This chapter examines the notion of wildlife as property or ‘things’ and critically analyses the extent to which anthropocentric notions of wildlife as a resource for human exploitation determines the harm caused to non-human animals. The reality is that wildlife, in common with other non-human animals, are often defined as ‘things’ akin to property, in a manner that allows for their continued exploitation for human purposes and for the minimisation of societal condemnation of harm suffered by non-human animals.

For wildlife criminology, this raises issues regarding the extent to which both harms and crimes against non-human animals might be considered ‘victimless’ crimes and fall outside mainstream criminological inquiry. The status of wildlife as property influences the extent to which wildlife is protected by legal systems as well as the consideration of wildlife crimes as deserving of criminological or law enforcement attention. Wildlife, living outside human control, are arguably protected less than companion non-human animals whose legal protection reflects their close proximity to humans and habitation under human control (Schaffner, 2011; Nurse and Ryland, 2013), and are protected only so far as their interests coincide with human interests. Arguably, notions of crime are socially constructed such that what is defined as crime varies across jurisdictions and societies (Nurse, 2013; White and Heckenberg, 2014). In respect of harms against wildlife, a range of factors determines the seriousness afforded to such harms, including cultural and religious beliefs, legal classifications, type of non-human animal involved and type of harm. However, anthropocentric concerns frequently underpin the extent to which wildlife crimes are taken seriously within a particular jurisdiction. In respect of enforcement activity, the narrow distinction between legal and illegal activity, the nature of wildlife protection legislation and even ideological issues concerning the efficacy of enforcement can be factors in determining how and by whom wildlife harms are investigated and prosecuted (Nurse, 2011, 2013).

These issues are of importance to the wildlife criminology project, as many of the crimes committed against non-human animals who are ‘owned’ or are kidnapped to become ‘owned’ are linked to activity that is ostensibly legal. Nurse (2013: 1) used the term ‘animal harm’ to cover a range of activities directed at non-human animals, but which inevitably result in some form of harm whether physical or psychological.