Collecting Wildlife 213 Lemert (1951) argued that there are two types of deviance—primary and secondary Primary deviance occurs when offenders not recognise themselves as deviant, rationalise their behaviour or see it as part of a socially acceptable role By contrast secondary deviance becomes a means of defence or attack against societal reaction Lemert explained that: When a person begins to employ his deviant behaviour or a role based upon it as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him, his deviation is secondary Objective evidence of this change will be found in the symbolic appurtenances of the new role, in clothes, speech, posture, and mannerisms, which in some cases heighten social visibility, and which in some cases serve as symbolic cues to professionalization (Lemert 1951, p 76) Lemert argued that as a result of societal reactions the original causes of the deviation receded and gave way to the importance of the disapproving, degradational, and isolating reactions of society In this way criminal careers (discussed later in this chapter) are created Attitudes towards regulation are also an important factor in identifying the nature of wildlife offending and collecting activity Eliason’s (2001) assessment of poachers in Kentucky consisted of a mail survey to individuals cited and convicted for wildlife violations in Kentucky during 1999 with a follow-up survey to conservation officers in Kentucky during 2001 The second phase of his research consisted of in-depth interviews with offenders and conservation officers Eliason’s work identified that neutralisation techniques are often employed by those convicted of poaching offences These techniques included; denial of responsibility, claim of entitlement, denial of the necessity of the law, defence of necessity and recreation and excitement, again reflecting the research of Sykes and Matza (1957) which identified that individuals involved in crime use these techniques both before and after engaging in illegal activity Significant numbers of those interviewed by Eliason were aware that they were contravening regulations but considered that their breaches were minor or technical infringements and that they should not have been the subject of law enforcement attention They often also denied the right of law enforcement officers to take action against them or contended that there were better uses of officers’ time and that enforcement action should be directed towards the ‘real’ criminals (a rationalisation also used where collecting is viewed by its participants as being minor offending at best) In addition, some offenders argued that it was necessary for them to kill wildlife in order to feed themselves or their families, although this latter excuse is not an issue in collecting activity