Received: 29 May 2020 | Revised: 26 August 2020 | Accepted: 20 September 2020

DOI: 10.1002/mar.21425

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Towards a classification of marine wildlife crime: Marketing

strategies to curtail illegal fishing, malicious acts, and
waterway pollution

Astrid L. Keel1 | Marco Wolf2

1
University of La Verne, La Verne,
California, USA Abstract
2
University of Southern Mississippi, Long Much effort has been dedicated to fighting wildlife crime with modest results. This
Beach, Mississippi, USA
paper focuses on marine wildlife crime, which suffers from a certain level of neglect
Correspondence due to terrestrial bias (a predominant focus on land animals). Despite legislative and
Astrid L. Keel, University of La Verne, 1950 enforcement efforts, there has been little integration of marketing techniques to
Third St., La Verne, CA 91750, USA.
Email: akeel@laverne.edu curtail marine wildlife crime. For these reasons, we set out to study current issues
surrounding marine wildlife crime by conducting interviews with three experts in
areas of marine education, research, and legislation. The interviews provide an
overview of the threats to marine wildlife, aid in the development of a classification
of marine wildlife crime, and provide strategies as to what marketing actions may be
useful to reduce it.

KEYWORDS
crime prevention and control, depth interviews, marine wildlife, social marketing

1 | INTRODUCTION charismatic species, such as dolphins and turtles, or commercially

Popular press coverage of wildlife crime typically focuses on
poaching of a small number of high‐profile species, such as tigers,
rhinoceros, and elephants. While these majestic animals rightfully
deserve coverage and attention, there are many more species that
are targets of crime. The focus on land animals may be due to the
usage of “wildlife” in common parlance, which typically does not in-
clude marine species, even though this “terrestrial bias has little
rational basis” (UNODG, 2016). Indeed, the press's emphasis on land
species has been at the expense of marine creatures. Given that over
70% of the Earth is covered in water, the focus on land animals
misses a significant element of the Earth's wildlife. One of the
contributors to the scattered effort to tackle wildlife crime is taxo-
nomic bias, which means a few charismatic species (e.g., rhinoceros,
tigers, elephants) are treated as representative of broader wildlife
crime reality. This results in the vast majority of harmed species
being overlooked (Nijman et al., 2012).
Furthermore, taxonomic bias exists within marine wildlife, with
the majority of conservation efforts and research focusing on
important ones, such as tuna (McClenachan et al., 2012). For these
reasons, research and understanding of marine species in regard to
crime lag behind terrestrial ones. To endeavor to address this, we
develop a classification of crime affecting marine species with a focus
on the United States. This study uses structured in‐depth interviews
with three marine‐life experts from the forefront of marine research.
Then, based on marketing and psychology literature in demarketing
and counter‐marketing, we suggest what actions can be taken to
reduce these various types of marine wildlife crime.
2 | MARINE WIL DL IFE C ONTE XT
We adapt Interpol's (2019) definition of wildlife crime specifically for
marine life and henceforth define marine wildlife crime as the taking,
trading, exploiting, or possessing of the world's marine wild flora and
fauna in contravention of national and international laws. Some acts
that are harmful to wildlife are not criminal acts, such as legal levels
of pollution that result in acid rain and affect bodies of water.

Psychol Mark. 2020;37:1743–1754. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1743

1744 | KEEL
There are several reasons why a better understanding of marine
wildlife is needed. Marine wildlife plays a vital role in our food
supply, with wild fish representing 57% of the fish supply for food in
2012 (FAO, 2012). Fish is an essential source of animal protein,
especially in developing nations, where it can account for more than
half of animal protein consumption (FAO, 2014).
Marine wildlife crime is an international issue since many marine
species inhabit global commons and are interconnected to a greater
extent than land animals. For example, minute changes in water
quality can have cascading effects on an entire marine ecosystem.
Marine wildlife is an input in sectors beyond the food supply; for
example, it is used as pets or displays in aquariums, in making
medicine or tonics (whether or not scientific evidence supports it),
art or décor, cosmetics, perfume, fashion, and furniture.
The response to wildlife crime has been to create international
trade agreements, national, state and local laws, and to create in-
centives for locals to abstain from illegal activities by establishing a
vested economic interest in conservation (Pires & Moreto, 2011).
Despite international efforts, laws are inconsistent within and across
nations; and there are millions of marine species that have no reg-
ulations associated with them. The difficulty in enforcing inconsistent
laws makes it imperative that actions be taken on the demand side of
the equation to reduce consumers' purchases and participation
contribution to marine crime.
Marine wildlife is of great importance to human life, and this
study seeks to address the lack of research in crime against marine
species by developing a preliminary classification of threats to
marine life. According to Bunn (1993), developing classifications is
important to (1) research, because they contribute to “midrange”
theories, which then contribute to “comprehensive theory” and
(2) practice, because these classifications can then be used for seg-
mentation and targeting purposes. Using expert interviews supple-
mented by a literature review, we develop a typology of crimes.
Then, using theories from demarcating and counter‐marketing, we
present marketing strategies that may decrease these crimes.
There is growing scientific and political debate over which types
of conservational interventions are most effective, including
increased enforcement, demand reduction strategies, and provision
of alternative livelihoods, as well as market and incentive‐based
approaches (Bennett, 2014; Duffy, 2014). There is an inherent
difficulty in studying criminal behavior against animals since the
perpetrators are unlikely to be forthcoming, and the animal victims
do not communicate in human language. Indeed, illegal systems
are difficult to study directly, with many policies underappreciating
associated patterns and nuances (Von Lampe, 2012).
One of the main methods used to reduce wildlife crime is de-
terrence through law enforcement action. However, prior research
suggests that enforcement plays a negligible role in deterring wildlife
criminals due to their typically temporary focus (Kennedy, 2009;
Pratt & Cullen, 2005). In addition, locals frame the severity of crimes
based on the other ones being committed, such as crimes against
humans or property, which are typically considered more significant.
A heavy hand in wildlife crime is likely to undermine locals' support
AND WOLF
for law enforcement. Marine crime tends to be enforced via financial
penalties; for example, using gill nets unlawfully can result in fines of
up to $8,000 in California. Unfortunately, taxonomic bias is evident
in the consequences of marine wildlife violations: for instance, in
California, penalties for a protected or endangered mammal increase
to $20,000, while those for fish or reptiles are only $2,000. In other
words, law enforcement action tends to be ineffective in deterring
wildlife crime, and in the context of marine animals, the deterrent is
even less effective.
Another solution provided to decrease marine wildlife crime is
trade bans, which, like law enforcement action, may not have the
intended effect. Indeed, trade bans can increase the prices for now‐
forbidden species but do nothing to decrease demand; therefore
producing different results than the ones intended. Prior research
indicates trade bans tend to incentivize poaching (e.g., Lemieux &
Clarke, 2009; Pires & Moreto, 2011). Quotas, limitations on supply,
are also thought to be ineffective deterrents for marine wildlife
because open seas and oceans are difficult to monitor (Smith &
Walpole, 2005). Since law‐enforcement and supply focused inter-
ventions seem to have mixed results, we suggest that a consumer‐
driven problem (such as overfishing) may be better solved by
focusing on demand issues and by involving the consumer.
We conduct an exploratory study involving three marine experts
with responsibilities in the areas of research, education, and legislation,
to gain insight into criminal activities surrounding marine wildlife. The
goal of this study is to use these insights to develop a classification of
marine wildlife crime to further research aiding the fight against it. The
authors selected the topic based on their interest and passion in sea
and ocean subjects. The authors resided in coastal regions of the
United States, which provided access to experts and professionals fa-
miliar with the issues besieging the marine environment.
3 | ME THO D
Criminal activities around wildlife and, in particular, marine wildlife have
received little to no attention in the marketing literature. We explore
the nature of marine wildlife crime to better understand the areas
where marketing practices can be employed to prevent crime and
protect future natural resources. We recruited three marine wildlife
experts who are familiar with criminal and illegal activities targeting
marine life. We used formal depth interviews to access first‐hand
knowledge and ideas to formulate marketing responses. Before the
interviews, a pilot interview was conducted to test the question set for
relevance and currency. This procedure allowed revision of the formal
interview guide and better account for time limitations. To assess all
three marine science practitioners' perceptions of the challenges in
their respective marine environments and resulting marketing oppor-
tunities, we posed a series of open‐ended questions, and the resulting
answers were analyzed for recurrent and emerging themes. To assure
free prior informed consent, each interviewee was given an opportunity
to inquire about the interview questions before the interview and was
asked for permission to be interviewed and recorded.
KEEL AND WOLF
Contact with interviewees was arranged via phone or email with
respective departments. All three interviewees represented sea-
soned professionals with experience in marine science ranging from
20 to 30 years. The position of study participants included CEO and
President of a Gulf Coast institute studying marine animals (referred
to as “M.”), Chief Marine Science Officer in a Gulf Coast state
(referred to as “P.”), and Animal Care Curator on the West Coast
(referred to as “K.”). Interviews ranged in length from 60 to 90 min,
with the first two taking place at the respondents' workplace and
the third administered over the phone. All interviews were digitally
recorded and transcribed immediately.
4 | RESULTS
The interview protocol was designed to address experts' perceptions
and attitudes related to various aspects of marine life protections,
including those of criminal nature. Therefore, the interviews began
by asking about participants' expertise and responsibilities, followed
by general issues centered on marine life. Next, interview guidelines
addressed perceptions on crime‐specific problems, their origin, and
possible remedies.
We present the results in three major sections. The first
compiles interviewees' most pressing themes related to the
ecological considerations of marine wildlife crime. Then, based
on the interviews, supplemented with existing literature from
trade press, we catalogue perceived threats to marine life. In the
third section, we propose some of the customer‐oriented actions
to decrease marine wildlife crime and the theories that may
support them.
4.1 | Ecological considerations
The thematic analysis of interview responses pointed to two general
directions that must be considered in classifying all marine wildlife
matters. On one side are issues relevant to the ecology and the
marine ecosystem at large, and commercial interactions on the other.
This creates an additional problem as these two areas cannot easily
be separated, causing “gray” areas where commercial interest may
override ecological necessity.
The marine scientists in our study viewed the marine ecosystem
as a very sensitive resource. Even the slightest commercial overuse,
misuse, or neglect may have devastating and long‐lasting effects on
the ecosystem; thus, all interviewees placed great importance on the
responsibility to maintain ecological equilibrium.
4.1.1 | Ecological system imbalance
The respondents expressed concern for the impact of human inter-
action on the marine ecosystem. M. summarized his thoughts as
“Wildlife does not need management; people do!” Tasked with
| 1745
maintaining a balance between economy and ecology, P. proposes
balancing sustainability:
There are economically important species that are harvested
for commercial and recreational use. One of the biggest jobs
is identifying how many fish can be taken to still be sus-
tainable. Rebuilding in case of over‐harvesting cost the state
a lot of money in lost revenues. We call it [use of resources at
sustainable levels] the optimal yield. Because we want these
species around forever; for our children.
Despite his strong involvement in the commercial side of marine
wildlife, P. further laments the treatment of species that seem not in
focus for consumption yet have to be protected as part of the
ecosystem.
Non economically important species that are consumed or
caught for recreational or commercial are sea turtles, gulf
sturgeon. Some of these are important for the ecosystem, but
they are not used for harvest scenarios. Those are important,
but they don't do a formal stock assessment in the state. The
federal government takes care of those. We work with them
because they [species] are so important to the ecosystem. So,
we don't treat them any different in level of importance. Non‐
harvestable are for the protection of the ecosystem.
4.1.2 | Commercial focus
K.'s perspective further points to a regulatory network offering too
little regulation to protect commercially unimportant species. There is
more funding for research and more regulation for species with direct
commercial benefit. This means species currently commercially
unimportant, or about which we do not know much about, continue
getting the short‐thrift on regulation and research. Indeed, K. states:
There is a local shark species around here, but they may
not become sexually mature and may not begin to re-
produce until they are 20–30 years old. But they are data
deficient, and under a lot of the regulations, they are al-
lowed to be commercially taken for sport or food. There is
no [fishing] limit to them because it's not a commercially
valuable species. State and federal agencies are focusing
on species that they know are in trouble rather than the
ones we don't know anything about.
4.2 | Classification
In letting the interview content drive the themes relevant to marine
crime, we noticed immediately that typical standards for terrestrial
wildlife are difficult to apply. For example, interviewees were familiar
with wildlife crimes committed on a global scale and often pertain to
1746 | KEEL
land animals. Still, they made it clear that transferring these stan-
dards to marine wildlife is difficult due to the challenges of under-
standing such a sizeable interconnected ecosystem. Interviewees'
responses about marine wildlife crime provided a starting point to
develop an exploratory classification. For example, K. defined marine
wildlife crime as: “people that are negatively impacting the marine
life populations though poaching, fishing, or accidentally [emphasis
added] harming a population through waste runoff or otherwise
breaking the state and federal laws that are meant to protect the
population in some capacity.” The next section will explain the
classification of threats to marine life, which are broadly categorized
as Illegal, Underreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, con-
troversial fishing practices, malicious acts, and environmental
pollution.
4.2.1 | IUU fishing overview
Interviewees identified the most significant threat to marine life
as IUU fishing. This illegal fishing undermines the efforts of fishers,
industries, and government organizations worldwide to manage
oceans effectively. IUU fishing is a global problem due to the
interconnection of bodies of water that span the globe.
K. stressed the poaching element of IUU: “the perfect example
would be people who go into those MPA's [Marine Protected Areas]
and fish for species for which they don't have a permit and are not
allowed. Kind of like an aquatic version of poaching.” The emphasis
may rest on the infliction of harm on marine life populations in
general. A similar thought was voiced by P., whose conceptualization
of marine wildlife crime pertained exclusively to fishing:
This [IUU fishing] includes folks that want to bypass our
recommendations and laws to overharvest, knowing they
don't want to report what they are catching. We want to
count every fish that is taken out of the Gulf so that we
can identify if it's too many or too few. Some individuals
may go into protected areas and harvest illegally. Or they
will have a permit and go to the correct location, but
won't report numbers, allowing it to count against a cer-
tain quota.
IUU fishing directly undermines the work of P.'s agency to
maintain a balance of species in the marine ecosystem. Indeed, in-
creased demand for fish as a source of protein, poor fishing man-
agement, and illegal fishing practices place enormous stress on the
world's fishery resources. Consequences of just IUU fishing include
habitat damage from unpermitted equipment (Miller et al., 2016),
reduction of law‐abiding fishers' catches (Schmidt, 2005), and de-
creased labeling accuracy, food safety, and hygiene. IUU fishing ac-
tivities use grey/black/back channels to process their catch, which are
believed to reduce food safety (Pramod et al., 2014; UNODC, 2011).
The worldwide economic impact of marine wildlife crime is
substantial, with just IUU fishing estimated to affect one in every
AND WOLF
five fish caught, at an annual cost of $23 billion (FAO, 2018). Prior
estimates place the cost of IUU at anywhere between $10 billion
and $423.5 billion (UNODC, 2016), and this range illustrates the
difficulty in measuring marine wildlife crime, where the vast ex-
panses of bodies of water, species movement, and international
areas make enforcement and therefore tracking, difficult. More-
over, due to the great volatility in the pricing of wildlife commod-
ities, calculating the revenues associated with marine wildlife
trafficking presents a challenge (UNODG, 2016). The IUU phe-
nomenon illustrates the difficulties of monitoring an industry where
there is a legal market that does not meet demand, therefore in-
viting criminals to participate.
In the next sections, we present three different contributors to
IUU fishing: demand for seafood, traditional medicine, and curios.
4.2.2 | Seafood demand
One of the major reasons IUU occurs is to support the demand for
seafood. P. highlights the demand for protein increases the pressures
on marine wildlife, and efforts to increase aquaculture have failed to
scale up sufficiently to meet demand.
The price of seafood has almost doubled over the last 11
years and is expected to quadruple in the next 15 years.
Demand for protein worldwide is exploding. Natural wild
seafood is not expected to keep up with demand. The
value is going up so much that fishermen are no longer
targeting 1 or 2 species, but 7, 8, 9. So that's why
aquaculture is coming online and trying to fill that need.
Increases in seafood prices give fishers a greater incentive
to engage in IUU fishing, but greater emphasis and funding for
aquaculture can provide some relief.
4.2.3 | Demand for traditional medicine
Similarly, some species of marine wildlife are believed to have
medicinal properties, causing over‐harvesting of those species. For
example, seahorses are believed to increase virility, help with
asthma, insomnia, baldness, skin rashes, and more, resulting in over
150 million of them being killed a year. Sea cucumbers are believed
to treat fatigue, impotence, and constipation. Likewise, the abalone is
believed to treat a wide variety of ailments. Some species are doubly
threatened by the combination of consumption in food and tradi-
tional medicine, such as eel or “penis fish” (a worm), which can be
found in soups and is believed to increase virility.
M. acknowledges the “ridiculousness” of turtle consumption for
health benefits. He emphasizes aquaculture can provide some relief
to wild species affected by traditional medicine without requiring
changes in demand. The suggestion to develop aquaculture avoids
confronting consumers' belief in traditional medicine, which is hard
KEEL AND WOLF
to change due to deep cultural roots. The next quote by M. offers his
perspective occco support unsubstantiated medical claims:
People think turtle eggs are an aphrodisiac. So, turtle
eggs are sold for as much as $50 apiece. So then, of
course, it becomes part of someone's diet and develops
into a delicacy. So, how do you explain to people that
there is no difference between an egg of a chicken or a
turtle? That is the reason what I am doing here. [If] you
farm or cultivate, then I have nothing against it. We are
able to farm chicken, eggs, pork, but we have managed
the use of these animals, and it does not affect wildlife.
4.2.4 | Curio trade
Interviewees expressed the greatest concern with high‐volume
wildlife crime. In passing, some of them mentioned curio‐trade as a
minor concern when considered in the overall realm of IUU fishing.
Curio trade involves the collection of rare seashells, dried seahorses
for display, usage of rare species in jewelry, furnishings, or interior
decorations. Also trade in aquarium‐bound animals has garnered
attention because some of them are harvested illegally using che-
micals that shorten their lifespans. These sorts of crimes are men-
tioned in the press and in some governmental websites, but were not
the most pressing concerns to our interviewees. For example,
K. says:
The vast majority of animals that are available to the
average consumer at a pet store are bred in captivity or
gathered from the water in a sustainable way. There are
some exceptions to that, like tropical animals in Hawaii
that are more disturbed than other places.
To conclude, the interviewees highlighted IUU fishing's problem
areas as seafood demand, demand for traditional medicines, and the
curio trade. While IUU fishing dominated much of the interviewees'
conversations, they also highlighted other threats to marine life.
While some of these are strictly illegal, others were considered
controversial but technically legal.
4.2.5 | Fishing practices
It was unclear to what extent interviewees' concerns with fishing
practices pertained to illegal acts (which would make them part
of IUU) or legal acts that were harmful to the ecosystem and
should be regulated or made illegal. While most of the inter-
viewees' focus pertained to excess IUU fishing, they also men-
tioned issues of harmful fishing practices. Fishing methods are
subject to many regulations: there are over 100 bycatch agree-
ments that specify legal net sizes, rules for discarding fish, and
| 1747
international standards to reduce the incidental capture of
marine life. K. mentions:
There are various practices that are damaging to marine
life, including electrofishing [mostly illegal], incorrect
usage of explosives, long‐lining, usage of sedatives for
the hobby [collector] market, and bottom‐trawling,
which is no longer very prevalent in the United States.
These methods are not targeted to a particular spe-
cies and so end up damaging the ecosystem.
Additionally, while bycatch is not strictly illegal (though it may be
in some disallowed areas), M. highlights its destructive nature on the
ecosystem:
A large problem is traditional shrimping, the worst kind of
fishing. Shrimping is literally wiping out the bottom with
all the creatures like catfish, stingrays, and croakers. Some
think the bottom [of the water] has little to do, while it
actually supports everything above. So, with 100lbs of
catch, you have 10% shrimp. You could use it, but out at
sea bycatch also requires refrigeration, and it's not worth
it. So, it's thrown overboard, which then makes other
populations grow, like sharks, due to an abundance
of food.
4.2.6 | Hobby fishing
While the majority of fishing is meant to support the economic ex-
change of sea products, a small sector of fishing involves legal trophy
hunting. Prior research indicates sport fishers' and tourists' prime
motivation for undertaking in these sorts of fishing involves the
acquisition of a permanent reminder of the experience in the form of
a trophy (Dobson, 2012). Sportfishing is one such example where
individuals will attempt to catch a specific species, but increasingly,
release the fish back into the wild. Fennell (2013) criticizes bill
fishing, arguing that it still has the potential to cause the suffering of
animals during the initial catch and handling of the fish.
Interviewees' expert opinions regarding the harm of killing for
sport differed, and while legal, one interviewee seemed to suggest
this practice should not be. Indeed, M. raised concerns with trophy
hunting, as it can cause harm regardless of whether trophies are
“catch and release” or “kill trophies.” M. states:
We have laws, but we still have people who take pride in
trophies…let's take this turtle and make it a trophy. There
are trophy hunters. At the end of the day, you must ask
yourself, why do you want a trophy? What kind of sport is
it, killing an animal that is defenseless? And it is not just
the killing. Catching sharks to pose for photos or large fish
too, so you can say you wrestled it! Even letting those go,
there is enormous stress on the animals.
1748 | KEEL
As an appointed representative for the ecological and commer-
cial side, P. takes a different view and appears to take less issue with
trophy hunting. There are variations in the laws regarding trophy
hunting, with some that permit lifting large fish out of the water,
while others do not, since there is a recognition that certain species'
health is impacted. P. states the following:
We actually have a policy in place where they can't even
lift them from the water because we are worried that
their organs go into too much stress and maybe rup-
ture….We have some large billfish tournaments that are
still kill tournaments where they bring them into the
docks, and a lot of international tournaments are what
they call kill tournaments, but it is all legal. It is not
illegal at all.
To conclude, our interviewees highlighted that IUU fishing's
problem areas as seafood demand, demand for traditional medicines,
the curio trade, poor fishing practices, and killing for sport. In the
next sections, we discuss marine crime or marine harm issues that
are not directly related to fishing.
4.2.7 | Malicious acts
M. points out the “nonsensical” reasons for harming wildlife in gen-
eral, and in the following quote, reveals crimes committed against
wildlife extend beyond those related to fishing: “I learned that a
person that commits a crime justifies it. [….] Some kill to eat, others
kill for target practice. There are laws, but people are still going to
take pride in killing.” M.'s mention of using marine life as target
practice may not consist of a significant portion of marine wildlife
crime, but there are a number of documented cases. One of the most
targeted species is dolphins, which have been found shot, stabbed to
death, or killed with homemade pipe bombs (NOAA Fisheries, 2020).
Other marine species which become targets of malicious acts are
sharks. This includes shark species (such as tiger sharks) purposively
caught and mutilated near Perth, Australia, only to be left on the
beach for swimmers to see (ABC News, 2018). Similarly, six en-
dangered Spurdog sharks were mutilated near the coast of North
Ireland (Macauley, 2018).
While interviewees' major focus was on the direct impact of
humans on marine life in activities, they also expressed substantial
concern about the indirect impact via pollution and watershed
management.
4.2.8 | Pollution
Illegal waste can pollute waterways and results from a desire to save
money. Waste collection can be expensive or time‐consuming, as is
adherence to regulations regarding toxic waste. Both consumers and
corporations can engage in illegal pollution, such as misusing
AND WOLF
herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides, or failing to recycle or properly
dispose of batteries, containers with expired paint or medications, or
other toxic materials. Some countries, such as Brazil, make some
manufacturers responsible, and therefore liable, for the disposal of
their chemicals; but this is not a wide‐spread practice. While ex-
amples of illegal waste contaminating bodies of water are important,
interviewees expressed greater concern with pollutants not deemed
illegal. Indeed, K. highlights:
The two flash‐points are excavation of natural resources
associated with an ecological hazard [e.g., oil spills], and ag
[agricultural] runoff that has a lot of downstream effects.
This [ag‐run off] is a controversial source of waterway pol-
lution because it's legal, but has cascading effects down-
stream. And the amounts of money involved in agricultural
lobbying and the interests of states in being agriculturally
productive make watershed management difficult.
M. voiced similar concerns:
On top of the list is the marine debris issue, which is
mostly plastic. Plastic pollution is basically an oil spill, and
it can be extremely toxic. Second is fertilizer in agriculture
because as we want to increase productivity, we are
squeezing out everything we can out of the land. In-
secticides and pesticides are right there with it. All of this
becomes agricultural runoff. The next is animal and hu-
man waste, like hog and chicken farms, and all this waste
is going into rivers and streams. And when you have
chicken, you have antibiotics and hormones. All these end
up in the waterways and enter the cycle.
The lack of watershed managemecc toxins as waterways
meander towards the sea. For example, the Bonnet Carré Spillway is
an aging engineering structure that was intended to relieve the in-
lands of high freshwater levels. This poses an additional threat to
marine life that inhabits saltwater. P. expresses his concern regard-
ing the sudden impact of freshwater entering saltwater:
So, specific to M.S., the largest threat right now to our
production of seafood, our species, their health, […] is
the Bonnet Carré Spillway. Without a change in federal
regulatory management of the spillway and the flow
itself and flood control, it is very difficult for resource
managers to think about the impact from that. So, you
could boil it down to water quality. […] The draining
goes up to Canada. It goes through the United States
and two provinces in Canada, so it's a lot of water
coming our way, and it comes out right here. Louisiana/
Mississippi, we are the last stop of that “train.”
Besides freshwater being released suddenly into the saltwater of
the Gulf, many toxic pollutants from Canada and through the United
KEEL AND WOLF
States dump into the Gulf. The negative impact of pollutants in wa-
terways is augmented by engineering practices meant to control
flooding:
Unfortunately, those [flood control]structures were built
between 50–90 years ago, and are obsolete to the way
the M.S. rivers works now. You can't even open those
flood control structures until they are at flood stage. In a
perfect world, we would rebuild those flood control
structures to be able to open them up as the river is rising
before flood stage to mimic natural floods. Right now
when you open up these things, it does not mimic a
natural flood and these species that I'm tasked with
managing that have evolved with floods over the last
couple million years can handle natural floods, but they
cannot handle an anthropogenic flood control structure ‐
a fire hose just kicking on. They can't handle that water
quality change that fast.
The ecological impact of man‐made structures interfering with
the ebb and flow of natural flooding is marine wildlife death, which is
of great concern to our interviewees. P. and M. make the following
statements regarding the impact of unnatural flooding:
Mortality rates on oysters, shrimp, crabs, dolphins, sea
turtles, escalate, and that's very difficult because it is not
from really any management practices that this agency
has done, or may have come from a little aggressive
harvest. It's not from a harvest problem or a management
problem; it's an ecological problem.
When they open it [spillway] up twice a year, it brings so
much freshwater into the Gulf at one time; it cannot be
handled by most species. We find many dead marine
animals when that happens. Dolphins, turtles. Seafood
disappears. It is not only the freshwater but all the toxins
from farmland along the Mississippi River.
In 2019, the spillway was opened for an unprecedented length of
time, 123 days, resulting in federal fisheries disasters. The openings of
the spillway continued in 2020. While these actions are not criminal
in nature, they resulted in two nonprofit environmental groups filing
a lawsuit against the Corps of Engineering and Mississippi River
Commission claiming that the agencies violated the Endangered
Species Act (Lee, 2020).
To conclude, the themes identified in the interviews include IUU
fishing, which is the main issue in marine wildlife crime, fishing
practices, hobby fishing, malicious acts, and pollution. In the case of
the latter three, interviewees acknowledged that many aspects they
discussed were deemed legal, and therefore not criminal activity.
However, in the case of legal pollution, the severity of the damage to
marine life, and the interviewees' attitudes suggest that it should be
more tightly regulated.
| 1749
In the next section, we present interviewees' views on marketing
activities that can assist in reducing marine wildlife crime and pro-
vide relevant marketing and psychological literature support those
suggestions.
4.3 | The role of the consumer
4.3.1 | Developing consumer relationships
We find a consensus among all three experts that understanding
the consumer is central to studying the threat to marine life. The
following verbatim from M. highlights how food industrialization has
increased consumers' disconnect with the source of their food, which
impacts wildlife:
So, people in [State] believe chicken comes from the
freezer. You come to the South, you have the chicken,
chop their heads off, and prepare to eat it. We see more
animal activists in urban areas because they have no idea
where that [chicken] came from. Rural areas understand
the process. So, this disconnect causes varied responses to
the [criminal] behavior.
Similarly, P. highlights the importance of the consumer as a
driver for commercial action. He indicates consumers can choose to
play a role in influencing the supply chain for seafood:
The consumer drives it all! They are the answer. The
consumers have to demand that it be domestic seafood
or identified as sustainable harvest. So, if all consumers
walked into a restaurant and demanded seafood caught
in the U.S. and get away from those imports that are full
of antibiotics, or caught in the wild under non‐safe
conditions, then prices would collapse. If the consumer is
demanding it to be domestic, then illegal fishing will lose
its legs.
This quote highlights the need for consumers not only to be
educated regarding topics of marine wildlife fishing and harvesting,
but also its preservation. K. views the consumer role as central to
wildlife crime and emphasizes the connection between consumers
and animals has the power to change behavior. He suggests that to
stimulate individuals' relationships with marine wildlife, they need to
witness the splendor of these creatures. For this reason, he believes
marine life in captivity acts as an ambassador for all marine wildlife
and supports the mission of developing human‐marine life relation-
ships. K. states:
The consumer is what drives the market. If the market
disappeared for the shark fin, the shark fin industry would
quickly decline. […] What I think is so important is edu-
cating, and inspiring, and instilling the importance of
1750 | KEEL
being a good steward for these animals as the biggest way
to reduce consumer interest and change public percep-
tion. Aquariums are a great way for people to become
inspired. They [inspired people] become advocates for
those animals.
The importance of the human‐animal relationship is further
emphasized by M., who comments: "If people weren't tied to loving
dolphins, there would be no protection. None whatsoever. So, we
have been able to make people understand 'don't kill dolphins,'
these are lovely animals, these are productive, they are part of the
system."
There are some efforts to increase consumers' demand for
sustainable seafood, such as the MSC (Marine Stewardship Council)
certifications. Research in online shopping indicates third‐party
certification programs increase trustworthiness (e.g., Jiang et al.,
2008), so making consumers more aware of these certifications is
essential. Another way to increase consumer engagement with their
food source was suggested by P.:
All the restaurateurs and foodies love local products
wherever they go, but they are not demanding it. They
have to demand it. The most successful seafood marketing
I have seen is where a customer can track exactly where a
product came from. There are apps now where you can
scan the label on a pack of shrimp and see exactly where
it came from and went to before it got to you. That
consumer at the restaurant gets to really enjoy the whole
story about where it came from. It is so wonderful from a
marketing perspective. I wish everyone would demand
that. Everyone likes it, but they are not demanding it.
This multimedia commercial traceability can enable brand
storytelling and build a closer relationship between the consumer
and the source (e.g., Woodside et al., 2008). This practice has been
adopted in other food categories. For example, poultry brands such
as Vital Farms label each egg carton with the name of the farm from
which the eggs originate. Consumers can enter a code on the Vital
Farms website and watch 360° video of chicken milling in open‐air
fields. Each farm has its dedicated webpage that provides a “meet the
farmers” section featuring a story. Using a hand‐off strategy where
the packaging directs the consumer to a webpage enables brand
storytelling and may increase relationships between consumers and
producers. This strategy may also increase consumers' perceptions of
the legitimacy of their choice by showing them they “made the right
purchase,” and thus decreasing cognitive dissonance.
While many agricultural products are considered quasicommod-
ities, fisheries may consider placing greater effort in branding and
mimicking the poultry market. Small packaging changes, such as
placing a QR code or a web link directing consumers to a website
where they can read about the fisher, watch a video of the catch, and
write them a note may help consumers develop loyalty to fishers and
fisheries not engaged in IUU fishing.
AND WOLF
4.3.2 | Targeting youth via education
A common theme in the interviews was a focus on targeting youth
with education and messaging because of the perception they are
more malleable than adults. Indeed, K. says: “If you can get the
younger generation on board, you can get the generation to drive
change.” While humans of all ages anthropomorphize objects, ani-
mals, and phenomena, some argue this is is more “natural” or more
common in children (e.g., Caporael & Heyes, 1997; Dacey, 2017;
Piaget, 1929). Prior research indicates the difficulty in predicting or
explaining when animal anthropomorphizing does or does not occur.
Some factors, such as perceived similarity to humans and degree of
human‐animal attachment bond (e.g., our pets), are positively asso-
ciated with anthropomorphizing. However, whether an animal is part
of the food chain does not result in consistent associations of human
characteristics to the animal (Podberscek, 2009). In fact, anthro-
pomorphism may not be grounded in a belief system, but rather in a
type of interaction. Perhaps it is for this reason M. believes inter-
actions between marine life must be provided at a young age to make
a difference. In his experience, educational efforts aimed at ex-
plaining ecological linkages are more fruitful when catering to a
young generation and children. M. states: "Knowledge is the cur-
rency to success. I don't bother with grownups. I think getting in-
formation to young people through outreach gives them a moral
compass by educating in what is right and wrong. Giving young
people hands‐on experience is what I do."
4.3.3 | Changing attitudes via advertising
When asked about effective ways to decrease consumer demand, K.
immediately points to Yao Ming:
I think the consumer‐driven angle of reducing the value of
these animals is kind of the primary marketing strategy to
employ in this area. Like Yao Ming's policy in Asia. The
primary market for shark fins is the Asian market, so I
think marketing to the new generation in those cultures to
inspire them to change is the biggest component in re-
ducing demand in that area… The shark fin [campaign]
was directed at targeting the actual consumer because
targeting the local politicians wasn't going to be effective.
Directing it toward the actual consumers can affect the
demand. No matter how much the politician wants to
change it, as long as there is a profit out there, people are
going to meet it.
K. is referring to Yao Ming's partnership with WildAid on a
campaign to raise awareness on how shark fin is obtained. In a
survey, 82% of respondents indicated they had stopped eating shark
fin soup as a result of this campaign, and overall consumption in
China was down 50%–70% (Musaddique, 2018). Using celebrities in
demarketing efforts and featuring them as spokespersons may be
KEEL AND WOLF
beneficial, especially with those celebrities (such as Yao Ming) who
are known to engage in wildlife conservation.
Other advertising efforts should keep in mind climate research
indicates violent advertisements and catastrophic narratives de-
sensitize and alienate audiences (e.g., Moser, 2016; Zlatevska &
Spence, 2012). Presenting threats, such as loss of marine species or
depletion of seafood, can create a sense of urgency, but it may not be
an effective motivator for action. Prior research suggests the viewer
may develop a sense of resignation or hopelessness when the scene
presented is catastrophic. Instead, research suggests highlighting the
benefits of saving marine wildlife, followed by achievable/realistic
solutions, incentivizes people to act. Messaging should spotlight
opportunities to get involved and use storytelling to communicate
success stories (Climate Access, April 2018). Consumers choose
brands not only on the functional and emotional criteria but also
increasingly, on social responsibility criteria (Kotler, 2011). Fur-
thermore, adopting strategies from the counterfeiting literature may
be effective (e.g., Herstein et al., 2015). These include long‐term ef-
forts to warn the public about the health and security risks asso-
ciated with illegally trafficked seafood, combined with messaging
that stresses the moral dissonance surrounding consumers' con-
tributions to species and ecosystem damage.
4.3.4 | Efforts targeting the supply chain
K. and P. mention many instances of IUU fishing occur when there is
legal trade constrained by quotas or other means. Wildlife obtained
illegally can enter this legal trade (e.g., caviar harvested unlawfully is
mixed with legal caviar), which gives criminals access to a broad
market of consumers who believe they are acquiring marine wildlife
legally (UNODG, 2016). Research in counter‐marketing and de-
marketing has examined a variety of ways to manage demand, spe-
cifically “unwanted” demand or “unwholesome” demand (Kotler,
1973). “Unwholesome” demand typically pertains to consumers
seeking to satiate their “vices,” which may be prohibited or limited by
law and span broad product groups, such as alcohol, drugs, sex,
counterfeits, blood diamonds, or pirated digital content. Counter‐
marketing has targeted underage smoking (e.g., Cohen, 2000), drugs
(e.g., Kelly et al., 1996), excess alcohol consumption (e.g., Burton
et al., 2013), tourism management (e.g., Medway et al., 2010), and
counterfeits (e.g., Herstein et al., 2015), with various “carrot and
stick” strategies and targeting demand and supply. Key findings in
this area of research indicate counter‐marketing or demarketing
efforts are influenced by consumers' values, attitudes, and behaviors
(e.g., Frisbie, 1980; Wall, 2007), availability of legal substitutes and
presence of counterinfluences (Wall, 2007).
K. and P.'s prior quotes highlight permitting crimes, such as not
having one, or having one but not counting the catch. Unscrupulous
dealers engage and encourage trafficking by accepting forged per-
mits or not verifying permits. Indeed, criminals forge permits meant
for legal trade or obtain them through fraud or corruption (UN-
ODG, 2016). Forging permits is to engage in counterfeiting, and
| 1751
other industries, such as currencies and luxury markets can provide
solutions. These include using holographic marks, specific paper and
ink, “hidden words,” watermarks, embedded devices, raised print-
ing, all of which increase the difficulty of forging documents (e.g.
Chaudhry & Walsh, 1996; Jacobs et al., 2001). Tracking via RFID
would also slow down or complicate the work of illicit traders. Any
innovation in permitting documents and package tracking needs to
be effectively communicated to channel members to increase
compliance. Research in marketing related to counterfeiting,
shrinkage, and illegal firearm trade can provide insights in this area
(e.g. Gundlach et al., 2010)
The latest ecological research also indicates decreasing the
profitability of those engaged in IUU fishing should be the focus,
rather than regulatory enforcement (OECD, 2005). One of the tac-
tics that addresses this economic side involves eliminating access or
drastically increasing the cost of insurance for those vessels that are
engaged in IUU fishing. This is a punitive measure that relies on the
insurance industry allocating a higher risk assessment to vessels
engaging in IUU fishing or who utilize illegal tools in fishing.
5 | DISCUSSION AND C ONCLUSION
Much public effort for fighting and preventing marine wildlife crime
is spent on law enforcement and punishment of people
involved in such activities. Very few articles in marketing attempted
to tackle crime against marine wildlife by outlining marketing's
potential influence within this domain. The research presented here
provides an overview of the current marine life crime problems to
further drive research in this novel area. Furthermore, this study
breaks down the broad concept of marine wildlife crime into man-
ageable topics by offering a preliminary classification of activities
currently considered, or that may be considered crimes.
This exploratory study employs the expertise of three marine
scientists through open‐ended depth interviews. Each expert in
research, education, and/or legislative procedures shared their views
on the current status of crime against marine life in the United
States. The open‐ended interviews allowed for rich elaborations on
current issues many marine areas in the United States are facing,
including activities not currently identified as criminal.
Based on the interview data, this study identifies four major
concerns. First, the most prevalent violation deemed a crime is IUU
fishing. This illegal fishing ignores the limits set by law in regard to
size, amount, areas, and type of species or violates reporting stan-
dards. Conservation agencies aim to fine‐tune the balance between
commercial interactions with the ecosystem. While the underlying
causes for IUU differ, a possible remedy may be found in aqua-
culture, which our marine experts indicated was a preferred solution
to meet current demand for seafood and traditional medicine,
without damaging marine wildlife ecosystem.
Recent efforts to combine the world's coastal countries in one
binding agreement through the Port State Measures Agreement
(PSMA) underline the global threat IUU poses to marine life.
1752 | KEEL
While PSMA's objective is to reduce IUU vessels unloading their catch
in participating ports, this agreement only makes sense if all coastal
countries find a consensus. Currently, only 66 nations and the
European Union are part of this agreement, while 73 others, including
the world's largest fishing vessel operator, China, are not (FAO, 2016).
While IUU is a global issue, it's large operators like China that can
make a difference in fighting it. With China's fishing fleet spaning
nearly 3000 vessels, operating from 14 of the 15 world's busiest ports
to unload fish, China can be an important player in the fight against
IUU (Woody, 2019). But it is not only countries like China needing
attention in the IUU problem. For instance, the IUU Fishing Index
provides a benchmark measure of the degree to which 152 countries
are exposed to and effectively battle IUU fishing, and the United
States' rank is only average, with a score of 2.29 out of 5, with 1 being
the best and 5 the worst (IUU Fishing Index, 2018).
Incorporating multiple indicators, the IUU Fishing Index reveals
that China, Taiwan, Cambodia, and Russia lead the offenders' list,
with scores of 3.93, 3.34, 3.23, and 3.16, respectively (IUU Fishing
Index, 2018). These nations' shortcomings include issues like lack of
tracking fishing vessels, port flagging capabilities for IUU catch un-
load, IUU agreements, and related certifications, among others.
Countries with the best measures against IUU fishing include Esto-
nia, Latvia, and Belgium, with scores of 1.67, 1.57, and 1.43, re-
spectively. This large variance across the globe is ripe for future
international research on the role of marketing in reducing marine
wildlife crime, among others.
Second, both legal and illegal fishing and capture practices
concerned interviewees. Even though some of these practices are
legal in certain areas, their inability to target a specific species means
that other noncommercially viable species are caught up, trapped,
maimed, and killed. This impacts the ecosystem, and two inter-
viewees mentioned these “catch‐all” practices are actually econom-
ically inefficient due to the need to sort and discard commercially
unviable species. While these poor fishing practices can occur at
smaller scales, they are most damaging to the ecosystem when
performed on a large and industrial scale. These practices include the
use of explosives, ghost fishing, cyanide fishing, and the use of large
encircling nets (muro‐ami) (Downs, 2019). Some of these fishing
methods are still practiced in Southeast Asia, with devastating re-
sults to reef structures, water quality, and all marine life populations,
whether they were the target or not. Like IUU fishing, a consensus of
acceptable fishing practices, monitoring, and reporting among all
states and countries is needed to combat the destruction of marine
life. Fishing methods certification could address the demand side by
influencing consumer' choices, thus providing additional pressure to
fisheries via consumer demand. Further research on marine certifi-
cation and its interaction with packaging and storytelling will provide
a greater understanding of the role of food certification in influen-
cing consumer choices.
Third, hobby fishing appeared to be an even fuzzier issue, where
participants became divided between commercial and ecological
interests. While shooting dolphins or harming animals maliciously are
clearly illegal activities condemned by our participants, sport fishing
AND WOLF
and hunting certain species for trophies seemed acceptable to some
interviewees. Killing for sport can also be considered a form of tro-
phy hunting and is often carried out by tourists, hobby fishers, and
sports fishers. Even though animals may be “catch‐and‐release,”
there is concern about animal suffering and survival prospects
after release. This highlights a dichotomy, wherein trophy‐hunter
advocates' biocentric view of love for nature and animals is contra-
dicted by deep‐rooted behavioral issues of objectification, dom-
inance, and marginalization (Kalof & Fitzgerald, 2003). Research in
the marketing of competitive fishing events may provide insight into
the ways marine life can be better protected.
Fourth, pollution and waterways management strongly concerned
participants, but they acknowledged most of the ecological harm in
the United States comes from legal sources. Specifically, agricultural
and industrial runoffs and usage of flood control methods were
highlighted as having substantial consequences downstream. In this
area, increased regulation and treaties would likely have to be in-
volved, since many waterways cross state and international bound-
aries. Another area of environmental pollution is related to plastics
and the discarding of consumer products. Further research can ex-
amine greater customer involvement in reverse supply chain to reduce
plastic and chemical waste and its impact on marine life.
The most prominent suggestion from our experts focused on
developing positive marine wildlife‐human relationships. Specifically,
their emphasis on increased education may be reflective of their roles.
A greater focus on youth education, advocacy, and funding for aqua-
riums could potentially create positive relationships that encourage
greater awareness and conservation. Other suggestions include in-
creasing consumer involvement in the supply chain via storytelling and
increasing awareness via strategic celebrity endorsements. Future
research in these areas is needed to determine their effectiveness in
reducing marine wildlife crime.
6 | LIM IT A TIO N S
There are a few standard limitations related to the study that could
affect the validity of the findings, including the small sample size
(n = 3), the location of respondents (West Coast and Gulf Coast of the
United States), both of which possibly omitted areas of expertise.
Furthermore, and despite an effort to create valid data, the develop-
ment and characterization of themes sourced from marine life experts
may be subjective, and results may not be reflected in other regions or
nations. Future research may address consumer awareness of the IUU
crisis and long‐term consequences of such practices. Emphasis of
these studies may focus on countries not part of any regional or global
agreements on IUU fishing practices. Studies could investigate the
propensity with which consumers would be in favor or against mea-
sures of marine life protection. Other research could address the level
of cultural practices and their impact on marine life and endangered
species in particular. For example, research could focus on countries
ranking high in the IUU index and explore consumer support for
measures against IUU practices and willingness to engage in
KEEL AND WOLF
supportive purchase behaviors. These studies would provide an
awareness inventory to formulate targeted plans for marketers in
industry, government, and nonprofit organizations towards marine
wildlife protection.
DATA A VAILABIL ITY STA TEMENT
Research data are not shared.
ORCID
Astrid L. Keel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6712-7706
R EF E RE N C E S
ABC News (2018, January 31). Tigershark remains dumped on North
Fremantle beach prompt warning from swimmers. https://www.abc.
net.au/news/2018-02-01/mutilated-tiger-shark-remains-found&
hyphen-qj2;-dumped-in-north-fremantle/9382902
Bennett, E. (2014). Legal ivory trade in a corrupt world and its impact on
African elephant populations. Conservational Biology, 29(1), 54–60.
Bunn, M. D. (1993). Taxonomy of buying decision approaches. Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), 38–56.
Burton, S., Dadich, A., & Soboleva, A. (2013). Competing voices: Marketing
and counter‐marketing alcohol on Twitter. Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing, 25(2), 186–209.
Caporael, L. R., & Heyes, C. M. (1997). Why anthropomorphize? Folk
psychology and other stories. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H.
L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 59–73).
SUNY Press.
Chaudhry, P. E., & Walsh, M. G. (1996). An assessment of the impact of
counterfeiting in international markets: The piracy paradox persists.
Columbia Journal of World Business, 31, 34–48.
Climate Access (April 2018). Tip Sheet: Balancing Hope and Threat.
https://climateaccess.org/resource/tip-sheet-balancing-hope-and-
threat
Cohen, J. B. (2000). Playing to win: Marketing and public policy at odds
over Joe Camel. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(2), 155–167.
Dacey, M. (2017). Anthropomorphism as cognitive bias. Philosophy of
Science, 84(5), 1152–1164.
Dobson, J. (2012). Ethical issues in trophy hunting. In O. Moufakkir, & P. M.
Burns (Eds.), Controversies in tourism (pp. 86–98). CAB International.
Downs, A. (2019, March 11). 6 illegal fishing methods and destructive
practices. https://takemefishing.org/blog/march-2019/illegal-fishing-
methods-destructive-practices/
Duffy, R. (2014). Waging a war to save biodiversity: The rise of militarized
conservation. International Affairs, 90(4), 819–834.
FAO. (2012). The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.
fao.org/3/a-i2727e.pdf
FAO. (2014). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/
3/a-i3720e.pdf
FAO. (2016). Agreement on port measures (PMSA). Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/port-state-
measures/background/parties-psma/en/
FAO. (2018). Growing momentum to close the net on illegal fishing. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.
fao.org/news/story/en/item/1137863/icode/
Fennell, D. A. (2013). Tourism and animal welfare. Tourism Recreation
Research, 38(3), 325–340.
Frisbie, G. A. (1980). Demarketing energy: Does psychographic research
hold the answer? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 8(3),
196–211.
| 1753
Gundlach, G. T., Bradford, K. D., & Wilkie, W. L. (2010). Countermarketing
and demarketing against product diversion: Forensic research in the
firearms industry. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 103–122.
Herstein, R., Drori, N., Berger, R., & Barnes, B. R. (2015). Anticounterfeiting
strategies and their influence on attitudes of different counterfeit
consumer types. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 842–859. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.20822
Interpol. (2019). Global wildlife enforcement: Strengthening law enforcement
cooperation against wildlife crime. https://www.interpol.int/content/
download/5179/file/WEB_Wildlife%20ProspectusMarch2019.pdf
IUU Fishing Index (2018). IUU fishing index. http://www.iuufishingindex.net/
Jacobs, L., Samli, A. C., & Jedlik, T. (2001). The nightmare of international
product piracy. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 499–509.
Jiang, P., Jones, D. B., & Javie, S. (2008). How third‐party certification
programs relate to consumer trust in online transactions: An
exploratory study. Psychology & Marketing, 25(9), 839–858.
Kalof, L., & Fitzgerald, A. (2003). Reading the trophy: Exploring the display
of dead animals in hunting magazines. Visual Studies, 18(2), 112–122.
Kelly, K. J., Swaim, R. C., & Wayman, J. C. (1996). The impact of a localized
antidrug media campaign on targeted variables associated with
adolescent drug use. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(2), 238–251.
Kennedy, D. M. (2009). Deterrence and crime prevention: Reconsidering the
prospect of sanction. Routledge.
Kotler, P. (1973). The major tasks of marketing management. Journal of
Marketing, 37(4), 42–49.
Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental
imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132–135.
Von Lampe, K. (2012). Transnational organized crime challenges for
future research. Crime, law, and social change, 58, 179–194.
Lee, A. (2020). Army corps sued over bonnet carre openings, impact on
MS sound. Biloxi Sun Herald. https://www.sunherald.com/news/local/
article242050846.html
Lemieux, A. M., & Clarke, R. V. (2009). The international ban on ivory sales
and its effects on elephant poaching in Africa. British Journal of
Criminology, 49, 451–471.
Macauley, C. (2018, July 3). Endangered sharks found mutilated in
Portrush, County Antrim. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-europe-44697202
McClenachan, L., Cooper, A. B., Carpenter, K. E., & Dulvy, N. K. (2012).
Extinction risk and bottlenecks in the conservation of charismatic
marine species. Conservation Letters, 5(1), 73–80.
Medway, D., Warnaby, G., & Dharni, S. (2010). Demarketing places:
Rationales and strategies. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(1–2),
124–142.
Miller, D. D., Sumaila, U. R., Copeland, D., Zeller, D., Soyer, B., Nikaki, T.,
Leloudas, G., Fjellberg, S. T., Singleton, R., & Pauly, D. (2016). Cutting
a lifeline to maritime crime: Marine insurance and IUU fishing.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(7), 357–362.
Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication
research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century:
What more is there to say? WIREs Climate Change, 7(3), 345–369.
Musaddique, S. (2018, July 20). Yao Ming: NBA legend builds schools,
fights shark fin soup in China. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/
07/16/yao-ming-nba-legend-builds-schools-fights-shark-fin-soup-
in-china.html
Nijman, V., Nekaris, K. A. I., & Bickford, D. P. (2012). Asian medicine: Small
species at risk. Nature, 481, 265.
NOAA Fisheries. (2020, March 2). Reward increases to more than $50,
000, cases of florida dolphins shot and stabbed. NOAA Fisheries.
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/reward-increases-
more-50000-cases-florida-dolphins-shot-and-stabbed
OECD. (2005). Why fish piracy persists: The economics of illegal, unreported
and unregulated fishing. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/
9789264010888-en
1754 | KEEL
Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Pires, S., & Moreto, W. (2011). Preventing wildlife crimes: Solutions that
can overcome the 'tragedy of the commons'. European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research, 17, 101–123.
Podberscek, A. L. (2009). Good to pet and eat: The keeping and
consuming of dogs and cats in South Korea. Journal of Social Issues,
65(3), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01616.x
Pramod, G., Nakamura, K., Pitcher, T. J., & Delagran, L. (2014). Estimates
of illegal and unreported fish in seafood imports to the USA. Marine
Policy, 48, 102–113.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro‐level predictors and
theories of crime: A meta‐analysis. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A
review of research (Vol. 32, pp. 373–450). University of Chicago Press.
Schmidt, C.‐C. (2005). Economic drivers of illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fishing. The International Journal of Marine and
Coastal Law, 20, 479–507.
Smith, R. J., & Walpole, M. J. (2005). Should conservationists pay more
attention to corruption? Oryx, 39, 251–256.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2011). Trafficking in
persons, smuggling of migrants, illicit drugs trafficking. https://www.
unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Issue_Paper_-_TOC_in_the_
Fishing_Industry.pdf
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2016). Global
maritime crime programme annual report 2016. https://www.
AND WOLF
unodc.org/documents/Reports/GlobalMaritimeCrimeProgramme_
AnnualReport2016.pdf
Wall, A. P. (2007). Government “demarketing” as viewed by its target
audience. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(2), 123–135.
Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and
brands talk: Story‐telling theory and research in psychology and
marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 97–145.
Woody, T. (2019). China is key to closing ports illegally caught fish. China
Dialog Ocean. https://chinadialogueocean.net/11135-china-psma-
illegal-fishing/
Zlatevska, N., & Spence, M. T. (2012). Do violent social cause
advertisements promote social change? An examination of implicit
associations. Psychology & Marketing, 29(5), 322–333.
How to cite this article: Keel AL, Wolf M. Towards a
classification of marine wildlife crime: Marketing
strategies to curtail illegal fishing, malicious acts, and
waterway pollution. Psychol Mark. 2020;37:1743–1754.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21425