212 A Nurse White (2007, p 41) explains that ‘when it comes to environmental harm, what actually gets criminalised by and large reflects an anthropocentric perspective on the nature of the harm in question’ The way in which environmental ‘rights’ are framed in law is determined by a range of strategic interests (political, cultural and even the interests of industry) and depends on which of a series of conflicting rights achieves prominence School children are now taught the value of wildlife and an environmentalist perspective, thus egg collecting is no longer a socially condoned activity Until recently hunting with dogs (and in particular fox hunting) was also legal in the UK, demonstrating that while it may have been the subject of deeply polarised debate between enthusiasts and opponents, what was considered to be deviant behaviour by one group of people was viewed as perfectly normal by another group Whether or not a person is considered to be deviant can, therefore, depend on the legal and cultural conditions of a society The social reaction to deviant behaviour also differs from group to group, and evidence exists that anthropocentric notions of animals as property to be exploited are implicit if not explicit in collecting activity Collectors may, therefore, deny that their actions are a crime explaining them away as legitimate use of natural resources or as an ‘error of judgement’ but not a criminal act Matza (1964) developed drift theory to explain how delinquents often accept a moral obligation to be bound by the law but can drift in and out of delinquency He suggested that people live their lives fluctuating between total freedom and total restraint, drifting from one extreme of behaviour to another While they may accept the norms of society they develop a special set of justifications for their behaviour which allows them to justify behaviour that violates social norms These techniques of neutralisation (Eliason 2003; Sykes and Matza 1957) allow delinquents to express guilt over their illegal acts but also to rationalise between those whom they can victimise and those they cannot This means that offenders are not immune to the demands of conformity but can find a way to rationalise when and where they should conform and when it may be acceptable to break the law As an example, for those offenders whose activities have only recently been the subject of legislation, the legitimacy of the law itself may be questioned allowing for unlawful activities to be justified Many fox hunting enthusiasts, for example, strongly opposed the (UK) Hunting Bill as being an unjust and unnecessary interference with their existing activity and so their continued hunting with dogs is seen as legitimate protest against an unjust law (The Hunting Act 2004) and is denied as being criminal Similarly egg collectors, taxidermists and trophy hunters neutralise condemnation of their activities citing the past legitimacy of the activity and the imposition of sanctions as being the misguided preserve of urban elites