The palgrave international handbook of a 239

234 J Maher and T Wyatt Seidensticker’s (2010) study in 13 Asian tiger range countries found human population growth (which doubled over 40 years) alongside significant economic growth influenced tiger population decline and increased all types of IWT offenders—poachers, smugglers and consumers Consumers, increasingly encouraged to own wildlife as status symbols, health remedies and more, could look to a ready and accessible IWT market Offenders, willing to meet this demand, were substantially rewarded for tapping into the IWT market in order to meet the needs of these new, wealthy consumers While economic motivations clearly influence the rational choice offender, this is only one of a number of factors which can explain the abuse, as discussed next Techniques of Neutralisation In their study on poaching (not specifically for the IWT), Von Essen et al (2014) suggest offenders are motivated by a combination of livelihood (for example, economic factors), folk (for example, custom and continuity) and social (for example, political stance on regulation) factors They suggest neutralisation theory (Sykes and Matza 1957) is potentially the most holistic explanation when looking beyond economically motivated factors in understanding the abuse of wildlife Neutralisation theory suggests five ways in which offenders defend their behaviour and thereby minimise the impact and consequences of their actions (Sykes and Matza 1957)—denial of the victim, denial of injury, denial of responsibility, condemnation of the condemners and appeal to higher loyalties—each of which is evident in the legal and IWT Animals are seldom given victim status due to their inferior status in society (Beirne 2009), furthermore, by focusing on ‘species’, the individual animal victim is seldom recognised The status conferred to wildlife (most commonly as commodities, pests, products and objects of beauty/wonder) is anthropocentric, fluid and often conflicting For example, according to CITES, elephants are an iconic species deserving of the greatest protection, yet to indigenous farmers elephants are pests which require elimination (Fernando et al 2008) Even as protected species, their status is largely linked to their commodified use as ivory Sollund (2012) argues the denial of injury to wildlife in the illegal trade is possible due to the accepted systematic abuse in the legal trade, which is perceived to be necessary suffering Consequently, denial of responsibility for the harm caused by the trade is also facilitated by the perception that some suffering is acceptable and thereby