HUNTING EFFORT ANALYSIS IN NORTHEASTERN PERU: THE CASE OF
THE RESERVE COMUNAL TAMSHIYACU-TAHUAYO
PABLO ELOY PUERTAS
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Pablo Eloy Puertas
In eternal gratitude to my father Pablo for providing me empirical lessons on
Amazonian wildlife during the first sixteen years of my life living as a riberefio.
To the memory of Dr. Jaime Moro Sommo who gave me the first opportunity to
conduct research on Amazonian wildlife
I especially acknowledge Dr. Richard E. Bodmer, who helped me do work on
community-based conservation in the Peruvian Amazonia, for his valuable support
during this study. I am grateful to Dr. Joe Fragoso and Dr. F. Wayne King, members
of my committee, for their critical comments and suggestions to this study.
I also acknowledge my colleagues and friends who provided me their valuable
input in the collections and interpretation of my field data including Cesar Reyes,
Etercit Pezo, Victor Cabrera, Rolando Aquino, Filomeno Encarnaci6n, James Penn,
Eduardo Naranjo, Olga Montenegro, Alfredo Begazo, Javier Barrio, and Jorge
Hurtado. Dr. Robin Mukerherjee provided statistical analysis of the field data. I want
also to express my gratitude to Hanna Covert, who patiently reviewed my writing.
I am grateful to the Centro de Investigaciones Veterinarias y de Altura (IVITA)
de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (UNMSM), the Instituto Nacional
de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Peru, who
authorized the fieldwork.
I am also grateful for the institutional support of the University of Florida's
Program for Studies in Tropical Conservation in the Department of Wildlife Ecology
and Conservation and the Tropical Conservation and Development Program in the
Center for Latin American Studies.
Funding for my graduate studies at the University of Florida was provided by
The Amazon Basin Environmental Program sponsored by LASPAU (Academic and
Professional Programs for the Americas) and supported by the Fulbright Commission.
Field work was partially supported by the Biodiversity Support Program (BSP),
Rainforest Conservation Fund (RCF), Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia
(CONCYTEC), and the Fondo de Desarrollo Universitario of the UNMSM as a
I am in indebted to the invaluable support provided by the local communities of
the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo, and also to the Asociacion para la
Conservaci6n de la Amazonia (ACA), which gave me the facilities required to work
with local communities.
Finally, my gratitude goes to my wife Daisy who helped me check and input
the field data in the spread sheet and to my son Ricardo for his kind companionship.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A CK N O W LED GEM EN TS ................................................................ ........... iii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................... vii
1 IN T R O D U C T IO N .................................................................................................1
Hunting Systems and Sustainability through Community-based Conservation................................ 3
Long-term Studies of Wildlife Populations: Is Community-based Co-management Conserving
A nim al P populations? .......................................................................... .................................... 7
Conservation of W wildlife habitats................................................... ... ......... ......... ... 8
2 STUDY AREA ........................................................ 10
Study Area in the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo ........................................................ 10
D description of the H hunting A reas ........................................................................... ................. 15
3 CA TCH PER U N IT EFFO R T ..................................................... ............................................... 19
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 19
M ethods ............................................................................................... .............20
Data Collection, Sampling and Hunting................................................. ............... 20
Species Preference .......................................................................................... .. 22
R results ................................................................................................ .............. 23
Hunting Area Outside the Reserve....................................................................23
Hunted species ......................................................................................... .. 23
Seasonal variation ............................................................................... .. 24
T total harvest com parison.................................................... ............................................... 27
Hunting Area Inside the Reserve............ ...................... ............ ......... ... ......... 27
Seasonal variation.......... ....................................................... ...... ................ 28
Total harvest ............................................................................ .............. 28
Comparison Between Hunting Areas ....... ................................................. .. 28
Hunting species .................................................................................... .. 28
C atch per unit effort per species............................................ .......................... ................ 29
Catch per unit effort in relation to biomass...... ....... .... .......................... 30
D iscu ssio n ............................................................................................................ 3 6
4 H U N T IN G STR A TE G Y ................................................................................................. 42
Introduction ............................................. ............................................ ....................... 42
D description of H hunting Strategies ............................................................................. ................. 43
Case Studies ............... ...................................................................... ................. 47
A access to a C closed System .......................................................... .................................................. 48
5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CO-MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE WITH
COM M UN ITY PARTICIPATION .............................................. ........................... ................. 50
In tro d u ctio n ........... .. .................. ................ ................. ................................ ................................. 5 0
Strengthening of a Community Co-management System............................................................ 52
Closed Hunting Areas .......... ............................................................................. 56
H ab itat Im prove ent .............................................................................. ..................................... 56
LIST OF REFERENCES........... ............................................................................... 58
B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ET CH ........................................................................... .................................. 65
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
HUNTING EFFORT ANALYSIS IN NORTHEASTERN PERU: THE CASE OF
THE RESERVE COMUNAL TAMSHIYACU-TAHUAYO
Pablo Eloy Puertas
Chairperson: Richard E. Bodmer
Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
This study investigated the impact of hunting by using catch per unit effort
(CPU) analysis in the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo (RCTT), northeastern
Peru. The objectives of the research were to determine the relationship between CPU
per hunter over time inside and outside a community reserve and to determine the
hunting strategy used by local hunters. These objectives compared hunting activity
inside and outside the community reserve to evaluate if the reserve is working as a
subsistence zone and if the local people are overharvesting the game mammals.
Likewise, this study examined if CPU can be used to evaluate overharvesting. The
study was conducted in the Tahuayo-Blanco area of the RCTT. Hunting registers were
collected with the help of local hunters called hunting inspectors. The information
registered included the number of hunters, time out hunting, catch of hunt, and species
hunted, in order to estimate the number of kills per man-days of hunting/year.
Mapping of hunting zones was done with the help of local hunters to determine the
hunting system and its functionality. Information collected on the trails, camps, time
of residence, distance by using Global Positioning System (GPS), and accessibility to
the hunting sites. The total CPU of individual animals hunted is larger inside than
outside the reserve. Among species, the two peccaries (Tayassupecari and T. tajacu)
and titi monkey (Callicebus cupreus) were statistically significant. This indicates that
animals are easier to hunt inside the reserve and the effort/animal harvested is less
inside the reserve than outside. This should also indicate that the abundance of
animals is greater inside the reserve than outside. Likewise, the total CPU of Biomass
of animals hunted is larger inside than outside the reserve. The total harvest inside the
reserve was larger in the wet season than in the dry season and this reflects differences
in the access to hunting sites. From the 33 game mammals hunted ungulates and
rodents were the most preferred species. Therefore, the subsistence use zone of the
reserve is a very important protein source for local people. The hunting strategies of
local people included two common strategies, 1) hunting from the house outside the
reserve and 2) hunting from canoes when inside the reserve. Analysis of these two
methods suggests that immigration of animals from unhunted to hunting sites (source-
sink) should be considered in the harvest models. It also suggests that periodic
monitoring must be done and that a controlled access of local hunters is needed.
Finally, further research needs to focus on the improvement of the co-management
system. One suggestion would be to incorporate CPU analysis by the local
communities. Secondly, the current management needs to take into account the
zonification of hunting areas, rotation of hunting, and reduction of unsustainable
Wildlife plays an important role in the lives of Amazonian people as a source
of protein, ornaments, raw materials, and in their world view (Aspelin 1975, Flowers
1983, 1994, Yost and Kelley 1983, Vickers 1991, Dufour 1994). People also harvest
wildlife for skins, leather, pets, zoos, biomedical use, sport hunting and tourism, and
use wildlife as a source of domesticated animals (Redford and Robinson 1991).
However, wildlife resources in tropical forests can be easily overexploited and species
can become depleted or extinct (Robinson and Redford 1994, Robinson and Bodmer
1999). Subsequently, hunting produces changes in game populations and in turn, the
Hunting yields can be evaluated using catch per unit of effort analysis or catch
per licensed hunter, which is often used in temperate areas (McCullough 1987,
Schlueter et al. 1997). The most extensive data on hunting yields (measured as kg
meat per man-hour of hunting) in the Neotropics is from a native Siona-Secoya
community in northeastern Ecuador (Vickers 1980, 1991). Most studies have
attempted to estimate the impact of hunting to sustain current levels of game harvest
and combining hunting success with distance from the focal hunting community
(Hames 1980, Robinson and Redford 1991, Alvard 1994, Towsend 1996, Hill et al.
1997, Bodmer et al. 1997, Leeuwenberg 1997, Mazurek 1997, Fragoso et al. 1998).
There is an scarcity of information available in the literature about hunting effort
analysis from nontribal people known as "riberefos" (Beckerman 1994).
Rural inhabitants in Amazonia exploit many mammalian species by
unmanaged game hunting (Bodmer 1994). Although, some communities have started
to take on responsibilities to conserve wildlife through community-based co-
management of hunting. One such case occurs in the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-
Tahuayo (RCTT) where local people have begun to manage wildlife as an alternative
for conservation (Bodmer and Puertas, in press). However, implementation of
community-based wildlife management requires field data that matches with the
concerns of local people. Hunting is one of the main activities of local people living in
uplands or "terra firma" forests in both the reserve and surrounding areas. Therefore,
they spend days looking for game mammals for subsistence use and obtain cash money
by selling meat in the local markets.
This study provides information on the impact of hunting by local communities
living in and around the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo by using hunting
yield per unit effort (catch per unit of effort). The specific objectives of this study are:
1) to determine the relationship of catch per unit effort per hunter over time, and 2) to
determine the hunting strategy used by local hunters inside and outside the reserve. In
addition, this study examines whether species used as a game meat are being
overhunted between wet and dry seasons during 1994, 1995 and 1996.
Results from this study will help local communities set up more sustainable
hunting through wildlife and policy management programs by supplying them with
relevant biological information .
This first chapter presents an overview on the hunting system and sustainability
of hunting from previous studies. The second chapter provides a description of the
study site and describes the two catchment areas used by hunters, both inside and
outside the reserve. The third chapter presents analyses on catch per unit effort in
relation to seasonality, total harvest, and biomass, and compares the results between
the two catchment areas. The fourth chapter looks at the hunting strategies used by
hunters in the catchment areas. Finally, chapter five gives recommendations for
wildlife and policy management in relation to the use of the catchment areas, habitat
improvement, and empowerment of the community-based co-management.
Hunting Systems and Sustainability through Community-based Conservation
Community-based conservation approaches the conservation of species and
ecosystems by appreciating the fundamental role that rural communities play in
managing and using wildlands (Little 1994). Local communities living around coastal
estuaries, and in tropical forest, savannah, and mountain ranges have begun to take on
responsibilities for conserving and managing natural resources (Maltby et al. 1992,
Bodmer 1994, Poffenberg 1994). Community-based conservation has arisen from the
realization that rural people not only dwell in wildlands, but have a meaningful long-
term stake in their surroundings and an interest in the continued well-being and
production of these environments (Western and Wright 1994).
Wildlife is an important resource for local people living in wildlands,
especially in the tropics. However, conserving wildlife usually requires management
that regulates its use and usually takes more than grass roots community-based
initiative to attain wildlife management that concurs with conservation (Rettig et al.
1989). Thus, community-based wildlife management is likely to function best if it is
co-managed with researchers, NGO's and government authorities (Pinkerton 1989).
The real impact of community-based co-management can only be accurately analyzed
through long-term studies. Long-term studies allow for a better understanding of 1)
the actions and events that initiate and maintain community-based co-management and
2) the biological limitations of resource populations and their response to management.
Community based management of the RCTT began long before the legal establishment
of the reserve. Environmental actions taken by communities of the upper Tahuayo
were a major influence to create the reserve. Communities realized the extent of
natural resource degradation occurring in the forest and undertook local community
initiatives to protect natural resources (Bodmer 1994).
Communities of the upper Tahuayo have implemented a series of community
management rules for the extraction of natural resources. Rules for land use and
extraction of resources are determined by consensus in each community.
Communities also have signed formal agreements between themselves regarding
access rules and vigilance posts. Yet, communities and extension workers often are
unclear on the best management techniques and this is where a strong link is necessary
between extension and biological research (Bodmer and Puertas, in press).
Game hunting is one of the main extractive activities occurring in the
subsistence zone of the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo. The first wildlife
management employed by communities was with government officials and focused on
one type of hunter. In Tahuayo, lumbermen were contributing over 50% of the
hunting pressure on mammals during the 1980's (Bodmer et al. 1988). These small
scale lumber operations supplied their workers with shotguns and cartridges instead of
basic foods, thus decreasing their operational costs by using game meat. As a result,
lumbermen were overhunting many wildlife species. Communities expressed their
concern to government officials who promoted the area as a "reserve in study". This
legal classification made it possible to end timber concessions in 1988, and decrease
overexploitation of wildlife by lumbermen. Subsequently, in 1991 communities
observed that many commercial meat hunters were beginning to enter the area. With
the help of extension workers, communities of the upper Tahuayo began to implement
a vigilance system that prohibited city-based hunters from entering the area. This
system of community-based co-management has resulted in the development and
setting up of management practices in the RCTT. For example, communities restrict
access to the subsistence zone, with access permitted only to people who live in nearby
villages. Professional hunters from urban centers, such as Iquitos, are not permitted to
enter the subsistence area. The communities have also set up game registers and
appointed game inspectors who are responsible for noting the number of animals
harvested by each family (Bodmer and Puertas, in press). In addition, the communities
have experimented with a game tax system, a quota system, and a male-directed
harvesting program (Bodmer 1994).
Setting up wildlife management with communities requires integrating
information on the biology of game species and economics of sustainable use with the
desires of local communities. Therefore, strong links must be developed between
scientists, extension workers and community representatives (Pinkerton 1989). The
co-management side of this management system involves all of the stakeholders,
which include 1) local communities, 2) researchers, 3) NGO extension activities, and
4) government agencies. The latter three stakeholders are not usually present during
community voting on management and resource use issues, however, decisions are
influenced by extension activities, researchers, and government programs. The
stakeholders influence management because wildlife extension workers and
researchers link results from wildlife research back to the community. Indeed, wildlife
extension workers are responsible for communicating technical findings of research to
the communities with researchers themselves often getting involved with extension
activities (Bodmer and Puertas, in press).
Biomass comparisons and reproductive data of game species in the RCTT
suggest that deer, peccaries and large rodents are sustainably hunted (Bodmer et al.
1994). In contrast, large-bodied primates and lowland tapir are not sustainably hunted
in the RCTT, and their populations appear to be declining. According to Coomes
(1992a) the economic value of game mammals is probably the major factor for
overhunting; suggesting that game meat is the most valuable product extracted from
the subsistence zone of the RCTT.
Bodmer et al. (1994) suggest that a more sustainable hunt would require
cessation of hunting on primates, lowland tapir, edentates, marsupials, and carnivores.
Hunters would incur a 26% reduction of economic benefits if they ceased to harvest
the overhunted wildlife species. However, this restricted hunt would reduce the
extraction of mammalian biomass by 35%.
Long-term Studies of Wildlife Populations: Is Community-based Co-management
Conserving Animal Populations?
Long-term studies conducted on the harvests and populations of game
mammals in the RCTT examined the impact of community-based co-management.
Programs in the RCTT established community participation in wildlife management
through wildlife research and extension. As mentioned previously, these programs
developed management practices that restrict access to hunting grounds, set up game
registers, appointed game inspectors and experimented with a game tax system, a
quota system, and a male-directed harvesting program (ACA annual report 1998).
Research played an important role in determining the thrust of extension.
Through numerous studies on animal populations that included comparative density
analysis, age structure analysis, harvest models and sustainability models it became
clear that primates and tapir were overhunted and artiodactyls and large rodents were
apparently not overhunted (Bodmer 1994, 1995; Bodmer et al. 1994, 1999). The
information conveyed to communities by extension workers stressed the need to
decrease harvesting of primates and lowland tapir and maintain current harvest levels
on artiodactyls and large rodents.
A preliminary analysis indicates that over a four year period, spanning pre and
post management, harvests of artiodactyls showed a slight, but not significant
difference between 1991, 1994 and 1995, measured as the number of animals
harvested/100km2 per year. Similarly, harvests of large rodents and tapir showed no
significant difference between 1991, 1994 and 1995. However, hunters harvested
significantly less primates between 1991 and 1995 which appears to be due to
community-based co-management (ACA Annual Report 1998).
Harvest of lowland tapir should also be decreased. While the first several years
of community-based co-management did not result in a decrease in tapir harvests, a
greater effort by extension workers has resulted in a recent declaration by communities
of the upper Tahuayo region not to allow community members to sell tapir meat to the
city markets. This new management strategy was a consequence of research results
being communicated through extension.
Conservation of Wildlife Habitats
Management of wildlife habitat in RCTT involves agroforestry programs
designed to benefit both wildlife and the local communities. Palms are often felled in
the reserve to obtain the fruits. Game animals also feed extensively on palm fruits.
Depletion of palm resources lowers the carrying capacity of game animals, which in
turn will lower the number of animals that can be sustainably hunted (Bodmer et al.
1999). Research findings conveyed to community members have also played an
important role in agroforestry. The destruction of the aguaje palm (Mauritiaflexuosa)
concerns most of the people on the upper Tahuayo, because of the economic
consequences of losing both wildlife populations and fruit. Since 1992, more than
twenty families on the upper Tahuayo have planted and managed large numbers of
aguaje palms. Habitat recuperation in the reserve may now be possible if more
families continue to plant and manage aguaje palms (ACA Annual Report 1998).
Extension efforts are helping local people plant palms in their swidden-fallow
agroforestry systems, and researchers are monitoring the growth of these plantings.
By planting and managing palms on their own lands local people maintain palm
ecosystems in the reserve, which are important wildlife habitats (Penn 1994). Indeed,
some palm ecosystem in the reserve are already severely depleted of mature fruit-
bearing trees and will need time to recuperate (Bodmer 1990). People of the RCTT
have taken community-based actions by taxing the extraction of palm fruits and other
non-timber forest products from non-private lands for over half a decade, and have
been planting palms and other important tree species in agroforestry systems since
1991 (Penn 1994).
Study Area in the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo
The study areas are located along the middle and upper portions of the Blanco
River, a tributary of the Tahuayo River, and comprises an area with human settlements
and an area of subsistence use within the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo (Fig
2.1). The RCTT is located in the northeastern Peruvian Amazon, and covers a
continuous forest of 322,500 ha comprised predominantly of upland forest (>75%) and
flooded forest (Bodmer et al. 1997). The city closest to the reserve is Iquitos, located
about 100 kilometers northwest of the reserve with approximately 300,000 inhabitants.
The reserve is bordered on the west by the upper Tahuayo and Blanco rivers, the south
by the upper Yarapa River, the east by the upper Yavari Miri River, and the north by
the upper Tamshiyacu River.
The RCTT and adjacent lands are divided into three distinct land zones. These
comprise 1) a fully protected core area of approximately 160,000 ha, 2) a buffer zone
of subsistence use of approximately 160,000 ha, and 3) an area of permanent
settlement which has no definitive boundaries (Bodmer et al. 1997). The fully
protected and subsistence areas fall within the official limits of the reserve and have no
human settlements. The fully protected zone does not have extractive activities,
whereas the subsistence zone is used by local residents of the permanent settlement
zone for extraction of natural resources. Residents cannot set up permanent settlements
or clear land for agricultural uses within the boundaries of the subsistence use or fully
protected zones. The zone of permanent settlements along the Tamshiyacu, Tahuayo,
Yarapa, and Yavari Miri rivers is adjacent to the reserve. This area encompasses the
villages and is for intensive land-use activities such as agriculture. The permanent
settlement zone was not officially incorporated into the reserve in order to avoid
conflict over land-use practices, but is an important part of the RCTT management
plans ( Bodmer et al. 1997).
I y -TaruavoBlPan Fully Protecte6ione
| K a # StudV Area ^__
Figure 2.1: Location of the study area in the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo,
The Yavari Miri, Tamshiyacu, Yarapa, and Blanco comprise the major rivers of
the RCTT. All of these rivers are white water rivers, which consist of muddy water
that has an abundance of fine suspended inorganic material. In most cases the
suspended matter of whitewater are marine sediments rich in minerals, particularly
calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus (Junk and Furch 1985). The whitewater rivers
of the RCTT, however arise from non-Andean soils in the upland formations that
divide the Yavari and Amazon valleys, which suggests that the soils of the RCTT are
richer in comparison to many other Amazonian sites (Bodmer et al. 1997).
The other major river in the RCTT is the Tahuayo, which runs parallel to the
Amazon inside the varzea (channel bars) floodplain (Bodmer et al. 1997). Through
most of the year this river has a blackish color, which results from organic breakdown
of the leaf litter that releases humic and fulvic acids (Junk and Furch 1985). The water
chemistry of Tahuayo is not a pure black water river but, like many varzea lake and
rivers, is a mixture of white and black waters (Coomes 1992b, Ayres 1993). The
Tahuayo originates from a large lake situated on the edge of the varzea and terra firme
forests and therefore does not have the high nutrient runoff from the upland forests
(Bodmer et al. 1997).
Principal types of vegetation in the reserve are whitewater floodplain
vegetation of lakes, lagoons, islands, levees (restingas), blackswamps, and varzea
(Furch 1984, Pires and Prance 1985) and upland nonflooded terra firma vegetation
(Bodmer et al. 1997). In addition, there are smaller specialized areas of plant
communities within the RCTT such as nutrient-poor leached white sand campinas, and
the relatively monospecific stands of the association of Mauritiaflexuosa palm known
as "aguajals" (Kahn 1988, Bodmer et al. 1997). Descriptions about the types of forest
in the reserve have been described in detail by Bodmer (1989).
The RCTT has a high diversity of faunal and floral groups (Castro 1991,
Puertas and Bodmer 1993). This diversity is due in part to the RCTT having a
combination of terra firma with rich soil composition and varzea habitats, and is part
of the biogeographic pattern of high species diversity of western Amazonia (Gentry
1988). For example, at least 14 species of primates are found in the RCTT, the
greatest diversity of primates reported for any protected area in Peru (Puertas and
Bodmer 1993). The high diversity of anthropoid primates in the terra firma between
the Yavari and Amazon probably arose from a combination of factors including
Pleistocene refuge, river dynamics, and diversity of flora (Ayres and Clutton-Brock
1992, Puertas and Bodmer 1993, Bodmer et al. 1997).
The majority of rural inhabitants who use the reserve are nontribal people
known as "riberehos" (Puertas and Bodmer 1993, Bodmer et al. 1997). These rural
folk commonly practice fishing, agricultural production, game hunting, small-scale
lumber extraction, and collection of minor forest products such as fruits, nuts, and
fibers (Coomes 1992a). Riberefios have different origins and include detribalized
Indians, and varied mixtures of Indians, Europeans, and Africans (Lima 1991). The
transformation of the Amazon from tribal groups to riberefios began with the earliest
European immigrations and continued with detribalization imposed by missionaries,
expansion of the slave trade, and influx of immigrants during the rubber epoch
(Bodmer et al. 1997).
Riberefios, like Amazonian Indians, have a great knowledge of forest plants,
agriculture techniques, and hunting and fishing methods. However, riberefios differ
from most Indian groups because of their intricate involvement in the market on both
regional and international levels. Indeed, products harvested by riberefios, such as
spices, rubber, and furs, have traditionally been marketed in European countries and
North America. Riberefios are renowned for their ability to switch product
exploitation as markets change, which is one reason for their wide geographic mobility
The first colonist entered the Tahuayo River basin shortly after the construction
of a naval base in Iquitos in 1862 (Coomes 1992a). However it was the rubber boom
of 1880-1920 that brought a large influx of colonists to the area. With the crash of the
rubber boom the area experienced net emigration. Communities of riberefios
consolidated during the recession of the 1930s that saw an influx of people of
Cocama/Cocamilla Indian origin. With the rise of market-oriented agriculture and an
increase in extraction of forest resources after 1940, the Tahuayo River basin increased
in population and continued to do so until the end of the 1980s. Indeed, the Tahuayo
basin was considered to be rich in forest products and to have an abundance of
agricultural land, which stimulated immigration (Coomes 1992a).
Communities of riberefios in the RCTT are currently organized around political
units, often with an elementary school and several health officials. Rules for land use
and extraction of natural resources are determined by the consensus of inhabitants
within each community. These rules not only govern titled land owned by community
members and land officially recognized as being communal property, but also forest
and fisheries resources of neighboring areas (Bodmer et al. 1997).
There are 32 villages in the Tahuayo, Tamshiyacu, Yarapa, and upper Yavari
Miri river basins, with a total population of approximately six thousand inhabitants.
These inhabitants use resources of the RCTT to varying degrees. Family income in the
Tahuayo basin during 1988-89 ranged from US$0-$15,727, with a mean annual
income of US$798 and a median of US$326. Incomes were skewed toward the lower
end with 37 percent of households earning less than US $200/year, 68 percent earning
less than US$600/year, and 89 percent earning less than US$1,600/year (Coomes
1992a). Virtually 100 percent of 541 households surveyed in the Tahuayo basin
practiced some type of agricultural production, whereas 42 percent were involved in
fishing as a major financial activity, 19 percent in wildlife hunting, 23 percent in the
commercial extraction of nontimber plants, and 6 percent in the extraction of timber
Description of the Hunting Areas
The study site, situated on the Blanco River, contains two hunting areas. The
first area is located in an area of 284 km2 with human settlements. The second is
located in the subsistence area in the interior of the RCTT and is 292 km2 in area (Fig.
The extraction of natural resources in the past century has had similar impact
upon the study site on the Blanco River as it did along the Tahuayo River and other
areas in the Amazon region. The main products extracted from the Blanco River area
were: rubber between 1880 and 1920, wildlife and pelts from 1940 until 1973 (Bodmer
1994), a vegetable substitute for ivory called tagua (Phytelephas macrocarpa) palm
seeds from 1940 to 1950, latex from a plant called leche caspi (Couma macrocarpa) in
the early 1950s, a tree called palo de rosa (Aniba rosaedora) from 1958 to 1960
(Hilario Pezo, personal communication), and finally, timber from 1970 until 1984
(Bodmer et al. 1988).
mu O2rsi.e: azth Kma I I
I Iaside:29. Km.
Figure 2.2: Localization of the catchment areas in the Tahuayo-Blanco zone.
The hunting areas gradually became populated in the 1940s when people came
to the region during the extraction boom of leche caspi. The area along the lower
course of the Blanco River was also utilized as a reserve for the inhabitants of the
lower course of the Tahuayo River. Hunters, locally known as mitayeros, came to the
area to obtain meat and, depending on the international market, to obtain pelts.
However, permanent settlements were not established in the area until 1953.
Settlement of the area coincided with the killing of Mayorunas Indians by the Peruvian
military in the early 1950s. These killings were carried out to facilitate extractive
activities and protect economic interests by ending any resistance from indigenous
peoples to the gradual taking over of their territory (Mateo Ahuanari, personal
In the 1990s, the Blanco River area underwent a process of in-migration
encouraged by the Peruvian government. The new settlers received government credit
support to engage in agriculture. At the same time, inhabitants of the Tahuayo River
began to migrate to the area with the intention of farming.
Currently, the main community in the hunting area located outside the reserve
is called San Pedro del Rio Blanco. San Pedro del Rio Blanco has a population of 75,
but also includes an annex, named 7 de Julio, which has a population of 57. 7 de Julio,
which is located close to the subsistence area of the RCTT, depends politically on San
Pedro for its communal organization and participatory communal management.
During the wet season fishing is the main activity in San Pedro, followed by
hunting, and small scale agriculture. However, during the dry season, agriculture is
the main activity while fishing and hunting have a secondary role. In 7 de Julio,
hunting is important throughout the wet and dry seasons, followed by agriculture.
Fishing is only done on a small scale for subsistence or local consumption.
There are no permanent settlements in the interior of the reserve. Rather, there
are small dwellings constructed of local materials called "campamentos" or camps.
These camps are used only for short periods of time when hunters are in the area.
People have used the subsistence zone of the reserve since the 1940's for the
extraction of natural resources. Currently, people use this area almost solely for
Hunters use shallow canoes to reach hunting areas. Navigation of the Blanco
River depends upon water level. In the subsistence zone, most hunting occurs in the
wet season between the months of December and May (Kalliola and Puhakka 1993)
and navigation is possible. The least amount of hunting occurs in the dry season, from
June to November, when the Blanco River is low. The lack of rain during this time
makes navigation of the Blanco River difficult. However, some hunters from 7 de Julio
enter the reserve on foot and stay at camps.
CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT
Wildlife hunting is one of the main activities of Amazonian inhabitants,
whether they live in flooded forest and tierra fire (Beckerman 1994, Bodmer 1994).
One of these areas is the Tahuayo-Blanco area of northeastern Peru. The local people
in this area, as in other neotropical forests, preferentially exploit large and mid-sized
game mammals, providing them protein sources and contributing to their economies
through the sale of meat (Redford and Robinson 1991, Bodmer 1994, Bodmer et al.
This chapter examines the importance of hunting inside and outside of the
Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo Community Reserve. Information about hunting effort is
presented by examining the relationship of animals killed to time spent hunting during
the years of 1994, 1995, and 1996. I determined which species were exploited most
intensively by hunters both inside and outside the reserve.
Catch per unit effort examines the relationships between effort and yield, in
this case the relationship is presented as animal per hunter-days. Changes in the catch
or harvest per unit of effort is assumed to indicate whether a species is overhunted or
not overhunted. A decrease in the catch per unit effort would suggest overuse (a
decreasing population), a constant catch per unit effort would suggest a stable
population, and a increase in catch per unit effort would suggest and increasing
population (Vickers 1991).
This chapter presents information about hunting effort both inside and outside
the reserve. Hunting effort is presented in terms of seasonality, total harvest, and
biomass. This information is used to establish a sustainable management plan based
on community participation for the reserve.
Data Collection, Sampling and Hunting
Information about game species and variation in kills in relation to seasons
were used to interpret the dynamics of hunting and to evaluate the impact on hunted
populations both inside and outside the reserve. Hunting yield data were obtained as
number of kills per man-days of hunting per year during 1994, 1995, and 1996. The
kill data for outside the reserve is presented in numbers of kills per 120 man-days of
hunting per year. Hunting effort is based on informal interviews of eight local hunters
living close to the subsistence use zone of the reserve. The interviews focused on the
hunter days and hunter sites. This information also is used to compare the animal
populations in the area, because kill rates are a function of encounter rates, which in
turn are a function of the population abundance (Vickers 1991) and also a function of
animal behavior and other ecological factors.
Data used in this study comes from both direct observations and game hunting
registers. Mapping per hunter zone was used to elicit information on hunting yields,
location, time expenditure, and number of hunters. Hunting registers were part of
participatory method of the community-based co-management program in the reserve
started in 1991.
The participatory method relies on building interest in community-based
wildlife management by having researchers work with hunters when evaluating the
impact of harvests (Bodmer and Puertas, in press). One of these methods is the
hunting registers which involves hunters and their family in data collection. This
participatory method helps researchers, extension workers and hunters find common
ground to discuss wildlife issues.
The community of 7 de Julio, situated on the Blanco River, was the starting
point for recording hunting activity for both hunting areas inside the reserve and
outside the reserve. Direct observations were made with local hunters that live along
the middle section of the Blanco River. Three hunters with their respective families
were trained as hunting recorders knowing how to record hunting activity in 1993
(hunting recorders). However, only two families collaborated with the project in an
effective manner. The homes of these hunters were strategically located along the
banks of the Blanco River so they could see and record with ease hunters as they went
up or came down the river. During the first six months of the study, the hunting
records were checked continually in order to evaluate their usefulness and to make any
adjustments. Later, the records were checked monthly and compared for uniformity.
The recorders' wives continued to record hunting activity when their husbands were
hunting or when they went to Iquitos to sell products.
When hunters were not checked immediately after their return, they were
checked indirectly through information provided by local inhabitants or key
informants. The key informants were those who testified to having personally
observed the number and sex of the hunted species. Also, these key informants
reported the sale of game meat that was not reported.
The hunting record included information about the quantity of individuals of a
species, the species, the sex, and dates of departure and arrival of the hunter. This last
item of information was collected to determine hunter-days.
The majority of the hunted animals were identified by direct observation in
accordance with the steps described by Eisenberg (1989), Emmons (1990), and Nowak
and Paradiso (1983). In some cases, identification was made by examination of
specimens at the Zoology Museum of the National University of the Peruvian Amazon
or the Peruvian Project of Peruvian Primatology "Manuel Moro Sommo" in the city of
The criterion for species preference used in this section follows Vickers (1991).
This means, the register of the species most commonly hunted during a certain period
of time. This criterion was used to understand population abundance and to evaluate
the impact that hunting has on wildlife populations both inside and outside the reserve,
as well as source-sink areas during the dry and wet seasons.
The most preferred species are shot at first sight by the hunter. The least
preferred species are selectively hunted either for local consumption, because of their
relative abundance in some hunting zones or to replace the consumption of preferred
species at hunting camps. In this last case, hunting does not necessarily occur in
relation to the density of the game species but to the behavior and ecological factors
that determine their presence and are circumstantially easier to hunt than other species.
On the other hand, the hunting of preferred species is directly related to the density of
the game species. At the same time, choosing a species for hunting is also a function
of the overall economy of the area and the goals of the hunter. Selective hunting
varies in relation to the supply and demand of the markets in Iquitos.
Hunting Area Outside the Reserve
A total of 4,200 man-days were recorded during 1994, 1995, and 1996 outside
the reserve from the communities 7 de Julio, San Pedro, El Chino, and from the city of
Iquitos (Table 3.1). The hunters' homes were all located near the reserve, with the
exception of hunters from the city of Iquitos. Hunters from Iquitos were usually
invited by inhabitants of the area and the majority were family members or former
inhabitants who periodically returned to their previous hunting sites. No dogs were
ever observed accompanying hunting activities outside the reserve.
Of the total 2,270 animals hunted both inside and outside the reserve, 994 were
hunted outside the reserve from 1994 to 1996 (Table 3.2). The ten most killed species
overall, in order of importance, were: Tayassu pecari, T. tajacu, Agouti paca, Mazama
americana, Dasyprocta fuliginosa, Pithecia monachus, Callicebus cupreus, Nasua
nasua, Tapirus terrestris, and Dasypus novemcintus. Results of the hunted species
expressed in square kilometers were similar to the total animals hunted (Table 3.3).
This means, that artiodactyls, rodents, primates, carnivores, and perissodactyls are the
most important orders for local people hunting outside the reserve.
Table 3.1. Register of hunters per community during 1994, 1995, and 1996 inside and
outside the reserve.
7 de Julio
Frequency of hunting trips
Out In Out In
0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0
0 2 0 3
2 15 3 14
1 14 3 12
8 12 4 9
3 4 0 4
Total 173 46 14 47 10 45 11 173
Total hunter-days 1252 1680 1118 1200 988 1320 7558
Seasonal variation of catch per unit effort between the dry and wet seasons from
1994 to 1996 were not statistically different (One way Anova F=0.168, p=0.703).
This suggests that the abundance of species was similar during the dry and wet season
outside the reserve.
Table 3.2. Total species
1994, 1995, and 1996.
hunted (wet and dry seasons) in and out the RCTT during
'3..'*il"i \ r,g..*ili ... hi i,
A ig.-, paca
Marsupials and Edentates
( 1h, ,,,. ,. t ,. minimus
Red brocket deer
Grey brocket deer
Monk saki monkey
Black spider monkey
Red howler monkey
South American coati
In Out Total %
366 179 545 24.01
264 117 381 16.78
25 28 53 2.33
Table 3.3. Total species killed per kilometer square (dry-wet seasons) between inside
and outside the reserve during 1994, 1995, and 1996. The data represent the mean of
1994, 1995, and 1996.
Scientific Names Inside SD Outside SD
Tayassu pecari 0.42 0.021 0.21 0.059
Tayassu tajacu 0.30 0.038 0.14 0.015
Mazama americana 0.09 0.015 0.08 0.006
Mazama gouazoubira 0.02 0.006 0.02 0.006
Tapirus terrestris 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.015
Pithecia monachus 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.05
Callicebus cupreus 0.01 0.002 0.06 0.012
I,1g'h, / p,h, /, ha 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
Cebus apella 0.01 0.014 0.01 0.014
Cebus albifrons 0.01 0.005 0.02 0.006
Atelespaniscus 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.002
Cacajao calvus 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.002
Alouatta seniculus 0.007 0.004 0.008 0.003
Saimiri spp. 0 0 0.02 0.013
Aotus nancymae 0 0 0.001 0.002
Saguinus spp. 0 0 0.005 0.005
Agouti paca 0.44 0.122 0.22 0.129
Dasyproctafuliginosa 0.04 0.021 0.08 0.053
Myoprocta pratti 0 0 0.02 0.023
Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris 0 0 0.001 0.002
Coendou bicolor 0 0 0.002 0.004
Sciurus spp. 0.002 0.002 0.004 0
Dasypus novemcinctus 0.02 0.021 0.03 0.033
Tamandua tetradactyla 0.01 0.006 0.02 0.024
,ii,i lP1h o tridactyla 0.001 0.002 0.009 0.009
Priodontes maximus 0 0 0.003 0.002
Didelphis marsupialis 0 0 0.001 0.002
( h/ i. i minimus 0.001 0.002 0 0
Puma concolor 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.002
Nasua nasua 0.005 0.004 0.05 0.03
Leopardus spp. 0.003 0 0.006 0.003
Eira barbara 0 0 0.005 0.005
Potosflavus 0.001 0.002 0.004 0
Total 1.50 0.347 1.15 0.543
Total harvest comparison
Results of total harvest obtained in both dry and wet seasons from 1994 to 1996
likewise shows no statistical difference (One way Anova F=0.748, p= 0.436). This
suggests that there was no difference in access to the hunting zones. Therefore, the
total harvest was constant in both seasons of the year.
Hunting Area Inside the Reserve
A total of 3,358 hunter-days of hunting were registered during 1994, 1995, and
1996 in the hunting area inside the reserve from all the communities showed in the
Among these communities were Cunshico, Esperanza, and from the city of Iquitos
which are farther from the subsistence zone of the reserve than the other communities.
Hunters from the distant communities came to hunt species that would provide them
economic gain from their sale in the market in Iquitos. Hunters from Iquitos were
invited by local inhabitants who had their own loosely established hunting sites. On
occasion, dogs were observed accompanying novice hunters inside the reserve.
A total of 1,276 animals were hunted in the interior from 1994, 1995, and 1996
(Table 3.2). The ten most commonly hunted species, in order of importance, were: T.
pecari, T. tajacu, A. paca, M. americana, D. fuliginosa, T. terrestris, D. novemcinctus,
P. monachus, M. gouazoubira, and Tamandua tetradactyla. Hunted species per
squared kilometers show similar results (Table 3.3). Artiodactyls, rodents,
perissodactyls, primates, and edentates are the most important orders for local people
using the hunting area within the reserve.
There was no statistical difference in the catch per unit effort between the wet and
dry seasons from 1994 to 1996 (One way Anova, F=0.009, p= 0.931). This suggests
that the abundance of species during dry and wet season of the year were similar inside
The total harvest between the wet and dry seasons from 1994 to 1996 was greater
in the wet seasons than in the dry seasons (One way Anova F=10.443, p= 0.032).
This reflects that the difference in access to the hunting zones between seasons.
Hunters can access the hunting zones inside the reserve much easier in the wet season
than in the dry season.
Comparison Between Hunting Areas
A total of 33 mammal species belonging to six orders were hunted from 1994 to
1996 inside and outside the reserve (Table 3.2). Of the total 2,270 killed animals,
artiodactyls were the most killed group (49%), followed by rodents (31%). The ten
most commonly killed species were: Agouti paca, Tayassu pecari, T tajacu, Mazama
americana, Dasyprocta fuliginosa, Pithecia monachus, Tapirus terrestris, Callicebus
cupreus, Nasua nasua, and Dasypus novemcinctus (Table 3.2). The first five species
of those listed above were most commonly killed in both hunting areas.
The most preferred species in terms of biomass extracted from the hunting area
within the reserve were: T. pecari, T. tajacu, A. paca, T. terrestris, M. americana, M.
gouazoubira, Puma concolor, D. fuliginosa, Lagothrix lagothricha, and Dasypus
novemcinctus (Table 3.4). On the other hand, the most frequently killed species
outside the reserve were: T. pecari, T terrestris, T. tajacu, M. americana, A. paca, M.
americana, D. fuliginosa, Myrmecophaga tridactyla, L. lagothricha, and D.
novemcinctus. Similar results were obtained when expressing biomass in square
kilometers (Table 3.5).
Catch per unit effort per species
A statistically significant difference was found when comparing total catch per unit
effort (CPU) of the two hunting areas (One way Anova, F=7.708, p=0.037) (Fig 3.1).
The results indicate that the CPU is greater within the reserve than outside. CPU
analysis shows statistical differences for only three of the species: Tayassu pecari, T
tajacu, and Callicebus cupreus (Table 3.6). The results suggest that the two peccari
species are more abundant inside than outside the reserve.
Immigration of animals from source areas located in the protected zone of the
reserve might maintain a bountiful hunt in sink areas of the reserve. For example,
hunting of Callicebus cupreus is significantly greater outside the reserve than inside.
This primate is easily detectable in the morning hours because of its characteristics
calls, territoriality, adaptation to habitats on the edge of bodies of water, and its
Irdei lg 1 OtiRcb194-1
Figure 3.1. Total catch per unit effort (dry-wet) between inside and outside the reserve.
relative tolerance for human presence. Thus, Callicebus inside the reserve might be
moving to sink areas outside the reserve.
Catch per unit effort in relation to biomass
Total CPU of biomass extracted differed statistically between the two hunting
areas (Fig 3.2). T pecari, T. tajacu, Agouti paca, Callicebus cupreus, and Potosflavus
differed in the CPU of biomass extracted between inside and outside the reserve (Table
3.7). Results indicate that peccaries and pacas were more abundant inside the reserve
than outside. Consequently, they are the species that generate the most economic gain
for those people who frequent the reserve's subsistence area. On the other hand,
Table 3.4. Total biomass of individuals (wet and dry seasons) between inside and
outside the RCTT during 1994, 1995, and 1996. Species body weight represented in
kilograms was taken from data reported by Bodmer (1994), and Puertas et al. (1996).
Scientific Names In Out Total %
Tayassu pecari 11328 5728 17056 35.53
Tayassu tajacu 6750 2925 9675 20.15
Mazama americana 2409 2376 4785 9.97
Mazama gouazoubira 320 440 760 1.58
Tapirus terrestris 3500 3920 7420 15.46
Pithecia monachus 32 102 134 0.28
Callicebus cupreus 8.4 54 62.4 0.13
Lagothrix lagothricha 185.3 185.3 370.6 0.77
Cebus apella 21 49 70 0.15
Cebus albifrons 15 66 81 0.17
Ateles paniscus 31.2 15.6 46.8 0.10
Cacajao calvus 16 16 32 0.07
Alouatta seniculus 51 59.5 110.5 0.23
Saimiri spp. 0 12.8 12.8 0.03
Aotus nancymae 0 0.8 0.8 0.002
Saguinus spp. 0 2 2 0.004
Agoutipaca 3774.9 1627.81 5402.71 11.25
Dasyproctafuliginosa 188.56 321.86 510.42 1.06
Myoprocta pratti 0 15 15 0.03
Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris 0 30 30 0.06
Coendou bicolor 0 10 10 0.02
Sciurus spp. 1.6 2.4 4 0.008
Dasypus novemcinctus 144.75 156.32 301.07 0.63
Tamandua tetradactyla 59.8 87.4 147.2 0.31
Myrmecophaga tridactyla 31.5 220.5 252 0.52
Priodontes maximus 0 60 60 0.12
Didelphis marsupialis 0 0.7 0.7 0.001
Chironectes minimus 0.645 0 0.645 0.001
Puma concolor 225 150 375 0.78
Nasua nasua 12.4 133.3 145.7 0.30
Leopardus spp. 21.6 79.2 100.8 0.21
Eira barbara 0 19.2 19.2 0.04
Potosflavus 3 9 12 0.02
Table 3.5. Total biomass individuals hunted per kilometer square (dry-wet seasons)
between inside and outside the reserve during 1994, 1995, and 1996. The data
represent the mean of 1994, 1995, and 1996.
Scientific Names Inside SD Outside SD
Tayassu pecari 12.93 1.095 5.64 1.915
Tayassu tajacu 7.71 0.532 3.44 2.150
Mazama americana 2.75 0.133 2.79 2.639
Mazama gouazoubira 0.36 0.107 0.51 0.107
Tapirus terrestris 4.00 2.458 4.6 1.587
Pithecia monachus 0.04 0.001 0.12 0.095
Callicebus cupreus 0.009 0.001 0.06 0.017
Lagothrix lagothricha 0.21 0.032 0.22 0.083
Cebus apella 0.02 0.032 0.06 0.050
Cebus albifrons 0.02 0.015 0.08 0.031
Ateles paniscus 0.04 0.064 0.02 0.017
Cacajao calvus 0.02 0.012 0.02 0.012
Alouatta seniculus 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.035
Saimiri spp. 0 0 0.01 0.010
Aotus nancymae 0 0 0.001 0.002
Saguinus spp. 0 0 0.002 0.003
Agoutipaca 4.31 0.476 1.91 1.143
Dasyproctafuliginosa 0.22 0.055 0.37 0.235
Myoprocta pratti 0 0 0.02 0.020
Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris 0 0 0.04 0.064
Coendou bicolor 0 0 0.01 0.023
Sciurus spp. 0.002 0.002 0.003 0
Dasypus novemcinctus 0.17 0.050 0.18 0.183
Tamandua tetradactyla 0.07 0.017 0.1 0.104
Myrmecophaga tridactyla 0.04 0.064 0.26 0.254
Priodontes maximus 0 0 0.07 0.064
Didelphis marsupialis 0 0 0.0007 0.001
Chironectes minimus 0.001 0.001 0 0
Puma concolor 0.26 0.255 0.17 0.150
Nasuanasua 0.01 0.012 0.15 0.100
Leopardus spp. 0.02 0.025 0.09 0.060
Eira barbara 0 0 0.02 0.025
Potosflavus 0.003 0.006 0.01 2E-10
Table 3.6. Total CPU (dry-wet seasons) between inside and outside the reserve during
1994, 1995, and 1996.
Scientific Names Mean SD F P-value
In Out In Out
Tayassu pecari 0.113 0.0433 0.015 0.015 31.5 0.005
Tayassu tajacu 0.077 0.027 0.015 0.021 11.25 0.028
Mazama americana 0.023 0.018 0.006 0.019 0.191 0.684
Mazama gouazoubira 0.005 0.005 0.001 0 0 1
Tapirus terrestris 0.007 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.014 0.912
Pithecia monachus 0.005 0.011 0.005 0.009 0.98 0.378
Callicebus cupreus 0.002 0.01 0 0 7.1E+15 0
Ig,'h,l hi/i% h,,1 ia 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.25 0.643
Cebus apella 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.655 0.464
Cebus albifrons 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.002 6.25 0.067
Atelespaniscus 0.001 0.001 0.002 0 0.346 0.588
Cacajao calvus 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 1.47 0.292
Alouatta seniculus 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.255 0.642
Saimiri spp. 0 0.004 0 0.003 5.61 0.076
Aotus nancymae 0 0.0002 0 0.0005 1 0.374
Saguinus spp. 0 0.0009 0 0.001 1 0.423
Agoutipaca 0.17 0.047 0.04 0.029 5.959 0.071
Dasyproctafuliginosa 0.011 0.018 0.008 0.013 0.573 0.491
Myoprocta pratti 0 0.005 0 0.005 2.75 0.173
Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris 0 0.0003 0 0.005 1 0.374
Coendou bicolor 0 0.001 0 0.001 1 0.374
Sciurus spp. 0.001 0.001 0.0005 0.001 1.83 0.247
Dasypus novemcinctus 0.03 0.005 0.044 0.005 0.951 0.385
Tamandua tetradactyla 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.005 0.132 0.734
_fi, ,,, hp tridactyla 0.0003 0.002 0.001 0.002 1.83 0.247
Priodontes maximus 0 0.0005 0 0.0004 3.769 0.124
Didelphis marsupialis 0 0.0003 0 0.0005 1 0.374
( h/i 'i. minimus 0.0003 0 0.0005 0 1 0.374
Puma concolor 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0004 0.08 0.792
Nasua nasua 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.009 3.771 0.124
Leopardus spp. 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.54 0.503
Eira barbara 0 0.001 0 0.001 2.139 0.217
Potosflavus 0.0003 0.001 0.0005 0.0001 2.882 0.165
Table 3.7. Total CPU in
outside the reserve during
relation to biomass (dry-wet seasons) between inside and
1994, 1995, and 1996.
0.472 17.593 0.014
0.487 14.524 0.019
0.575 0.148 0.72
0.006 0.346 0.588
0.575 1.313 0.316
0.022 1.256 0.325
1.6E-10 5.3E+2 0
0.012 0.391 0.566
0.009 0.455 0.537
0.006 6.73 0.06
0.004 0.306 0.609
0.001 1.125 0.349
0.008 0.002 0.969
0.002 5.449 0.08
0.0003 1 0.374
0.0005 2.139 0.217
0.257 16.24 0.016
0.056 0.615 0.477
0.004 0.424 0.195
0.017 1 0.374
0.005 1 0.374
0.0003 1 0.374
0.037 0.108 0.758
0.024 0.137 0.73
0.064 1.508 0.287
0.012 4 0.116
0.006 1 0.374
0 1 0.374
0.031 0.523 0.51
0.021 0.648 0.466
0.009 0.325 0.599
0.005 2.117 0.217
1000 F-9 296
TIside 1994 -1996 Outside 1994-1996
Figure 3.2: Total biomass extracted in dry and wet seasons between inside and outside
smaller species like Callicebus and Potos are exclusively hunted for local consumption
instead of for sale.Artiodatyls, Perissodactyls and rodents were the species hunted
most in terms of total extracted biomass (67% and 15%, respectively) (Table 3.4). The
four most important are: T. pecari, T. tajacu, Tapirus terrestris, and Agouti paca.
As shown in Table 3.1 registers of hunters was greater inside than outside the
reserve (One way Anova F=663.1, p=0 ). Most hunting trips inside and outside the
reserve are done by hunters living in communities close to the subsistence zone of the
reserve. Hunters living in communities farther from the reserve preferred the
subsistence zone inside the reserve. In contrast, hunters living in the communities
closest to the reserve hunted more often outside the reserve.
The catch per unit effort results show that when independently comparing each
hunting area, there are no statistically significant differences between wet and dry
seasons. This constant CPU suggests that the abundance of species was similar
between seasons inside and outside the reserve. Thus, CPU is a reliable method for
assessing the populations of wildlife in the reserve.
Temporal variation of hunting has been observed in Neotropical Indian
societies. Beckerman (1994) distinguished three patterns of seasonality in hunting: 1)
there are societies with no appreciable difference in hunting between the wet and dry
seasons; 2) there are Indian societies where the wet season brings increased hunting
returns such us the Nambiquara (Setz 1983), the Shipibo (Bekerman 1980); and 3)
there are societies where hunting gets better in the dry season such us the Bari
(Beckerman 1980), the Ache (Hill et al. 1984), two groups of Nambiquara (Setz 1983),
Ye'kuana of Southern Venezuela (Hames 1980), Yanomamo (Lizot 1978, Sponsel
1981), and the Gajibo of the llanos of eastern of Colombia-western Venezuela
(Metzger 1968, Morey 1970). A similar pattern was observed for the Makuna (Arhem
1976), Colombian Vaupes and Waorani of Ecuador (Yost and Kelly 1993), and the
Pume of the Venezuelan llanos (Gragson 1989). According to Beckerman (1994) the
most preferred pattern is an increase in hunting during the dry season.
Comparing the annual values of total CPU there is a increasing trend for each
hunting area, although more data are necessary to demonstrate a statistical increase
(Figure 3.3). Preliminary results indicate a overall healthy wildlife population in both
study areas and that these populations seems not be declining. The increase in the
CPU between 1994 to 1996 might be due to the co-management programs in the
reserve. However, this does not apply for the specific species of carnivores, primates
and edentates. One weaknesses of using CPU as an index of abundance is that it only
works well with species that are economically important such as Artyodactyls and
Rodents, but not with non-preferred species such as Callicebus and Potos. More
research is necessary to determine wildlife densities in both hunting areas in order to
corroborate these findings.
The results of this study suggest that wildlife is more abundant inside the
reserve than outside. This implies that the subsistence zone inside the reserve is
functioning as an area where animal populations are greater. It is easier for hunters to
obtain wildlife inside the reserve during the wet season when access is easier. One
explanation for greater populations of species inside the reserve is the source-sink
theory. This theory proposes that animals are moving from the fully protected zone of
the reserve to the subsistence zone inside the reserve. Thus, animal populations inside
the reserve are potentially being replenished by animals from the fully protected area.
These results suggest that zoning of the reserve is working as source-sink zones.
In this study from the 33 game mammals hunted, ungulates and rodents were
the most preferred species both inside and outside the reserve. These mammals, due to
their large size, are the most marketable for sale, therefore, generating more economic
r= 0.79296, F=0.4171
1994 1995 1996
Figure 3.3: Trend of the total catch per unit effort per year inside and outside the
gain than smaller species. However the non-preferred species of smaller size are in less
demand in the market and are for local consumption. This register corroborates the
results reported in Robinson and Bodmer (1999), and Bodmer (1993), who mention
that the most frequently hunted species in the RCTT include collared (T. tajacu) and
white-lipped peccary (T. pecari), red (Mazama americana) and grey brocket deer (M.
gouazoubira), paca (A. paca), agouti (Dasyprocta sp.), and lowland tapir (T.
terrestris). In addition, people regularly hunt some species of primates, smaller
rodents, edentates, marsupials, and carnivores. They also mention that ungulates are
by far the most important game mammals in terms of biomass harvested. Vickers
(1991) states that the Siona-Secoya prefer larger animals (e.g., large ungulates such as
tapir and peccaries, large primates such as woolly and howler monkeys). The less-
preferred animals tend to be the smaller species (e.g., ungulates such as deer, primates
such as the monk saki and the squirrel monkey). Most rodents and edentates are also
less preferred than the larger ungulates, and primates. Townsend (1996) mentions that
the ten most important animal species extracted by the Siriono were: peccaries
(Tayassu tajacu and T. pecari), deer (Mazama americana and M gouzoubira), marsh
deer (Blastoceros dichotomus), tapirs (Tapirus terrestris), pacas and agoutis (Agouti
paca and Dasyprocta variegata), nine banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcintus) and
coatis (Nasua nasua). The ungulates constitute 74% of mammal biomass extracted.
Fragoso et al. (1998) states that the most frequently captured game species by the
Xavante's were: giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), tapir (T terrestris), marsh
deer (B. dichotomus), pampas deer (Ozotocerus bezoarticus), white-lipped peccary (T.
pecari), and collared peccary (T. tajacu).
Robinson and Bodmer (1999) mention that wildlife species in tropical forest, in
contrast to those of temperate areas, are rarely managed. Preliminary data suggests
that hunting in tropical forests is often not sustainable. They conclude that unless the
hunting of wildlife is managed, it will lead to the local extirpation of many species,
and the loss of an important natural resource for many rural people in the tropics.
Likewise, Stearman and Redford (1995) mention that sedentarism and population
growth among the Yuqui have contributed to local depletions of fauna, as might be
expected from people hunting continually around a permanent settlement. Of greater
consequence to Yuqui well-being, however, is the depletion over a wider area of the
larger game animals, such as white-lipped peccary, T. pecari, capybara, Hydrochaerus
hydrochaerus and tapir, T terrestris.
The RCTT also needs to take into account depletions of fauna to assure
sustainable harvesting in the long run. For that reason, Puertas and Bodmer (1993)
maintain the need to properly manage the wildlife of the RCTT. One of the more
urgent actions requires a cessation of hunting of primates, carnivores, and edentates
(Bodmer 1994). Likewise, Redford (1995) maintains that even if wildlife were valued
appropriately, populations would probably still be susceptible to local extinction due to
a lack of management alternatives, particularly with subsistence hunting. The lack of
management of wildlife populations throughout many regions of the Neotropics is not
only causing the depletion of animal populations, but is also compromising the long-
term socio-economic benefits that wildlife offers. In that context, Bodmer (1993)
mentioned that wildlife conservation in Amazonia will be fruitless unless it focuses
attention on the currently unmanaged game hunting. If game management is not
improved, mammalian populations susceptible to over-hunting will decline and local
extinction will be unavoidable. Programs that help riberefios manage wildlife have
been developed in Loreto and aim to replace unsustainable with sustainable hunting.
Managing hunting also helps to maintain the value of forests for rural inhabitants,
which in turn makes deforestation less desirable.
Hunting pressure in Tahuayo-Blanco appears to be a result of its proximity to the
city of Iquitos which can be reached by boat in approximately 10 hours.
Consequently, hunters of Tahuayo-Blanco are influenced primarily by the value of
game meat in the local markets of Iquitos (Bodmer et al. 1990a). While primates are
only infrequently used as commercialized game meat, they play an important part in
the economics of game meat hunters. Game hunters seek ungulates and large-bodied
rodents for their greater market accessibility and sell virtually all of these larger
animals for cash. Primates and other small-bodied mammals are taken for food during
hunting forays and substitute for economic losses that hunters would incur if they
consumed the commercially valuable meat of large-bodied mammals. Thus, primates
are experiencing substantial harvesting pressure, because of the socioeconomic system
of local meat hunters (Bodmer et al. 1990).
Historical data on Amazonian peoples indicate a diet oriented toward obtaining
protein, principally from fish and wildlife (Gross 1975). Today, riberefios still
consume much protein. In the RCTT this protein often comes from hunting. In
addition, people sell wildlife for meat sales in city markets. In order to manage this
hunting it is necessary to understand the different hunting strategies.
This chapter examines how hunters divide and use the hunting areas. In
addition, the chapter examines the different hunting strategies used by local hunters.
For example, how important are hunting strategies, and how are they developed both
inside and outside of the reserve? These are two of the main questions that this
chapter will attempt to answer.
Hunting strategies depend on the hunting ability of each individual, knowledge
acquired through experience with wildlife, skill with hunting weapons, and knowledge
of the hunting sites. However, life experience combined with one's own skills and
ability to take advantage of opportunities as they arise, are important factors in
determining hunting strategy (Beckerman 1994). These practices are passed from
generation to generation, however, in the case of river communities, hunting systems
change according to the level of human pressure in the hunting sites. Therefore,
subsistence hunting becomes commercial hunting due to market demand (Smith 1980,
Mares and Ojeda 1984, Godoy et al. 1993). The hunting strategies of local people
who use the areas both inside and outside the RCTT have evolved in this context.
Certain species are more exploited than others. For local inhabitants, this is a
function of the demand to provide for subsistence protein needs as well as the demand
to satisfy economic needs through the hunting and sale of game meat in the markets in
Iquitos. In order to maintain a permanent stock, local people consider it very
important to maintain small hunting areas near their dwelling. Use of these smaller
areas is rotated with use of larger areas located in the interior of the reserve.
Description of Hunting Strategies
The boundaries of hunting sites are set in a subjective and conventional
manner, using signs in areas close to the hunter's house and through the opening of
trails or the construction of a camp when the site is far from his home. The length of
stay in a determined area and the maintenance and care of the hunting site are taken
into account for the use and division of hunting sites both inside and outside of the
reserve (Fig 4.1).
Hunting sites located outside the reserve are determined when the hunter
establishes himself in a certain area by constructing his house and opening a system of
trails varying from 1 to 10 km in length. These trails are opened so as not to overlap
with already established hunting areas and thus, avoid conflicts with other hunters. A
sense of territoriality is shown when hunters establish an area for more than ten years.
There is unwillingness to share hunting sites without the consent of the titular hunter.
This is due to the fact that hunters consider their hunting areas to be micro-reserves.
These micro-reserves are zoned according to two factors: 1) they exist primarily for
the use of wildlife
Figure 4.1. Map showing the hunting sites inside and outside the reserve
and 2) they are a constant supply of wildlife. However, overlapping of hunting sites
exists when a hunter has recently arrived to the area or when the sites are uncared for
and have no clear markers. This is the case of older residents of the El Chino
community that sporadically make use of hunting sites in the hunting area outside the
In general, the trail system is strategically designed. The main trail is in a
circular or elliptical shape and dissected by secondary trails varying from 1 to 5 km in
length. These trails are opened with machetes to make access possible and they serve
as a point of reference for the hunter in case he gets off the trail trying to get a prey.
The trail system gradually increases or reduces the area as the hunter explores his area
and finds new evidence for the hunting of preferred species. Mammal tracks,
relatively easy access to the area by various bodies of water, and the presence of
diverse habitats are examples of an abundance of food resources for game species.
These factors, along with the presence of natural mineral licks, known as colpas, used
by peccaries, deer, tapirs and pacas are an indispensable conditions for the
establishment of a hunting site. When trails exceed 5 km in length, a provisional camp
is used for resting, staying the night, and the preparation of food.
Hunting activity outside the reserve usually takes place by the hunter walking
from his house to the hunting site. On occasion, this activity takes place by canoe
utilizing the small tributaries of the Blanco River when the water level allows for
access. Local people or hunters from Iquitos and communities on the Tahuayo River,
sporadically invited by local residents, use this access.
Rustic dwellings called camps, rather than permanent settlements, exist in the
hunting areas in the interior of the reserve. These camps are strategically found on the
banks of streams or other small tributaries. Starting at the camps, hunters open long
trails that, in general, are oriented by the rising and setting of the sun. Secondary trails
stem off from and dissect the main trails. These trails vary in length from 3 to 5 km in
length. The area covered by the hunters corresponds to the subsistence zone of the
RCTT. However, in exceptional cases, they enter the strictly protected zone of the
reserve when persistent rains occur at the headwaters of the Blanco River and canoe
navigation becomes possible.
In general, the hunters with sites inside the reserve take three days on average
for navigation to their sites. At the same time, the length of hunter-days spent
fluctuations with the water level of the Blanco River.
Hunting activity in the interior of the reserve takes place by two methods: on
foot and by canoe. Hunting on foot takes place during the day on the trails previously
opened primarily in the search for peccaries. At night, it takes place by going to the
colpas in search of deer, tapirs and pacas.
Points of reference used to delimit hunting sites in the hunting areas inside the
reserve consist of rustic camps obviously in use by the camp owner and evidence of a
system of operative trails. In general, hunters in the interior of the reserve utilize more
than two camps. The use of these camps is rotated so as to have a minimal impact
upon the hunting area. This pacifies the areas and provides for immigration of animals
for adjacent areas or source areas with a permanent supply.
Permanent residents of the use zone of the reserve have loosely defined hunting
sites. This is recognized by the older residents of the area and by those who use the
subsistence zone of the reserve. Cases of overlapping or competition for hunting sites
occur with novice hunters, young people or people from areas farther away from the
reserve that prefer to take advantage of already established hunting sites. However,
territoriality is not well demonstrated as in the case of hunting areas situated outside
the reserve. These cases generally occur from December to May when the water level
allows for canoe access.
Two cases are presented in this section as examples of how hunters divide their
zones (Figure 4.1). The first case refers to a hunter that lives in an isolated area on the
limits of the reserve and, as a consequence, whose hunting activity usually takes place
in the subsistence zone of the reserve. The second case refers to a hunter that uses
areas situated both inside and outside the reserve.
In the first case, the hunter arrived in the area in the early 1960s. His principal
activities were the extraction of lumber and hunting. Once timber extraction ceased,
he dedicated himself to hunting, mainly concentrating on species with commercial
value, but he also did some hunting for subsistence or local consumption.
He has stayed in the area for the following reasons: 1) diverse habitats provide
a favorable environment for colpas and fruit trees that attract game species close to his
house, 2) he is able to avoid any other hunters and has freedom and discretion in
management, and 3) has a permanent supply area, a micro-reserve, that satisfies his
family's economic needs and food supply for the long term.
Examples of his management include: providing food in strategic places of the
colpas in order to accustom the animals to consuming supplied food, such as salt and
palm fruits like pijauayo (Guillielma gasipaes) and rotating hunting sites between 20
and 30 days.
The second hunter arrived in the area around 1993 and used only one hunting
area situated in the reserve. However, in 1994 he began to use two hunting sites, one
very far from his house in the reserve and a second site close to his house. He travels
to the first site by canoe. The length of time he stayed there depended on the
fluctuations in water level of the upper course of the Blanco River, climatic conditions,
easy access to game species and hunting supplies, knowledge of the zone, and
maintenance of his trail system. He invested a great deal of time in maintenance and
gaining empirical knowledge of the game species. For this reason, he decided to begin
to explore areas close to his home and he found that with a greater knowledge and care
of the hunting area, he could obtain similar results to those he received in the reserve.
This motivated him to establish permanent hunting sites close to his home to be used
on a rotating basis. This allowed him to continue to hunt but dedicate more effort to
Access to a Closed System
The hunting areas, inside and outside the reserve, need to be viewed as an
overall system of closed access. This requires that knowledge of the population
dynamics of the hunting sites be gathered through constant monitoring. Such
monitoring would establish which areas are overhunted. The overhunted areas could
then rotated to areas where less or no hunting occurs.
Local hunters should take into account that they should hunt in the reserve
sporadically and in limited numbers. Only hunters living in permanent settlements in
the area should be allowed to hunt in the reserve. The entrance of hunters not living in
the use zone of the reserve should be limited. If such measures are not taken, negative
repercussions, such as the entrance of a greater number of hunters than those recorded
in the Tahuayo-Blanco zone could take place. This would provoke a population
imbalance in the source-sink relationship. In order to maintain the current recorded
hunting level, one should opt for the use of an overall management system.
What can be done to maintain the current hunting level? One needs to take into
account that the critical time period occurs between December and May when the
Amazon, Tahuayo, and Blanco Rivers have high water levels. The best access to the
hunting areas in the reserve occurs at this time. It is during the rainy season that local
people should organize and establish an effective vigilance system that would limit the
access of outside people. On the other hand, the current flow of hunters should not be
increased to assure sustainable hunting in these areas. In order for a hunting system in
the reserve to function, it needs to be co-managed. The system needs to be adequately
communicated to the local communities so that wildlife populations will remain viable
and be taken advantage of at their current level. Exceptions should be made for
species like carnivores, primates, and edentates that, according to hunting records, are
not at sustainable levels (Bodmer 1994). Beckerman (1994) reinforces this position
and considers that hunting should take place according to population density,
seasonality, and habitat diversity.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CO-MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE WITH
Most management experiences in Latin America have taken protectionism
measures in order to safeguard the habitats of threatened species (Townsend 1996).
These measures, because of their central, legal and bureaucratic vision, occur without
community participation and lack functionality and practical application. This is the
case with wildlife management programs in protected areas in northeast Peru. For
example, the case of the Reserva Nacional Pacaya-Samiria which was created in the
decade of the 1950's with the expulsion of local people from the area and without
taking into consideration the local people that have ancestrally occupied and continue
living in that complex Amazon ecosystem.
Most of the inhabitants in the northeastern Peruvian National protected areas
are poor people and they use the natural resources from those natural areas for
subsistence use and commercialization in the city markets. This means, the flooded
and upland forests constitute an extremely important resource for local human
populations. However, these forests are among the most vulnerable in the Amazon,
because of their accessibility for resource extraction by fluvial transportation (Bodmer
et al. 1999).
Conservation of the natural resources through the park guard system is
unsuccessful in the National Protected Areas of northeastern Peru, because the local
people are not involved in the decision making process. There is a history of
repressive actions, abuse, mistreatment, and misleading the local people who, since a
long time had been against the park guard system.
Conservation experiences in regions with tropical forests, such as Brazil,
Bolivia, and Africa. indicate that the best way to conserve natural resources is to
involve the local inhabitants ( Metcalfe 1994, Towsend 1996). For example, the
success of Mamiraua is due to community-based conservation initiatives. That
initiative was taken from the model of the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo,
located in northeastern Peru. This means that since the community-based co-
management is working as a conservation strategy in the RCTT, and it can be applied
to other Amazonian areas.
This study recommends that a viable alternative for conserving Amazonian
forests is with the participation of communities. The RCTT represents an excellent
model for this alternative. However, for long-term objectives to be reached, the co-
management system requires strengthening, habitats need to be improved, and hunting
needs to be managed by local people. To reach this last goal, it is very important that
local people be made aware of the information about hunting effort obtained in this
study. This communication needs to be conducted in understandable language or
terminology to promote their adequate understanding and ample participation in the
analysis of hunting. Indeed in the future, local hunters should analyze their hunting
on their own and then decide the future for wildlife through the implementation of a
system of participatory management.
Strengthening of a Community Co-management System
At the present, wildlife management with community participation represents a
real conservation alternative for the reserve. However, to ensure true communal
management in the long term, a process of community-based co-management is
required. According to initial data, local people themselves should promote the
sustainable use of viable species and protect those species that are being hunted at
Community-based co-management relies on acquisition and communication of
information (Bodmer and Puertas, in press). This needs to use the following design:
local people implement management that effects game populations. Biological studies
on game populations leads to information on the impact of hunting and effectiveness
of management. Simultaneously, research and extension in agroforestry will lead to
improvements in wildlife habitats in both catchment areas inside and outside the
reserve. Results from these studies are then conveyed to local people through
extension activities. Indeed, the feedback loop linking game populations to local
people can only be completed if it contains complimentary research and extension
components. In other words, the impact of management can only be determined
through research on game and palm species which is communicated to the community
through extension activities. Therefore, research and extension bridge the loop that
links the realities of biological populations to community-based resource management.
The co-management must include the local communities with the following
stakeholders: extension workers of local Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs),
officials of Govermental Organizations (GO), and researchers (Bodmer and Puertas, in
press). At the same time, it is necessary to consider the role of secondary stakeholders,
such as local merchants called regatones, and residents of Iquitos and the town of
For the Tahuayo-Blanco area, community based co-management should be
oriented toward gaining knowledge, and analyzing and interpreting hunting levels.
Regulations should be set and enforced in a harmonious and consensual environment.
At the same time, this system should focus on strengthening intra and inter community
organization. This would allow for activities to be effectively monitored.
An important step in implementing community-based wildlife management in
the Tahuayo-Blanco area took place in the El Chino community in November 1993.
Communal agreements about hunting regulations were established with the
participation of local residents and political authorities in the communities of
Esperanza, Buena Vista, El Chino and with residents from the Blanco River.
Community meetings and the explanation of the agreement's goals was supported by
80% participation among local people. Later, on 6 March 1993, in a general assembly
made up of the communities and stakeholders, the agreement was approved. However,
legal recognition and signing of the agreement did not take place until 27 March, 1994.
In 1995, community organization in the area was weakened due to a lack of
extension workers, a faltering local economy caused by the high water levels of the
Tahuayo and Amazon Rivers, the existence of a patronage system, and the corruption
of local police and political authorities. Some people viewed the reserve as an
opportunity to satisfy personal ambitions by extracting game meat and timber in spite
of legal restrictions. As a consequence, the hunting agreement was suspended.
A group made up of seven families, who pioneered the creation of the reserve,
decided to organize themselves to strategically combat the corrupt system. They
continued to carry out community-based management. Their strategy included: 1) the
creation of a permanent, autonomous community named San Pedro, 2) a search for
allies among the older residents of the Blanco River by annexing of 7 de Julio, and 3)
denouncing to competent authorities the corruption in El Chino. This strategy
achieved the desired results in that the patronage system collapsed and the corruption
of authorities in the area ceased. To this day, better coordination is necessary between
At this time, it is suggested that the community of San Pedro should coordinate
activities for the reserve's community-based management program for residents of
local villages and the local level stakeholders. However, for this to be successful, the
wildlife extension workers need to be integrated into benefiting the communities.
Also, there needs to be a constant flow of information between researchers and
extension workers so that information is adequately communicated to the community
members in charge of co-management. Previous experience suggests that inadequate
communication on the part of extension workers can cause co-management to fail
(Bodmer and Puertas, in press). Also, constant training of the extension workers by
experts in community-based wildlife management is required. As a consequence, the
main objective of this study is that in the long-term, communities can manage their
own hunting through information gathered by themselves on hunting effort.
Once community-based management is strengthened at the local level, the next
step would be to search for political support at the regional level. This would provide
legal backing for the actions and agreements that communities historically have
reached in an informal manner. For this to take place, the communities must have the
support of the principal stakeholders at the local level. For the most part, the
communities should already be properly organized and trained to take control of
This study also recommends that the direction for the conservation of natural
resource in the RCTT must take into account the following criteria: 1) aptitude of the
government authorities, extension workers and researchers to provide adequate
technical information and respect the socio-economic realities of the local people, 2)
capacity of effective coordination, 3) a lot of energy and will power, 4) common sense
to understand both the necessities of the local people and the new tendencies of the
international aid, and 5) economic alternatives to the unsustainable extraction of
Finally, in making the RCTT management program more sustainable, is
necessary to elaborate a comprehensive management program to maintain a permanent
forum intended to refresh current practices and generate new ones on the basis of
learning from individual programs. Ultimately, this will result in an adaptive program
that, through the help of the extension component of the team will recommend how
local people, hunters and other managers, adjust the use of the resources to the limits
set by the biological characteristics of the species, and to the possibilities of market
Closed Hunting Areas
It is likely that the current hunting system is sustainable because of hunting
zones functioning as micro-reserves and the closed access that hunters maintain.
These micro-reserves should be promoted as a means for local people to take
responsibility for an area of forest and manage that specific area. Thus, the RCTT
appears to be functioning because it is in fact an area made up of many micro-reserves.
More information is necessary for a better understanding of these micro-reserves as a
management strategy for the reserve.
Agroforestry research and extension need to be done with farmers in their
fields and fallows. Native trees should be planted with the local people as a means to
reduce the felling of wild trees. The strategy is to enrich the catchment area outside
the reserve in order to improve wildlife habitat within the reserve and permit a constant
flow of wildlife populations from inside to outside the reserve and vice versa.
Therefore, enriching the agroforestry systems with fruit trees for mammals may also
attract game and help animal populations in and surrounding the reserve (Clay 1988,
Penn 1994, Bodmer et al. 1997). For example, peccaries, lowland tapir and the red
uakari, feed heavily on Mauritiaflexuosa palm fruits which are planted in agroforestry
gardens (Aquino and Encarnacion 1994, Bodmer et al. 1994). Farmers will own these
trees and will receive the economic and nutritional benefits from their management.
This agroforestry work was initiated by supplying seeds to farmers and was successful
in the pilot agroforestry programs on the upper Tahuayo (Penn, 1994). But, it needs to
be continued by providing them technical assistant. This agroforestry strategy needs to
emphasize fruit tree diversity, nutrition, and the improvement of agroforestry systems
in order to conserve wild trees for animal populations both inside and outside the
LIST OF REFERENCES
Alvard, M. 1994. Conservation by native people: Prey choice in a depleted habitat.
Human Nature, 5: 127-154.
Asociaci6n para la Conservaci6n de la Amazonia (ACA). 1998. Community-based
Natural Resources Management Programs in the Reserva Comunal
Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo, Peru. Annual report. 45 pp.
Aspelin, P. 1975. External articulation and domestic production: The artifact trade of
the Maimainde of northwestern Mato Grosso, Brazil. Latin Americas Studies
Program Dissertation Series No. 59. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Aquino, R. and F. Encarnaci6n. 1994. Primates of Peru/ Los Primates del Peru.
Primate Report, 40:1-130.
Arhem, K. 1976. Fishing and hunting among the Makuna: Economy, ideology and
ecological adaptation in the northwest Amazon. Goteborgs Etnografiske.
Ayres, J. and T. Clutton-Brock. 1992. River Boundaries and Species Range in
Amazonian Primates. Am. Nat., 140: 531-537.
Ayres, M. 1993. As matas de varzea do Mamiraua. Brasilia, Brazil: conselho Nacional
de Desenvolvimiento Cientifico e Tecnol6gico-CNPq.
Beckerman, S. 1980. Fishing and hunting among the Bari of Colombia. Working
Papers in South American Indians, 2:67-109.
Beckerman, S. 1994. Hunting and fishing in Amazonia: Hold the Answers, What
are the questions? Pp. 177-200, in A. Roosevelt (ed.), Amazonian Indians from
Prehistory to the Present, Anthropological Perspectives. University of Arizona
Bodmer, R. 1989. Frugivory in Amazonian Ungulates. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Bodmer, R. 1990. Fruit patch size and frugivory in the lowland tapir. J. Zool.,
Bodmer, R. 1993. Priorities for the conservation of mammals in the Peruvian
Amazon. Oryx, 29(1): 23-28.
Bodmer, R. 1994. Managing wildlife with local communities: The case of the
Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo. Pp.113-134, in D. Western, M.
Wright and S. Strum (eds.), Natural Connections:Perspectives on Community
Based Management. Island Press, Washington DC.
Bodmer, R. 1995. Susceptibility of mammals to overhunting in Amazonia. Pp. 292-
295, in J. Bissonette and P. Krausman (eds.), Integrating People and Wildlife
for a Sustainable Future. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Bodmer, R., T. Fang., L. Moya. and R. Gill. 1994. Managing wildlife to conserve
Amazonian forest: Population biology and economic considerations of game
hunting. Biological Conservation, 67: 29-35.
Bodmer, R., T. Fang, and L. Moya. 1988. Ungulate management and conservation
in the Peruvian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 45: 303-310.
Bodmer, R., J. Penn, T. Fang, and L. Moya. 1990. Management programmes and
protected areas. The case of the Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo, Peru.
Parks, 1: 21-25.
Bodmer, R., J. Penn, P. Puertas, L. Moya, and T. Fang. 1997. Linking conservation
and local people through sustainable use of natural resources: Community-
based management in the Peruvian Amazon. Pp. 315-358, in C. Freese (ed.),
Harvesting Wild Species: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Bodmer, R., and P. Puertas. Community Based Co-Management of Wildlife in the
Peruvian Amazon, in: J. Robinson and L. Bennet (eds.), Hunting of Tropical
Wildlife, University of Chicago Press. In press.
Bodmer, R. E., P. E. Puertas, J.E. Garcia, D. Dias, and C. Reyes. 1999. Game
animals, palms and people of the flooded forests: Management considerations
for the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve. Chapter 13:217-230, in Ch. Padoch,
J. Marcio Ayres, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, and A. Henderson (eds.), Varzea
Diversity, Development, and Conservation of Amazonia's Whitewater
Floodplains. Advances in Economic Botany, The New York Botanical Garden
Press, New York.
Castro, R. 1991. Behavioral ecology of two coexistent tamarin species (Saguinus
fuscicollis nigrifrons and Saguinus mystax mystax, Callithrichidae, Primates)
in Amazonian Peru. Doctoral dissertation, Washington University, Saint Louis,
Clay, J.W. 1988. Indigenous peoples and tropical forests: Models of land use and
management from Latin America. Cultural Survival Report No. 27. Cultural
Survival Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Coomes, 0. 1992a. Making a Living in the Amazon Rainforest: Peasants, Land, and
Economy in the Tahuayo River Basin of Northeastern Peru. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Coomes, 0. 1992b. Blackwater rivers, adaptation, and environmental heterogeneity in
Amazonia. American Anthropologist, 94: 698-701.
Dufour, D. 1994. Diet and nutritional status of Amazonian peoples. Pp. 151-175, in
A. Roosevelt (ed.), Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to the Present:
Anthropological Perspectives. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Eisenberg, J. 1989. Mammals of the Neotropics: The Northern Neotropics, Vol. 1.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 449pp.
Emmons, L.H. 1990. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals. A Field Guide. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 281pp.
Fimbel, C., B. Curran, and L. Usongo, 1999. Enhancing the sustainability od duiker
hunting through community participation and controlled access in the Lobeke
region of south-eastern Cameroon, in: J.G. Robinson and L.E. Bennet (eds.).
Hunting for sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New
York. In press.
Flowers, N.M. 1983. Seasonal Factors in subsistence, nutrition, and child growth in a
central Brazilian Community. Pp. 357-390. in R.B. Hames and W.T. Vickers
(eds.), Adaptive responses of Native Amazonians. Academic Press, New York.
Flowers, N.M. 1994. Subsistence strategy, social organization, and warfare in
central Brazil in the context of European penetration. Pp. 249-269, in A.
Roosevelt (ed.), Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to the Present:
Anthropological Perspectives. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Fragoso, J.M., F. Leeuwenberg, K.M. Silvius, and M. P. Villalobos. 1998. Integrating
Scientific and Indigenous Wildlife Management Approaches in Indigenous
Areas: Status Evaluation and Management of Hunted Wildlife Populations in
the Rio das Mortes Xavante Reserve, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Report to World
Furch, K. 1984. Water chemistry of the Amazon basin: The distribution of chemical
elements among freshwaters. Pp. 167-199, in H. Siolo (ed.), The Amazon:
Limnology and Landscape Ecology of a Mighty Tropical River and Its Basin.
Dr. W. Junk Publishing, Dordrecht.
Gentry, A. 1988. Tree species richness of upper Amazonian forests. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 85: 156-159.
Godoy, R., R. Lubowsky, and A. Markandya. 1993. A method for the economic
valuation of non-timber tropical forest products. Economic Botany, 47: 220-
Gragson, T. 1989. Time Allocation of Subsistence and Settlement in a Chu Kho Nome
Pume Village of the Llamos of Apure. Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA.
Gross, D. 1975. Protein capture and cultural development in the Amazon Basin.
American Anthropologist, 77: 526-549.
Hames, R.B. 1980. Game depletion and hunting zone rotation among the Ye'kwans
and Yanomamo of Amazona, Venezuela. Working Papers on South American
Hill, K., K. Hawkes., M. Hartado. and H. Kaplan. 1984. Seasonal Variance in the diet
of the Ache hunter-gatherers in eastern Paraguay, Human Ecology 12: 101-
Hill, K., J. Padwe, C. Bejyvagi., A. Bepurangi, F. Jakugi, R. Tykuarangi, and T.
Tykuarangi. 1997. Impact of hunting on large vertebrates in the Mbaracayu
Reserve, Paraguay. Conservation Biology, 11: 1339-1353.
Junk, W. and K. Furch. 1985. The physical and chemical properties of Amazonian
waters and their relationships with the biota. Pp. 3-17, in G.T. Prance and T.E.
Lovejoy (eds.), Key Environments: Amazonia. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Kahn, F. 1988. Ecology of economically important palms in Peruvian Amazonia.
Economic Botany, 6:42-49.
Kalliola, R. and M. Puhakka. 1993. Geografia de la selva peruana. Pp. 9-31, in R.
Kalliola, M. Puhakka, and W. Danjoy (eds.). Amazonia Peruana, Vegetaci6n
humeda tropical en el llano subandinoProyecto Amazonia, Universidad de
Lima, D. 1991. Kin Saints and the Forest: The Study of Amazonian Caboclos in the
Middle Solimoes Region. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Little, P.D. 1994. The link between local participation and improved conservation:
A review of issues and experiences. Pp.374-372, in D. Western, R.M. Wright
and S.C. Strum (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based
Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Lizot, J. 1978. Economic primitive et subsistence. Libre, 4:69-113.
Maltby, E., P.J. Dugan, and J.C. Lefeuvre. 1992. Conservation and development:
The sustainable use of wetland resources. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Mares, M.A. and R.A. Ojeda. 1984. Faunal commercialization and conservation in
South America. Bioscience, 34: 580-584.
Mazurek, R. de Souza. 1997. Subsistence hunting among the Waimiri-Atroari in
central Amazon, Brazil. Paper presented at the III International Conference on
Wildlife Management and Conservation in Amazonia, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
McCullough, D.R. 1996. Spatially structured populations and harvest theory.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 60:1-9.
McCullough, D.R. 1987. The theory and management of Odocoileus populations.
Pp. 415-429, in C. Wemmer (ed.), Biology and Management of the Cerbidae.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Metcalfe, S. 1994. The zimbabwe communal areas management programme for
Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE). Pp. 161-192, in D. Western and R. M
Wright (eds.), Natural Connections. Island Press. Washington DC.
Metzger, D. 1968. Social Organization of the Guajibo Indians. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Morey, R. 1970. Ecology and Culture Change among the Colombian Guajibo.
Ph.D.diss., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Nowak, R. and J. Paradiso. 1983. Walker's Mammals of the World, 4th edition Vols
1-2. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1362 pp.
Padoch Ch. 1988. People of the floodplain and forest. In: People of the Tropical
Forest. Pp. 127-141, in J. Denslow, and C. Padoch (eds.). University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Penn, J.W. 1994. Agroforesteria orientada a la fauna silvestre y necesidades
humans: desafios y realidades de la Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo.
Kanatari, 490: 6-7 and 491:6-7.
Pinkerton, E. 1989. Introduction: Attaining better fisheries management through co-
management prospects, problems, and propositions. Pp. 3-33, in Pinkerton, E.
(ed.), Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for
Improved Management and Community Development. University of British
Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Poffenberger, M. 1994. The resurgence of community forest management in
Eastern India. Pp.53-79, in D. Western, R.M. Wright and S.C. Strum (eds.),
Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Puertas, P. and R..Bodmer. 1993. Conservation of a High Diversity Primate
Assemblage. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2: 586-593.
Puertas, P. R. Bodmer. and R. Aquino. 1996. Diversidad y Conservaci6n de
Primates en la Reserva Comunal Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo, Loreto, Peru. Folia
Robinson, J.G. and R. Bodmer. 1999. Invited paper: Towards wildlife management
in tropical forests. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63 (1): 1-13.
Robinson, J.G. and K.H. Redford. 1991. Sustainable harvest of Neotropical forest
animals. Pp. 415-429, in J.G. Robinson and K.H. Redford (eds.). Neotropical
Wildlife Use and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Robinson, J. and K. Redford. 1994. Measuring the sustainability of hunting in
tropical forests. Oryx, 25(4): 249-256.
Redford, K. 1995. Guest editorial: Wildlife use in the neotropics. Oryx, 29: 1.
Redford, K. and J. Robinson. 1991. Subsistence and Commercial Uses of Wildlife in
Latin America. Pp. 6-23, in J. Robinson and K. Redford (eds.), Neotropical
Wildlife Use and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rettig, R.B., F. Berkes, and E. Pinkerton. 1989. The future of fisheries co-
management: a multi-disciplinary assessment. Pp.273-289, in E. Pinkerton
(ed.), Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries New Directions for
Improved Management and Community Development. University of British
Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Schlueter, C., L. Rice., R. Halseth., B. Hauk., G. Heismeyer., R. Schauer. and W.
Morlock. 1997. Deer management surveys. Game report No. 98-04. South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre.
Setz, E.Z. 1983. Ecologia alimentar em um grupo indigena: Compara e ao entire
aldeias nambiguara de floreata e de cerrado. Master's thesis. Institute de
Biologia. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Smith, N. 1980. Anthrosols and human carrying capacity in Amazonia. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 70: 533-566.
Sponsel, L.E. 1981. The Hunter and the Hunted: An Integrated Biological and cultural
Approach to the Behavioral Ecology of Human Predation. Doctoral
Dissertation, University, Ithaca, New York.
Stearman, A.M. and K.H. Redford. 1995. Game Management and cultural survival:
The Yuqui ethnodevelopment project in lowland Bolivia. Oryx, 29:29-34.
Towsend, W. 1996. Nyao Ito: Caza y Pesca de los Sirion6.Instituto de Ecologia
Universidad Mayor de San Andres FUND-ECO. 137 pp.
Vickers, W. 1980. An analysis of Amazonian hunting yields as a function of
settlement age. Pp. 7-29, in R. Hames and K.M. Kesingers (eds), Working
Papers on South American Indians. Bennington College, Bennington, VT.
Vickers, W. 1991. Hunting yields and game composition over ten years in an
Amazonian village. Pp. 53-81, in J. Ronbinson and K. Redford (eds.),
Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation). University of Chicago Press,
Western, D. and R.M. Wright. 1994. The background of community-based
conservation. Pp. 1-12, in D.Western, M. Wright and S. Strum (eds). Natural
Connections: Perspectives on Community Based Management. Island Press,
Yost, J.A. and P.M. Kelley. 1983. Shotguns, blowguns, and spears: The analysis
of technological efficiency. Pp. 189-224, in R.B. Hames and W.T. Vickers
(eds.), Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonians. Academic Press, New
Pablo Eloy Puertas was born in the Peruvian Amazonia. His first sixteen years
of life was in the rural areas "ribereho", border with Brazil. He graduated from the
Department of Biological Sciences at the Univerdad Nacional de la Amazonia Peruana
(UNAP) in 1985. For five years he worked as a research assistant in the Peruvian
Primatological Project and for six years in the Instituto Veterinario de Investigaciones
Tropicales y de Altura (IVITA) of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos
(UNMSM) as a research professor. In the fall of 1997 he began graduate studies in the
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the University of Florida. He
plans to continue working on community-based co-management, in the Peruvian