Wildlife criminals: Public want them punished, but they routinely get off scot-free, study shows

(London, 21 August, 2024) – Criminals who inflict immense suffering on wild animals, such as beating to death, poisoning, or smuggling across borders illegally, are evading justice and penalties in the UK, according to new research.  

This is despite new poll findings showing that 97 percent of the respondents believed those who torture wild animals should be punished. 

The report ‘System set to fail – prosecuting wildlife crime’ was commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) from criminologists at Nottingham Trent University (now at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU)) and the University of Gloucestershire. It extensively documents first-hand accounts of those working on the front line of wildlife crime, providing a bleak overview of why so many cases do not result in prosecution.   

It revealed cases were often unsuccessful due to a lack of resources, training, inconsistent approaches to gathering evidence, and the absence of a centralised recording system for wildlife crime.  

In addition, a poll carried out by YouGov has shown that there is overwhelming support for wildlife crime to be taken seriously. Specifically, it found:  

• 97% of people believed that those who torture wild animals should be punished.  
• 92% of people were in support of the government setting up a formal reporting system to record wildlife crime.  
• Over 80% of people thought that people who illegally trafficked wild animals (81%) or tortured them (85%) should be given a prison sentence.  
• 63% thought that the government should be doing more to tackle wildlife crime.  

“Britain’s wildlife is in trouble. This research tells the demoralising tales of enforcers often fighting losing battles against criminals enjoying a lucrative free-for-all to exploit wildlife for greed. It’s a system set to fail”, Catherine Bell, Director of International Policy, IFAW said. “Wildlife crime presents low risk - high reward opportunities to organised gangs, who are often linked to drugs, firearms and other violent offences.”  

“If the new government wants to signal their commitment to protecting nature, then this is a golden opportunity”, Bell added.   

Police, legal experts and NGOs cite wildlife crime’s ‘non-notifiable’ status as a major source of its inequality under the law. This means incidents do not have to be reported by the police to the Home Office which would use them to compile national crime statistics. As a result, such statistics are hidden in violence, suspicious circumstances offences and anti-social behaviour incidents, preventing clear oversight of the situation. 

“Research consistently shows wildlife crime doesn't get the priority or the resources it deserves. Instead, we have a system reliant on the diligence and dedication of individual enforcement staff. We need better systems in place to provide the necessary support to investigate and prosecute these crimes,” Dr Angus Nurse, research lead and Professor of Law and Environmental Justice at ARU said. 

Wildlife crimes occur under a veil of secrecy often in remote places, so overstretched police forces have difficulty allocating resources to investigate and prosecute them. Plus, in June, the Metropolitan Police’s wildlife crime unit was scaled back, with the unit’s detectives being redeployed. 

To tackle the problem IFAW is calling on the new government to show that they are committed to taking wildlife crime seriously in the first 100 days of government by introducing new measures. These include:   

• Making wildlife crime a ‘notifiable’ offence. 
• Mandatory early legal training in wildlife crime.  
• Mandatory sentencing and prosecution guidelines. 
• Better guidance and support on the evidence needed for wildlife crime prosecutions.  
• Greater multi-agency collaboration. 
• Raised awareness of wildlife crime across forces.  
• Commitment to the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) funding from the government.  

The report involved anonymous interviews with enforcers, prosecutors and NGOs involved in fighting wildlife crime to provide a picture of the situation from the front-line. It also considered data from surveys, freedom of information act requests and literature to unpick prosecution rates, and critically, identify what action can be taken to help wildlife. 

To sign this petition, please visit here.  

ENDS 

Notes to editors: 

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,166 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 29th - 30th June 2024. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+). 

There is overwhelming support for wildlife crime to be taken seriously.  

• 97% of people believed that those who torture wild animals should be punished.  
• Over 80% of people thought that people who illegally traffic wild animals (81%) or torture them should be given a prison sentence (85%).  
• 92% of people were in support of the government setting up a formal reporting system to record wildlife crime.  
• 63% thought that the government should be doing more to tackle wildlife crime.  

Many people are unsure of the law, especially with regards to bringing back wildlife products from abroad.  

• Between 38-40% didn’t know if bringing back items such as wild animal bone carvings, claws, tooths, corals and sponges from abroad was illegal, meaning that many people could be unwittingly breaking the law.  
• While encouragingly, 76% of people did know that bringing back ivory products was illegal, 17% still did not know, and 7% thought it was legal.  

There were concerns for online safety, with:  

• 82% of people who had once witnessed content involving animal cruelty or animal trafficking online were you negatively affected by it.  
• 89% of people in support that the Online Safety Act should be extended to include content involving illegal wildlife trafficking.  

The research was the second instalment of work on wildlife crime, exploring how inconsistent laws, a chronic shortage of resources and a lack of awareness of wildlife crime allow this problem to continue. Previously, the first part of this work from the Make Wildlife Matter report showed that there were mounting concerns about wildlife crime links to organised crime. Specifically, it found:  

• 81% of the police force respondents said they felt wildlife crime was linked to theft and dishonesty offences; 
• 50% highlighted links to firearms; 
• 38% linked it to drugs, and; 
• 50% believed wildlife crime was connected to violent crimes.   
• According to Interpol and the United Nations Environment Programme ‘as much as USD 91 billion to USD 258 billion annually are stolen –stripped out of the wild – by criminals.’ 
• The overall project which consists of three different studies is one of the most in-depth studies into the national wildlife crime picture since the largely unaddressed UNDOC recommendations in 2021 that wildlife crime needs to be better prioritised.  
• This research sought views from those on the front line of wildlife crime enforcement presenting an up-to-date snapshot of wildlife crime in the UK.  
• Crimes reported included hares chased and ripped apart by dogs for bets, the shooting of birds of prey, the stealing of bird's eggs, illegal fox hunting and badgers being dug out and baited – set upon by dogs.  
• There are an estimated 30,000 offences against badgers annually alone in the UK. 

Press Contacts: 

United Kingdom 
Kirsty Warren 
Senior Communications Manager 
m: +44 (0) 7809 269 747 
e: kwarren@ifaw.org