Salem Press

A writer for the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory offers this explanation of one of the lab's most difficult tasks, determining new species-defining characteristics:

If the federal wildlife special agents and game wardens and conservation officers who comprise our user groups seized (for example) whole elephants as evidence, attached an evidence tag to their tails, and dragged them into a courtroom, we wouldn't need a $4.5 million wildlife crime laboratory.

You would recognize that animal as an elephant.

And we would recognize it as an elephant.

And I would wager that we could get the average jury of 12 to agree that it is an elephant, based upon certain commonly-accepted species-defining morphological characteristics, such as the trunk, the tusks, the large ears, the even larger rear end, the small tail, etc.

But the thing is, these wildlife officers don't seize whole elephants and send them to our laboratory for identification (a fact for which, I might add, we are all extremely grateful!); rather, they seize wildlife pieces, parts and products in which the commonly-accepted species-defining characteristics are no longer present.

So what we have to do, as a wildlife crime laboratory, is conduct an extensive amount of research to come up with new species-defining characteristics that will allow us to testify in court that this piece, part or product originated from a specific species of animal, and not from any other possible species in the entire world . . . which, if you stop to think about it, is quite a trick.

Oh yes, one other thing: there are no established cookbooks for our work. Wildlife forensics is very much in its infancy as a branch of forensic science, so we will be working with a lot of other wildlife experts and police-type forensic scientists to conduct our research and bring our profession forward to assist wildlife officers at the federal, state and international levels in enforcing wildlife laws.

Forensic Science
Wildlife Forensics

Forensic Applications: Suspect identification; victim identification

Definition: Analysis of animal tissues in addition to such traditional forensic evidence as fingerprints associated with wildlife poaching and smuggling.

Significance: Crimes committed against wildlife might remain unsolved without forensic evidence to prove connections among animal victims, human hunters, and scenes where animals were slain or captured. Scientific proof from bloodstains, antlers, and animal by-products enables law-enforcement personnel to identify and seek legal prosecution of suspects in crimes involving animals.

Forensic examination of wildlife-related evidence became crucial during the late twentieth century because of increased governmental awareness worldwide of the poaching and smuggling of endangered and protected species. As demand for exotic pets and animal goods led wildlife traders to expand their trafficking activities and populations of some species dwindled, the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) established uniform criteria for global enforcement of laws protecting vulnerable species. The United States enforced the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and forbade importation of Asian elephant ivory beginning in 1976 and African elephant ivory starting in 1989. Scholarly articles featuring wildlife forensics appeared in journals such as Forensic Science International and in conference proceedings.

Establishing Resources
Before the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory was established in 1989, approximately 90 percent of wildlife poachers in the United States were not punished because evidence of their crimes was unavailable unless games wardens had witnessed their actions. Law-enforcement personnel needed scientific evidence that they could present in court if they were going to be able to prosecute crimes committed against wildlife. Most forensics laboratories did not pursue investigations related to wildlife crimes.

In 1979, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hired Kenneth W. Goddard to serve as the agency's chief forensic investigator. Goddard, a biochemist who had worked in law-enforcement crime laboratories, applied his experience and expertise to the apprehension of poachers. He requested that the U.S. government establish a wildlife forensics laboratory so that he could perform his work more effectively. The result, the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, became the sole laboratory investigating wildlife crimes in the United States and globally.

Serving as director of the laboratory, Goddard recruited a staff of scientists who specialized in morphology, pathology, criminalistics, and toxicology. Differentiating between police forensic work, which focuses on one species, and wildlife forensic investigations, which may involve thousands of species, the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory assembled sophisticated technology and a diverse collection of specimens, including skeletons, feathers, and blood, to aid in its work of identifying wildlife victims, particularly when evidence consists of only fragments or bloodstains. The laboratory also established a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and protein database to aid in species identification.

The National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory's collaborative approach helped to establish an innovative scientific field, incorporating existing technologies and biological and chemical procedures and inventing methods to conduct original investigations. Forensic ornithologists, veterinarians, and wildlife specialists enhanced the laboratory's capabilities.

Scientific Investigations
For the forensic scientists at the wildlife laboratory, a case begins when a sample arrives and is cataloged. Wildlife forensic evidence takes varied forms, from entire carcasses to pieces of bone; it may include dried fluids, pelts, raw meat, and products made from animal materials. Morphologists evaluate specimens to identify their species; this work sometimes requires comparisons with samples from known species in the laboratory's collection. The scientists frequently use scanning electron microscopes to scrutinize samples for structures to determine species. Species identification clarifies whether or not the animal is legally protected; crocodiles, for example, are a protected species, whereas alligators are not.

Serologists analyze blood samples, using mass spectrometry to weigh hemoglobin protein molecules to identify species. Genetic fingerprinting is useful when bloodstains at scenes or on poachers' clothing are the sole available evidence. Investigators may use DNA analysis to connect the body parts of an animal recovered in separate locations. Wildlife forensic investigators also compare saw marks, such as on antlers and heads, to match severed wildlife pieces. DNA analysis may also be used to associate meat with a crime scene. Forensic scientists can determine whether poached animals were born in the wild or captively bred, as some hunters claim, if the DNA of the animals' alleged parents is available for testing. DNA evidence can also enable investigators to identify the weapons used to kill animals.

Pathologists at the wildlife forensics laboratory examine evidence to determine the causes of animals' deaths. Experts in criminalistics evaluate bullets found inside animals, tire tracks, and other evidence found at crime scenes to supplement the information acquired from biological and chemical examinations. Such evidence can link together an animal victim, a human suspect, and the place where the crime occurred.

Wildlife forensic scientists have devised techniques for evaluating animal goods. For example, Edgard O. Espinoza and Mary-Jacque Mann developed a simple way for customs agents to appraise the Schreger lines in ivory (lines that are visible in cross sections of ivory) by measuring the lines' angles to determine if the ivory came from an elephant's tusk or some other source. Ivory with Shreger line angles of 115 degrees or greater comes from banned sources, whereas ivory with line angles of 90 degrees or less is legal. This method has exposed poachers who had falsely identified their ivory as originating from legal sources and has resulted in a reduction in elephant poaching.

Wildlife forensics investigators have also analyzed bile acids to identify different kinds of animal bladders that have been harvested for folk medicines. It is illegal to kill bears for this purpose, but the harvesting of pig bladders is legal. Researcher Stephen Busack has been able to identify some reptiles by scale shapes and patterns even when tanning and dying processes have obliterated the skins' original pigments.

The National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory's successes have encouraged forensic investigators to establish similar facilities in other locations, including internationally, but the laboratory in Ashland remains the only one of its kind devoted entirely to wildlife.

Elizabeth D. Schafer

Further Reading
Espinoza, Edgard O'Niel, and Mary-Jacque Mann. Identification Guide for Ivory and Ivory Substitutes. 3d ed. Baltimore: World Wildlife Fund, 2000. Describes forensic techniques for differentiating ivory specimens originating from elephants and other animals.

Jackson, Donna M. The Wildlife Detectives: How Forensic Scientists Fight Crimes Against Nature. Photographs by Wendy Shattil and Bob Rozinski. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Features the techniques used in the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory's investigation of the 1993 poaching of an elk in Yellowstone National Park.

Knight, Jonathan. "Cops and Poachers." New Scientist, January 22, 2000, 40-43. Article about Goddard emphasizes the importance of species identification for wildlife forensic evidence.

Luoma, Jon R. "The Wild World's Scotland Yard." Audubon 102 (November/December, 2000): 72-80. Presents a detailed account of the achievements of the scientists at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory.

Repanshek, Kurt. "Tracking Poachers with Forensic Science." Technology Review 98 (August/September, 1995): 22-23. Focuses on technological applications developed to prove wildlife crimes.

See Also
Animal evidence; Blood residue and stains; Civil courts and forensic evidence; Crime laboratories; Direct vs. circumstantial evidence; DNA analysis; DNA banks for endangered animals; Mass spectrometry.