Introduction
At an estimated $7–10 billion annually, the global trade in illegal wildlife parts
is comparable in economic value to human trafficking, and the smuggling of weapons
and drugs (Wasser et al. 2008; Wyler & Sheikh 2013). Basic economic principles of
supply and demand ensure that, as target species become ever rarer, their market value
continues to rise, gradually pushing them towards extinction (Courchamp et al. 2006;
Nowell 2012a). One particular problem is that anti‐poaching rangers often arrive too
late at crime scenes to arrest criminals, making poaching a low‐risk and high‐gains
enterprise (Wyler & Sheikh 2013). Here, we identify an opportunity to address this
fundamental problem – we propose that cutting‐edge tracking technology could be harnessed
to implement effective ‘real‐time poaching‐alert systems’. Animals would be fitted
with miniature electronic devices (‘biologgers’) that can detect a poaching event,
establish its exact location and relay data remotely to ground teams. Such systems
should considerably increase the chances of successful interception, and thereby,
escalate the actual and perceived risks of poaching, establishing a powerful new deterrent.
In combination with other mitigation strategies (reviewed below), this innovative
approach could lead to a much‐needed breakthrough in the increasingly desperate fight
against wildlife crime.
Almost gone
While a wide range of species is targeted for illegal trading, we focus here on the
poaching of large mammals, as these are often particularly vulnerable due to their
naturally low population densities and reproductive rates. Three case studies serve
to illustrate the urgency of implementing effective anti‐poaching measures (cf. Nowell
2012b), but our novel approach would no doubt benefit many other species.
Rhinos are currently experiencing unprecedented poaching pressure (Fig. 1), with rates
of one animal killed every 13 hours in some areas, and are fast heading towards wholesale
extinction in the wild (Biggs et al. 2013). In fact, following a precipitous, poaching‐induced
population crash in the 1960s (Emslie & Brooks 1999), the African western black rhino
was declared extinct by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
in 2011 (Biggs et al. 2013). As the price of ivory is rising, elephants fare little
better and could be virtually extinct across most of their African range by 2020,
unless poaching off‐take is considerably reduced (Wasser et al. 2008; see also Maisels
et al. 2013). Finally, tigers are another group under extreme pressure (Nowell & Xu
2007; Walston et al. 2010), with three subspecies having already been lost in the
last 70 years, and a lack of confirmed sightings from southern China likely signalling
another extinction event (Tilson, Traylor‐Holzer & Jiang 1997).
Figure 1
Real‐time poaching‐alert tags could prevent the imminent extinction of rhinos. (a)
A black rhino Diceros bicornis bull in Damaraland, Namibia, home to one of the last
free‐living populations of this critically endangered species; photograph: Tom Collier.
Inset: real‐time poaching‐alert tags could be fitted inside rhinos’ horns (cf. Fig. 2).
Here, a captive black rhino bull has been fitted with a miniature video camera during
pilot trials carried out at Port Lympne Wild Animal Park, Kent, UK; photograph: Paul
O'Donoghue. (b) A black rhino cow and calf feeding on Euphorbia, in Damaraland, Namibia.
With its large horns, a mature individual like this is a prime target for poachers.
The calf of the slaughtered mother would simply be left to die; photograph: Tom Collier.
Mission impossible?
Many anti‐poaching measures have been explored over the years (Sutherland 2008), including
the following: environmental education programmes, to reduce demand for wildlife parts
in East Asia (Lee & Tilbury 1998; Nowell & Xu 2007); legalization of high‐value products,
such as ivory or rhino horn, to control trade dynamics (Gillson & Lindsay 2003; Martin
et al. 2012; Biggs et al. 2013); targeted monitoring of money‐laundering activities,
to hamper illegal trading (as highlighted by a recent international summit; Coghlan
2014); drastic in situ management of threatened animal populations, such as large‐scale
dehorning of rhinos, to reduce poaching opportunities (Lindsey & Taylor 2011); and
‘militarization’ of nature reserves (Milliken & Shaw 2012; see below), to facilitate
arrests and deter criminal activities. As we have illustrated above, however, illegal
trade in wildlife products remains rife, and novel solutions are urgently needed.
Our proposal aims at increasing the effectiveness of a widely used approach for protecting
the most critically endangered species, the deployment of mobile, armed anti‐poaching
units (Milliken & Shaw 2012). While these teams are often highly trained and well
equipped, they generally have no way of knowing the exact time and location of poaching
events. Since many target species are wide ranging and live in inaccessible habitats,
this means that carcasses are often only found days or weeks after death (Martin 2001).
As a result, arrests of poachers are rare and resources are mainly being focussed
on securing evidence (Wasser et al. 2008), which is often insufficient for successful
prosecution. Our proposed real‐time poaching‐alert systems would enable rangers to
head towards crime scenes with rapid response times, substantially increasing the
chances of apprehending suspects. In conjunction with legislation that ensures the
severe punishment of convicted poachers, these altered risk dynamics should substantially
reduce the economic attractiveness of poaching, giving heavily persecuted animal populations
time to recover. In fact, even a temporary slowing of harvest rates would be valuable,
as it would allow longer‐term measures – such as educational programmes – to deliver
benefits.
Smart electronics
The rationale of our proposed biologging system is straightforward (for a schematic
illustration, see Fig. 2, and for a summary of key challenges, see Table 1). Animals
are fitted with miniature electronic tags that detect poaching events and transmit
relevant information remotely to anti‐poaching units on the ground. In terms of technological
implementation, the integration of a few existing, well‐tested components would enable
an effective three‐step process for raising an alarm: detection –location – transmission/alert.
Exact system specifications will depend on a wide range of factors, including the
size, behaviour and habitat preferences of the species in question, as well as the
availability of local infrastructure and other resources, but the following description
outlines key principles.
Table 1
Key challenges for developing real‐time poaching‐alert systems. See main text for
possible solutions to some of these problems
(a) Technological challenges
Poaching sensor
Sensors must trigger reliably, which requires extensive pre‐deployment testing; sensors
must trigger quickly – detecting lack of motion alone (e.g. with old‐fashioned ‘jitter’
mortality switches) is insufficient, because of unacceptable time delays (see main
text); some sensors (e.g. heart‐rate sensors) would require invasive procedures, such
as (electrode) implantation, with possible effects on subjects’ welfare and on tagging
speed (see below)
ad hoc data generation and transmission
Tags must generate (GPS) coordinate information and transmit alerts to satellites
and/or ground receivers, before they can be destroyed by poachers; bandwidth is likely
to be an issue and will necessitate data compression; where mobile phone networks
are not available, dedicated infrastructure may need to be set up
Battery power
Tags’ batteries should last as long as possible, to minimize the need for retrapping
subjects (see below)
Tag attachment
Tags must be attached to animals in a way that they are well concealed and achieve
reliable sensor readings, without causing undue burden; invasive procedures (see above)
will increase handling time, potentially hampering efforts of mass deployment (see
below)
(b) Other challenges
Permits for deployment
Some drone‐based projects experienced problems with obtaining permits for deployment;
support of local authorities, and other stakeholder groups, is required
System costs
System costs should be minimized, to facilitate mass deployment
Trapping effort
A large proportion of animals must be (perceived to be) tagged, for establishing a
successful deterrent function; this may be possible in small, extensively managed
populations, but would be difficult in vast patrol areas; efforts of mass deployment
would benefit from low system costs (see above) and straightforward deployment techniques
(see above)
Infrastructure requirements
Anti‐poaching units must be able to reach remote crime scenes quickly, once an alert
has been raised by a system; this will usually require the use of helicopters
Sentencing of apprehended poachers
Real‐time poaching‐alert systems can only become a major deterrent if they increase
the chances of arresting poachers, and if arrests lead to successful prosecution and
appropriate sentencing; local authorities need to ensure the latter
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Figure 2
Schematic illustration of the proposed real‐time poaching‐alert system. An electronic
tag is fitted inside a rhino's horn (cf. Fig. 1). Multiple sensors continuously monitor
the behaviour and physiology of the tagged animal, detecting when it is shot or otherwise
badly injured [①]. Once a poaching event has been recorded, a GPS unit boots up to
establish the exact location of the animal [②]. Information about the event is then
transmitted via satellite uplink [③] to an anti‐poaching team that heads towards the
crime scene by helicopter, in an effort to intercept the poacher(s). Meanwhile, after
raising the alert, the horn‐mounted tag triggers a miniature camera, which transmits
video evidence [④] until the rangers arrive. Graphic: Steve Thompson (http://stevethompsondesign.com/).
A range of sensors could be used to detect when an animal is shot or trapped, including
accelerometers or heart‐rate sensors (Rutz & Hays 2009; see Table 1). To avoid false
alarms, sensors would require careful calibration before system deployment and could
even be combined within a single tag, to enable redundant event‐triggering (i.e. multiple
sensors must trigger before the tag raises an alarm) or remote validation – for example,
an accelerometer could trigger an integrated video camera (Fig. 2; Rutz et al. 2007;
Watanabe & Takahashi 2013) or microphone (Lynch et al. 2013). Once the tag's sensors
have confirmed a poaching event, an on‐board GPS receiver is booted up (Tomkiewicz
et al. 2010), to establish the position of the trapped, injured or dead animal. State‐of‐the‐art
systems can estimate coordinates of suitable accuracy (within tens of metres) within
split‐seconds, with minimal power requirements (e.g. Fastloc). In the final step,
the tag communicates the event – that is, animal ID, trigger time, sensor readings
and GPS coordinate information – to a mission control centre and/or directly to rangers
in the field. This could be achieved through various routes, including satellite uplinks
(e.g. Iridium), UHF transmission, or pre‐existing or ad hoc mobile phone networks.
We estimate that a well‐designed system could raise an alarm within ca. 10 s, which
in the majority of scenarios will be faster than poachers could reach the animal and
destroy its tag. Anti‐poaching units often have helicopters at their disposal, ensuring
that crime scenes could be reached within minutes, or tens of minutes, after receiving
an alert (Fig. 2), even in vast and inaccessible patrol areas. Where helicopters are
not available, reserves would at least be warned of ongoing poaching activity, enabling
them to focus ranger resources spatially, patrol park perimeters and conduct targeted
vehicle checks, greatly increasing the chances of apprehending poachers.
The proposed technology should not be confused with standard satellite tracking, as
routinely used with endangered species (e.g. Galanti et al. 2006). Although conventional
GPS loggers could in principle be employed to infer poaching events from animals’
movement trajectories, costly time delays – to establish whether a stationary animal
is merely resting or has indeed been injured or killed – would rule out their utility
for guiding ad hoc intervention. Furthermore, constant sampling and relaying of positional
data would quickly deplete batteries (in cases where solar power is not an option),
which is not an issue with the ‘one‐shot’ tags we envisage here. Likewise, the marking
of animals with PIT/RFID chips (Casey 2014), or with cutting‐edge life‐history tags
(e.g. Horning & Mellish 2012), only enables the post hoc identification of mortalities,
but cannot support a real‐time response, which lies at the heart of our proposal (for
the use of real‐time ‘listening’ stations, to detect illegal logging, see Gross 2014).
We can think of many ways to tailor system specifications to suit particular species
or deployment contexts, or to extend basic system functionality. For example, event‐triggering
could be combined very effectively with another anti‐poaching technology that is currently
being developed – unmanned aerial systems, or ‘drones’ (Marks 2013, 2014; Casey 2014;
Gross 2014; Mulero‐Pázmány et al. 2014). Rather than putting (tagged) animals under
intermittent or constant drone surveillance, however, as currently planned, poaching‐alert
tags could guide drones selectively to confirmed crime scenes, for collection of still‐image
or video evidence until anti‐poaching units arrive on the ground. Such targeted monitoring
should considerably increase the effectiveness of drone‐based projects, while reducing
their logistical complexity and running costs.
Practical considerations
It is useful to explore briefly the practicalities of implementing our approach (cf.
Table 1). Assuming that the engineering challenges of constructing suitable tags can
be met, a key requirement is adequate tagging effort. Our approach aims at escalating
the potential risks involved in committing poaching crimes, driving an unfavourable
cost‐benefit ratio for poachers. This can only be achieved if a substantial proportion
of local animal populations is marked with poaching‐alert tags or is at least being
perceived to be marked, forcing poachers to take an increased risk, every time they
pull the trigger or check a snare. It would of course be desirable if tags were difficult
to see at a distance, because they are either very small or well hidden (e.g. in the
horn of rhinos, or in ankle bracelets that cannot be seen in high grass; see Fig. 1),
but where this is impossible (e.g. because tags need to be mounted on a collar, as
with tigers), the strategic use of cheap dummy tags could considerably reduce programme
costs (dummy tags are often used in biologging projects, to assess tagging effects;
e.g. Bridger & Booth 2003). Trapping effort would admittedly pose significant challenges
for large populations, but is unlikely to be an issue in those areas where intervention
is most urgently needed: this is because critically endangered populations are often
heavily managed, with large numbers of subjects being routinely trapped for ID marking
(Ngene et al. 2011) and health checks.
As with any new technology employed in antagonistic contexts, one particular concern
is the possible development of counter measures. In our case, this could involve,
for example, technology to jam tags’ two‐way communication with satellites. We think
that such an ‘arms race’ is unlikely, at least in the short term, given the required
levels of technological expertise, and the substantial costs involved, which would
quickly diminish criminals’ profit margins.
Quick action
For two main reasons, we are surprised that real‐time poaching‐alert systems have
not been implemented yet. First, the fight against most other types of crime heavily
relies on the use of event‐triggered technology. While large‐scale CCTV surveillance,
and regular police patrols, may lead to reductions in crime rates (e.g. Levitt 1997),
the success of policing is no doubt dramatically enhanced by systems that raise alarms
in real‐time and enable arrests at crime scenes. This includes house and car alarms,
panic buttons and rape alarms, and perhaps most importantly, the victims’ ability
in many circumstances to phone the police directly. We see no reason why this powerful
route of ‘self‐reporting’ could not be emulated in the desperate fight against poaching
crime. To our knowledge, this opportunity has so far been overlooked, despite increasing
interest in technology‐driven approaches (see above). Secondly, over the last 10 years
or so, significant advances have been made in biologging science, producing tags of
unprecedented miniaturization, sophistication and integration (Rutz & Hays 2009) –
while major engineering challenges lie ahead (see Table 1), the construction of real‐time
poaching‐alert systems is well within reach of current expertise.
We hope others will join us in our efforts to implement the ideas outlined in this
essay. To start with, we invite biologging engineers – many of whom already have keen
interests in conservation biology (Cooke 2008; Bograd et al. 2010) – to collaborate
with us on system development, as free sharing of expertise and other resources will
be essential to making rapid progress. But, success will also depend on support from
wildlife biologists and ranger teams on the ground, and on the willingness of governments
and other authorities to issue permits for system deployment, to facilitate the cross‐border
pursuit of criminal suspects and to put in place robust legislation for the sentencing
of convicted poachers (cf. Maisels et al. 2013; see Table 1). Given that many target
species are fast heading towards extinction, we need to explore all available anti‐poaching
tools with utmost urgency, aiming for intervention at every stage of the trade chain.
While we are fully aware that our reactive, technology‐based approach does not provide
an all‐encompassing solution, it should – through its contribution to improving arrest
rates and establishing an effective deterrent – buy crucial time until longer‐term,
preventive measures have gained sufficient traction.
Author contributions
PO initiated this collaboration; PO and CR conceived ideas; PO and CR conducted research;
and CR drafted the manuscript, which was edited by PO and CR.
Competing interests
The authors have started developing prototype poaching‐alert tags, but do not intend
to exploit the technology commercially.
Data accessibility
Data have not been archived because this article does not contain data.
Biosketch
Paul O'Donoghue is an applied ecologist with a PhD from the University of Sheffield.
Through his work on black rhinos in Namibia and South Africa, he has gained considerable
‘front‐line’ experience of fighting poaching crime. Christian Rutz is an evolutionary
ecologist with a DPhil from the University of Oxford. He uses cutting‐edge ‘biologging’
technologies extensively in his field projects and has pioneered the use of miniature
video cameras and proximity loggers for studying wild birds. By pooling their diverse
practical expertise, Paul and Christian hope to make a contribution to the development
of innovative real‐time anti‐poaching tools.