have saved through mere presence and vigilance, notwithstanding the poachers we have arrested?
Posted on: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 06:47:21 +0000