Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge
Vol. 10 (3), July 2011, pp. 486-490
Hunting practices in the semiarid region of Brazil
*
José Aécio Alves Barbosa1*, Veruska Asevedo Nobrega2 & Rômulo Romeu da Nóbrega Alves2
1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Centro de Tecnologia e Recursos
Naturais, Av. Aprígio Veloso, nr 882, Bodocongó, P.O. 58429-140, Campina Grande-PB, Brazil
2
Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Av. das Baraúnas, nr 351, Campus Universitário Bodocongó,
Campina Grande-PB, P.O. 58429-500, Brazil.
E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Received 04.06.10; revised 13.04.11
The present study, undertaken in a traditional community in the semiarid region of Paraíba State, registered the principal
animal species hunted for nutritional purposes or because they are considered dangerous to people and/or their domestic
animals or cause other economic damage (in what can be called control-hunting), and evaluated the implications of these
practices in terms of the conservation of the local fauna. The interviewees cited a total of 38 species of wild animals that
were hunted in the region for food or that represented (in the opinion of the interviewees) some risk to humans and/or
domestic stocks. The species cited could be grouped into 6 faunal groups (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and
arthropods). Subsistence hunting in the study region is principally directed towards birds and mammals, which represent
alternative sources of protein for local human populations. Hunting for pest control is principally directed towards reptiles
(which are considered dangerous or loathsome) and these animals are indiscriminately killed whether they are poisonous or not.
Keywords: Hunting, Subsistence, Wildlife conservation
IPC Int. Cl.8 : A01; A01K
The many different uses for faunal resources made
hunting one of the most ancient practices linked to
human survival1,2, and even though hunting is illegal
in Brazil (Federal Law Nº 5.197, 1967) numerous
species continued to be taken in every part of the
country2-5.
Many animal species in the semiarid region
(Caatinga biome) of Brazil are threatened with
extinction due to intense hunting pressure and
degradation of their habitats 6,7. Few ethnozoological
studies have examined hunting activities in the
region1, however, and relatively little attention has
been given to this aspect of human interactions
with that nation’s biodiversity - even though these
activities represent one of the principal threats to the
local faunal 8.
The persistence of illegal hunting activities in the
semiarid region is largely driven by survival
considerations in light of the nutritional importance of
wild animals 9 as a source of protein for human
populations 10-14. Additionally, animals are widely
used for medicinal, magical/religious, cosmetic,
——————
* Corresponding author
ornamental, and handicraft purposes and some are
kept as pets1. Another factor that stimulates the killing
of wild animals in Brazilian biomes is their potential
for attacking humans or domestic stocks1,15.
The present study, undertaken in a traditional
community in the semiarid region of Paraíba State,
registered the principal animal species hunted for
nutritional purposes or because they are considered
dangerous to people and/or their domestic animals or
cause other economic damage (in what can be called
control-hunting), and evaluated the implications of
these practices in terms of the conservation of the
local fauna.
Methodology
The present work was undertaken between August
and December 2008 in the community of Sítio
Gravatá in the municipality of Queimadas (7º21´29" S x
35º53´53" W), Paraíba State, Northeastern Brazil.
The municipality of Queimadas covers an area of
409 km². The municipal seat is located 117 km from
the state capital17,18 at an altitude of approximately
450 m. The municipality was created in 1961 and has
a total population of 38,883, with approximately
BARBOSA et al. : HUNTING PRACTICES IN THE SEMIARID REGION
19,000 people living in rural areas18. The population
of the municipality of Queimadas is composed largely
of Sertanejos who are the descendents of families
originally from the Agreste (dry forest) meso-region
of Paraíba State.
The community in which the research was carried
out has approximately 80 residences, and is located
near some low mountains with remnants of intact
native vegetation.
Procedures and data analysis
The first phase of the research involved
interviewing local inhabitants who hunted animals for
food or because they threatened humans or domestic
animals. After initial contacts, detailed information
about hunting practices were obtained through the
application of semi-structured questionaires19,20
complemented
with
unstructured
individual
interviews 20-22. The semi-structured questionnaires
contained questions concerning the nature of the
animals that were hunted, how these animals were
captured, and the principal motivations for hunting.
The common names of the species cited were noted
as mentioned by the interviewees, and the animal
were later identified by: 1) analyses of the specimens
donated by the interviewees; 2) analyses of
photographs of the animals made during the
interviews; 3) correlating their common names, with
the aid of taxonomists familiar with the fauna in the
study area 24.
For each species of animal cited we calculated their
respective use-values “UV” (adapted25), which
measure the relative importance (or danger) of the
locally known species (independent of the personal
opinion of the researcher). The use-values were
calculated using the following formula: (UV = ΣU/n),
where: UV = use-value of the species; U = number of
citations per species; n = number of informants.
Results and discussion
Forty-six people were interviewed (28 women
and 18 men) between the ages of 17 and 78. The
interviewees cited a total of 38 species of wild
animals that were hunted in the region for food or that
represented (in the opinion of the interviewees) some
risk to humans and/or domestic stocks. The species
cited could be grouped into six faunal groups
(mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and
arthropods) (Fig. 1).
According to the interviewees, birds were the
most intensively hunted animal group (for food)
487
(n=8 citations), and in the case of hunting for pest
control, reptiles (n=10) were more intensively
targeted; three species were hunted for both
reasons: honey bees - Apis mellifera; the “Teju”
lizard - Tupinambis merianae; and the “Timbu”
armadillo - Didelphis albiventris. Table 1 lists the
animal species and the number of citations for each
within the different hunting categories as well as
their local use-values (UV); Fig. 2 demonstrates the
different animal groups according to the motives cited
for hunting them.
The use-values (UV) of the species cited varied
from 0.043 to 0.630. Most of the species had low
use-values (less than 0.25), although 5 species
had UVs greater than 0.40, (the “Rolinha cambuta”
dove - Columbina minuta, UV = 0.630; the “Preá”
rodent - Cavia aperea, UV = 0.413; “Timbu”
armadillo - Didelphis albiventris, UV = 0.413;
cockroaches - Periplaneta americana, UV = 0.413;
and “Tanajura” ants - Atta cephalotes, UV = 0.413)
reflecting significant efforts directed towards killing
these animals in the research area.
According to interviewees, some of the animals
that are hunted for food can be kept in captivity
in order to fatten them for later consumption or sale.
The animals kept for these purposes are: the “Peba”
Fig. 1—Distribution of the faunal groups cited as being hunted
near the study locality
Fig. 2—Distribution of the animal groups according to the
motives cited for hunting them in the Gravatá community, Paraíba
State, Brazil
488
INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE VOL 10, No. 3, JULY 2011
Table 1—Animals hunted by the Sítio Gravatá community: Identification, motivation for hunting them, total numbers of citations, and
their use-values (UV)
Taxonomic group/Family/Vernacular name/Species
Subsistence
Control
Citations
VU
9
9
10
11
11
19
3
9
19
0.196
0.217
0.239
0.239
0.413
0.065
0.196
0.413
4
4
3
11
6
2
13
11
4
18
29
0.087
0.087
0.065
0.239
0.130
0.043
0.283
0.239
0.087
0.391
0.630
3
14
3
13
11
8
5
9
13
6
12
11
0.065
0.304
0.065
0.283
0.239
0.174
0.109
0.196
0.283
0.130
0.261
0.239
Mammals
Furão - Mustela putorius furo, Linnaeus, 1758
Mocó - Kerodon rupestris (Wied-Neuwied, 1820)
Morcego - Molossus molossus, (Pallas, 1766)
Peba - Euphractus sexcinctus, (Linnaeus, 1758)
Preá - Cavia aperea Erxleben, 1777
Tacaca - Conepatus semistriatus (Boddaert, 1785)
Tatu - Dasypus novemcinctus, (Linnaeus, 1758)
Timbu - Didelphis albiventris (Lund, 1840)
Birds
Burguesa Branca – Streptopelia sp.
Burguesa Marrom - Streptopelia decaocto, Frivaldszky, 1838 LC
Carcará - Caracara plancus, (Miller, 1777) LR
Galinha d’água - Gallinula chloropus, (Linnaeus, 1758)
Gavião - Rupornis magnirostris, (Gmelin, 1788)
Juruti - Leptotila rufaxilla, (Richard & Bernard, 1792)
Lambu- Crypturellus parvirostris, (Wagler, 1827)
Lambu do pé roxo - Crypturellus tataupa,(Temminck, 1815)
Peneira - Elanus leucurus, (Vieillot, 1818)
Ribaçã - Zenaida auriculata, (Des Murs, 1847)
Rolinha cambuta - Columbina minuta (Linnaeus, 1766)
Reptiles
Bico doce - Ameiva ameiva, (Linnaeus, 1758)
Cágado d’água – Mesoclemmys tuberculata (Luederwaldt, 1926)
Camaleão - Iguana iguana (Linnaeus, 1758)DD/II
Cascavel - Crotalus durissus (Linnaeus, 1758) DD/III
Cobra coral - Micrurus ibioboboca, (Merrem, 1820)
Cobra preta - Pseudoboa nigra, (Dumeril, 1854)
Cobra verde - Philodryas aestivus, (Dumeril, 1854)
Corre campo - Philodryas nattereri (Steindachner, 1870)
Jararaquinha - Liophis poecilogyrus xerophylos (Wied, 1835)
Jibóia - Boa constrictor (Linnaeus, 1758)
Malha de cascavel - Bothropoides erythromelas (Amaral, 1923)
Teju - Tupinambis merianae (Duméril & Bibron, 1839) DD/II
Amphibia
10
11
11
19
3
9
3
16
4
4
3
11
6
2
13
11
4
18
29
3
14
3
7
13
11
8
5
9
13
6
12
4
Jia - Leptodactylus vastus, Lutz, 1930
Pisces
18
18
0.391
Bacalhau - Gadus morhua, Linnaeus, 1758 VU
Curimatã - Prochilodus nigricans, Agassiz, 1929
Muçum - Synbranchus marmoratus, Bloch, 1795
Arthropoda
2
7
8
2
7
8
0.043
0.152
0.174
Abelha - Apis mellifera (Linnaeus, 1758)
Barata - Periplaneta Americana (Linnaeus, 1758)
Tanajura - Atta cephalotes, (Linnaeus, 1758)
3
4
19
19
0.087
0.413
0.413
(Euphractus sexcinctus) and “Tatu” (Dasypus
novemcinctus) armadillos; the “Burguesa Branca”
(Streptopelia sp.) and “Burguesa Marrom”
(Streptopelia decaocto) doves; and the chameleon
(Iguana iguana).
19
1
19
The hunting techniques employed by the
interviewees included: using a muzzle-loading
shotgun and hunting dogs; traps (“arapuca”, “quixó”
and “alçapões”); and torches (“facheado”) or
flashlights at night to light-blind the animals (usually
BARBOSA et al. : HUNTING PRACTICES IN THE SEMIARID REGION
small birds) so they can be easily collected where they
sleep. Other hunting techniques mentioned by the
interviewees included using sling-shots, ambushing
(“espera”, waiting for the animals to appear at feeding
spots or watering holes), and calling (“arremedo”,
using bird calls to attract them within killing range).
All of the hunting techniques cited in the present
work were observed during an earlier study of the
hunting strategies used in the semiarid region of
Paraiba State1, which suggests the wide dissemination
of these methods throughout the region. A similar
study of hunting practices in a rural colony in the
Amazonian region of Mato Grosso State 5 likewise
reported the use of some of these same techniques.
The capture of wild animals contributes both
directly and indirectly to the subsistence of human
communities throughout the world 26. Subsistence
hunting in the community studied here was directly
largely towards birds and mammals. According to the
interviewees, these two animal groups are highly
valued due to two main factors: the relative
abundance of these animals in comparison to other
groups of vertebrates; and their medium to large size
(which implies more protein content). A greater
synergetic potential of mammals and birds has been
reported by a number of authors 26-30. Trinca & Ferrari 5
undertook a study of hunting in Mato-Grosso State,
Brazil, and noted that the choice of the animals most
frequently taken was related to both their local
abundance and their sizes. Studies examining the use
of the wild fauna by a community established
adjacent to a biological reserve in Campeche
(southeastern Mexico 31) also noted that mammals and
birds were the principal focus of subsistence hunting.
The link between humans and animals is fraught
with contradictions and ambiguities, as the native
fauna can represent either a resource or a risk to the
local people32. This affirmation is corroborated by the
community studied here, where the possibility of
some elements of the local fauna attacking humans
(or their domestic animals) motivates the killing of a
number of different species. A similar situation was
observed in a hunting study undertaken in a rural
community in Japuranã, in the municipality of Nova
Bandeirantes, Mato Grosso State5, where it was
determined that 14.2% of the hunting episodes were
motivated by the fact that the animals were considered
predators of domestic stock or dangerous to both
domestic animals and people. It should be pointed out
that most carnivorous predators do not normally attack
domestic animals as their natural environment provides
489
them with sufficient game to survive, and they largely
tend to avoid any contact with humans or their stock.
However, due to the decreasing abundance of their
natural prey caused by predatory human hunting and/or
the fragmentation of the natural habitat, wild carnivores
can and will attack domestic species 33. This
observation is valid for the present study, as the
caatinga biome has suffered severe anthropogenic
impacts, and native carnivores have lost access to
considerable extensions of their former habitat, and
consequently, their hunting territories.
Conflicts between the human owners of domestic
animals and predators have almost certainly occurred
ever since animals were first domesticated 16 or
plantings could be damaged 15.
Hunting for animal control purposes in the region
studied here was largely directed towards reptiles,
principally serpents. Among all of the representatives
of the herpetofauna, serpents are historically the most
hated - although they can simultaneously inspire great
curiosity 34,35. Many of the serpent species hunted by
members of the study community were not poisonous,
but were killed because of human fears or simple
aversion.
Conclusion
Subsistence hunting in the study region is
principally directed towards birds and mammals,
which represent alternative sources of protein for
local human populations. Hunting for pest control is
principally directed towards reptiles (which are
considered dangerous or loathsome) and these
animals are indiscriminately killed whether they are
poisonous or not. The game animals are captured or
killed using wide spectrum of hunting strategies, but
fire arms are most commonly employed.
Hunting activities are very common throughout all
of Brazil (even though they are known to be illegal)
and are clearly associated with cultural factors - and
additional studies will be needed to evaluate the
degree of hunting pressure focused on the most
sought-after species.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Universidade
Estadual da Paraíba (UEPB)/ Programa Institucional
de Bolsas de Iniciação Científica - (PIBIC)/ Conselho
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(CNPq) for the graduate fellowship conceded to the
first author. The authors wish to acknowledge the
financial support of the CNPq/Edital Universal
program (472623/2009-5). Special thanks are due
INDIAN J TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE VOL 10, No. 3, JULY 2011
490
to all interviewees, who
knowledge with us.
kindly shared their
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Alves R R N, Rosa I L & Santana G G, The Role of Animalderived Remedies as Complementary Medicine in Brazil, Bio
Sci, 57 (2007) 949-955.
Alves R R N, Mendonça L E T, Confessor M V A, Vieira W
L S & Lopez L C S, Hunting strategies used in the semi-arid
region of northeastern Brazil, J Ethnobiol Ethnomed, 5 (12)
(2009) 1-16.
Hanazaki N, Alves R R N & Begossi A, Hunting and use of
terrestrial fauna used by Caiçaras from the Atlantic Forest
coast (Brazil), J Ethnobiol Ethnomed, 5 (36) (2009) 1-8.
Guadagnin D L, Perello L F C & Menegheti J O, A situação
atual da caça de lazer e manejo de áreas úmidas no Rio
Grande do Sul, Neotrop Biol Conserv, 2 (2) (2007) 63-70.
Trinca C T & Ferrari S F, Caça em assentamento rural na
amazônia matogrossense (2006); In: Diálogos em ambiente
e sociedade no Brasil, edited by Jacobi P & Ferreira L C
(ANPPAS, Annablume, Indaiatuba), 2006, 155-167.
IBAMA - Lista das Espécies da Fauna Brasileira
Ameaçadas de Extinção, (Anexo à Instrução Normativa
n° 3 - Ministério do Meio Ambiente), 2003.
MMA - Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Status of the National
Biodiversity Strategy Advances, Meeting for identification of
Issues on Biodiversity for cooperation and Interchanging
among South American countries, 2003.
Leal I R, Silva J M C da, Tabarelli M & Lacher Jr T,
Mudando o curso da conservação da biodiversidade na
Caatinga do Nordeste do Brasil, Megadiversidade, 1 (1)
(2005) 139-146.
Roubik D W, Pollination of cultivated plants in the tropics,
FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin, (Smithsonain Tropical
Research Institute), 1995, 118.
Smith N J H, Utilization of game along Brazil’s transamazon
highway, Acta Amazonica, 6 (4) (1976) 455-466.
Ayres J M & Ayres C, Aspectos da caça no alto Rio
Aripuanã, Acta Amazonica, 9 (2) (1979) 287-298.
Martins E S, A caça de subsistência de extrativistas na
Amazônia: sustentabilidade, biodiversidade e extinção de
espécies, (MSc Ecology Thesis, Universidade de Brasília,
Brasília), 1993.
Calouro A M, Caça de subsistência: sustentabilidade
e padrões de uso entre seringueiros ribeirinhos e não
ribeirinhos do Estado do Acre, (MSc Ecology Thesis,
Universidade de Brasília, Brasília), 1995.
Emídio-Silva C, A caça de subsistência praticada pelos
índios Parakanã (sudeste do Pará): características
e sustentabilidade, (MSc Ecology Thesis, Museu Paraense
Emílio Goeldi & Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária, Belém), 1998.
Palmeira F B & Barrella W, Conflitos causados pela
predação de rebanhos domésticos por felinos em
comunidades quilombolas na Mata Atlântica, Biota
Neotropica, 7 (1) (2007) 119-128.
Nowell K & Jackson P, Wild cats. Status Survey and
Conservation Action Plan, (1996) - IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist
Group, Gland, Switzerland; In: Conflitos causados pela
predação de rebanhos domésticos por felinos em
comunidades quilombolas na Mata Atlântica, edited by
Palmeira F B & Barrella W, (Biota Neotropica, 7 (1) (2007).
17 CPRM - Serviço Geológico do Brasil, Projeto cadastro de
fontes de abastecimento por água subterrânea - Diagnóstico
do município de Queimadas, estado da Paraíba,
(CPRM/PRODEEM, Recife), 2005.
18 IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. IBGE
Cidades - Censo 2007, (http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat),
2009.
19 Huntington H P, Using Traditional ecological knowledge in
science: Methods and applications, Ecological Applications,
10 (5) (2000) 1270-1274.
20 Albuquerque U P & Lucena R F, Métodos e técnicas para
coleta de dados; In: Métodos e técnicas na pesquisa
etnobotânica, edited by Albuquerque U P & Lucena R F,
(NUPEEA/ Livro Rápido, Recife), 2004, 37-62.
21 Mello L G, Antropologia cultural, (Editora Vozes, Rio de
Janeiro), 1995.
22 Chizotti A, Pesquisa em ciências humanas e sociais. (Cortez
Editora, São Paulo), 2000.
23 Marques J G W, Aspectos Ecológicos na Etnoictiologia dos
Pescadores do Complexo Estuarino-Lagunar MundaúManguaba, Alagoas, (Dr. Ecology Thesis, Universidade
Estadual de Campinas, Campinas), 1991.
24 Alves R R N & Rosa I L, From cnidarians to mammals: The
use of animals as remedies in fishing communities in NE
Brazil, J Ethnopharmacol, 107 (2006) 259-276.
25 Phillips O, Gentry A H, Reynel C, Wilki P & Gávez-Durand
C B, Quantitative ethnobotany and Amazonian conservation,
Conserv Biol, 8 (1994) 225-248.
26 Pattiselanno F, Wildlife Utilization and Food Security in
West Papua, Indonesia, (SEARCA, Agriculture and
Development Seminar Series), 2004.
27 Bodmer R & Pezo E, Rural development and sustainable
wildlife use in Perú, Conserv Biol, 15 (4) (2001) 1163-1170.
28 Milner-Gulland E, Bennett E, & Group S A M W M, Wild
meat: The bigger picture, Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
18 (7) (2003) 351-357.
29 Quijano-Hernández E & Calmé S, Patrones de cacería y
conservación de la fauna silvestre en una comunidad maya
de Quintana Roo, México, Etnobiología, 2 (2002) 1-18.
30 Barrera-Bassols N & Toledo V, Ethnoecology of the Yucatec
maya: Symbolism, knowledge and management of natural
resources, J Latin Am Geogry, 4 (1) (2005) 9-41.
31 Martínez P N L, Aprovechamiento de fauna silvestre en una
comunidad aledaña a la Reserva de la Biosfera Los Petenes,
Campeche, (MSc Ecology Thesis, Centro de Investigación y
de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
Mérida, Yucatán, México), 2006.
32 Marques J G W, Pescando Pescadores: Ciência e
Etnociência em uma Perspectiva Ecológica, 2nd edn,
(NUPAUB - USP, São Paulo), 2001, 108.
33 Azevedo F C C & Conforti V A, Fatores predisponentes à
predação, (2002), 27-28, In: Leite-Pitman M R P, Oliveita T
G, Paula R C & Indrusiak C, Manual de identificação,
prevenção e controle de predação por carnívoros, (Edições
IBAMA, Brasília), 2002, 83.
34 Vainer N, No Mundo das Serpentes, (Editora Anchieta, São
Paulo), 1945.
35 Silva Júnior M, O Ofidismo no Brasil,(Ministério da Saúde,
Rio de Janeiro), 1956.
36 Puorto G, Serpentes peçonhentas, classificação e
identificação. (Instituto Butantan, São Paulo), 2