Illegal killing of nongame wildlife is a global yet poorly documented problem. The prevalence and ecological consequences of illegal killing are often underestimated or completely unknown. We review the practice of legal recreational shooting and present data gathered from telemetry, surveys, and observations on its association with illegal killing of wildlife (birds and snakes) within conservation areas in Idaho, USA. In total, 33% of telemetered long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus) and 59% of other bird carcasses found with known cause of death (or 32% of total) were illegally shot. Analysis of spatial distributions of illegal and legal shooting is consistent with birds being shot illegally in the course of otherwise legal recreational shooting, but snakes being intentionally sought out and targeted elsewhere, in locations where they congregate. Preliminary public surveys indicate that most recreational shooters find abhorrent the practice of illegal killing of wildlife. Viewed through this lens, our data may imply only a small fraction of recreational shooters is responsible for this activity. This study highlights a poorly known conservation problem that could have broad implications for some species and populations of wildlife.

No abstract

Open‐source intelligence (OSINT) evolved in spy agencies but now is rapidly changing many fields of study, from anthropology to zoology. Despite the fact that OSINT occasionally is used in conservation biology, there is little recognition that some tools and frameworks used by conservation professionals are drawn from this well‐established field. In conservation biology, OSINT is sometimes used to evaluate wildlife crime, human–wildlife and human–environment interactions, animal behavior, and questions of distribution and abundance. Recognizing the conceptual foundations of the field would allow expansion of conservation biology, not only in the areas noted above, but also, for example, in study of habitat use, habitat change, and animal behavior. This recognition would also provide frameworks for conceptual advancement, especially in terms of data and privacy management. Failure to recognize the underpinnings of OSINT tools in conservation biology harms the field because it limits how research is framed, thought about, and implemented. Likewise, taking an OSINT perspective to conservation problems, rather than simply thinking in terms of big data, can enrich the field, expand science, and increase knowledge and understanding of biology and biodiversity.