This week, the Boone and Crockett Club unveiled the most comprehensive study ever conducted on wildlife poaching in the United States. The multi-year Poach and Pay research initiative, supported by the Wildlife Management Institute, Southern Wildlife Resources, and state and federal partners, revealed that an estimated 95% of big game poaching incidents go undetected in the U.S. each year. This study quantifies the enormous conservation impact of these crimes, amounting to more than $1.4 billion annually in lost fines and replacement costs. It also provides a roadmap for strengthening the detection, deterrence, and prosecution of poachers while reinforcing the vital distinction between lawful hunters and poachers.

Historical Context: Boone and Crockett Club’s Conservation Legacy

Founded in 1887 by Theodore Roosevelt and other visionaries, the Boone and Crockett Club has long championed the principles of fair chase and public trust doctrine. The Club was instrumental in establishing key conservation laws and institutions, including the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. Its advocacy helped secure the Pittman–Robertson Act of 1937, which dedicated excise tax revenues from firearms and ammunition to wildlife restoration. In recent decades, the Club has continued to emphasize that legal hunters are the backbone of conservation funding, whereas poachers are criminals who steal from the public and undermine wildlife management.

The Poach & Pay Study

Recognizing the lack of comprehensive data on poaching, the Boone and Crockett Club launched the Poach and Pay Program in 2016. An initial 2017 study highlighted weaknesses in state restitution frameworks and inconsistent treatment of wildlife crimes in courts. Building on that foundation, the Poach and Pay research released in 2025 involves seven integrated phases: assessing stakeholder attitudes, identifying offender typologies, examining judicial barriers, estimating detection rates, calculating conservation costs, evaluating deterrence strategies, and developing best management practices.

The cases examined in the Poach and Pay report demonstrate both the diversity of offender motivations and the inadequacy of penalties in deterring repeat offenders.

Researchers surveyed more than 13,000 hunters, 4,000 landowners, and more than 1,000 conservation officers across eight representative states (Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania). They also conducted a national survey of prosecutors and several interviews with convicted poachers while applying Bayesian statistical models to integrate survey data, citation records, other poaching rate studies, and telemetry studies. The result is the most robust national estimate to date of the hidden or ‘dark figure’ of wildlife crime.

Stakeholder Attitudes: Broad Concern About Poaching

Hunters, landowners, and conservation officers uniformly identified poaching as a serious threat to wildlife populations and the reputation of lawful hunting. Surveys revealed that more than 90% of hunters expressed general concern about the impacts of poaching at the state and national levels. Landowners reported similar levels of concern, especially regarding property damage and loss of wildlife stewardship. Conservation officers cited frustration with low detection rates, limited resources, and inconsistent prosecutorial outcomes. Across all groups, there was strong support for increased penalties, restitution, and consistent enforcement.

Nine Typologies of Poachers

The study emphasized that poachers are not a homogeneous group. Instead, nine distinct typologies emerged: trophy, commercial, subsistence, backdoor (convenience), recreational, protective, tradition/protest, challenge, and thrill-kill. Motivations range from ego and greed to cultural norms, food needs, and thrill-seeking. Many offenders justify their actions through rationalizations, downplaying harm, or shifting blame. Understanding these categories is critical for designing deterrence strategies tailored to offender motivations.

Judicial and Prosecutorial Barriers

A consistent finding across the study was the difficulty in securing meaningful judicial outcomes in poaching cases. Prosecutors and judges often lack training in the ownership and conservation value of wildlife, are often less familiar with wildlife law, and cases are sometimes dismissed or treated as low-priority offenses. Restitution frameworks vary widely by state and are inconsistently applied, resulting in low recovery rates. Conservation officers expressed frustration with these barriers, noting that weak judicial outcomes reduce deterrence and erode their morale. Prosecutors reported that license revocation, equipment confiscation, and incarceration were more effective penalties than fines.

Detection Rates and Conservation Costs

Perhaps the most striking finding of the Poach and Pay study is the extremely low detection rate of poaching incidents. Bayesian models estimated detection at only 2–7 percent, meaning that roughly 95 percent of poaching goes unnoticed. This 'dark figure' has profound conservation and fiscal implications. Based on replacement cost calculations, state wildlife agencies and the public lose at least $1.44 billion annually in uncollected fines and replacement costs. On average, each state loses $28.7 million per year, a sum that often exceeds annual Pittman–Robertson excise tax apportionments or gross hunting license revenues. These losses directly undermine agency budgets, conservation priorities, and public trust in wildlife governance.

Historical Case Examples

Historical records highlight the persistent impact of poaching. In the early 20th century, unregulated market hunting led to severe declines in big game species. Although market hunting was largely eliminated as states created fish and wildlife agencies responsible for the management and protection of wildlife, a counterculture of bad actors still seeks to profit from the illegal take of wildlife, either in the form of financial compensation, ego boosts from taking trophy animals, or a myriad of other reasons. Recent cases underscore this ongoing problem. For example, state enforcement records from Michigan in the 1980s documented organized commercial poaching rings targeting deer for profit, whereas high-profile trophy poaching cases in the West have drawn public outrage and highlighted the need for stronger deterrents. The cases examined in the Poach and Pay report demonstrate both the diversity of offender motivations and the inadequacy of penalties in deterring repeat offenders.

Deterrence and Best Management Practices

The study found that the certainty of detection is a stronger deterrent than penalty severity. Conservation officers and stakeholders recommended expanding manpower, tip hotlines, rewards, and public education to increase the detection of illegal activities in the future. License suspensions, equipment forfeiture, and the reclassification of serious poaching offenses as felonies were rated as more effective deterrents than fines or restitution alone. Public education campaigns and social shaming of offenders were also seen as important tools for reducing the social acceptability of poaching and reinforcing the distinction between poachers and hunters.

The Poach and Pay report presents a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include integrating offender typologies into enforcement, strengthening statutory language, enhancing prosecutorial training, fostering community engagement, increasing public reporting, and deploying technologies such as drones and decoys. These BMPs provide a holistic framework for reducing illegal take across the United States.

A Call to Action

The findings of Poach and Pay are clear: poaching is not a victimless crime. It represents a massive financial loss to the public and state wildlife agencies, undermines the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and threatens the public’s trust in conservation institutions. Legal hunters are not poachers; indeed, hunters are often the first to report poaching incidents. Poachers are thieves who steal from everyone. Policymakers, wildlife agencies, and the public must work together to strengthen detection, standardize restitution frameworks, and elevate the seriousness of wildlife crime in the judicial system. Public awareness and support are essential for ensuring the conservation of wildlife resources for future generations.

Conclusion

By quantifying the hidden scope and costs of poaching, the Poach and Pay research has provided conservation professionals with a powerful tool to advocate for reform. The Boone and Crockett Club and its partners will continue to advance this initiative, but success depends on collective action. Reducing poaching requires more than law enforcement; it demands public vigilance, policy change, judicial engagement, and clear recognition that America’s wildlife belongs to all its citizens.

The Poach and Pay research was funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (Grant: F22AP00699), which is jointly managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.