Camera trap theft and vandalism: occurrence, cost, prevention and implications for wildlife research and management

• Main Authors: Paul D. Meek, Guy A. Ballard, Jess Sparkes, Mark Robinson, Brad Nesbitt, Peter J. S. Fleming
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2019-06-01
• Series: Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
• Subjects: Camera trapping; crime prevention; remote camera; trail camera; vandalism; wildlife monitoring
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.96

Abstract Camera traps are increasingly used to monitor wildlife populations and management activities. Failing to detect target occurrence and/or behaviour inhibits the robustness of wildlife surveys. Based on user‐testing, it is reasonable to expect some equipment to malfunction but other sources of failure, such as those caused by theft and vandalism, are largely unquantified. Between May 2016 and October 2017, we undertook an international survey of professional practitioners who use camera traps for wildlife research and management projects to quantify theft and vandalism, and to document the subsequent effects on project outcomes. We also sought to record the methods used by practitioners to avoid theft and vandalism and whether or not practitioners believed those actions were effective. Most (59%) of the 407 respondents were wildlife researchers and university academics. The survey results revealed that camera trap theft and vandalism is a global issue that not only adds to costs via equipment loss (approx. USD $1.48 million from n = 309 respondents between 2010 and 2015) and theft prevention (c. USD $800 000 spent by respondents between 2010 and 2015) but also influences survey design. Vandalism and theft are clearly a global problem, with responses suggesting that they occur across a diverse array of geographic locations, at varying proximity to human settlements, in multiple habitat types and across device placements. Methods to deter human interference included using camouflaging (73%), security devices such as chains (63%) and boxes (43%), use of decoy camera traps, shortening deployment periods, setting the camera relatively high or low to the ground, or moving away from human traffic. Despite this, the responses suggest that attempts to mitigate losses are often not effective. In review of our findings, we make recommendations for the future of camera trapping that requires implementation and testing.