Techniques of neutralising wildlife crime in rural England and Wales

Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Techniques of neutralising wildlife crime in rural England and Wales Gareth Enticott School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Wildlife crime Badgers Rural identity Agriculture Neutralisation techniques Bovine tuberculosis

Within rural studies there have been few attempts to critically analyse crimes against nature. This paper addresses this gap by providing an analysis of farmers’ reasons for illegally culling badgers in the United Kingdom. Drawing on Sykes and Matza’s (1957) concepts of neutralisation and drift, the paper shows how farmers rationalise this activity. Using in-depth interviews with 61 farmers in the England and Wales, the paper shows how they justify badger culling through discursive strategies that claim the activity is necessary, deny the necessity of the law, condemning the condemners, and appealing to community loyalties The paper also shows that neutralisation helps identify contextual factors that allow farmers to drift ambiguously between deviant values and social norms. In the case of badger culling, drift is attributable to an attack on a particular rural identity and way of living that has left farmers perceiving their selves as an effect. As much as they are attempts to rationalise criminal behaviour, neutralisation techniques can also be seen as spatial discourses demarcating the boundaries of cultural and spatial identities. In conclusion, the paper discusses the implications for resolving the problems of wildlife crime. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Crime has been a key concern for geographical studies, yet recent studies have complained that theoretical and methodological advances made in geographical criminology are absent from rural studies. Yarwood (2001, p. 201), for example, argues that the geography of crime is “firmly entrenched in the urban environment and, by contrast, crime in the countryside has largely been ignored”. A focus on rural crime, however, could help develop understandings of crime as a cultural construct (Yarwood, 2001, 2005, 2007), revealing how notions such as ‘fear of crime’ are constructed by changing social relations within the countryside in which new rural elites marginalise rural others (Yarwood and Gardner, 2000). A focus on rural crime also gives rise to the question of what is ‘criminality’. Environmental protest and activities such as the destruction of genetically modified crops blur the ‘whole concept of criminality’ (Yarwood, 2001, p. 209). Some ‘criminal’ activities, such as hunting and poaching may be intrinsic elements to some rural identities (Bell, 1994). Others, such as hunt sabotage or raves, may be criminalised as part of broader societal moral panics. These examples also highlight how nature is implicated within debates over rural criminality. Whilst rural studies has been concerned with evolving natureesociety relations, less theoretical and empirical attention has been directed towards crimes against nature or wildlife crime. In fact, extant studies of rural crime largely focus on E-mail address: [email protected]. 0743-0167/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.01.005

social crime e criminal acts by people perpetrated against others e what Beirne (2002) suggests is thought of as “real crime”. There are some signs that this may be changing. In 2006, a new Animal Welfare Act was introduced by the UK Government to provide greater powers of detection and enforcement where wildlife crimes are suspected. In the same year, the National Wildlife Crime Unit was established to provide a standalone police unit dealing exclusively with wildlife crime and address concerns that wildlife crime was not taken seriously by police forces (Fyfe and Reeves, 2011). The purpose of this paper is to explore what a study of wildlife crime can tell us about rural society and what rural wildlife crime can offer to theoretical understandings of crime. To do this, the paper focuses on the motivations amongst farmers to illegally cull badgers e a legally protected species e and the ability of neutralisation theory (Sykes and Matza, 1957) to account for these actions. The paper begins by attempting to define wildlife crime and outlining theories to explain it. Drawing on interviews and participant observation with farmers in England and Wales, the paper then examines the various rationalities for illegal badger culling. The paper concludes by exploring the implications of these findings for wildlife protection. 2. Conceptualising wildlife crime Studies of wildlife crime provide broad and varying definitions, conceptualisations and theorisations. This section discusses these debates and their implications for studies of wildlife crime.

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

Firstly, what forms of nature should wildlife crime be concerned with? Jacoby (2001) and Warren’s (1997) accounts of hunting in the American National Parks position crimes against nature in relation to the illegal hunting and poaching of animals. Alternatively, forms of environmental degradation, such as water pollution, may represent a different form of wildlife crime. Indeed, White (2008) suggests these activities fall within “environmental criminology”. Yet despite such activities affecting flora and fauna, studies tend to focus on sentient animals (e.g. Agnew, 1998; Arluke et al., 1999; Yates et al., 2001). More recently, however, crimes against nature have been increasingly categorised under the heading of “green criminology” (Beirne and South, 2007; Edwards et al., 1996; South, 1998) which encompasses an even broader arrangement of topics considered to reflect crimes against nature, including climate change, radioactive waste and vivisection. South (1998) lists some of the classic case studies of environmental pollution in his green criminology, but in linking them to issues of social justice also highlights how the victims of environmental crime are human as much as they are natural. The relative newness of nature as an object of criminological study (Beirne,1999) and the array of potential natureesociety relations may have played some part in creating a discipline whose focus of enquiry is broad and defies neat categorisation. However, it is clear that the founders and promoters of nature focussed criminology had their sights on what they saw as those criminal relationships between humans and animals. Certainly, authors such as Piers Beirne and Robert Agnew who have done much to promote a criminology of nature have focussed their attention on humaneanimal relations (see Beirne, 2002). Part of this may also relate to the close relationship of much nature focussed criminology and animal rights philosophy. Notwithstanding these different conceptualisations, this paper uses the term wildlife crime to denote criminal activities involving nondomesticated wild animals. A second problem associated with studies of wildlife crime is what counts as criminality? One of the problems facing wildlife criminology is the lack of criminal laws with which to frame research activity (Beirne, 1999; Vollum et al., 2004). Even when statutory crimes are defined, they may be rarely enforced. This may relate to the standards of evidence required to successfully prosecute; the vagueness of the law; reflect that enforcement is a matter of judgement or deployment of different regulatory styles to suit specific situations (Gunningham et al., 2003; Hutter, 1988; Lowe et al., 1997); or the lack of resources for investigating or understanding of wildlife crime within police forces (Fyfe and Reeves, 2011). The frequent absence of a clear legal framework through which to pursue research is connected with a much broader definition of ‘crimes’ against nature. Beirne (1999, pp. 128e129) points out that “so many human practices that are harmful to animals lie outside the scope of existing criminal law, the latter is far too narrow a basis for the study of animal abuse”. Instead, most wildlife criminology draws on a broader definition that includes “institutionalised” and “legitimate” forms of violence against animals (Vollum et al., 2004). Drawing heavily on philosophies of animal rights (e.g. Singer, 1975) these include animal abuse, animal cruelty and denial of basic rights to animals. In these approaches, activities such as factory farming, animal experimentation, and hunting all count as criminal activity. However, this definition does little to help define or theorise wildlife criminology. Firstly, as Benton (1998) points out, the moral philosophy of animal rights is complex, particularly when non-humans other than animals are involved. Secondly, even abuse and welfare requires standards by which to judge behaviour. Thirdly, by suggesting that wildlife crime can be both institutional and criminal, the concept of wildlife crime encompasses most humaneanimal relationships.

201

The absence of a clear definition of what counts as wildlife crime has not stopped the theorisation of its causes and motivations. For example, the ‘violence graduation hypothesis’ (MacDonald, 1961) argues that animal cruelty in childhood leads to anti-social behaviour and aggression in later life (Ascione, 1993; Felthouse and Kellert, 1987; Hensley et al., 2010). Studies explore the reasons behind this graduation and its socio-demographics (Flynn, 2002; Hensley and Tallichet, 2005a,b; Merz-Perez et al., 2001). The graduation thesis is challenged by the ‘generality of deviance theory’ which argues that the same personality traits are the underlying cause for all criminal behaviour, whether against humans or animals (Arluke et al., 1999). Examples include links between violence towards humans and hunting (Adams, 1995), animal abuse (Arluke et al., 1999) and deer poaching (Green, 2002). Whilst these approaches have a suggestion of the pre-destined actor and biological determinism, the long history of the sociology of deviance provides a range of more socially nuanced theories. In particular, ‘control theory’ has been most often linked with explanations of wildlife crime. Control theory suggests that criminal activity occurs when the controls or rules that ensure conformity are somehow lessened. Whilst control theories have been hugely influential in the sociology of deviance, they have been criticised for suggesting that greater regulation is required to reduce deviance. In this respect, the lack of regulation surrounding wildlife crime may help explain its popularity within research on wildlife crime. In particular, wildlife criminologists have drawn upon Sykes and Matza’s (1957) theory of ‘techniques of neutralisation’ that has widely used in the sociology of deviance to account for a wide range of deviant behaviour (see Agnew,1994; Cohen, 2002; Coleman,1994; Eliason and Dodder, 1999; Forsyth and Evans, 1998; Gauthier, 2001; Shiner and Newburn, 1997; Young, 2007). In its simplest form, neutralisation techniques can be understood as a set or classification of discourses by which criminals seek to justify and rationalise their behaviour. The neutralisation techniques offered by criminals can therefore be used to explain why deviance occurs. Five neutralisation techniques are identified by Sykes and Matza (1957). Firstly, ‘denial of the victim’, refers to the belief that whoever is harmed by an action deserved its consequences. Secondly, in ‘denial of responsibility’, offenders argue that their actions were caused by forces beyond their control. Thirdly, ‘denial of injury’ suggests that no-one suffered as a result of the crime. Fourthly, in ‘appealing to higher loyalties’, offenders cite the importance of maintaining loyalty to small groups rather than society. Fifthly, ‘condemnation of the condemners’ refers to statements that suggest disapprovers are hypocrites who have caused more harm. Other neutralisation discourses have been added to Sykes and Matza’s original list. Coleman (1994), for example, adds ‘denial of necessity for the law’, ‘everyone’s doing it’, and ‘claims of entitlement’ where offenders claim they are owed what is stolen. Others include the ‘metaphor of the ledger’ (deviance is acceptable infrequently) (Klockars, 1974) and the ‘defence of necessity’ (actions are deemed unavoidable) (Minor, 1981). There have been several attempts to apply these ideas to help explain wildlife crime. Forsyth and Evans’ (1998) have analysed the neutralisation techniques used by people involved in organised dogfighting. Eliason and Dodder (1999) have shown how deer poachers deploy the ‘claim to entitlement’ and the ‘defence of necessity’ to justify their activities. More broadly, explanations of the normalisation of wildlife crime have revealed how the treatment of animals is morally justified through discursive strategies such as ‘euphemistic labelling’ to disguise the severity of actions; and ‘advantageous comparison’ in which benefits and drawbacks are contrasted to make reprehensible acts righteous (Agnew, 1998). Attempts to excuse animal abuse are therefore based on a strategy of portraying animal activists as dangerous radicals who deny freedom.

202

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

However, applications of neutralisation theory should go beyond simply categorising justifications offered by perpetrators of wildlife crime. Although labelled a control theory, neutralisation engages with other theories of deviance (Newburn, 2007). It is attractive because it is critical of but combines both strain theory e that is, people under pressure are more likely to commit crimes e and subcultural theory e that criminality is connected to subcultural values. This is captured in the concepts of ‘drift’ and ‘subterranean values’ (Matza, 1964; Matza and Sykes, 1961). Drift relates to Matza’s (1964, p. 33) assertion that whilst there may be a subculture of delinquency, there is not a delinquent subculture. That is, subcultures may exist but their members are not committed to deviant values, as suggested by subcultural theory e but possess the same norms and values as everybody else (Shiner and Newburn, 1997). However, conformity to these values is contingent: ‘drift’ occurs when circumstances lead to a loosening of control, which leads in turn to the temporary acceptance of ‘subterranean values’ e a ‘shadow’ value system that supports deviant behaviour (Mooney, 2007). For Matza and Sykes’ (1961) work on juvenile delinquency, these values were said to include an acceptance of aggression, a disdain for work and a search for excitement. Techniques of neutralisation facilitate the drift from one core value system to another through processes of socialisation (Mooney, 2007). Thus, Sykes and Matza (1957, p. 667) argue that ‘it is by learning these techniques that the juvenile becomes delinquent, rather than by learning moral imperatives, values or attitudes standing in direct contradiction to those of the dominant society’. This simultaneous acceptance of social norms and ‘subterranean values’ highlights a state of ambiguity amongst offenders: they understand their actions to be wrong, may even feel guilt but still seek to justify them as legitimate. In this way, neutralisation can help describe the circumstances of this drift e such as experiencing the self as an effect and of feeling ‘pushed around’ (Matza, 1964). It is not simply that criminals offer a range of explanations, but underlying these explanations is an existential state of mind and set of contingent circumstances that provides a contextual explanation to deviant behaviour and this anti-dualistic perspective on cause and justification is one of the attractions of the theory (Downes and Rock, 2003).1 One criticism of neutralisation and drift is that whilst it might explain the conditions that make crime a possibility, it does not explain why some people commit crimes and not others. Concerns have also been expressed about the dual function of neutralisation. Box (1983) suggests that neutralisation cannot be both context and rationalisation. In this way, neutralisation is a form of ‘remedial work’ (Goffman, 1971) e a set of rhetorical strategies to account for behaviour that seeks to repair or maintain social relations (Cavanagh et al., 2001). Perhaps as a result, the few studies of wildlife crime that have deployed neutralisation have not sought to analyse the contextual reasons for drift. Moreover, these studies fail to acknowledge the ambiguity that offenders feel, the contingency surrounding their actions, or the extent to which the ‘subterranean values’ are broadly similar to other forms of deviant behaviour. This would be surprising given, firstly, the non-utilitarian nature of delinquent values, compared to utilitarian wildlife crimes which seek to preserve agricultural economic interests. Moreover, it may be that where deviant behaviour is linked to broader socio-political struggles that neutralisation techniques and contexts of drift differ from those originally identified by Matza and Sykes. For example,

1 The anti-dualistic stance of neutralisation and its reliance on contingency, ambiguity and crime as an effect of relations has similarities with actor-network theory.

the emergence of a ‘politics of the rural’ may mean that deviant behaviour in relation to ‘rural problems’ is contextualised and neutralised in defensive discourses around rural space and identity in opposition to ‘urban outsiders’ (Woods, 2003). In short, without a broader appreciation of the theory of neutralisation, its value or limitations cannot be realised. The remainder of this paper aims to use neutralisation to explore these issues: what can it tell us about wildlife crime and what can wildlife crime tell us about the theory of neutralisation? 3. Neutralising crimes against badgers in England and Wales The effectiveness of neutralisation theory to account for rural wildlife crime was researched by examining the illegal culling of badgers by farmers in the United Kingdom. The significance of badgers as a subject of wildlife crime and the methods used to access farmers’ neutralisation techniques are outlined below. 3.1. Badgers in the United Kingdom Badgers occupy a unique position within the UK. They are culturally symbolic, yet have been subject to persecution in the form of badger baiting and feature in some of the UK’s earliest animal protection legislation. However, it was not until 1973 that the badger was accorded specific protection through the Badger Act (Ratcliffe, 1974). In subsequent years, new laws were passed (e.g. 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act), closing loopholes in the original legislation, resulting in the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act in which ‘a person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, a badger’ (Great Britain, 1992s.1(1)). The Act also enshrines the UK’s commitment to the Europe-wide Bern Convention in which badgers are listed as a protected species.2 Exceptions to the Act include killing badgers under a license issued by the UK government, as an act of mercy, or for the purpose of preventing damage to property or crops. In the last case however, it would be expected that a licence should be applied for and in any case, it is an offence to possess a dead badger. Badger culling has featured as part of government attempts to eradicate the zoonotic disease bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle. The disease is spread between cattle but also transmitted by badgers to cattle. During the 1970s to 1990s, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food regularly removed badgers from farmland using poisonous gas and cage traps in an attempt to control the disease (Grant, 2009). However, by the mid 1990s there was concern that these slaughter policies were not working. As cases of bTB rose, so the government called on scientists to review the evidence base and propose a scientific solution. The resulting report (Krebs et al., 1997), recommended a series of culling trials to establish its effectiveness in controlling bTB. The trials concluded in 2007 with results that questioned the viability of culling policies and instead recommended a series of alternative policy options (Independent Scientific Group (ISG), 2007). A no-cull policy was opted by the Government in 2008 and farmers were instead recommended to implement various biosecurity procedures to maintain the health of their cattle (for more details see, Enticott, 2001, 2008a, b). However, in 2010 the new coalition Government began a consultation over proposals to issue licences to farmers in

2 The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats e known as the Bern Convention e aims to ensure the conservation and protection of over 500 wild plant and 1000 animal species and their natural habitats and to regulate their exploitation. All member states of the European Union are signatories.

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

England to allow them to kill badgers for the purposes of disease control, whilst in Wales the Welsh Assembly Government is organising its own badger cull (Enticott and Franklin, 2009). 3.2. Methodology Studies of wildlife crime are often beset by methodological problems. The lack of research reflects the difficulties of identifying rule-breakers (Eliason and Dodder, 1999) and lax enforcement of conservation regimes (Keane et al., 2008). To help address these problems, a qualitative research strategy was adopted involving semi-structured interviews and participant observation. Data were derived from a research project focussed on farmers’ understandings of animal health and their reactions to and experiences of biosecurity policy initiatives. In total, 61 in-depth interviews with farmers in England and Wales were conducted during 2006 and 2007. Interviews took place in and around farms, in their fields and barns, amongst their cattle, at markets, in tractors and whilst travelling to an abattoir. All interviews were based on a loose semistructured interview guide that dealt with attitudes towards bTB; perceptions of biosecurity; and the social impact of bTB. Where possible, interviews were recorded. Notes of participant observation were recorded in a field diary. All farmers were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality and for these reasons names or specific locations are not given in this paper. Fieldwork was undertaken in two case study areas (Devon and Monmouthshire), chosen as examples of areas at high risk from bTB where farms are required to test cattle for bTB at least once a year. These areas allowed access to farmers with experience of dealing with endemic animal disease. Farmers were selected according to purposive criteria, including: those farms with ongoing bTB cases; farms with new cases of bTB; farms that had always been clear of bTB; and farms that had implemented forms of biosecurity. These characteristics are not readily available: research participants were therefore identified with the help of local vets, agricultural gatekeepers and social networks. To limit the possibilities of bias, the sample was supplemented by contacting other farmers according to other criteria, including: farm type; and geographical location. In Devon, 30 farmers participated in the research, and 26 were drawn from Monmouthshire. The sample was supplemented with a further 5 farmers from farmers in a third region (Gloucestershire e also a high risk area for bTB) who had specifically implemented innovative forms of biosecurity to combat bTB. In total, 28 farms were suffering from bTB at the time of the research, 53 had suffered it at some time in the past, and eight had a completely clear history. Whilst the research was focussed on these farmers’ understandings of biosecurity, the nature of the investigation inevitably led farmers to comment on the role of badgers in spreading bTB. In this respect, the purpose of qualitative research was to explore meanings and processes rather than provide a quantitative assessment of the extent of illegal badger culling.3 Some farmers provided examples of how they had sought to protect their herds from bTB by culling badgers on their own land, whilst others spoke about farmers they knew who had culled badgers. Analysing all farmers’ talk about these acts permits analysis of the context of ‘drift’ and the extent to which ‘subterranean values’ are held throughout agricultural society. That said, it is acknowledged that the sensitive nature of such an enquiry means that understandings of wildlife crime will always be incomplete.

3 For methodological and ethical reasons, the number of farmers disclosing that they killed badgers is not disclosed. As this is qualitative research any number would be misleading and open to misinterpretation. Findings are not general, but specific to the disease situation in which these farmers were farming.

203

4. Analysis Interview transcripts were analysed using Nvivo (QSR International Ltd., 2008). Analysis revealed the following set of neutralisation techniques employed to justify illegal badger culling. 4.1. ‘Defence of necessity’ Many farmers described the acts of badger culling or the urge to kill them as a ‘natural reaction’ or ‘part of human nature’ to receiving the bad news that their herd had tested positive for bTB. This was linked to the continued profitability of farm businesses, the disruption of agricultural routines following a positive TB test, and the subsequent regulations imposed by government veterinary officials. For example: “We’ve had to do something about the badgers e you have to if you want to stay in business. It wasn’t a difficult decision to make, it’s been dragging on 10 years, and we’re right in the middle of it. We’ve done everything really to get rid of them. We’ve tried gassing them, shooting them, tablets, a wire. Every farmer has to do it to save his/ her business. There was never a problem until the badger was protected.” This defence of necessity focuses on the economic viability of agriculture, but in use farmers also linked it with other neutralisation techniques such as denial of the necessity for the law. The defence of necessity also hints at a communal identity, in which all farmers, whether they are less or greatly affected by bTB, have the same rights to cull badgers. For example, in the following quote, a farmer points out that the economic costs of TB are particularly strong for those farmers who rear store cattle, but less strong for dairy farmers as they can still sell their milk. Nevertheless, the defence of necessity applies to all farmers: each has a right to defend their business to whatever extent they are affected: “If you can’t trade stock and it’s a big part of your income what else do you do? Are you just going to wait there and say ‘well bad luck mate you haven’t got no money for the next couple of months’? Especially if you are a suckler man that sells fat bullocks in a set period whereas certainly with us with milk and we got income, the milk still goes but if you’ve got to sell livestock what else do you do and it’s your income. You are going to take matters into your own control because you aren’t going to sit back and let someone walk all over you, are you? That’s not human nature.” A common theme in the defence of necessity is that ‘it was either the business or the badger’. Some farmers linked this defence to a discourse that suggested that their actions had a wider benefit to the wildlife. For example, after linking badger culling to the economic consequences of bTB, farmers added: “they are wiping out other wildlife too: we need to reduce all their numbers”. This denial of injury discourse suggested that badger culling had a wider public and natural benefit. Its purpose as Goffman (1971) describes, is to minimise the negative meanings of badger culling and assert a valid sense of meaning to actions. Secondly, for some farmers, the defence necessity highlighted their ambiguous position and feelings of guilt. Thus, farmers often claimed that “we didn’t like what we were doing” but that they were under immense personal and financial strain. In linking this denial of responsibility to a defence of necessity, farmers are attempting to suggest that bTB has such a pervading effect on their lives that they have ‘reduced competence’ (Goffman, 1971) which excuses their actions. Linking these different neutralisation techniques together also suggests that these farmers may not believe an economic defence of necessity is sufficient. Whilst it matters to them, it needs to be supported by other neutralisation techniques to be effective.

204

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

4.2. ‘Denial of the victim’ and ‘Denial of injury’

4.3. ‘Denial of necessity for the law’ and ‘Claims of entitlement’

In the denial of the victim, offenders suggest that their victims deserved their fate. Similarly, the denial of injury suggests that no-one was hurt as a result of the crime. In relation to badger culling, this defence could be applied to badgers, farmers and conservationists. However, analysis reveals that most farmers only applied it to badgers. In justifying badger culling, farmers drew a distinct difference between different types of badger. This strategy of classifying good and bad badgers is a key element of denying and minimising blame for badger culling. In interviews, farmers often recounted stories in wonderment of the time when they first saw a badger. Many farmers were at pains to point out that they liked to see badgers: some watched them and others admired their characteristics, particularly in comparison to other pests such as foxes. By contrast, they also painted a picture of an increasingly ill and sick badger population. Sick badgers were described in similar ways: they were smaller, emaciated, often with long claws, sunken eyes and generally ‘dirty’. Sick or ‘rogue badgers’ also had unusual behaviour: they tried to dig setts in the ‘wrong’ place, were not scared of human contact, and were often seen during the day rather than maintaining a nocturnal lifestyle (cf. Grant, 2009).4 Most farmers reasoned it was entirely legitimate to kill these rogue badgers. For example, during the research I received a phone call from a farmer I was due to interview to tell me that he had just killed two ‘sick’ badgers. On my arrival the next day, he showed me the badgers, saying: “These don’t look like badgers do they? There’s something wrong with them e look at their claws and their hair”. These ‘lay epidemiologies’ (Enticott, 2008a) play an important role in determining which badgers should be culled and which ones should be left alone and allow farmers to hold seemingly opposite views of badgers. For example, one farmer described how after shooting a badger he felt ‘gutted’ and ‘physically sick’ when he saw that it conformed to the image of a ‘healthy’ badger. Whilst farmers blame ‘rogue badgers’ for the spread of bTB, they are not suggesting that individual badgers have deserved their fate as is usually the case within the denial of victim. In these cases, farmers suggest that culling sick badgers is “putting them out of their misery”. Other farmers used euphemistic language to redefine their behaviour: rather than culling badgers, they talked of “taking care of badgers”. There are obvious similarities between badger culling and euthanasia discourses within veterinary and human medicine. The denial of injury/victim also appears to operate on different spatial scales. On one level, farmers ‘take care’ of individual badgers that have become ill. But they also connect the existence of sick badgers to a wider problem with the badger population. Many farmers complained how the Protection of Badgers Act had led to an explosion in the badger population. With no natural predators and limited food sources, the result is e so many farmers claim e a population that cannot support itself which is vulnerable to illness and can only be resolved by population controls. Arguably, this distinction between the population and the individual proves useful in resolving any cognitive dissonance involved in badger culling. The population discourse allows farmers to blame a population by claiming it is ‘out of control’, whilst at an individual level claiming that their actions represent a form of care for badgers who have suffered from the problems created by the scale of the population.

Denial of necessity for the law and claims of entitlement both advocate rights to usurp the law based on the experiences and knowledge of offenders. In relation to badger culling, farmers deploy these neutralisation techniques in direct relation to the beliefs about badgers as victims and the effect of conservation regulations upon them. In interviews, farmers neutralised the meaning of badger culling through claims of localised expertise. In short, farmers argued that ‘outsiders’ contributed to the problem of bTB by upsetting the natural rhythms of the countryside. Invariably, these outsiders were scientists (as distinct from practicing veterinarians) and ‘urban’ policy makers. In denying the necessity for the law, farmers therefore claimed their own country expertise should take preference when it came to managing the countryside. For example:

4 This parallels the way corporate crime is dismissed as the actions of a ‘few bad apples’ to disguise broader institutional failings (Box, 1983).

“People that know about wildlife e they’re the ones that need to be listened to. Everything else really is just opinion. The farmers that have been on the ground with wildlife, they need to have their say. It’s people that have lived and breathed agriculture e the farmers that have a balanced approach to nature because if the badger was culled a bit, then it would be benefited a bit”. “It’s the people on the land that know what’s really going on and have the knowledge of what you should be doing e and they’ve been ignored because it’s not politically correct” These discourses posit a difference between urban/distant and rural/proximate expertise (cf. Bickerstaff et al., 2006). Rural expertise is deemed to be more trustworthy when it comes to resolving issue of bTB because it is embedded in local familiar people and places. Such expertise is based on traditions and historical accounts. For example, in interviews some farmers recounted how before the Protection of Badgers Act “there would always be someone who would manage the population so that it never got out of hand”. Some accounts stressed the intimate and honest relationship between the land and the people that lived in it, with some revealing how badgers were cooked and eaten. The localness of these accounts is what provides trust in their implications for badger controls. In these accounts of rural expertise, farmers argued that there was no need for the law because they were better placed to look after the countryside. This neutralisation technique merges neatly into one which suggests that they are entitled to do so because of a morally bankrupt modern politics that has alienated and distanced rural expertise. Culling badgers was justified in terms of a claim to entitlement: farmers were rescuing the countryside from the failures of modern politics and science. Farmers therefore spoke of their lack of trust in modern politics, linking government dishonesty and ‘spin’ to the prohibition of badger culling. In doing so, farmers repeated a familiar set of discourses relating to the politics of the rural (Woods, 2003) and the exclusion of rural interests from an urban-centric policy focus. In particular, farmers focussed on the large financial donations received by the governing Labour party from animal welfare organisations as symbolic of an inherent bias in the decisions they made about badger culling. Scientists associated with studying the effects of badger culling on bTB in cattle also came under the same criticism. Farmers argued that just like politicians, these scientists cared or knew little about the countryside, and their methodology, results and conclusions had been shaped by the same urban politics. These discourses of entitlement were also linked to a wider failure of agricultural policy and excessive bureaucracy. For example, many farmers blamed the incursion of other infectious diseases, such as the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak on the government’s failure to control national biosecurity. In their study

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

of discourses of rural regulation Neal and Walters (2007), found similar sentiments but also highlighted how farmers perceived excessive regulations to be constraining rural life. Farmers in this study complained of similar problems hinting that bTB regulations were costing them their livelihoods whilst infected wildlife were “allowed to wander around willy-nilly”. In sum, many farmers suggested that “everybody feels like there is a constructive campaign to wipe us out”. As Matza (1964) argues, this sense of perceiving the self as an effect and of being ‘pushed around’ is a key element in drifting between different value systems. Neutralising badger culling in these ways provides the context in which it is acceptable: as means of preserving a way of life under threat from the perceived incompetence of government. For example, one farmer said: “I feel like I’ve got my back up against the wall here e because the test won’t clear it up. We really are going nowhere fast at this rate. We’ve got to a point where we have to [kill badgers]. We really are the victims here: victims of the government for failing to get rid of the problem. And I feel sorry for the first farmer that’s going to get caught doing it. They are not a criminal e we don’t want to be criminals, but people are at their wits end”. Curiously, however, some farmers suspected that the government was playing a clever game. Rather than believing that the government was against badger culling per se, some suggested that the government was secretly quite happy for farmers to “do their dirty work for them”. This absolved the government from implementing a costly and publicly unpopular badger culling policy and allowed them to claim that other policy initiatives were working. More directly, other farmers claimed that they had been told by government officials that they needed to kill the badgers on their land: “even the man from Defra said you have got to get rid of the badgers and they sit there at your table in your house telling you that you have to get rid of the badgers, you have to because we’re not going to do it. ‘We know they are a problem but we’re not going to do anything about it, our hands are tied, it’s too politically sensitive so you must go out and do it’. So they are basically telling you to break the law and we haven’t done anything because we have 2 young children and if we were caught.” Government officials are certainly not ignorant of illegal badger culling. The fact that there are few prosecutions of farmers for illegal badger culling suggests either that the government does not consider the negative effects of culling to be significant5; prosecution of farmers will be counter-productive by causing tension with the farming community; and/or the law as it is constructed is too difficult to enforce (Fyfe and Reeves, 2011). 4.4. ‘Appeal to higher loyalties’ Appealing to higher loyalties refers to the importance of the local community relations above those of society at large. This has already been demonstrated in previous neutralisation techniques which stressed the value of rural expertise in shaping perceptions of badger culling. In interviews, several farmers mentioned that they had also ‘taken care’ of badgers on friends and neighbours’ farms. This is justified through an appeal to the importance of community rather than natural relations.

5 Studies have shown that badger culling can result in higher levels of bTB in cattle as a result of badger perturbation. This arises because the remaining badgers are able to increase the size of the territories and come into contact with more cattle (ISG 2007).

205

Firstly, the psychological trauma of living with animal disease has recently been recognised in research on the impact of Foot and Mouth Disease. Convery et al. (2008) for instance highlight the psychological effect of witnessing the slaughter and disposal of healthy animals on farmers and vets. More recently, research has also highlighted the psychological effects of bTB upon farmers (Farm Crisis Network, 2009). For those farmers who kill badgers on neighbouring properties, a key element of their neutralisation techniques is describing the advantageous comparison of averting a human crisis over the death of a wild animal. For example, one farmer commented: “I know one thing that if there is, and I can’t tell you whether I have done any good or not, but what I can tell you is this: that there might be somebody out there now that might be still here because of something I’d done and that’s enough for anybody, because being with people that have committed suicide and the loss, I would cut my arm off if I could bring them back but I can’t. So to do something practical, but there is no way of knowing, there is no way I can say if it has done any good, but at least if somebody is standing up and trying to work on their behalf when they are feeling so depressed and afraid to then perhaps I might have done some good”. Secondly, these neutralisation techniques extend to the wider community and viability of rural life. Just as claims to entitlement are based on the value and ignorance of rural expertise, so do these techniques appeal to the wider social landscape and those that live within it: “you know, this is at stake: this is a community, this is part of Britain is at stake here and if this goes pear shaped and this gets to a serious health hazard - it’s another nail in the coffin of this industry and some of the wondrous country you have got. Everything will suffer e tourism will suffer if the cattle aren’t here. We have lost 10 dairy farms now since Foot and Mouth. It is disappearing now”. However, these appeals to the value of people and community over individual animals do not extend to everyone. Firstly, they construct rural space as an agricultural community rather than one of diverse interests and different natureesociety relationships (Bell, 1994). Secondly, distinctions are made between different farmers. Thus, farmers who wilfully seek out bTB by doing nothing to avoid it are cast as reckless, poor farmers who do not deserve help. Thirdly, neutralisation techniques specify acceptable badgers culling techniques: those that do not conform to them are labelled irresponsible and not part of the farming community. For example, some farmers suggested that using dogs or pouring slurry into setts is not an appropriate way of acting. These discourses again highlight the ambiguity of deviance: the values that legitimise deviance are ones of careful responsibility and rather than excitement and aggression. 4.5. ‘Condemnation of the condemners’ Finally, badger culling is neutralised by condemning the condemners. This strategy appears implicit within all the other neutralisation techniques analysed so far. Farmers condemn scientists’ and government officials’ failure to solve the problem of bTB as part of their defence of necessity. However, they also appeal to community values in condemning the government, whilst praising the value of agriculture. For example, most farmers argued that farmers were essential to ensure food security, but that this was under threat from the government’s inaction over bTB because it was leading to farmers leaving the industry. Illegal badger culling

206

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

was therefore highlighted as a public good in contrast to the government’s approach. Unsurprisingly, the ‘condemnation of the condemners’ strategy focussed on badger conservation groups’ campaign against a badger cull. Many farmers suggested that these conservationists were ignorant of the countryside, possessed inadequate expertise and that their activities have contributed to the explosion of the badger population. Farmers sought to undermine conservationists by suggesting that their focus on the badger blinds them to other problems caused by protecting wildlife, such as the destruction of other habitats and species, resulting in ecological imbalances. Badger welfare groups’ attempts at re-homing badgers that had been injured in road traffic accidents were also condemned as interfering with nature, but some farmers also condemned conservationists for suggesting that it was acceptable to leave badgers to suffer from bTB. This hypocritical stance on welfare was also extended to the welfare of farmers’ cows. Thus, farmers rhetorically asked “why should my cows be allowed to die from bTB when wild badgers are allowed to remain free? If conservationists cared about animal welfare then they would not complain about a badger cull because it would improve badger welfare”. 5. Discussion The analysis presented here suggests that farmers deploy a range of neutralisation techniques to justify the illegal culling of badgers. The paper began by questioning the extent to which Sykes and Matza’s theory could apply to more instrumental criminality such as that associated with farming. Sykes and Matza did not originally include the ‘defence of necessity’ in their list of neutralisation techniques; it was added much later by Minor (1981) to account for instrumental behaviour. The findings presented here suggest that the strategy of the ‘defence of necessity’ is strongly apparent in farmers’ rationalisations. However, it does not overwhelm the other neutralisation techniques presented by farmers, suggesting that agricultural wildlife crime is culturally complex and not solely reliant on economic rationality. The findings also appear to support Sykes and Matza’s contention that there are a limited number of neutralisation techniques to justify deviant behaviour. The strategies of denying injury, victims, necessity for the law, appealing to higher loyalties, condemning the condemners and the defence of necessity appear to apply as much to juvenile delinquency as they do to wildlife crime. In other words, when it comes to rationalising deviance, there does not appear to be anything specific to wildlife crime. However, closer analysis of the neutralisation techniques used by farmers suggests a more complicated story. Firstly, the subterranean values that farmers drifted to were not the same as those held by the juvenile delinquents in Matza and Sykes’ work. It was difficult to associate badger culling with a sense of excitement, disdain for work or approval of masculine aggression, at least amongst the farmers in this study. The common values that seem to underlie farmers’ behaviour related more to careful responsibility and suspicion of authority. Secondly, it is difficult to distinguish the conceptual difference between some neutralisation techniques. In the case of badger culling, there is little difference between, for example, the denial of the victim and denial of injury. Similarly, when farmers justify badger culling by denying the necessity of the law, their rationalisations are no different to those that would be associated with a claim of entitlement. For example, when farmers denied that the Protection of Badgers Act was needed because of local expertise, the same argument formed the basis of their claim to entitlement. This might reflect the unique circumstances of badger culling, but it might also signal the need to critically assess the number of

neutralisation techniques by carefully distinguishing the conceptual differences between each. Similarly, the defence of necessity was frequently followed by a denial of the necessity of the law, particularly when the defence was couched in economic terms. This may suggest that there is some sort of hierarchy or order to the deployment of neutralisation techniques. The neutralisation techniques also appeared to reveal a broader and over-arching context for drift into deviance that other uses of neutralisation of wildlife crime have not emphasised as a result of simply viewing neutralisation as a way of rationalising events. In particular, running through all the neutralisation techniques was a context of cultural distance from the government, distrust of authority and descriptions of a morally superior rural way of life. This rural identity was constructed as agricultural and emphasised the value of rural/local expertise derived from intimate naturee social relations. This interpretation is also consistent with analyses of other arguments for the preservation of activities that are seen by some as wildlife crime e such as hunting and country sports. Franklin (1999), for example, shows that arguments for angling were not simply about the enjoyment of angling per se, but about staking claims to a particular group identity which rejected the modern world in some way. This anti-modern sentiment runs through the literature of the English countryside preservationist movements (Matless, 1996). These anti-modernist themes are also linked to neo-Darwinists who suggested that hunting could restore the mental and physical imbalances that city-life was eroding (Cartmill, 1993). Treating neutralisation techniques as components of a broader articulation of rural identity is also consistent with the discourse of rural protest and ‘defensive localism’ (Winter, 2001; Woods, 2003). These articulations of rurality are connected to non-compliance and resistance to regulatory procedures affecting rural populations. Such strategies are often borne out of dissatisfaction with a geographically remote (both in terms of distance and ideology) government. Thus, Neal and Walters (2007) suggest that the perceived erosion of rural identity by excessive external regulation is related to the generation and self-regulation of illicit behaviours within rural communities. Bickerstaff et al. (2006) argue that the physical distance between decision makers and local implementation drives mistrust of institutions. And in relation to environmental controversies the marginalisation of local knowledges and the perceived legitimacy of expertise is well documented in driving perceived non-compliance (Vanclay, 2004) and a factor in the failure to prevent illegal wildlife hunting among native Americans (Warren, 1997). This context to legitimise badger culling also appeared to be common to all farmers whether they disclosed engaging in badger culling or not. This is important because it raises the common critique of neutralisation: that all it explains is the context in which crime is a possibility and not why some people become criminals and others not. Despite the pervasiveness of these drift contexts and uses of neutralisation, why did not all farmers engage in badger culling? Further research may provide answers. It may be related to the methodological difficulties associated with wildlife crime research or may reflect that badger culling is not the only action that farmers may take. Other farmers’ decisions not to implement biosecurity advice e both statutory and advisory e may also be linked to these same contexts (Enticott, 2008a). There is also a danger that neutralisation says little about what controls are needed to resolve deviant behaviour. As a control theory, the answer should be more enforcement, but this uncritically accepts the goals of wildlife protection and ignores wider research on the best ways of achieving regulatory compliance. For example, Government officials have sought to counter illegal badger culling by asserting alternative social norms: they suggest

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

that badger culling will spread bTB and harm neighbouring farms. However, the widespread descriptions of perceiving the agricultural self as an effect of others (principally government) provide the context for deviance and mean that these messages may go unheeded. This is because fairness and trust in institutions is recognised as a key factor in compliance with regulations (de Cremer and Blader, 2006; Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Blader, 2003). As various studies of environmental regulation have shown, compliance often occurs through informal social sanctions not over-enforcement, and the perceived fairness and legitimacy of rules (Gezelius, 2002, 2004; Gunningham, 2007; Gunningham et al., 2003; King and Sutinen, 2010; Winter and May 2001; Wynne, 1992). In the case of illegal badger culling, improved enforcement may provide an incentive for some to obey the law, but a more balanced and effective approach might start with a more thorough social analysis of farmers’ understandings of animal health and the involvement of farmers in the production of knowledge on which policy decisions are based. This is not to repeat suggestions that partnership working between the agricultural industry and the Government provides a way of overcoming these problems. Instead, it is to suggest that e until recently e there have been very few attempts to use social research to help constructively resolve animal health problems (Science Advisory Council, 2007). Such work can be useful in providing knowledge to policy makers, facilitating acceptable and meaningful knowledge for all stakeholders. It can also help prompt wider debates on the nature and purpose of existing laws. This should include a much broader and critical debate on the rationale and acceptability of wildlife controls in a range of different social and economic circumstances. This is not to suggest that farmers’ views are necessarily correct, that they might change in different contexts, or that the translation of social research into policy is unproblematic. However, unless laws are recognised as fair, trustworthy, and practical, they are likely to achieve little. 6. Conclusion Studies of the geography of crime are an important part of rural studies but there have been few attempts to analyse rural wildlife crimes. This paper addresses this gap in the literature by providing an analysis of farmers’ reasons for illegally culling of badgers in England and Wales. Drawing on Sykes and Matza’s (1957) concept of neutralisation theory, the paper shows the context in which badger culling occurs and how farmers rationalise their deviance: they defend it is necessary, deny there are victims or the necessity of the law, condemn conservationists, and appeal to the value of preserving local farming communities. The findings presented in this paper suggest that neutralisation theory can be successfully applied in a range of different contexts. In instrumental contexts such as wildlife crime connected to agriculture, rationalisations are culturally complex and do not simply rely on economic motivations. However, the findings suggest that neutralisation techniques should be seen as components of a broader argument in support of rural space and identity. In the case of badger culling, neutralisation techniques combine to defend a particular rural identity and way of living. As much as they are attempts to rationalise criminal behaviour, neutralisation techniques should therefore be seen as spatial discourses, demarcating the boundaries of spatial and cultural identities. Following Bandura (1999, p. 203), the neutralisations offered by farmers might be perceived as a means by which they can “view themselves as faultless victims driven to injurious conduct by forcible provocation” and suggest that badger culling is “a justifiable defensive reaction to belligerent provocations. By fixing the blame on others or on circumstances, not only are one’s own

207

injurious actions excusable, but one even can feel self-righteous in the process”. However, dismissing farmers’ statements as irrational is unlikely to resolve the problem of this form of wildlife crime. Neither does the answer to this problem necessarily lie in greater regulation. Rather, the cultural complexity of the problems surrounding badgers and bTB suggest that developing a better understanding of the social causes of deviant behaviour can contribute to attempts to develop fair, trustworthy and acceptable laws. Despite the methodological limitations facing research into wildlife crime, seeking to understand wildlife crime should not continue to be ignored by rural scholars or policy makers. In the debate over badger culling, this research can help address how farmers’ attitudes will relate to and affect the uptake of new badger control mechanisms such as vaccination. It is only by confronting the existence of wildlife crime, its causes and effects that realistic solutions can be developed. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-22-1738). I am grateful for the comments by three anonymous referees on a previous version of this paper. References Adams, C.J., 1995. Woman-battering and harm to animals. In: Adams, C.J., Donovan, J. (Eds.), Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Exploration. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 55e84. Agnew, R., 1994. The techniques of neutralisation and violence. Criminology 32 (4), 555e580. Agnew, R., 1998. The causes of animal abuse: a social-psychological analysis. Theoretical Criminology 2 (2), 177e209. Arluke, A., et al., 1999. The relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behaviour. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14 (9), 963e975. Ascione, F.R., 1993. Children who are cruel to animals: a review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoös 5, 226e247. Bandura, A., 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3 (3), 193e209. Beirne, P., 1999. For a nonspeciesist criminology: animal abuse as an object of study. Criminology 37 (1), 117e148. Beirne, P., 2002. Criminology and animal studies: a sociological view. Society and Animals 10, 381e386. Beirne, P., South, N., 2007. Issues in Green Criminology. Willan Publishing, Cullompton. Bell, M.M., 1994. Childerley Nature and Morality in a Country Village. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Benton, T., 1998. Rights and justice on a shared planet: more rights or new relations? Theoretical Criminology 2 (2), 149e175. Bickerstaff, K., et al., 2006. Situating local experience of risk: peripherality, marginality and place identity in the UK foot and mouth crisis. Geoforum 37, 844e858. Box, S., 1983. Power, Crime, and Mystification. Routledge, London. Great Britain, 1992. The Protection of Badgers Act. The Stationery Office, London. Cartmill, M., 1993. A View to Death in the Morning. Havard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Cavanagh, K., et al., 2001. ‘Remedial work’: men’s strategic responses to their violence against intimate female partners. Sociology 35, 695e714. Cohen, S., 2002. States of Denial. Polity Press, Cambridge. Coleman, J.W., 1994. The Criminal Elite: The Sociology of White-Collar Crime. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Convery, I., et al., 2008. Animal Disease and Human Trauma: Emotional Geographies of Disaster. Palgrave Macmillan, London. de Cremer, D., Blader, S.L., 2006. Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology 36, 211e228. Downes, D., Rock, P., 2003. Understanding Deviance, fourth ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Edwards, S., et al., 1996. Environmental Crime and Criminality: Theoretical and Practical Issues. Garland Publishing, New York. Eliason, S., Dodder, S., 1999. Techniques of neutralization used by deer poachers in the western United States: a research note. Deviant Behaviour 20, 233e252. Enticott, G., 2001. Calculating nature: the case of badgers, bovine tuberculosis and cattle. Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2), 149e164. Enticott, G., 2008a. The ecological paradox: social and natural consequences of the geographies of animal health promotion. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33 (4), 433e446.

208

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

Enticott, G., 2008b. The spaces of biosecurity: Prescribing and negotiating solutions to bovine tuberculosis. Environment and Planning A 40 (7), 1568e1582. Enticott, G., Franklin, A., 2009. Biosecurity, expertise and the institutional void: the case of bovine tuberculosis. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (4), 375e393. Farm Crisis Network, 2009. Stress and Loss: a Report on the Impact of Bovine TB on Farming Families. Farm Crisis Network, Northampton. Felthouse, A., Kellert, S., 1987. Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggression against people: a review. American Journal of Psychiatry 144, 710e717. Flynn, C.P., 2002. Hunting and illegal violence against humans and other animals: exploring the relationship. Society and Animals 10 (2), 137e154. Forsyth, C.J., Evans, R.D., 1998. Dogmen: the rationalization of deviance. Society and Animals 6, 203e218. Franklin, A., 1999. Animals and Modern Cultures: a Sociology of HumaneAnimal Relations in Modernity. Sage, London. Fyfe, N.R., Reeves, A., 2011. The thin green line? Police perceptions of the challenges of policing wildlife crime in Scotland. In: Yarwood, R., Mawby, R. (Eds.), Policing, Rurality and Governance. Ashgate, London. Gauthier, D.K., 2001. Professional lapses: occupational deviance and neutralization techniques in veterinary medical practice. Deviant Behavior 22 (6), 467e490. Gezelius, S., 2002. Do norms count? State regulation and compliance in a Norwegian fishing community. Acta Sociologica 45, 305e314. Gezelius, S., 2004. Food, money, and morals: compliance among natural resource harvesters. Human Ecology 32, 615e634. Goffman, E., 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Basic Books, New York. Grant, W., 2009. Intractable policy failure: the case of bovine TB and badgers. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 11 (4), 557e573. Green, G., 2002. The other criminalities of animal freeze-killers: support for a generality of deviance. Society and Animals 10 (1), 5e30. Gunningham, N., 2007. Prosecution for OHS offences: deterrent or disincentive? Sydney Law Review 29 (3), 359e390. Gunningham, N., et al., 2003. Shades of green: business, regulation and environment. Stanford University Press, California. Hensley, C., Tallichet, S.E., 2005a. Animal cruelty motivations. Assessing demographic and situational influences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (11), 1429e1443. Hensley, C., Tallichet, S.E., 2005b. Learning to be cruel? Exploring the onset and frequency of animal cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49, 37e47. Hensley, C., et al., 2010. Childhood bestiality: a potential precursor to adult interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25 (3), 557e567. Hutter, B.M., 1988. The Reasonable Arm of the Law? the Law Enforcement Procedures of Environmental Health Officers. Clarendon, Oxford. Independent Scientific Group (ISG), 2007. Bovine Tuberculosis: The Scientific Evidence. Defra, London. Jacoby, K., 2001. Crimes against Nature. Squatters, Poachers, Thieves and the Hidden History of American Conservation. University of California Press, London. Keane, A., et al., 2008. The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Animal Conservation 11, 75e82. King, D.M., Sutinen, J.G., 2010. Rational non-compliance and the liquidation of Northeast groundfish resources. Marine Policy 34, 7e21. Klockars, C.B., 1974. The Professional Fence. The Free Press, New York. Krebs, J., et al., 1997. Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London. Lowe, P., et al., 1997. Moralizing the Environment Countryside Change, Farming and Pollution. UCL Press, London. MacDonald, J., 1961. The Murderer and His Victim. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL. Matless, D., 1996. Landscape and Englishness. Reaktion Books, London. Matza, D., 1964. Delinquency and Drift. John Wiley, London.

Matza, D., Sykes, M., 1961. Juvenile delinquency and subterranean values. American Sociological Review 26, 712e719. Merz-Perez, L., et al., 2001. Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (5), 556e573. Minor, W.W., 1981. Techniques of neutralization: a reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 18, 295e318. Mooney, J., 2007. Shadow values, shadow figures: real violence. Critical Criminology 15, 159e170. Neal, S., Walters, S., 2007. ‘You can get away with loads because there’s no one here’: discourses of regulation and non-regulation in English rural space. Geoforum 38, 252e263. Newburn, T., 2007. Criminology. Willan Publishing, Cullompton. QSR International Ltd., 2008. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software, Version 8. Ratcliffe, E.J., 1974. Through the Badger Gate. G. Bell and Sons, London. Science Advisory Council, 2007. Social Research in Defra. Defra, London. Shiner, M., Newburn, T., 1997. Definitely, maybe not? The normalisation of recreational drug use amongst young people. Sociology 31 (3), 511e529. Singer, P., 1975. Animal Liberation. Jonathan Cape, London. South, N., 1998. A green field for criminology. Theoretical Criminology 2 (2), 211e233. Sykes, G., Matza, D., 1957. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review 22 (6), 664e670. Tyler, T.R., 1990. Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Tyler, T.R., Blader, S.L., 2003. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7 (4), 349e361. Vanclay, F., 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44 (3), 213e222. Vollum, S., et al., 2004. Moral disengagement and attitudes about violence toward animals. Society and Animals 12 (3), 209e235. Warren, L.S., 1997. The Hunter’s Game. Yale University Press, London. White, R., 2008. Crimes against Nature. Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice. Willan Publishing, Cullompton. Winter, M., 2001. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1), 23e32. Winter, S.C., May, P.J., 2001. Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20 (4), 675e698. Woods, M., 2003. Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new social movement. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (3), 309e325. Wynne, B., 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1 (3), 281e304. Yarwood, R., 2001. Crime and policing in the British countryside: some agendas for contemporary geographical research. Sociologia Ruralis 41, 201e219. Yarwood, R., 2005. Crime concern and policing the countryside: evidence from parish councillors in West Mercia Constabulary, England. Policing and Society 15, 63e82. Yarwood, R., 2007. The geographies of policing. Progress in Human Geography 31 (4), 447e465. Yarwood, R., Gardner, G., 2000. Fear of crime, culture and the countryside. Area 32, 403e411. Yates, R., et al., 2001. Horse maiming in the English Countyside: moral panic, human deviance and the social construction of victimhood. Society and Animals 9 (1), 1e23. Young, J., 2007. The Vertigo of Late Modernity. Sage, London.