lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208

Contents lists avai

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ j rurstud

Techniques of neutralising wildlife crime in rural England and Wales

Gareth EnticottSchool of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Keywords:Wildlife crimeBadgersRural identityAgricultureNeutralisation techniquesBovine tuberculosis

E-mail address: enticottg@cardiff.ac.uk.

0743-0167/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.01.005

a b s t r a c t

Within rural studies there have been few attempts to critically analyse crimes against nature. This paperaddresses this gap by providing an analysis of farmers’ reasons for illegally culling badgers in the UnitedKingdom. Drawing on Sykes and Matza’s (1957) concepts of neutralisation and drift, the paper shows howfarmers rationalise this activity. Using in-depth interviews with 61 farmers in the England andWales, thepaper shows how they justify badger culling through discursive strategies that claim the activity isnecessary, deny the necessity of the law, condemning the condemners, and appealing to communityloyalties The paper also shows that neutralisation helps identify contextual factors that allow farmers todrift ambiguously between deviant values and social norms. In the case of badger culling, drift is attrib-utable toanattackonaparticular rural identityandwayof living that has left farmersperceiving their selvesas an effect. As much as they are attempts to rationalise criminal behaviour, neutralisation techniques canalso be seen as spatial discourses demarcating the boundaries of cultural and spatial identities. Inconclusion, the paper discusses the implications for resolving the problems of wildlife crime.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Crimehas been a keyconcern for geographical studies, yet recentstudies have complained that theoretical and methodologicaladvances made in geographical criminology are absent from ruralstudies. Yarwood (2001, p. 201), for example, argues that the geog-raphy 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 understandingsof crime as a cultural construct (Yarwood, 2001, 2005, 2007),revealing how notions such as ‘fear of crime’ are constructed bychanging social relations within the countryside inwhich new ruralelitesmarginalise rural others (Yarwood andGardner, 2000). A focuson rural crime also gives rise to the question of what is ‘criminality’.Environmental protest and activities such as the destruction ofgenetically modified crops blur the ‘whole concept of criminality’(Yarwood, 2001, p. 209). Some ‘criminal’ activities, such as huntingand poaching may be intrinsic elements to some rural identities(Bell, 1994). Others, such as hunt sabotage or raves, may be crim-inalised as part of broader societal moral panics.

These examples also highlight how nature is implicated withindebates over rural criminality. Whilst rural studies has been con-cerned with evolving natureesociety relations, less theoretical andempirical attention has beendirected towards crimes against natureorwildlife crime. In fact, extant studiesof rural crime largely focuson

All rights reserved.

social crime e criminal acts by people perpetrated against others ewhat Beirne (2002) suggests is thought of as “real crime”. There aresomesigns that thismaybe changing. In2006, anewAnimalWelfareAct was introduced by the UK Government to provide greaterpowers of detection and enforcement where wildlife crimes aresuspected. In the same year, the National Wildlife Crime Unit wasestablished to provide a standalone police unit dealing exclusivelywithwildlife crime and address concerns thatwildlife crimewasnottaken seriously by police forces (Fyfe and Reeves, 2011).

The purpose of this paper is to explore what a study of wildlifecrime can tell us about rural society and what rural wildlife crimecan offer to theoretical understandings of crime. To do this, thepaper focuses on the motivations amongst farmers to illegally cullbadgers e a legally protected species e and the ability of neutral-isation theory (Sykes and Matza, 1957) to account for these actions.The paper begins by attempting to define wildlife crime and out-lining theories to explain it. Drawing on interviews and participantobservation with farmers in England and Wales, the paper thenexamines the various rationalities for illegal badger culling. Thepaper concludes by exploring the implications of these findings forwildlife protection.

2. Conceptualising wildlife crime

Studies of wildlife crime provide broad and varying definitions,conceptualisations and theorisations. This section discusses thesedebates and their implications for studies of wildlife crime.

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208 201

Firstly, what forms of nature should wildlife crime be concernedwith? Jacoby (2001) andWarren’s (1997) accounts of hunting in theAmerican National Parks position crimes against nature in relationto the illegal hunting and poaching of animals. Alternatively, formsof environmental degradation, such as water pollution, mayrepresent 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 tofocus on sentient animals (e.g. Agnew, 1998; Arluke et al., 1999;Yates et al., 2001). More recently, however, crimes against naturehave been increasingly categorised under the heading of “greencriminology” (Beirne and South, 2007; Edwards et al., 1996; South,1998) which encompasses an even broader arrangement of topicsconsidered to reflect crimes against nature, including climatechange, radioactive waste and vivisection. South (1998) lists someof the classic case studies of environmental pollution in his greencriminology, but in linking them to issues of social justice alsohighlights how the victims of environmental crime are human asmuch as they are natural.

The relative newnessof nature as anobjectof criminological study(Beirne,1999) and thearrayofpotential natureesociety relationsmayhave played some part in creating a disciplinewhose focus of enquiryis broad and defies neat categorisation. However, it is clear that thefounders and promoters of nature focussed criminology had theirsights on what they saw as those criminal relationships betweenhumans and animals. Certainly, authors such as Piers Beirne andRobert Agnew who have done much to promote a criminology ofnaturehave focussed their attentiononhumaneanimal relations (seeBeirne, 2002). Part of this may also relate to the close relationship ofmuch nature focussed criminology and animal rights philosophy.Notwithstanding these different conceptualisations, this paper usesthe term wildlife crime to denote criminal activities involving non-domesticated wild animals.

A second problem associated with studies of wildlife crime iswhat counts as criminality? One of the problems facing wildlifecriminology is the lack of criminal laws with which to frameresearch activity (Beirne, 1999; Vollum et al., 2004). Even whenstatutory crimes are defined, they may be rarely enforced. This mayrelate to the standards of evidence required to successfully prose-cute; the vagueness of the law; reflect that enforcement is a matterof judgement or deployment of different regulatory styles to suitspecific situations (Gunningham et al., 2003; Hutter, 1988; Loweet al., 1997); or the lack of resources for investigating or under-standing of wildlife crime within police forces (Fyfe and Reeves,2011).

The frequent absence of a clear legal framework through whichto 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 outsidethe scope of existing criminal law, the latter is far too narrow a basisfor the study of animal abuse”. Instead, most wildlife criminologydraws 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 basicrights to animals. In these approaches, activities such as factoryfarming, animal experimentation, and hunting all count as criminalactivity. However, this definition does little to help define ortheorise wildlife criminology. Firstly, as Benton (1998) points out,the moral philosophy of animal rights is complex, particularlywhen non-humans other than animals are involved. Secondly, evenabuse and welfare requires standards by which to judge behaviour.Thirdly, by suggesting that wildlife crime can be both institutionaland criminal, the concept of wildlife crime encompasses mosthumaneanimal relationships.

The absence of a clear definition of what counts as wildlife crimehas not stopped the theorisation of its causes and motivations. Forexample, the ‘violence graduation hypothesis’ (MacDonald, 1961)argues that animal cruelty in childhood leads to anti-socialbehaviour and aggression in later life (Ascione, 1993; Felthouse andKellert, 1987; Hensley et al., 2010). Studies explore the reasonsbehind this graduation and its socio-demographics (Flynn, 2002;Hensley and Tallichet, 2005a,b; Merz-Perez et al., 2001). Thegraduation thesis is challenged by the ‘generality of deviancetheory’ which argues that the same personality traits are theunderlying cause for all criminal behaviour, whether againsthumans or animals (Arluke et al., 1999). Examples include linksbetween 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-destinedactor and biological determinism, the long history of the sociology ofdeviance provides a range of more socially nuanced theories. Inparticular, ‘control theory’ has been most often linked with expla-nations of wildlife crime. Control theory suggests that criminalactivity occurs when the controls or rules that ensure conformity aresomehow lessened. Whilst control theories have been hugely influ-ential in the sociology of deviance, they have been criticised forsuggesting that greater regulation is required to reduce deviance. Inthis respect, the lack of regulation surrounding wildlife crime mayhelp explain its popularity within research on wildlife crime. Inparticular, wildlife criminologists have drawn upon Sykes andMatza’s (1957) theory of ‘techniques of neutralisation’ that haswidely used in the sociology of deviance to account for a wide rangeof deviant behaviour (seeAgnew,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 under-stood as a set or classification of discourses bywhich criminals seekto justify and rationalise their behaviour. The neutralisation tech-niques offered by criminals can therefore be used to explain whydeviance occurs. Five neutralisation techniques are identified bySykes and Matza (1957). Firstly, ‘denial of the victim’, refers to thebelief that whoever is harmed by an action deserved its conse-quences. Secondly, in ‘denial of responsibility’, offenders argue thattheir actions were caused by forces beyond their control. Thirdly,‘denial of injury’ suggests that no-one suffered as a result of thecrime. Fourthly, in ‘appealing to higher loyalties’, offenders cite theimportance of maintaining loyalty to small groups rather thansociety. Fifthly, ‘condemnation of the condemners’ refers to state-ments that suggest disapprovers are hypocrites who have causedmore harm. Other neutralisation discourses have been added toSykes and Matza’s original list. Coleman (1994), for example, adds‘denial of necessity for the law’, ‘everyone’s doing it’, and ‘claims ofentitlement’ where offenders claim they are owed what is stolen.Others include the ‘metaphor of the ledger’ (deviance is acceptableinfrequently) (Klockars, 1974) and the ‘defence of necessity’(actions are deemed unavoidable) (Minor, 1981).

There have been several attempts to apply these ideas to helpexplain wildlife crime. Forsyth and Evans’ (1998) have analysed theneutralisation techniques usedbypeople involved in organiseddog-fighting. Eliason and Dodder (1999) have shown how deer poachersdeploy the ‘claim to entitlement’ and the ‘defence of necessity’ tojustify their activities. More broadly, explanations of the normal-isation ofwildlife crime have revealed how the treatment of animalsis morally justified through discursive strategies such as ‘euphe-mistic labelling’ to disguise the severity of actions; and ‘advanta-geous comparison’ in which benefits and drawbacks are contrastedto make reprehensible acts righteous (Agnew, 1998). Attempts toexcuse animal abuse are therefore based on a strategy of portrayinganimal activists as dangerous radicals who deny freedom.

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208202

However, applications of neutralisation theory should gobeyond simply categorising justifications offered by perpetrators ofwildlife crime. Although labelled a control theory, neutralisationengages with other theories of deviance (Newburn, 2007). It isattractive because it is critical of but combines both straintheory e that is, people under pressure are more likely to commitcrimes e and subcultural theory e that criminality is connected tosubcultural values. This is captured in the concepts of ‘drift’ and‘subterranean values’ (Matza, 1964; Matza and Sykes, 1961). Driftrelates to Matza’s (1964, p. 33) assertion that whilst there may bea subculture of delinquency, there is not a delinquent subculture.That is, subculturesmay exist but their members are not committedto deviant values, as suggested by subcultural theory e but possessthe same norms and values as everybody else (Shiner andNewburn, 1997). However, conformity to these values is contin-gent: ‘drift’ occurs when circumstances lead to a loosening ofcontrol, which leads in turn to the temporary acceptance of‘subterranean values’ e a ‘shadow’ value system that supportsdeviant behaviour (Mooney, 2007). For Matza and Sykes’ (1961)work on juvenile delinquency, these values were said to includean acceptance of aggression, a disdain for work and a search forexcitement.

Techniques of neutralisation facilitate the drift from one corevalue system to another through processes of socialisation(Mooney, 2007). Thus, Sykes and Matza (1957, p. 667) argue that ‘itis by learning these techniques that the juvenile becomes delin-quent, rather than by learning moral imperatives, values or atti-tudes standing in direct contradiction to those of the dominantsociety’. This simultaneous acceptance of social norms and‘subterranean values’ highlights a state of ambiguity amongstoffenders: they understand their actions to bewrong, may even feelguilt but still seek to justify them as legitimate. In this way, neu-tralisation can help describe the circumstances of this drift e suchas experiencing the self as an effect and of feeling ‘pushed around’(Matza, 1964). It is not simply that criminals offer a range ofexplanations, but underlying these explanations is an existentialstate of mind and set of contingent circumstances that providesa contextual explanation to deviant behaviour and this anti-dual-istic perspective on cause and justification is one of the attractionsof the theory (Downes and Rock, 2003).1

One criticism of neutralisation and drift is that whilst it mightexplain the conditions that make crime a possibility, it does notexplain why some people commit crimes and not others. Concernshave also been expressed about the dual function of neutralisation.Box (1983) suggests that neutralisation cannot be both context andrationalisation. In this way, neutralisation is a form of ‘remedialwork’ (Goffman, 1971) e a set of rhetorical strategies to account forbehaviour that seeks to repair or maintain social relations(Cavanagh et al., 2001). Perhaps as a result, the few studies ofwildlife crime that have deployed neutralisation have not sought toanalyse the contextual reasons for drift. Moreover, these studies failto acknowledge the ambiguity that offenders feel, the contingencysurrounding their actions, or the extent to which the ‘subterraneanvalues’ are broadly similar to other forms of deviant behaviour. Thiswould be surprising given, firstly, the non-utilitarian nature ofdelinquent values, compared to utilitarian wildlife crimes whichseek to preserve agricultural economic interests. Moreover, it maybe that where deviant behaviour is linked to broader socio-politicalstruggles that neutralisation techniques and contexts of drift differfrom 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-networktheory.

the emergence of a ‘politics of the rural’ may mean that deviantbehaviour in relation to ‘rural problems’ is contextualised andneutralised in defensive discourses around rural space and identityin opposition to ‘urban outsiders’ (Woods, 2003). In short, withouta broader appreciation of the theory of neutralisation, its value orlimitations cannot be realised. The remainder of this paper aims touse neutralisation to explore these issues: what can it tell us aboutwildlife crime and what can wildlife crime tell us about the theoryof neutralisation?

3. Neutralising crimes against badgers in England and Wales

The effectiveness of neutralisation theory to account for ruralwildlife crime was researched by examining the illegal culling ofbadgers by farmers in the United Kingdom. The significance ofbadgers as a subject of wildlife crime and the methods used toaccess farmers’ neutralisation techniques are outlined below.

3.1. Badgers in the United Kingdom

Badgers occupy a unique position within the UK. They areculturally symbolic, yet have been subject to persecution in theform of badger baiting and feature in some of the UK’s earliestanimal protection legislation. However, it was not until 1973 thatthe 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 orig-inal legislation, resulting in the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act inwhich ‘a person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by orunder this Act, he wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill,injure or take, a badger’ (Great Britain, 1992s.1(1)). The Act alsoenshrines the UK’s commitment to the Europe-wide BernConvention in which badgers are listed as a protected species.2

Exceptions to the Act include killing badgers under a licenseissued by the UK government, as an act of mercy, or for the purposeof preventing damage to property or crops. In the last case however,it would be expected that a licence should be applied for and in anycase, it is an offence to possess a dead badger.

Badger culling has featured as part of government attempts toeradicate the zoonotic disease bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle.The disease is spread between cattle but also transmitted bybadgers to cattle. During the 1970s to 1990s, the Ministry of Agri-culture Fisheries and Food regularly removed badgers from farm-land using poisonous gas and cage traps in an attempt to control thedisease (Grant, 2009). However, by the mid 1990s there wasconcern that these slaughter policies were not working. As cases ofbTB rose, so the government called on scientists to review theevidence base and propose a scientific solution. The resultingreport (Krebs et al., 1997), recommended a series of culling trials toestablish its effectiveness in controlling bTB. The trials concluded in2007 with results that questioned the viability of culling policiesand instead recommended a series of alternative policy options(Independent Scientific Group (ISG), 2007). A no-cull policy wasopted by the Government in 2008 and farmers were instead rec-ommended to implement various biosecurity procedures tomaintain the health of their cattle (for more details see, Enticott,2001, 2008a, b). However, in 2010 the new coalition Governmentbegan a consultation over proposals to issue licences to farmers in

2 The Convention on the Conservation of EuropeanWildlife andNatural Habitatseknown as the Bern Convention e aims to ensure the conservation and protection ofover 500 wild plant and 1000 animal species and their natural habitats andto regulate their exploitation. All member states of the European Union aresignatories.

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208 203

England to allow them to kill badgers for the purposes of diseasecontrol, whilst in Wales the Welsh Assembly Government isorganising its own badger cull (Enticott and Franklin, 2009).

3.2. Methodology

Studies of wildlife crime are often beset by methodologicalproblems. The lack of research reflects the difficulties of identifyingrule-breakers (Eliason and Dodder, 1999) and lax enforcement ofconservation regimes (Keane et al., 2008). To help address theseproblems, a qualitative research strategy was adopted involvingsemi-structured interviews and participant observation. Data werederived from a research project focussed on farmers’ understand-ings of animal health and their reactions to and experiences ofbiosecurity policy initiatives. In total, 61 in-depth interviews withfarmers in England and Wales were conducted during 2006 and2007. Interviews took place in and around farms, in their fields andbarns, amongst their cattle, at markets, in tractors and whilsttravelling to an abattoir. All interviews were based on a loose semi-structured interview guide that dealt with attitudes towards bTB;perceptions of biosecurity; and the social impact of bTB. Wherepossible, interviews were recorded. Notes of participant observa-tion were recorded in a field diary. All farmers were guaranteedanonymity and confidentiality and for these reasons names orspecific locations are not given in this paper.

Fieldwork was undertaken in two case study areas (Devon andMonmouthshire), chosen as examples of areas at high risk from bTBwhere farms are required to test cattle for bTB at least once a year.These areas allowed access to farmers with experience of dealingwith endemic animal disease. Farmers were selected according topurposive criteria, including: those farms with ongoing bTB cases;farms with new cases of bTB; farms that had always been clear ofbTB; and farms that had implemented forms of biosecurity. Thesecharacteristics are not readily available: research participants weretherefore identified with the help of local vets, agricultural gate-keepers and social networks. To limit the possibilities of bias, thesamplewas supplemented by contacting other farmers according toother criteria, including: farm type; and geographical location. InDevon, 30 farmers participated in the research, and 26 were drawnfromMonmouthshire. The samplewas supplementedwith a further5 farmers from farmers in a third region (Gloucestershire e alsoa high risk area for bTB) who had specifically implemented inno-vative forms of biosecurity to combat bTB. In total, 28 farms weresuffering from bTB at the time of the research, 53 had suffered it atsome time in the past, and eight had a completely clear history.

Whilst the research was focussed on these farmers’ under-standings of biosecurity, the nature of the investigation inevitablyled farmers to comment on the role of badgers in spreading bTB. Inthis respect, the purpose of qualitative research was to exploremeanings and processes rather than provide a quantitativeassessment of the extent of illegal badger culling.3 Some farmersprovided examples of how they had sought to protect their herdsfrom bTB by culling badgers on their own land, whilst others spokeabout farmers they knew who had culled badgers. Analysing allfarmers’ talk about these acts permits analysis of the context of‘drift’ and the extent to which ‘subterranean values’ are heldthroughout agricultural society. That said, it is acknowledged thatthe sensitive nature of such an enquiry means that understandingsof wildlife crime will always be incomplete.

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

4. Analysis

InterviewtranscriptswereanalysedusingNvivo (QSR InternationalLtd., 2008). Analysis revealed the following set of neutralisationtechniques employed to justify illegal badger culling.

4.1. ‘Defence of necessity’

Many farmers described the acts of badger culling or the urge tokill them as a ‘natural reaction’ or ‘part of human nature’ toreceiving 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 veterinaryofficials. For example:

“We’ve had to do something about the badgers e you have to if youwant to stay in business. It wasn’t a difficult decision to make, it’sbeen dragging on 10 years, and we’re right in the middle of it. We’vedone 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 wasprotected.”

This defence of necessity focuses on the economic viability ofagriculture, but in use farmers also linked it with other neutrali-sation techniques such as denial of the necessity for the law. Thedefence of necessity also hints at a communal identity, in which allfarmers, whether they are less or greatly affected by bTB, have thesame rights to cull badgers. For example, in the following quote,a farmer points out that the economic costs of TB are particularlystrong for those farmers who rear store cattle, but less strong fordairy farmers as they can still sell their milk. Nevertheless, thedefence of necessity applies to all farmers: each has a right todefend their business to whatever extent they are affected:

“If you can’t trade stock and it’s a big part of your income what elsedo you do? Are you just going to wait there and say ‘well bad luckmate 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 setperiod whereas certainly with us with milk and we got income, themilk still goes but if you’ve got to sell livestock what else do you doand it’s your income. You are going to take matters into your owncontrol because you aren’t going to sit back and let someone walkall over you, are you? That’s not human nature.”

A common theme in the defence of necessity is that ‘it was eitherthe business or the badger’. Some farmers linked this defence toa discourse that suggested that their actions had a wider benefit tothe wildlife. For example, after linking badger culling to theeconomic consequences of bTB, farmers added: “they are wiping outother wildlife too:we need to reduce all their numbers”. This denial ofinjury discourse suggested that badger culling had a wider publicand natural benefit. Its purpose as Goffman (1971) describes, is tominimise the negativemeanings of badger culling and assert a validsense of meaning to actions. Secondly, for some farmers, thedefence necessity highlighted their ambiguous position and feel-ings of guilt. Thus, farmers often claimed that “we didn’t like whatwe were doing” but that they were under immense personal andfinancial strain. In linking this denial of responsibility to a defenceof necessity, farmers are attempting to suggest that bTB has sucha pervading effect on their lives that they have ‘reduced compe-tence’ (Goffman, 1971) which excuses their actions. Linking thesedifferent neutralisation techniques together also suggests thatthese farmers may not believe an economic defence of necessity issufficient. Whilst it matters to them, it needs to be supported byother neutralisation techniques to be effective.

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208204

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

In the denial of the victim, offenders suggest that their victimsdeserved their fate. Similarly, the denial of injury suggests thatno-one was hurt as a result of the crime. In relation to badgerculling, this defence could be applied to badgers, farmers andconservationists. However, analysis reveals that most farmersonly applied it to badgers. In justifying badger culling, farmersdrew a distinct difference between different types of badger. Thisstrategy of classifying good and bad badgers is a key element ofdenying and minimising blame for badger culling. In interviews,farmers often recounted stories in wonderment of the time whenthey first saw a badger. Many farmers were at pains to point outthat they liked to see badgers: some watched them and othersadmired their characteristics, particularly in comparison to otherpests such as foxes. By contrast, they also painted a picture of anincreasingly ill and sick badger population. Sick badgers weredescribed in similar ways: they were smaller, emaciated, oftenwith long claws, sunken eyes and generally ‘dirty’. Sick or ‘roguebadgers’ also had unusual behaviour: they tried to dig setts in the‘wrong’ place, were not scared of human contact, and were oftenseen during the day rather than maintaining a nocturnal lifestyle(cf. Grant, 2009).4

Most farmers reasoned it was entirely legitimate to kill theserogue badgers. For example, during the research I received a phonecall from a farmer I was due to interview to tell me that he had justkilled two ‘sick’ badgers. Onmy arrival the next day, he showedmethe badgers, saying: “These don’t look like badgers do they?There’s something wrongwith theme look at their claws and theirhair”. These ‘lay epidemiologies’ (Enticott, 2008a) play an impor-tant role in determining which badgers should be culled andwhich ones should be left alone and allow farmers to hold seem-ingly opposite views of badgers. For example, one farmerdescribed how after shooting a badger he felt ‘gutted’ and ‘physi-cally sick’ when he saw that it conformed to the image ofa ‘healthy’ badger. Whilst farmers blame ‘rogue badgers’ for thespread of bTB, they are not suggesting that individual badgers havedeserved their fate as is usually the case within the denial ofvictim. In these cases, farmers suggest that culling sick badgers is“putting them out of their misery”. Other farmers used euphemisticlanguage to redefine their behaviour: rather than culling badgers,they talked of “taking care of badgers”. There are obvious similar-ities between badger culling and euthanasia discourses withinveterinary and human medicine.

The denial of injury/victim also appears to operate on differentspatial scales. On one level, farmers ‘take care’ of individual badgersthat have become ill. But they also connect the existence of sickbadgers to a wider problem with the badger population. Manyfarmers complained how the Protection of Badgers Act had led toan explosion in the badger population. With no natural predatorsand limited food sources, the result is e so many farmers claim e

a population that cannot support itself which is vulnerable toillness and can only be resolved by population controls. Arguably,this distinction between the population and the individual provesuseful in resolving any cognitive dissonance involved in badgerculling. The population discourse allows farmers to blame a pop-ulation by claiming it is ‘out of control’, whilst at an individual levelclaiming that their actions represent a form of care for badgers whohave suffered from the problems created by the scale of thepopulation.

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

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

Denial of necessity for the law and claims of entitlement bothadvocate rights to usurp the law based on the experiences andknowledge of offenders. In relation to badger culling, farmersdeploy these neutralisation techniques in direct relation to thebeliefs about badgers as victims and the effect of conservationregulations upon them. In interviews, farmers neutralised themeaning of badger culling through claims of localised expertise. Inshort, farmers argued that ‘outsiders’ contributed to the problem ofbTB by upsetting the natural rhythms of the countryside. Invariably,these outsiders were scientists (as distinct from practicing veteri-narians) and ‘urban’ policy makers. In denying the necessity for thelaw, farmers therefore claimed their own country expertise shouldtake preference when it came to managing the countryside. Forexample:

“People that know about wildlife e they’re the ones that need to belistened to. Everything else really is just opinion. The farmers thathave been on the ground with wildlife, they need to have theirsay. It’s people that have lived and breathed agriculture e thefarmers that have a balanced approach to nature because if thebadger 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 andhave the knowledge of what you should be doing e and they’vebeen ignored because it’s not politically correct”

These discourses posit a difference between urban/distant andrural/proximate expertise (cf. Bickerstaff et al., 2006). Ruralexpertise is deemed to be more trustworthy when it comes toresolving issue of bTB because it is embedded in local familiarpeople and places. Such expertise is based on traditions andhistorical accounts. For example, in interviews some farmersrecounted how before the Protection of Badgers Act “there wouldalways be someone whowould manage the population so that it nevergot out of hand”. Some accounts stressed the intimate and honestrelationship between the land and the people that lived in it, withsome revealing how badgers were cooked and eaten. The localnessof these accounts is what provides trust in their implications forbadger controls.

In these accounts of rural expertise, farmers argued that therewas no need for the law because they were better placed to lookafter the countryside. This neutralisation technique merges neatlyinto one which suggests that they are entitled to do so because ofa morally bankrupt modern politics that has alienated and dis-tanced rural expertise. Culling badgers was justified in terms ofa claim to entitlement: farmers were rescuing the countryside fromthe failures of modern politics and science. Farmers therefore spokeof their lack of trust in modern politics, linking government dis-honesty and ‘spin’ to the prohibition of badger culling. In doing so,farmers repeated a familiar set of discourses relating to the politicsof the rural (Woods, 2003) and the exclusion of rural interests froman urban-centric policy focus. In particular, farmers focussed on thelarge financial donations received by the governing Labour partyfrom animal welfare organisations as symbolic of an inherent biasin the decisions they made about badger culling. Scientists associ-ated with studying the effects of badger culling on bTB in cattle alsocame under the same criticism. Farmers argued that just likepoliticians, these scientists cared or knew little about the coun-tryside, and their methodology, results and conclusions had beenshaped by the same urban politics.

These discourses of entitlement were also linked to a widerfailure of agricultural policy and excessive bureaucracy. Forexample, many farmers blamed the incursion of other infectiousdiseases, such as the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak on thegovernment’s failure to control national biosecurity. In their study

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208 205

of discourses of rural regulation Neal and Walters (2007), foundsimilar sentiments but also highlighted how farmers perceivedexcessive regulations to be constraining rural life. Farmers in thisstudy complained of similar problems hinting that bTB regulationswere costing them their livelihoods whilst infected wildlife were“allowed to wander around willy-nilly”. In sum, many farmers sug-gested that “everybody feels like there is a constructive campaign towipe us out”. As Matza (1964) argues, this sense of perceiving theself as an effect and of being ‘pushed around’ is a key element indrifting between different value systems. Neutralising badgerculling in these ways provides the context inwhich it is acceptable:as means of preserving a way of life under threat from theperceived incompetence of government. For example, one farmersaid:

“I feel like I’ve got my back up against the wall here e because thetest 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 arethe victims here: victims of the government for failing to get rid ofthe problem. And I feel sorry for the first farmer that’s going to getcaught doing it. They are not a criminal e we don’t want to becriminals, but people are at their wits end”.

Curiously, however, some farmers suspected that the govern-ment was playing a clever game. Rather than believing that thegovernment was against badger culling per se, some suggested thatthe government was secretly quite happy for farmers to “do theirdirty work for them”. This absolved the government from imple-menting a costly and publicly unpopular badger culling policy andallowed them to claim that other policy initiatives were working.More directly, other farmers claimed that they had been told bygovernment officials that they needed to kill the badgers on theirland:

“even the man from Defra said you have got to get rid of thebadgers and they sit there at your table in your house telling youthat you have to get rid of the badgers, you have to because we’renot going to do it. ‘We know they are a problem but we’re not goingto do anything about it, our hands are tied, it’s too politicallysensitive so you must go out and do it’. So they are basically tellingyou to break the law and we haven’t done anything because wehave 2 young children and if we were caught.”

Government officials are certainly not ignorant of illegal badgerculling. The fact that there are few prosecutions of farmers forillegal badger culling suggests either that the government does notconsider the negative effects of culling to be significant5; prose-cution of farmers will be counter-productive by causing tensionwith the farming community; and/or the law as it is constructed istoo difficult to enforce (Fyfe and Reeves, 2011).

4.4. ‘Appeal to higher loyalties’

Appealing to higher loyalties refers to the importance of thelocal community relations above those of society at large. This hasalready been demonstrated in previous neutralisation techniqueswhich stressed the value of rural expertise in shaping perceptionsof badger culling. In interviews, several farmers mentioned thatthey had also ‘taken care’ of badgers on friends and neighbours’farms. This is justified through an appeal to the importance ofcommunity rather than natural relations.

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

Firstly, the psychological trauma of living with animal diseasehas recently been recognised in research on the impact of Foot andMouth Disease. Convery et al. (2008) for instance highlight thepsychological effect of witnessing the slaughter and disposal ofhealthy animals on farmers and vets. More recently, research hasalso highlighted the psychological effects of bTB upon farmers(Farm Crisis Network, 2009). For those farmers who kill badgers onneighbouring properties, a key element of their neutralisationtechniques is describing the advantageous comparison of avertinga human crisis over the death of a wild animal. For example, onefarmer commented:

“I know one thing that if there is, and I can’t tell you whether Ihave done any good or not, but what I can tell you is this: thatthere might be somebody out there now that might be still herebecause of something I’d done and that’s enough for anybody,because being with people that have committed suicide and theloss, 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 ifsomebody is standing up and trying to work on their behalf whenthey are feeling so depressed and afraid to then perhaps I mighthave done some good”.

Secondly, these neutralisation techniques extend to the widercommunity and viability of rural life. Just as claims to entitlementare based on the value and ignorance of rural expertise, so do thesetechniques appeal to the wider social landscape and those that livewithin it:

“you know, this is at stake: this is a community, this is part ofBritain is at stake here and if this goes pear shaped and this gets toa serious health hazard - it’s another nail in the coffin of thisindustry and some of the wondrous country you have got. Every-thing will suffer e tourism will suffer if the cattle aren’t here. Wehave lost 10 dairy farms now since Foot and Mouth. It is dis-appearing now”.

However, these appeals to the value of people andcommunity over individual animals do not extend to everyone.Firstly, they construct rural space as an agricultural communityrather than one of diverse interests and different natureesocietyrelationships (Bell, 1994). Secondly, distinctions are madebetween different farmers. Thus, farmers who wilfully seek outbTB by doing nothing to avoid it are cast as reckless, poorfarmers who do not deserve help. Thirdly, neutralisation tech-niques specify acceptable badgers culling techniques: those thatdo not conform to them are labelled irresponsible and not partof the farming community. For example, some farmers sug-gested that using dogs or pouring slurry into setts is not anappropriate way of acting. These discourses again highlight theambiguity of deviance: the values that legitimise deviance areones of careful responsibility and rather than excitement andaggression.

4.5. ‘Condemnation of the condemners’

Finally, badger culling is neutralised by condemning thecondemners. This strategy appears implicit within all the otherneutralisation techniques analysed so far. Farmers condemnscientists’ and government officials’ failure to solve the problem ofbTB as part of their defence of necessity. However, they also appealto community values in condemning the government, whilstpraising the value of agriculture. For example, most farmers arguedthat farmers were essential to ensure food security, but that thiswas under threat from the government’s inaction over bTB becauseit was leading to farmers leaving the industry. Illegal badger culling

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208206

was therefore highlighted as a public good in contrast to thegovernment’s approach.

Unsurprisingly, the ‘condemnation of the condemners’ strategyfocussed on badger conservation groups’ campaign againsta badger cull. Many farmers suggested that these conservationistswere ignorant of the countryside, possessed inadequate expertiseand that their activities have contributed to the explosion of thebadger population. Farmers sought to undermine conservationistsby suggesting that their focus on the badger blinds them to otherproblems caused by protecting wildlife, such as the destruction ofother habitats and species, resulting in ecological imbalances.Badger welfare groups’ attempts at re-homing badgers that hadbeen injured in road traffic accidents were also condemned asinterfering with nature, but some farmers also condemnedconservationists for suggesting that it was acceptable to leavebadgers to suffer from bTB. This hypocritical stance on welfare wasalso extended to the welfare of farmers’ cows. Thus, farmersrhetorically asked “why should my cows be allowed to die from bTBwhen wild badgers are allowed to remain free? If conservationistscared about animal welfare then they would not complain abouta badger cull because it would improve badger welfare”.

5. Discussion

The analysis presented here suggests that farmers deploya range of neutralisation techniques to justify the illegal culling ofbadgers. The paper began by questioning the extent to which Sykesand Matza’s theory could apply to more instrumental criminalitysuch as that associated with farming. Sykes and Matza did notoriginally include the ‘defence of necessity’ in their list of neutral-isation techniques; it was added much later by Minor (1981) toaccount for instrumental behaviour. The findings presented heresuggest that the strategy of the ‘defence of necessity’ is stronglyapparent in farmers’ rationalisations. However, it does not over-whelm the other neutralisation techniques presented by farmers,suggesting that agricultural wildlife crime is culturally complex andnot solely reliant on economic rationality. The findings also appearto support Sykes and Matza’s contention that there are a limitednumber 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 thedefence of necessity appear to apply as much to juvenile delin-quency as they do to wildlife crime. In other words, when it comesto rationalising deviance, there does not appear to be anythingspecific to wildlife crime.

However, closer analysis of the neutralisation techniques usedby farmers suggests a more complicated story. Firstly, the subter-ranean values that farmers drifted to were not the same as thoseheld by the juvenile delinquents in Matza and Sykes’ work. It wasdifficult to associate badger culling with a sense of excitement,disdain for work or approval of masculine aggression, at leastamongst the farmers in this study. The common values that seem tounderlie farmers’ behaviour related more to careful responsibilityand suspicion of authority.

Secondly, it is difficult to distinguish the conceptual differencebetween some neutralisation techniques. In the case of badgerculling, there is little difference between, for example, the denial ofthe victim and denial of injury. Similarly, when farmers justifybadger culling by denying the necessity of the law, their ration-alisations are no different to those that would be associated witha claim of entitlement. For example, when farmers denied that theProtection of Badgers Act was needed because of local expertise, thesame argument formed the basis of their claim to entitlement. Thismight reflect the unique circumstances of badger culling, but itmight also signal the need to critically assess the number of

neutralisation techniques by carefully distinguishing the concep-tual differences between each. Similarly, the defence of necessitywas frequently followed by a denial of the necessity of the law,particularlywhen the defencewas couched in economic terms. Thismay suggest that there is some sort of hierarchy or order to thedeployment of neutralisation techniques.

The neutralisation techniques also appeared to reveal a broaderand over-arching context for drift into deviance that other uses ofneutralisation of wildlife crime have not emphasised as a result ofsimply viewing neutralisation as a way of rationalising events. Inparticular, running through all the neutralisation techniques wasa context of cultural distance from the government, distrust ofauthority and descriptions of a morally superior rural way of life.This rural identity was constructed as agricultural and emphasisedthe value of rural/local expertise derived from intimate natureesocial relations. This interpretation is also consistent with analysesof other arguments for the preservation of activities that are seenby some as wildlife crime e such as hunting and country sports.Franklin (1999), for example, shows that arguments for anglingwere not simply about the enjoyment of angling per se, but aboutstaking claims to a particular group identity which rejected themodern world in some way. This anti-modern sentiment runsthrough the literature of the English countryside preservationistmovements (Matless, 1996). These anti-modernist themes are alsolinked to neo-Darwinists who suggested that hunting could restorethe mental and physical imbalances that city-life was eroding(Cartmill, 1993).

Treating neutralisation techniques as components of a broaderarticulation of rural identity is also consistent with the discourse ofrural protest and ‘defensive localism’ (Winter, 2001; Woods, 2003).These articulations of rurality are connected to non-complianceand resistance to regulatory procedures affecting rural populations.Such strategies are often borne out of dissatisfaction witha geographically remote (both in terms of distance and ideology)government. Thus, Neal and Walters (2007) suggest that theperceived erosion of rural identity by excessive external regulationis related to the generation and self-regulation of illicit behaviourswithin rural communities. Bickerstaff et al. (2006) argue that thephysical distance between decision makers and local imple-mentation drives mistrust of institutions. And in relation to envi-ronmental controversies the marginalisation of local knowledgesand the perceived legitimacy of expertise is well documented indriving perceived non-compliance (Vanclay, 2004) and a factor inthe failure to prevent illegal wildlife hunting among native Amer-icans (Warren, 1997).

This context to legitimise badger culling also appeared to becommon to all farmers whether they disclosed engaging in badgerculling or not. This is important because it raises the commoncritique of neutralisation: that all it explains is the context in whichcrime is a possibility and not why some people become criminalsand others not. Despite the pervasiveness of these drift contextsand uses of neutralisation, why did not all farmers engage in badgerculling? Further research may provide answers. It may be related tothe methodological difficulties associated with wildlife crimeresearch or may reflect that badger culling is not the only actionthat farmers may take. Other farmers’ decisions not to implementbiosecurity advice e both statutory and advisory e may also belinked to these same contexts (Enticott, 2008a).

There is also a danger that neutralisation says little about whatcontrols are needed to resolve deviant behaviour. As a controltheory, the answer should be more enforcement, but this uncriti-cally accepts the goals of wildlife protection and ignores widerresearch on the best ways of achieving regulatory compliance. Forexample, Government officials have sought to counter illegalbadger culling by asserting alternative social norms: they suggest

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208 207

that badger culling will spread bTB and harm neighbouring farms.However, the widespread descriptions of perceiving the agricul-tural self as an effect of others (principally government) provide thecontext for deviance and mean that these messages may gounheeded. This is because fairness and trust in institutions is rec-ognised as a key factor in compliance with regulations (de Cremerand Blader, 2006; Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Blader, 2003). As variousstudies of environmental regulation have shown, compliance oftenoccurs 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 andSutinen, 2010; Winter and May 2001; Wynne, 1992).

In the case of illegal badger culling, improved enforcement mayprovide an incentive for some to obey the law, but a more balancedand effective approach might start with a more thorough socialanalysis of farmers’ understandings of animal health and theinvolvement of farmers in the production of knowledge on whichpolicy decisions are based. This is not to repeat suggestions thatpartnership working between the agricultural industry and theGovernment provides a way of overcoming these problems.Instead, it is to suggest that e until recently e there have been veryfew attempts to use social research to help constructively resolveanimal health problems (Science Advisory Council, 2007). Suchwork can be useful in providing knowledge to policy makers,facilitating acceptable and meaningful knowledge for all stake-holders. It can also help prompt wider debates on the nature andpurpose of existing laws. This should include a much broader andcritical debate on the rationale and acceptability of wildlife controlsin a range of different social and economic circumstances. This isnot to suggest that farmers’ views are necessarily correct, that theymight change in different contexts, or that the translation of socialresearch into policy is unproblematic. However, unless laws arerecognised as fair, trustworthy, and practical, they are likely toachieve little.

6. Conclusion

Studies of the geography of crime are an important part of ruralstudies but there have been few attempts to analyse rural wildlifecrimes. This paper addresses this gap in the literature by providingan analysis of farmers’ reasons for illegally culling of badgers inEngland and Wales. Drawing on Sykes and Matza’s (1957) conceptof neutralisation theory, the paper shows the context in whichbadger culling occurs and how farmers rationalise their deviance:they defend it is necessary, deny there are victims or the necessityof the law, condemn conservationists, and appeal to the value ofpreserving local farming communities.

The findings presented in this paper suggest that neutralisationtheory can be successfully applied in a range of different contexts.In instrumental contexts such as wildlife crime connected to agri-culture, rationalisations are culturally complex and do not simplyrely on economic motivations. However, the findings suggest thatneutralisation techniques should be seen as components ofa broader argument in support of rural space and identity. In thecase of badger culling, neutralisation techniques combine to defenda particular rural identity and way of living. As much as they areattempts to rationalise criminal behaviour, neutralisation tech-niques should therefore be seen as spatial discourses, demarcatingthe boundaries of spatial and cultural identities.

Following Bandura (1999, p. 203), the neutralisations offered byfarmers might be perceived as a means by which they can “viewthemselves as faultless victims driven to injurious conduct byforcible provocation” and suggest that badger culling is “a justifi-able defensive reaction to belligerent provocations. By fixing theblame on others or on circumstances, not only are one’s own

injurious actions excusable, but one even can feel self-righteous inthe process”. However, dismissing farmers’ statements as irrationalis unlikely to resolve the problem of this form of wildlife crime.Neither does the answer to this problem necessarily lie in greaterregulation. Rather, the cultural complexity of the problemssurrounding badgers and bTB suggest that developing a betterunderstanding of the social causes of deviant behaviour cancontribute to attempts to develop fair, trustworthy and acceptablelaws. Despite the methodological limitations facing research intowildlife crime, seeking to understand wildlife crime should notcontinue to be ignored by rural scholars or policy makers. In thedebate over badger culling, this research can help address howfarmers’ attitudes will relate to and affect the uptake of new badgercontrol mechanisms such as vaccination. It is only by confrontingthe existence of wildlife crime, its causes and effects that realisticsolutions can be developed.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil (RES-000-22-1738). I am grateful for the comments bythree 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. DukeUniversity 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 formsof antisocial behaviour. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14 (9), 963e975.

Ascione, F.R., 1993. Children who are cruel to animals: a review of research andimplications 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 andAnimals 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. ChicagoUniversity Press, Chicago.

Benton, T., 1998. Rights and justice on a shared planet: more rights or new rela-tions? Theoretical Criminology 2 (2), 149e175.

Bickerstaff, K., et al., 2006. Situating local experience of risk: peripherality, mar-ginality 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 UniversityPress, Oxford.

Edwards, S., et al., 1996. Environmental Crime and Criminality: Theoretical andPractical Issues. Garland Publishing, New York.

Eliason, S., Dodder, S., 1999. Techniques of neutralization used by deer poachers inthe western United States: a research note. Deviant Behaviour 20, 233e252.

Enticott, G., 2001. Calculating nature: the case of badgers, bovine tuberculosis andcattle. Journal of Rural Studies 17 (2), 149e164.

Enticott, G., 2008a. The ecological paradox: social and natural consequences of thegeographies of animal health promotion. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 33 (4), 433e446.

G. Enticott / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 200e208208

Enticott, G., 2008b. The spaces of biosecurity: Prescribing and negotiating solutionsto bovine tuberculosis. Environment and Planning A 40 (7), 1568e1582.

Enticott, G., Franklin, A., 2009. Biosecurity, expertise and the institutional void: thecase of bovine tuberculosis. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (4), 375e393.

Farm Crisis Network, 2009. Stress and Loss: a Report on the Impact of Bovine TB onFarming Families. Farm Crisis Network, Northampton.

Felthouse, A., Kellert, S., 1987. Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggressionagainst 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 andAnimals 6, 203e218.

Franklin, A., 1999. Animals and Modern Cultures: a Sociology of HumaneAnimalRelations in Modernity. Sage, London.

Fyfe, N.R., Reeves, A., 2011. The thin green line? Police perceptions of the challengesof 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 neutralizationtechniques in veterinary medical practice. Deviant Behavior 22 (6), 467e490.

Gezelius, S., 2002. Do norms count? State regulation and compliance in a Norwe-gian fishing community. Acta Sociologica 45, 305e314.

Gezelius, S., 2004. Food, money, and morals: compliance among natural resourceharvesters. 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. BritishJournal of Politics & International Relations 11 (4), 557e573.

Green, G., 2002. The other criminalities of animal freeze-killers: support fora 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 environ-ment. Stanford University Press, California.

Hensley, C., Tallichet, S.E., 2005a. Animal cruelty motivations. Assessing demographicand situational influences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (11), 1429e1443.

Hensley, C., Tallichet, S.E., 2005b. Learning to be cruel? Exploring the onset andfrequency of animal cruelty. International Journal of Offender Therapy andComparative Criminology 49, 37e47.

Hensley, C., et al., 2010. Childhood bestiality: a potential precursor to adult inter-personal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25 (3), 557e567.

Hutter, B.M., 1988. The Reasonable Arm of the Law? the Law Enforcement Proce-dures of Environmental Health Officers. Clarendon, Oxford.

Independent Scientific Group (ISG), 2007. Bovine Tuberculosis: The ScientificEvidence. Defra, London.

Jacoby, K., 2001. Crimes against Nature. Squatters, Poachers, Thieves and the HiddenHistory of American Conservation. University of California Press, London.

Keane, A., et al., 2008. The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforce-ment and compliance in conservation. Animal Conservation 11, 75e82.

King, D.M., Sutinen, J.G., 2010. Rational non-compliance and the liquidation ofNortheast 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 Agri-

culture, 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. AmericanSociological Review 26, 712e719.

Merz-Perez, L., et al., 2001. Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violenceagainst humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and ComparativeCriminology 45 (5), 556e573.

Minor, W.W., 1981. Techniques of neutralization: a reconceptualization andempirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 18,295e318.

Mooney, J., 2007. Shadow values, shadow figures: real violence. Critical Criminology15, 159e170.

Neal, S., Walters, S., 2007. ‘You can get away with loads because there’s no onehere’: 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 recrea-

tional 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 PsychologyReview 7 (4), 349e361.

Vanclay, F., 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in thepromotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of ExperimentalAgriculture 44 (3), 213e222.

Vollum, S., et al., 2004. Moral disengagement and attitudes about violence towardanimals. 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 regu-

lations. 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 Society15, 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, humandeviance and the social construction of victimhood. Society and Animals 9 (1),1e23.

Young, J., 2007. The Vertigo of Late Modernity. Sage, London.