2.2.1 Types of game animals
2.2.2 Order of importance
2.2.3 Nutritional intake from game
2.2.4 Hunting and wildlife abundance
Wildlife is a fundamental subsistence resource for indigenous communities in Latin America. Together with fish it supplies the main or sole source of protein in the diet.
Game is postulated as a limiting factor for population size and density and the dispersion of human settlements, particularly in Amazonia, and this has profound social and cultural repercussions (247, 261). Indigenous hunting practices, which are fairly well documented in the anthropological literature, very widely by region and ecosystem, degree of schooling, cross-cultural influence (or degree of acculturation), magical and religious beliefs, etc. (98, 509, 561, 570). How important hunting is to indigenous peoples depends on how they get their food. Groups of hunter-gatherers rely on wildlife as their primary source of food energy, whereas farmers get their staple food from their crops but continue to rely on wildlife for protein, particularly people living far from rivers or in places where fish are not available.
Indigenous people basically hunt during the daytime (32) along trails in the jungle or from canoes. Hunting methods include tracking (98, 268), whistles or calls to attract animals (441, 539), hunting with dogs (98, 284, 460), and burning. The traditional hunting tools are the bow and arrow and blowpipe (with or without poison), and many indigenous people have now taken to using the more efficient firearms (254, 460), and are thus dependent on the outside for ammunition.
Indigenous peoples hunt a great variety of vertebrates (Table 4). Prominant game mammals in terms of frequency of kills are the anteater (Tamandua), the armadillo (Dasypus), the big primates, the coati (Nasua), and, particularly, the tapir (Tapirus terrestris), peccaries (Tayassu pecari and T. tajacu), deer (Mazama) spp, paca (Agouti paca) and agouti (Dasyprocta). Though the available information on birds is less detailed, cracids (Crax, Penelope), parrots, macaws and toucans, all wild species, are clearly important. There is a notable lack of data on ducks and other waterfowl. The reptiles in widest use are Caiman and Geochelone, but river turtles, particularly Podocnemis (307, 472, 542) and marine turtles (337, 431) are very important in some areas. Turtles in general offer the advantage that they can be caught and kept alive until eaten. This list is no doubt incomplete, particularly for the smaller prey: some studies summarized in Table 4 are short and/or fairly unspecific as to species identification. Despite this, the lack of some genera in the lists may also be due to specific taboos or traditions in each community, as expressly cited by some authors.
The best indicator of the order of importance of the various game animals is probably the number of specimens and biomass of each species killed or captured per unit of effort or per hunter over a given period. The available data are extremely heterogeneous, however, and hard to interpret in terms of the units themselves. The relative importance of the various species or groups are therefore evaluated in terms of their potential contribution to the entire catch or kill, expressed in number of specimens (Table 5) or their weight (Table 6).
Based on Table 5, which summarizes the data from seven separate surveys, birds are the biggest prey in numerical terms with 31.1 percent of the total number, followed by primates with 14.9 percent. Rodents (Dasyprocta, Agouti and Hydrochaeris) as a group, do constitute a larger proportion at 16.5 percent, however, in numerical terms, the fourth group is made up of the peccaries (13.1 percent), followed by edentates (armadillos and anteaters) at 8.8 percent. There is a high and statistically significant Kendall correlation coefficient between the samples X2 = 51.02*** (W = 0.521). Variations in patterns of use from one country to the next should be noted, particularly Gaviria (230) and Milton (390), whose data differ greatly from the rest. Excluding these two series, most agree that birds, primates and peccaries are the most widely utilized species.
Table 4. Terrestrial vertebrates hunted or captured for food by indigenous communities. Meaning of symbols: + = used, ++ = much used, (+) = used but considered a secondary food, NO = explicitly not used. The frequencies have been calculated in accordance with the number of authors citing the genera (mammals 14, birds 9, reptiles 13). Source of information: 1) Sirinó Indians, Bolivia (284); 2) Miskito Indians, Nicaragua (431); 3) Trio Indians, Suriname (335); 4) Sharanahua in Peru (539); 5) Yékwana in Venezuela (254); 6) Yanomamo, Venezuela (254); 7) Yanomamo in Venezuela (340); 8) Bari in Colombia (43); 9) Siona-Secoya in Ecuador (608); 10) Campa in Peru (230); 11) Jívaro Indians in Peru (494); 12) Cabecares in Costa Rica (65); 13) Ache in Paraguay (278); 14) Maku, Brazil (390)
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
Frequency (%) |
|
Didelphis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO |
+ |
+ |
|
14 |
|
Myrmecophaga |
|
|
|
|
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
29 |
|
Tamandua |
+ |
|
+ |
NO |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
NO |
|
|
+ |
50 |
|
Bradypus |
|
|
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
Choelepus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
7 |
|
Cabassous |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO |
NO |
+ |
|
|
7 |
|
Dasypus |
+ |
(+) |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
92 |
|
Priodontes |
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
Alouatta |
+ |
NO |
++ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
|
83 |
|
Aotus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Ateles |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
Callicebus |
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
+ |
25 |
|
Cebus |
+ |
(+) |
++ |
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
71 |
|
Chiropotes |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Lagothrix |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
++ |
+ |
|
|
|
++ |
25 |
|
Pithecia |
|
|
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
Saimiri |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Bassaricyion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Potos |
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Nasua |
+ |
(+) |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
+ |
++ |
|
+ |
++ |
71 |
|
Felis |
+ |
|
|
NO |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
21 |
|
Trichechus |
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Tapirus |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
|
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
79 |
|
Tayassu pecari |
+ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
|
93 |
|
Tayassu tajacu |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
100 |
|
Blastocerus |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Mazama |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
86 |
|
Odocoileus |
|
++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Tayassu tajacu |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
100 |
|
Blastocerus |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Mazama |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
++ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
86 |
|
Odocoileus |
|
++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Sciurus |
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
29 |
|
Hydrochaeris |
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
NO |
+ |
|
|
|
36 |
|
Agouti |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
93 |
|
Dasyprocta |
+ |
(+) |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
+ |
++ |
++ |
+ |
+ |
++ |
100 |
|
Myoprocta |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
14 |
|
"Rats" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO |
|
|
+ |
7 |
|
Sylvilagus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
+ |
|
14 |
|
Tinamus |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
33 |
|
Crypturellus |
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
Anatidae |
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Penelope |
|
|
++ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
++ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
78 |
|
Pipile |
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
Mitu |
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
++ |
++ |
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
Crax |
|
|
+ |
|
++ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
+ |
56 |
|
Chamaepetes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
11 |
|
Dendrortix |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
11 |
|
Odontophorus |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
11 |
|
Psophia |
|
|
++ |
|
++ |
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
Columba |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
Ara |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
56 |
|
Amazona |
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
44 |
|
astidae |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
+ |
89 |
|
Birds in general |
|
+ |
|
+ |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
Phrynops |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Podocnemis |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
Chelonia |
|
++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Erethmochelys |
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Pseudemys |
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Geochelone |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
+ |
46 |
|
Caiman |
|
|
|
+ |
++ |
+ |
++ |
|
+ |
NO |
|
|
+ |
|
46 |
|
Iguana |
|
(+) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
15 |
|
Ctenoasura |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
8 |
|
Tupinambis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
8 |
|
"Snakes" |
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ |
+ |
23 |
Table 5. Relative importance of game animals in the indigenous diet, specimens for each heading as percentage of the total kill. Communities: 1) Trio, Suriname (335); 2) Yékwana, Venezuela (254); 3) Yanomamo, Venezuela, (254); 4) Yanomamo, Venezuela, (340); 5) Campa, Peru (230); 6) Siona-Secoya, Ecuador (608); 7) Maku, Brazil (390)
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
Average |
|
Birds |
35.7 |
56.5 |
24.8 |
36.5 |
9.7 |
26.3 |
28.5 |
31.1 |
|
Primates |
33.6 |
11.0 |
10.7 |
12.0 |
3.9 |
27.1 |
5.7 |
14.8 |
|
Dasyprocta |
6.6 |
2.2 |
14.8 |
1.8 |
20.8 |
1.9 |
25.7 |
10.5 |
|
Tayassu pecari |
3.1 |
2.8 |
13.0 |
10.6 |
0.7 |
17.7 |
0.0 |
6.8 |
|
Tayassu tajacu |
1.4 |
1.0 |
5.9 |
5.8 |
7.8 |
16.3 |
5.7 |
6.3 |
|
Dasypus |
2.4 |
2.4 |
7.1 |
7.9 |
19.5 |
0.9 |
2.9 |
6.1 |
|
Agouti paca |
3.5 |
6.3 |
1.8 |
3.0 |
22.7 |
2.1 |
2.9 |
6.0 |
|
Caiman |
0.0 |
13.7 |
0.6 |
7.6 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
3.2 |
|
Myrmecophagidae |
0.2 |
0.8 |
8.9 |
5.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.9 |
2.6 |
|
Nasua |
0.7 |
00.4 |
1.8 |
4.8 |
3.2 |
0.0 |
5.7 |
2.4 |
|
Geochelone |
7.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
5.8 |
0.6 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
|
Mazama |
1.6 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
1.0 |
4.5 |
0.4 |
2.9 |
1.7 |
|
Tapirus |
0.9 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
3.4 |
0.7 |
2.3 |
0.0 |
1.3 |
|
Hydrochaeris |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
|
Others |
2.6 |
1.7 |
8.8 |
0.0 |
0.7 |
3.5 |
17.1 |
5.1 |
Table 6. Relative importance of game animals in the indigenous diet: in terms of the weight of each heading compared to the total weight of the animals hunted. Communities: 1) Trio, Suriname (335); 2) Bari, Colombia (43); 3) Yékwana, Venezuela (254); 4) Yanomamo, Venezuela, (254); 5) Yanomamo, Venezuela, (340); 6) Campa, Peru (230); 7) Siona-Secoya, Ecuador (608); 8) Maku, Brazil (390)
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Average |
|
Tayassu pecari |
16.2 |
16.8 |
13.0 |
37.0 |
34.5 |
2.4 |
37.2 |
- |
19.7 |
|
Tapirus terrestris |
18.5 |
- |
12.8 |
18.9 |
27.5 |
13.3 |
20.2 |
- |
13.9 |
|
Tayassu tajacu |
3.9 |
10.3 |
2.3 |
8.1 |
5.2 |
14.9 |
20.1 |
25.5 |
11.3 |
|
Primates |
29.9 |
24.7 |
6.7 |
3.7 |
5.4 |
2.1 |
11.6 |
6.2 |
11.2 |
|
Birds |
8.8 |
22.0 |
14.6 |
4.2 |
6.2 |
4.0 |
5.1 |
7.3 |
9.0 |
|
Dasyprocta |
3.2 |
16.5 |
0.8 |
3.4 |
0.5 |
7.1 |
0.4 |
25.6 |
7.2 |
|
Agouti paca |
4.8 |
- |
7.1 |
1.2 |
4.1 |
21.8 |
1.1 |
7.2 |
5.9 |
|
Mazama |
6.5 |
- |
3.7 |
0.2 |
0.9 |
18.7 |
1.0 |
12.7 |
5.5 |
|
Caiman |
- |
- |
30.2 |
- |
5.0 |
- |
0.3 |
- |
4.5 |
|
Dasypus |
1.4 |
- |
1.9 |
2.6 |
4.9 |
8.0 |
0.3 |
3.6 |
2.8 |
|
Myrmecophagidae |
0.2 |
4.3 |
1.5 |
10.3 |
3.1 |
- |
- |
1.5 |
2.6. |
|
Nasua |
0.3 |
- |
0.1 |
0.3 |
1.5 |
0.9 |
- |
7.2 |
1.3 |
|
Geochelone |
4.6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2.4 |
0.2 |
- |
0.9 |
|
Hydrochaeris |
- |
- |
0.9 |
- |
1.2 |
- |
- |
1.0 |
0.4 |
|
Others |
1.7 |
5.4 |
4.4 |
10, 1 |
0.0 |
3.5 |
1.5 |
3.2 |
4.0 |
The tabulation of weight data for each species hunted produces another order of importance (Table 6). Three big game species, Tayassu pecari, Tapirus terrestris and Tayassu tajacu head the list at almost half of all animals killed, as the mean and in most individual cases. The statistics from Table 6 and many others (99, 161, 316, 431, 609) show Tayassu pecari as the major species in quantative terms hunted by neotropical indigenous forest peoples. Its failure to figure significantly on other lists is caused by problems with the random factor in small samples and local extinctions (390, 460). The tapir, with a low numerical incidence of capture (Table 5) ranks second in terms of weight due to its size. Primates (Alouatta, Lagothrix, Ateles and Cebus) in fourth place, make up 11 percent of kill in terms of weight with utilization ranging widely from 2 to 40 percent in different communities. Birds (mainly Crax, Mitu, Penelope, Pipile and Psophia), which rank first in numbers, weigh in at barely 9 percent. The major rodents are the agoutis at 7.2 percent and the pacas at 5.9 percent with great variation from one community to the next. The spectacled caiman (Caiman crocodilus) is much used by certain communities (254, 472) but rejected by most. Armadillos (mainly Dasypus novemcinctus) provide moderate amounts, followed by anteaters (Tamandua, Myrmecophaga) at 2.6 percent. The most utilized carnivore is the coati (Nasua nasua) at 1.3 percent. The tortoise Geochelone is important in some communities, but on the average supplies only 0.9 percent. The capybara is not in wide acceptance at 0.4 percent, but continues to be quite important in specific cases (23, 192, 291, 447, 478). Despite the differences cited, the order of importance for each heading is similar for the communities studied, as indicated by the high correlation coefficient (W = 0.437; X2 = 48.91***).
Some aquatic species not listed in the preceding tables may be of great local importance, e.g. the marine turtle Chelonia mydas (70 percent of the edible weight of all animals captured) and the manatee (Trichechus inunguis) for the Miskito Indians of Nicaragua, the turtle Podnocnemis expansa and its eggs in Amazonia (250, 431, 542, 545).
The contribution of the various animals to the indigenous diet is proportionate to the biomass of the kill for each heading, mostly reported in terms of total weight. However, the number of specimens per species does deserve attention as well, as this is proportionate to the frequency of capture. The tapir, for example, provides much more meat but is captured only sporadically, whereas cracids, primates and agoutis provide barely 1-4 kg per unit but are a more constant item in the daily diet.
Indigenous people hunt to feed themselves and they generally share and eat the product of the hunt within the community. Some also capture fur-bearing animals and turtles and live birds for sale outside the community. Hunting is the main means of support for some primitive groups (23, 268, 278, 284, 314, 472), and for most indigenous peoples it is a major and often essential source of protein in the diet.
Table 7 lists the protein intake from game as recompiled, estimated or re-estimated from the sources cited, using 0.5 as the conversion factor of total weight to fresh edible meat and 0.2 as the conversion factor for edible protein. The factor 0.5 underestimates the edible proportion because various indigenous groups make very efficient use of their kill, cooking animals with the skin on and using some of the viscera.
The reported values of edible meat from game (Table 7) vary from 28 to 525 grams per day-1 per person-1 with a mean of 186.6 and a median of 151; the protein levels range from 6.5 grams to 105 grams, with a mean of 37.3 and a median of 30, respectively. According to FAO (190), the minimum protein requirement is 0.30-0.35 g of protein/day-1/kg-1, and the recommended daily allowance is 0.65-0.35 g. Calculating the figure for areference Yanomamo Indian (48 kg), the minimum requirement is 16.8 g/day and the recommended daily allowance 38.4 (339). Comparing these figures with the estimates of Table 7, we note that the minimum requirement is unmet in only two instances, and that for half, game provides the recommended daily allowance. How exact the protein requirement and availability estimates are depends on the accuracy of the original data. The importance of game as the principal and usually sufficient source of protein for indigenous tropical forest peoples, who neither raise domestic animals nor consume protein-rich plants, is clearly evident (98, 247, 255).
Table 7. Protein intake from game in selected indigenous groups in Latin America: edible fresh meat (total weight 0.2) and protein (fresh weight 0.5)* in g/day-1
|
Group, country, author and reference |
Fresh meat |
Protein |
|
Bari, Colobia (Becker, 43) |
98 |
19 |
|
Cuiba, Colombia (Arcand, 23) |
525 |
105 |
|
Jívaro, Peru and Ecuador (Ross, 509) |
278 |
56 |
|
Kaingang, Brazil (Henry, 269) |
95 |
19 |
|
Miskito, Nicaragua (Nietschmann, 431) |
86 |
17 |
|
Sharanahua, Peru (Siskind, 539) |
273 |
54 |
|
Shipibo, Peru (Bergman, 521) |
47 |
9 |
|
Siona, Secoya, Ecuador, 1973 (Vickers, 608) |
326 |
65 |
|
Siona, Secoya, Ecuador, 1979 (Vickers, 608) |
205 |
41 |
|
Sirinó, Bolivia (Holmberg, 284) |
219 |
44 |
|
Trio, Suriname (Lenselink, 335) |
130 |
26 |
|
Yanomano, Venezuela (Hames, 254) |
143 |
29 |
|
Yékwana, Venezuela (Hames, 254) |
159 |
32 |
|
Yukpa, Venezuela (Paolizzo and Sackett, 460) |
28 |
6.5 |
|
Mean and median |
186.6/15 |
37.3/30 |
Indigenous tropical forest peoples generally live in small communities scattered over vast areas. Despite low regional population density, localized daily hunting does seem to impoverish wildlife around inhabited areas, with an even greater impact on the most desirable species (Tayassu pecari and Tapirus) (65, 255, 268, 307, 509, 530, 608, 619) although few studies have been done). Vickers (608) proved that within six years of the establishment of a Siona-Secoya village, hunting efficiency (Kcal capture/Kcal effort) dropped from 9.33 to 4.65, and the protein ration from 65.3 to 41.0 g/day-1/person-1, whereas the capture frequency of the preferred species, e.g. Tapirus, Tayassu pecari, Lagothrix, Penelope, Psophia, Agouti dropped by half or more, with increasing recourse to the less popular species such as Dasyprocta, Sciurus, Dasypus, Caiman and toucans. Hames (255), on the other hand, postulates a linear relationship between the distance from the hunters' village and hunting efficiency (kg of capture/hours of effort). In other words, game is scarce in the vicinity of villages. The most heavily frequented hunting grounds lie between two and six kilometres from the village, with the most productive areas much further away (up to 33 km), implying hunting expeditions of more than one day's length. In addition to these ecological factors, which can attenuate the impact of hunting, many indigenous groups consider it inadmissible to hunt beyond one's needs and believe in mythological beings that will punish excess (98, 106, 161, 307).
When hunting efficiency drops to unacceptable levels, there are three main options: 1) to move the settlement to a new location where wildlife is abundant (Hames' pioneer hunting - 225) and continue the nomadic hunting pattern, 2) to go on hunting expeditions to more distant areas, perhaps rotating hunting grounds and gearing expeditions to abundance (or to hunting efficiency) so that areas where wildlife is scarce are visited less often, allowing the stock to recover. Both systems generate temporary resource recovery areas. The third alternative is to abandon the traditional pattern, substituting meat from domestic animals and pulse crops for bushmeat, and to fish more. This is probably what will happen in the medium term in many cases. In terms of the larger picture, the impact of non-acculturated indigenous people on wildlife must be seen in proportion to their low numbers, for these people make up about 1 percent of the total population in Brazilian Amazonia (106) and Venezuela (412).
From the wildlife standpoint, acculturation takes the form of widespread use of firearms, electric lanterns and outboard motors, the high purchase and maintenance costs of which can only come from the sale of the products of the hunt, an incentive to hunt for trade reasons. Thus the need to manage and regulate hunting by indigenous people.
