Collecting Wildlife 207 Previous research (Nurse 2013a, 2011) identified a typology of wildlife offenders concluding that five main types of offender existed as follows: A Traditional Criminals B Economic Criminals C Masculinities Criminals D Hobby Criminals E Stress Offenders Utilising this typology (Nurse 2013a, 2011), animal collectors predominantly fall within Model D (Hobby Offenders) and Model C (Masculinities Criminals) Collecting where there is no direct benefit or financial gain to the offender (for example, egg collecting) is primarily driven by the collecting behaviour as a hobby or personal interest Egg collectors, for example, primarily collect wild birds eggs for personal use and gratification (see case study below) There is no concrete evidence of any market for wild birds’ eggs; except where viable eggs are being taken primarily for illegal bird breeding purposes However the theft of viable wild birds’ eggs is distinct from egg collecting per se, where the end result is for a collector to obtain egg shells for their own private collections, similar to other acquisitive activities such as stamp collecting Thus egg collectors and those engaged in large scale taxidermy (as collectors), but who not operate mainly as traders or dealers in dead wildlife specimens, are involved in an activity largely situated within personal gratification discourse rather than the profit-driven activity which drives much wildlife trafficking (Schneider 2008; Wyatt 2013) Collecting in this context can be more readily likened to a hobby or obsession, and the collection or acquisition of items is a primary motivator rather than the activity being driven by business imperatives In the case of egg collecting, for example, offences are rarely committed by those directly employed within the countryside (Nurse 2013a) Instead, the offences are often committed by those employed (or unemployed) elsewhere and who may travel specifically to commit their offences This element of mens rea on the part of the offender might account for the seriousness with which these offences are considered by NGOs and the criminal justice agencies Collecting activities arguably attract disproportionate attention and response by, for example, continuous enforcement activity aimed at collecting activity that has limited impact in conservation terms and considerable adverse publicity for an activity that is at the lower end of animal abuse criminality (Nurse 2013a, 2013b)