The notion of ‘folk crime’ refers to offences that are generally perceived by perpetrators and other members of their community as not being particularly criminal, offensive, harmful or dangerous. A central idea is that ‘we all do it’ and so those caught doing it are not necessarily deemed ‘evil’ or ‘unworthy’ enough to warrant suffering unpleasant penalties and/ or the stigma attached to ordinary criminal sanctions. Such crimes are frequently committed repeatedly by the same offenders, are well known in the offenders’ community and do not impair the offenders’ public identity as respectable and law-abiding citizens (see White, 2016).

Folk crimes feature significantly in rural contexts of crime, criminality and victimization. Specifically, rural folk crime has been related to hunting and gaming laws, land clearance, water use and nature harvesting of items such as mushrooms, fish, firewood and flowers.

Conservationism and environmental protection have had a major impact on the ways in which traditional users of natural resources engage with forests and lands, local rivers and coastal fringes insofar as previously acceptable practices have frequently been transformed into highly regulated and/ or illegal acts. This is especially the case in regards to hunting, cutting down of trees and harvesting from traditional foraging areas, as shown historically in the United States and evident today in Africa and Scandinavia. Restrictions also generally apply to fishing practices (for example, catch sizes and limits) in relation to lakes, rivers, coastal marine areas and ocean waters.

For some, subsistence requirements demand that traditional practices of harvesting and foraging continue as before. And in some circumstances, those who resist the imposition of new laws such as hunting and fishing bans may, in effect, take on the mantle of ‘folk hero’, at least in their eyes and those of their supporters.

Important moral distinctions are also made regarding how to interpret activities such as hunting and the cutting down of trees. This has been described as forming part of a ‘moral ecology’ (see Jacoby, 2003). For example, taking wood from a state forest was not necessarily seen by local Adirondack residents as a ‘crime’ but rather as quite legitimate if done for the purposes of subsistence (such as for firewood, buildings materials and the like).