The Motivations of Recreational Hunters Who Violate Wildlife and Game Hunting Regulations: Implications for Crime Prevention

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript entitled "The motivations of recreational hunters who violate wildlife and game hunting regulations: Implications for crime prevention"

1. Relevance of the Title to the Content of the Article

The title accurately reflects the scope and main theme of the article. It clearly identifies both the target group ("recreational hunters") and the core phenomenon under study ("violate regulations"), while also indicating the practical focus of the manuscript ("implications for crime prevention"). The authors consistently develop this topic throughout the manuscript, concentrating on the illegal dimensions of recreational hunting and the possibilities for prevention.

2. Clarity of Research Objectives

The research objective is generally well formulated, though at times it appears somewhat dispersed. The primary research aim is stated in lines 36-43, where the authors intend to "consider how community safety might best be achieved" in the context of illegal hunting by examining motivations behind non-compliance and proposing preventive measures. The objective is realistic, socially relevant, and well grounded in a specific local context (Victoria, Australia).

3. Literature Review: Logic and Coherence

This is essentially a review paper, and the authors provide a robust and well-organized overview of the literature. The use of a narrative approach allows for the inclusion of a wide range of topics - from the historical and cultural aspects of hunting, through regulatory frameworks, to theoretical concepts from criminology and social psychology. The section reviewing motivations for both legal and illegal hunting (lines 207-221 and beyond) is particularly valuable and well-structured.

4. Redundant or Overly Detailed Sections

The section discussing legal regulations and the role of the Game Management Authority (GMA) (lines 125-164) is somewhat too detailed. It would benefit from condensing descriptions of certain functions and procedures, such as the breakdown of legal sanctions.

Table 1 (lines 99-100) and the species-specific information might also be candidates for summarization or relocation to an appendix, as the detailed faunal list is not essential to the analysis of hunter motivations.

5. Areas for Further Development

The relationship between hunters and the broader society, particularly in the context of legal legitimacy (lines 417-425), deserves greater elaboration. Although currently only briefly mentioned (e.g., "three indicators by Tyler (2023)"), this issue is crucial for the effectiveness of crime prevention strategies and would enrich the manuscript significantly.

The section addressing anti-hunting protests (lines 535-541) is interesting but only marginally discussed. This topic could illustrate social tensions and would enhance the contextual analysis.

6. Objectivity and Bias

In reviewing studies on illegal behavior among hunters, I often encounter an implicit or overt anti-hunting bias. This is especially problematic given that recreational hunting is losing public support, and even among ecologists, there are instances of partiality - which I believe is unacceptable in scientific research. In this manuscript, however, the authors maintain a commendable level of academic objectivity. They avoid moralizing or condemnation, presenting the issue as multifaceted and complex. They acknowledge diverse perspectives (hunters, regulators, protesters) and strive for an empathetic understanding rather than judgment. The use of terms such as "folk crime" (lines 287-288) and "cultural identity" (line 437) reflects this balanced approach.

7. Target Audience: Local vs. Broader Readership

The manuscript is most valuable for researchers and practitioners in Australia, particularly in the state of Victoria. Numerous references to local legislation, institutions, and data may be difficult to follow for international readers unfamiliar with the context. Nonetheless, the theoretical and analytical sections (e.g., models of motivation, situational prevention, theory of planned behavior) are of general relevance and may interest a broader audience studying environmental crime, hunting ethics, or the regulation of nature-based recreational activities.

My recommendation:

The manuscript meets the standards of academic publication. I recommend acceptance with minor revisions, which should be discussed among the authors and do not require re-review. These include: improving the clarity of the research objective in the introduction, condensing the descriptive sections on legal frameworks and species lists, elaborating on selected socio-regulatory issues, reducing the level of local detail that may hinder international accessibility.

 

Finally, I would like to thank and congratulate the authors for addressing such an important and timely topic, relevant both from a scientific and practical perspective.

Author Response

1. Relevance of the Title to the Content of the Article

The title accurately reflects the scope and main theme of the article. It clearly identifies both the target group ("recreational hunters") and the core phenomenon under study ("violate regulations"), while also indicating the practical focus of the manuscript ("implications for crime prevention"). The authors consistently develop this topic throughout the manuscript, concentrating on the illegal dimensions of recreational hunting and the possibilities for prevention.

1. Clarity of Research Objectives

The research objective is generally well formulated, though at times it appears somewhat dispersed. The primary research aim is stated in lines 36-43, where the authors intend to "consider how community safety might best be achieved" in the context of illegal hunting by examining motivations behind non-compliance and proposing preventive measures. The objective is realistic, socially relevant, and well grounded in a specific local context (Victoria, Australia).

1. Literature Review: Logic and Coherence

This is essentially a review paper, and the authors provide a robust and well-organized overview of the literature. The use of a narrative approach allows for the inclusion of a wide range of topics - from the historical and cultural aspects of hunting, through regulatory frameworks, to theoretical concepts from criminology and social psychology. The section reviewing motivations for both legal and illegal hunting (lines 207-221 and beyond) is particularly valuable and well-structured.

1. Redundant or Overly Detailed Sections

The section discussing legal regulations and the role of the Game Management Authority (GMA) (lines 125-164) is somewhat too detailed. It would benefit from condensing descriptions of certain functions and procedures, such as the breakdown of legal sanctions.

Table 1 (lines 99-100) and the species-specific information might also be candidates for summarization or relocation to an appendix, as the detailed faunal list is not essential to the analysis of hunter motivations.

1. Areas for Further Development

The relationship between hunters and the broader society, particularly in the context of legal legitimacy (lines 417-425), deserves greater elaboration. Although currently only briefly mentioned (e.g., "three indicators by Tyler (2023)"), this issue is crucial for the effectiveness of crime prevention strategies and would enrich the manuscript significantly.

The section addressing anti-hunting protests (lines 535-541) is interesting but only marginally discussed. This topic could illustrate social tensions and would enhance the contextual analysis.

1. Objectivity and Bias

In reviewing studies on illegal behavior among hunters, I often encounter an implicit or overt anti-hunting bias. This is especially problematic given that recreational hunting is losing public support, and even among ecologists, there are instances of partiality - which I believe is unacceptable in scientific research. In this manuscript, however, the authors maintain a commendable level of academic objectivity. They avoid moralizing or condemnation, presenting the issue as multifaceted and complex. They acknowledge diverse perspectives (hunters, regulators, protesters) and strive for an empathetic understanding rather than judgment. The use of terms such as "folk crime" (lines 287-288) and "cultural identity" (line 437) reflects this balanced approach.

1. Target Audience: Local vs. Broader Readership

The manuscript is most valuable for researchers and practitioners in Australia, particularly in the state of Victoria. Numerous references to local legislation, institutions, and data may be difficult to follow for international readers unfamiliar with the context. Nonetheless, the theoretical and analytical sections (e.g., models of motivation, situational prevention, theory of planned behavior) are of general relevance and may interest a broader audience studying environmental crime, hunting ethics, or the regulation of nature-based recreational activities.

My recommendation:

The manuscript meets the standards of academic publication. I recommend acceptance with minor revisions, which should be discussed among the authors and do not require re-review. These include: improving the clarity of the research objective in the introduction, condensing the descriptive sections on legal frameworks and species lists, elaborating on selected socio-regulatory issues, reducing the level of local detail that may hinder international accessibility.

Finally, I would like to thank and congratulate the authors for addressing such an important and timely topic, relevant both from a scientific and practical perspective.

Response: Thank you for such encouraging feedback about our paper, which are greatly appreciated.  The only area for possible revision identified by this reviewer is to expand the section on the perceived legitimacy of regulation. We agree, and in response have added some additional text at the very of the paper that draws attention to this as a foundational issue for effective regulation. However, we have not added any substantial new information about Tyler's work and how it might be applied to this topic as our focus is on hunting motivation and the adoption of situational crime prevention approaches. Nonetheless we believe that highlighting this at the end of the paper is important and does signify directions for future work in this area.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic seems to be important.

But I found that improvements are still required.

• It is not very clear which kind of illegal activities of legal hunters you target with this paper (examples or list)
• You are speaking about legal hunters and their illegal activities or about non-hunters, i.e. poachers
• The use of words related to hunters and hunting should be much more precise throughout the text for increasing the clarity of the meaning of the ms.

All my comments can be found in the pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The topic seems to be important.

But I found that improvements are still required.

• It is not very clear which kind of illegal activities of legal hunters you target with this paper (examples or list)
• You are speaking about legal hunters and their illegal activities or about non-hunters, i.e. poachers
• The use of words related to hunters and hunting should be much more precise throughout the text for increasing the clarity of the meaning of the ms.

All my comments can be found in the pdf file.

 

 

Response: Thank you for your careful reading of the paper. We have reviewed and corrected those areas highlighted with comments in the pdf. We are grateful for how you draw attention to the need for greater clarity about which kind of illegal activities of legal hunters we are discussing here and have added in some examples of the sorts or regulatory breach that arise in this jurisdiction. We have also made some changes to ensure that it is always clear when we are writing about illegal activity of hunters in order to differentiate this from state-sanctioned recreational activity. This includes clarifying the use of the word ‘poaching’ which is a word that has different meanings in different context and, indeed, is used in different ways in the published research literature. We hope that these changes make it clear that our focus is on recreational hunting that is in breach of local regulations and agree that this is important for readers to understand. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide an interesting review of illegal activity by (recreational) hunters with a focus on participants in the state of Victoria Australia and regulation by a government body, the Game Management Authority. They describe the unique characteristics of this location such as whether the hunter’s targets are introduced pests with no protection, feral species with some protection and native species with full protection. Furthermore, they note the potential quandary of the regulator in prosecuting both illegal hunting and objectors to it. The situation with native kangaroos and wallabies is more complicated with lethal control exercised by a commercial meat and hide industry, and destruction permits to landholders. I expect wildlife offences are managed by a wildlife not a game authority. They perhaps overstate the uniqueness of hunting effort focussed on introduced species as this is common in many jurisdictions. For example, wild boar (Sus scrofa) are native to Eurasia but hunted in all other continents except Antarctica.

The review canvasses the global literature on motivations for hunting and mechanisms to regulate it and reduce illegality. They effectively apply this in their discussion about application to criminality amongst Victorian hunters. Among motivations, I expected some discussion of psychopathy (or sociopathy) but found only “thrill killing” at line 310 and “linked to a range of different criminal behaviours” at line 524.

The English expression is sound, but the manuscript is peppered with minor errors suggesting inadequate proofing before submission. There are numerous instances of excessive white space between words. The citations do not conform to the MDPI format. References to web sites do not include the access date. Table 1 has mixed fonts. Table 2 has a mix of lower- and upper-case words delimiting sentences. There is some tendency to write long sentences (e.g. lines 23-28) which become confusing, and the information is better expressed in short sentences which improve readability. Throughout the manuscript the species name (binomial) is inconsistently and incorrectly presented. It should always be italicised and only the Genus is capitalised (e.g. Cervus unicolor). In the following, I address minor errors and/or suggest improvements.

Line 19: I am sure the authors could add additional keywords

Line 24-5: thought to require

Line 31: applied to describe

Line 37: ways that criminological

Line 72: 17,500 deer hunters

Table 1: Autumn, with season

Line 115-124: Citation for this information is unclear

Line 157: the usual regulatory

Line 172-3: here are that

Line 181: Something missing? “know relatively, however,”

Line 205: prevented that arise

Line 255-6: were influenced by

Line 308: suggest that individuals

Line 327: second level points

Line 345: harm to both

Line 357: places where illegal

Line 360: Situational

Line 367: to preventing wildlife

Line 410: “reducing or increasing”? Presumably mean reducing cost of legal and increasing cost of illegal?

Line 427: procedures:

Line 451: down to wildlife

Line 466: formal measures.

Line 512-3: drivers of illegal…measures that can

Line 535: addressing the

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above

Author Response

The authors provide an interesting review of illegal activity by (recreational) hunters with a focus on participants in the state of Victoria Australia and regulation by a government body, the Game Management Authority. They describe the unique characteristics of this location such as whether the hunter’s targets are introduced pests with no protection, feral species with some protection and native species with full protection. Furthermore, they note the potential quandary of the regulator in prosecuting both illegal hunting and objectors to it. The situation with native kangaroos and wallabies is more complicated with lethal control exercised by a commercial meat and hide industry, and destruction permits to landholders. I expect wildlife offences are managed by a wildlife not a game authority. They perhaps overstate the uniqueness of hunting effort focussed on introduced species as this is common in many jurisdictions. For example, wild boar (Sus scrofa) are native to Eurasia but hunted in all other continents except Antarctica.

The review canvasses the global literature on motivations for hunting and mechanisms to regulate it and reduce illegality. They effectively apply this in their discussion about application to criminality amongst Victorian hunters. Among motivations, I expected some discussion of psychopathy (or sociopathy) but found only “thrill killing” at line 310 and “linked to a range of different criminal behaviours” at line 524.

The English expression is sound, but the manuscript is peppered with minor errors suggesting inadequate proofing before submission. There are numerous instances of excessive white space between words. The citations do not conform to the MDPI format. References to web sites do not include the access date. Table 1 has mixed fonts. Table 2 has a mix of lower- and upper-case words delimiting sentences. There is some tendency to write long sentences (e.g. lines 23-28) which become confusing, and the information is better expressed in short sentences which improve readability. Throughout the manuscript the species name (binomial) is inconsistently and incorrectly presented. It should always be italicised and only the Genus is capitalised (e.g. Cervus unicolor). In the following, I address minor errors and/or suggest improvements.

Line 19: I am sure the authors could add additional keywords

Line 24-5: thought to require

Line 31: applied to describe

Line 37: ways that criminological

Line 72: 17,500 deer hunters

Table 1: Autumn, with season

Line 115-124: Citation for this information is unclear

Line 157: the usual regulatory

Line 172-3: here are that

Line 181: Something missing? “know relatively, however,”

Line 205: prevented that arise

Line 255-6: were influenced by

Line 308: suggest that individuals

Line 327: second level points

Line 345: harm to both

Line 357: places where illegal

Line 360: Situational

Line 367: to preventing wildlife

Line 410: “reducing or increasing”? Presumably mean reducing cost of legal and increasing cost of illegal?

Line 427: procedures:

Line 451: down to wildlife

Line 466: formal measures.

Line 512-3: drivers of illegal…measures that can

Line 535: addressing the

Response: Thank you for these very helpful comments. We have tried to highlight some of the unique features of the Victorian regulatory environment, whilst also seeking to locate this within a broader international literature. We hope that the revisions make it clearer that there are points of similarity and divergence. We did not come across any direct refence to the issue of psychopathy in our literature searches, which is why we did not discuss this directly. However, we have now added an additional citation to a paper by Kavanagh and colleagues that makes a connection with animal cruelty.  Interested readers may wish to follow up.

We have completed a full proofread and hopefully addressed the typographical errors.- it has improved the paper. Thank you so much for your careful reading and highlighting of these. We have added retrieval dates to websites in the reference list.  

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors reviewed the motivations of hunters and the motivations behind illegal hunting in Victoria, Australia. Then, they reflected on suitable schemes for dealing with illegal hunting. This is a very interesting essay given the complexities and diversity of hunting in the study area.

Comments

Lines 30-35: Where? In Australia? Elsewhwere? In western societies illegal hunting is highly regulated. If regulations are efficiently enforced is another thing. Please expand and clarify.

Line 35: This reference is missing from the references list.

Line 47-51: According to information given in lines 76-80, 1.5% of the population is hunting. This does not allow for suggesting a considerable public interest in hunting. What was the inquiry about? Pro-hunting or anti-hunting? Is there a public interest in reducing hunting, supporting hunting, better regulating hunting, and enforcing regulations? Or else? Also, you could give the percentage of hunting participation from other countries to put it in context. Whatever suits the message you want to communicate here.

Lines 162-164: In lines 76-80, you implied 100000 in the state. Here you talk about 58000 licensed hunters. Is it because those hunting invasive species do not need a licence? If so, are they not controlled in any way? Please give more such information to help the reader better understand the situation in the state. Perhaps in an earlier paragraph. You have given some such information, but I think it would be a great help if the hunting system and its management became clear early in the article.

Line 217: You have been talking about motivation in this paragraph. The reader would wonder about what “those methods of prevention” could be. Please give some examples with information on who does and who does not accept them.

Line 221: Illustrative literature of what? Complete the caption.

Lines 356-387: It would be useful to tabulate the situational crime prevention approaches for a quick overview.

Author Response

The authors reviewed the motivations of hunters and the motivations behind illegal hunting in Victoria, Australia. Then, they reflected on suitable schemes for dealing with illegal hunting. This is a very interesting essay given the complexities and diversity of hunting in the study area.

Comments

Lines 30-35: Where? In Australia? Elsewhwere? In western societies illegal hunting is highly regulated. If regulations are efficiently enforced is another thing. Please expand and clarify.

Line 35: This reference is missing from the references list.

Line 47-51: According to information given in lines 76-80, 1.5% of the population is hunting. This does not allow for suggesting a considerable public interest in hunting. What was the inquiry about? Pro-hunting or anti-hunting? Is there a public interest in reducing hunting, supporting hunting, better regulating hunting, and enforcing regulations? Or else? Also, you could give the percentage of hunting participation from other countries to put it in context. Whatever suits the message you want to communicate here.

Lines 162-164: In lines 76-80, you implied 100000 in the state. Here you talk about 58000 licensed hunters. Is it because those hunting invasive species do not need a licence? If so, are they not controlled in any way? Please give more such information to help the reader better understand the situation in the state. Perhaps in an earlier paragraph. You have given some such information, but I think it would be a great help if the hunting system and its management became clear early in the article.

Line 217: You have been talking about motivation in this paragraph. The reader would wonder about what “those methods of prevention” could be. Please give some examples with information on who does and who does not accept them.

Line 221: Illustrative literature of what? Complete the caption.

Lines 356-387: It would be useful to tabulate the situational crime prevention approaches for a quick overview.

Response: We have clarified that the literature cited relates to western countries and added the reference to Blevins and Edwards. We have added information about the terms of reference of the Victorian duck hunting inquiry (annual bird hunting seasons, environmental sustainability and social and economic impact). We have also clarified that hunting invasive species does not require a licence (in the section on the regulatory framework) – see p4 “However, it is important to note that the GMA does not have responsibility for the hunting of pest animals which does not require a licence”. We have added examples of where methods of prevention may be welcomed by some but not by others (e.g., bag limits, firearm licencing, hunting seasons, see RSPCA, 2025).  We have added a new table (3) to summarise mainstream situational crime prevention approaches, as suggested.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I found that you considered all my comments and made some other changes too, and you managed to improve the quality of the manuscript and clarify the targeted problem of your research. Now the separation of different types of activities i.e. legal hunting - recreational hunting in an illegal form - poaching became much more understandable and adequate.

Still there are minor things to fix, e.g. a lot of unnecessary spaces in the text to delete and in line 563 "illegals" should be changed to "illegal".

Kind regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed my main suggestions for improvement of the manuscript. I will leave matters of style I raised to the copy editor.