Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of ‘trapper categories’, as defined by the key informants of the enforcement agencies and the environmental NGOs, indicating (a) an estimate of the number of people involved, (b) the possible motives, (c) estimates of the equipment they use and (d) the impact they may have

From: Exploring differences in stakeholders’ perceptions of illegal bird trapping in Cyprus

 

Categories

Number of people trapping

Incentives

Equipment (per person)

Numbers of birds trapped/impact

Enforcement Agency 1

1) Traditional trappers

Personal consumption

20–30 limesticks

The large number of low-scale trapping has a significant impact

2) Organised criminals

40–50 people in total (4–5%)

Profit

Maybe 30 mist nets and 500 limesticks

Highest impact, as catching most amount of birds

Enforcement Agency 2

1) Non-professionals

Personal consumption

2) Professional trappers

10–15 people in total (within the SBA)

Profit

Enforcement Agency 3

1) Traditional trappers

A lot more than 2000 people in total

Personal consumption/hobby

Limesticks

Catch a limited number of birds as they do not use lures

2) Business-scale

Profit

Environmental NGO 1

1) Small-scale trappers

60–85%

500 to 1000 in total

Hobby

< 50 limesticks and/or 1 mist net

c. 2 million birds in total

2) Medium-scale trappers

10–30%

Supplementary income

50–100 limesticks and/or 1–3 mist nets

3) Big trappers (professionals)

5–10% (10–20 people)

Profit

>100 limesticks and/or 4+ mist nets

Environmental NGO 2

1) Small-scale trappers

50–60%

1500 to 2000 in total

Personal consumption

25–50 limesticks or 1 mist net and 1 decoy

c. 2 million birds in total

2) Medium/semi-professional trappers

30–40%

Personal consumption/ profit

Political rather than cultural incentive

75–100 limesticks, 2–3 mist nets and 2 decoys

3) Professional trappers

10–20%

Profit

200 limesticks, more than 5 mist nets

  1. The information provided in this table reflects the opinions, knowledge and experience of the different stakeholders. Please note that two of the environmental NGOs did not have relevant information to provide
  2. ’ = no information was provided