Indigenous hunting in Manu National Park, Peru:

Culture, ecology and sustainability

Glenn H. Shepard Jr. - Goeldi Museum

http://ethnoground.blogspot.com

ethnoground@gmail.com

@TweetTropiques

• Hunting is an important aspect of

both diet and cosmology for

Amazonian indigenous peoples

• Quantitative (“optimal foraging”)

and symbolic (“perspectivism”)

approaches rarely dialog

Alvard (1995) “Interspecific prey choice by Amazonian

hunters” Curr. Anthropol. 36

Fausto (2007) “Eating animals and humans in Amazonia”

Curr. Anthropol. 48

• Both ecological and sociocultural

factors must enter into any account

of hunting and its impacts on animal

populations

Background

• Manu is an important conservation

area with a substantial indigenous

population

• Park regulations prohibit firearms

• Some conservationists argue that

these communities threaten the park‟s

viability as a biodiversity haven

• Interdisciplinary hunting study (2004-

2007)

How do cultural and ecological

factors influence sustainability?

Context

Taboos, restrictions, practices

• „lose aim‟ (medicinal plants)

• couvade („vengeance‟)

• „skinny‟ animals (dry season)

• spiritual danger (deer, howler)

• avoidance (capybara, caiman)

• idiosyncratic avoidances, „mixing‟

Shepard (2002) “Primates in Matsigenka subsistence and

worldview” In: Primates Face to Face, Cambridge Univ. Press.

“Cosmos as ecosystem”

Puigasetagantsi

“spirit revenge”

Hunter

Prey

Spiritual Ecology

Cultural practices such as taboos, seasonal avoidance, concept of

“cosmological feedback” would appear to contribute to sustainable hunting.

Most anthropologists stop here.

How do these beliefs and practices affect actual hunter behavior?

Douglas Yu (UEA)

And more importantly: does it all add up to sustainabilty?

Participatory monitoring (2004-2007) - 26 families, 99 hunters

- pictorial data sheets, weigh stations, skulls, GPS

3 years of data, 250,000+ consumer/days(cf. Alvard & Kaplan: 3000 consumer/days)

• 4300+ hunts

• 20+ species

• 30+ tons game

• Human demography

• Birth data

• Long-term ethnography

Assess actual animal densities: Transects in hunted and non-hunted areas

Yomibato

Tayakome

Cocha Cashu

Pakitza

Cumerjali

Panagua N.

Panagua S.

Carlos Peres (UEA)

• Ivlev‟s Index:

(U-A)/(U+A)U = “Use”: annual offtake of each species (ind./km2)

A = “Availability”: density of each species (ind./km2)

value between -1.0 e +1.0: relative preference among specieslow value: relatively abundant but not sought after

high value: les abundant but nonetheless sought after

intermediate value: preference proportionate to availability

• In “optimal foraging” model, preference should be a function of body

mass: “Bringing home the biggest bacon”

Jerozolimski & Peres (2003) “Bringing home the biggest bacon: A cross-site analysis of the structure of hunter-kill profiles in

Neotropical forests” Biodiv. Conserv. 11(1)

Peres & Nascimento (2006) “Impact of game hunting by the Kayapó of southeastern Amazonia” Biodiv. Conserv. 15(8)

Hunter selectivity: “Biggest bacon?”

Ivle

v‟s

Index

2004-2005 data

log

mass

(kg.)

“Optimal foraging” does not explain all the results

Weak relationship between mass and selectivity

Tayakome

Yomybato

Low preference for small monkeys / high for white-lipped peccaries

“Optimal foraging” explains

High preference for agouti despite low weight

Considered a garden pest, hunted in blinds

Low preference for deer despite weight ~ peccary

Cosmology:Deer is demonic seducer, spiritually dangerous to eat

Low preference for howler compared to other large monkeys

Variable cultural attitudes: “shaman”,” “lazy,” “lots of bot fly”

Higher preference for large monkeys in Yomybato

Higher preference for large monkeys in Yomybato, less

in Tayakome

Higher preference for large monkeys in Yomybato, less

in Tayakome

Individual variation? Ecological differences?

Ranked preferences among similar “menu items”

Not just size, but taste: afford to be choosy

monkeys

birds

ungulates

Ateles

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600

Log body m ass

Iv

lev

's s

ele

ctiv

ity

in

de

x

Dry

Rainy

Linear (Rainy)

Linear (Dry)

Large primates: greatest change

Rainy / dry season variation

More fish, animals are leaner, “my wife complains: so skinny!”

“Couvade” period: four-fold decrease in hunter activity

Days before / after child born

Spiritual vulnerability of newborns to game animal revenge

Hunting zones:

Yomibato,

Sarigemina,

Tayakome,

Maronaro,

Maizal

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

< .5 km .5 - 3 km 3 - 5.5 km > 5.5 km

Hunting zones

No

. an

imals

Half of all animals killed

were hunted at less than

500 m from the hunter‟s

house (green zone).

OK already. But is it

sustainable?!

“Sustainability index”

Robinson-Redford, Bodmer

Index

(black magic)

Per capita

consumptio

n

Minimum

catchment

area

4 species hunted at more than “maximum sustainable yield”

Spider monkey, woolly monkey, currasow, white-lipped peccary

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tayakome 2001

Tayakome 2004

Yomybato 1989

Yomybato 1999

Yomybato 2001

Yomybato 2004

Maquisapa Choro Coto Machin

No signs of long-term faunal depletion in Tayakome and Yomibato, even

for vulnerable spider & woolly monkeys: Puzzle…

Most biologists stop here.

Taal Levi (U. Oregon)

The future…

Linear relationship: consumers/area:

Not realistic, no “source-sink” effect

0.5 km

0.5-3 km3-5.5 km

“Central place foraging”

0.5 km

0.5-3 km3-5.5 km

“Central place foraging”

We need a new technique…

0.5 km0.5-3 km3-5.5 km

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

< .5 km .5 - 3 km 3 - 5.5 km > 5.5 km

Zonas de caza

No

. a

nim

ale

s

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Diamante 1989

Tayakome 2001

Tayakome 2004

Yomybato 1989

Yomybato 1999

Yomybato 2001

Yomybato 2004

Maquisapa Choro Coto Machin

We developed a new technique of dynamic computer simulation incorporating

complex data: human demographic growth, settlement patterns, hunting

technology, per capita consumption, distance & density effects, faunal

population dynamics…

Levi, T., Shepard Jr, G.H., Ohl-Schacherer, J., Peres, C.A. & Yu, D.W. Modeling the long-term sustainability of

indigenous hunting in Manu National Park, Peru: Landscape-scale management implications for Amazonia.

.

Things look good now, but how will they look in 50 years?

Indicator species: osheto (spider monkey)

Good indicator species due to low growth rate, high vulnerability. If osheto survives,

anything can survive.

The year 2059

• Population dynamics of spider monkey: logistical

growth, low migration rates (as observed)

• Human demography: continue at current growth rate

• Settlement pattern: no new settlements

• Effort per hunter: as today (40 hunts/year)

• Technology: bow and arrow maintained

Scenario 1: Six settlements in 2059

Test effect of bow vs. gun hunting

Effort: 40 h/h/y 80 h/h/y

Bow

efficacy

0.1

Gun

efficacy 0.9

Bow

0.1

Gun

0.9

Gun

I.7

40 h/h/y 80 h/h/y

Scenario 2: Thirteen settlements along Manu

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Diamante 1989

Tayakome 2001

Tayakome 2004

Yomybato 1989

Yomybato 1999

Yomybato 2001

Yomybato 2004

Maquisapa Choro Coto Machin

Catch per unit effort

(kg/hr)The efficiency

advantage of guns

(10X) is transitory,

rapidly diminishing

(game depletion) to

rates similar to bow

hunting after a few

years.

• Spider monkeys persist in all scenarios

• “worst case”: ~70% of the park maintains spider monkeys at maximum density (carrying capacity).

• “status quo”: ~95% of the park has spider monkeys at maximum density.

• Technology (guns vs. bows) has a much stronger effect than any other factor (population growth, spread, increased effort).

• Community sedentarism (promoted through investments in education, health, infrastructure, economic and productive opportunities) could reduce the overall human footprint on Manu‟s biodiversity.

• 2059: There is plenty of time to negotiate and build dialog

Results

Conclusions

Hunting in Tayakome and Yomibato appears to be sustainable, due to

low human population density, the use of traditional hunting

technology (bow and arrow) and the preservation by the park of large

non-hunted areas (white zone)

Even with introductions of guns, the large park area can still support a

much larger and even more dispersed indigenous population, but this

would significantly reduce large primate populations in some regions

Traditional hunting technology goes hand in hand with rich cultural

practices that emphasize uncertain outcomes and the reciprocal

nature of predation: “cosmos as ecosystem”

Maintain prohibition on shotguns

Amazonia: 54% of all protected areas are indigenous reservesBrazil: Indigenous lands 5X the area of parks: 1 million km2

Indigenous reserves are equally, if not more effective than parks in halting deforestation and forest fires.

Nepstad, D., et al. (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands.

Conserv Biol 20, 65-73.

n Participation

n Dialog and negotiation

n Knowledge exchange

n Socio-environmental

approach

There is TIME, but also URGENT NEED

to build such a dialog in Manu and other

reserves with indigenous populations:

Manu without indigenous inhabitants is a

demographic and political void susceptible to

invasion by loggers, oil companies and drug

lords!!!

But so does ecology.

And especially technology...

Dialog between

perspectives permits a

richer understanding of

hunting as socio-

environmental practice

Culture matters!

But so does

ecology.

And especially

technology...