Group Title: feasibility of sport hunting as a wildlife conservation and sustainable development tool in southern Mexico
Title: The feasibility of sport hunting as a wildlife conservation and sustainable development tool in southern Mexico
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00100844/00001
 Material Information
Title: The feasibility of sport hunting as a wildlife conservation and sustainable development tool in southern Mexico
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Lechuga, Jennifer
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date: 2001
Copyright Date: 2001
 Subjects
Subject: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Interdisciplinary Ecology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: ABSTRACT: Wildlife decline in southern Mexico is mainly attributed to overexploitation and habitat destruction. The Mexican government recently developed a progressive wildlife management strategy based on a system of wildlife conservation, management, and sustainable use units (SUMA), which allows sustainable uses of wildlife while providing economic alternatives to local communities. The greatest attribute of the new wildlife management program is the structure it offers for community-based co-management of the resource on ejido lands. This study evaluated the success of the SUMA strategy on ejidos that support sport hunting as a wildlife use option in southern Mexico. The evaluation was divided into two parts: sport hunting as a tool for wildlife conservation, and sport hunting as a tool for sustainable development. Sport hunters, subsistence hunters, and ejido non-hunters were interviewed on hunting importance, wildlife value, knowledge, perceptions, economics and demographic information. The information gathered was used to analyze stakeholder dynamics, current use practices, game population trends, economic feasibility and stakeholder compatibility. Wildlife conservation, management, and sustainable use units (UMAs) that provide sport hunting as a wildlife use option have not been successful in Quintana Roo and Campeche, but show great potential for future success. Data showed that several insufficiencies have hindered success. Potential for improvement exists because stakeholders show a willingness to conserve and work together.
Summary: ABSTRACT (cont.): Based on the results of this research and other successful community-based management projects, it was suggested for ejidos to charge UMA entrance fees to sport hunters. This would generate revenue for community development and provide a stronger incentive to value and conserve wildlife populations. The strengths and weaknesses of Mexico's wildlife management program add to the understanding of community-based wildlife co-management and conservation in the neotropics.
Summary: KEYWORDS: community-based co-management, wildlife conservation, Mexico, sustainable development
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2001.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 152-155).
System Details: System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details: Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jennifer Lechuga.
General Note: Title from first page of PDF file.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains xv, 156 p.; also contains graphics.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00100844
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 49052996
alephbibnum - 002766049
notis - ANP4088

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

lechuga_final3 ( PDF )


Full Text











THE FEASIBILITY OF SPORT HUNTING AS A WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TOOL IN SOUTHERN MEXICO

















By

JENNIFER LECHUGA


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2001




























Copyright 2001

by

Jennifer Lechuga

































In memory of my mother, Jeannie S. Lechuga















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Partial funding for this research was provided by a grant from the Tropical

Conservation and Development program of the University of Florida. Research was

made possible by the help from a number of people in Mexico and the University of

Florida. I would like to especially thank Sophie Calme and Mauro Sanvicente from

Ecosur in Quintana Roo for their significant support, guidance and generosity throughout

the process of formulating my thesis. Sophie Calme essentially acted as my unofficial

external advisor. I am very grateful for Francisco Quinto's time, energy, information and

contacts that aided my understanding of the sport hunting events in Quintana Roo, and

that made my interviews possible. I would like to thank my research assistants, especially

Francisco Ayala for his time, energy, patience and enthusiasm. I extend gratitude to

Gilberto Avila and La Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo,

A.C., especially Luis Chai and Tenico Solis, for their generosity in giving information

and time to help me understand resource use in the ejidos of Tres Garantias and Caobas.

I would also like to thank the communities of Tres Garantias, Caobas, and Xbonil for

allowing me to conduct my research in their homes. I want to thank Jorge Guerrero from

SEMARNAP Campeche, and Carlos Llorens from SEMARNAP Quintana Roo for all

their guidance, information and time. I also want to thank the sport hunting clubs of

Quintana Roo and Campeche for allowing me to interview club members.

I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Richard Bodmer, for giving me the

opportunity and guidance to conduct this research. I am grateful to my committee, Dr.

iv









Steve Humphrey and Dr. Clyde Kiker, for their time and guidance while writing my

thesis. I am also indebted to Dr. Steve Humphrey for helping me during my times of

need, especially during my interviews with the sport hunters in Mexico and during my

thesis defense. Mr. Lovett Williams was kind to inform me about the U.S. sport hunting

events in Mexico. I thank Dr. Catharine Sahley and Dr. Susan Jacobson for reading and

editing portions of my thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank all of my friends and family for giving me

emotional support. Special thanks go to my dear friend, Sampreethi Aipanjiguly, for her

time editing my thesis and providing support and advice while I was writing.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ....................................................................... .....................iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................... ....... ... .. ... .. .. ................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... .........xiii

A B S T R A C T ............. ......... .. .. .............. ............................ ................ . x iv

CHAPTERS

1 IN TR O D U C TION ....................... .... ................ .... .. ........ ............. ..

W wildlife M anagem ent A approaches ............................. .............................................. 1
M exico's W wildlife M anagem ent Program ................................................................... 4
Extractive U ses of W wildlife ........................................................... ... .............. 5
Subsistence Hunting..................................... 5
Small-Scale Commerce. ........................ .. ..... ............... ............ 6
Sport H hunting ........................ ........................... ....... ......................................
Wildlife Conservation, Management and Sustainable Use Units: UMAs.................... 9
E jid o s .......................................................... ........ ......... ...... 1 1
R research Objectives .................. ................................ ....... .. .......... .. 12
F ocal G am e Species.. ................. ............................... .. ................. ........ ................... 13
Study A pproach............................................................................................. 14
Stakeholder Dynamics ................ ...................................... ...... .............. 15
C u rrent U se P ractices.......................................... ... ............... ....... ................ .. 2 0
Population Dynamics .. ................. .......................... .. .......... .. 20
E conom ic Feasibility ........................................... ... ...................... 21
Stakeholder C om patibility................................................................................. 23

2 M E T H O D S ................................................................24

Study Sites............................................ .............. 24
Sam pling M ethod .................. ................................. .. ........ .. ........ .. 26
Surveys ................ .................... ........ .............. 27
Statistical Analysis ....................................................................... ........ 30
Part 1: Background Inform ation............................................................... .......... 30
Part 2: Sport Hunting as a Wildlife Conservation Tool.......................................... 31
Part 3: Sport hunting as a Tool for Sustainable Development ............................ 32









Document Review ........................... ......... ................................ 33

3 R E SU L T S .................................................................. 3 4

G group Profiles............................ ... . ............................... 34
Sport Hunting as a Wildlife Conservation Tool ................................. .............. 42
Importance of Hunting as an Activity ............................... ............. 42
H hunting tradition............................... .............. .......................... .................. 42
Reasons for hunting ................ ...................................... .... ............ .. 43
R eason s for not hu nting ........................................................................................ 44
A annual hunting frequency........................ ........ ............ ........................... 44
Annual hunting costs as a percentage of annual income .................................... 45
Im portance of W ild G am e Species ................................ ........................... ...... .. 45
Species u se ........................................ 4 5
H hunting pressure ............... ............ ..... .. .... .......... ............ .. 50
1999 income generated from selling wild meat by ejidos .................................. 51
Annual consumption frequency of game meat ......... .......................... 54
Annual meat consumption by weight (Kg)........................................................ 57
W ild G am e Preference .................................. ......... ........... ................................ 57
Perceptions on Resource Access: Perceptions on Wildlife Ownership on Ejido Lands
....................................................... . . .............. 5 9
Distribution of Information (Knowledge).................................. .............. 61
Law Enforcem ent ............................... .................. ....... .. .......... .. 64
C current H hunting Practices ......................................... .... .................. .............. 66
S ex selection ............................................................................................ 6 6
A g e selection n .................................................................. 6 8
M months of gam e harvest .................................................. ........ .............. 70
Hunting locations ............................................... .. 78
Population Dynamics ........... .......................................... .............. 78
Perceived change in population size ....................................................... 78
Perceived change in population distance .............. ............................. ....... ....... 81
Perceptions Tow ards W ildlife..................... ......................... .......................... 84
Sport Hunting as a Tool for Sustainable Development .......................................... 84
Econom ic Feasibility: Contingent Valuation.................................. .................... 84
Ejido responses .... ........................................ ............... 84
Sport hunter responses ............................................................................ ........ 89
Price overlap on potential revenue for wildlife management ............................ 90
Price overlap on potential revenue for community development .................... 94
Group Perceptions and Compatibility..................... ........ ... .............. 97
G roup perceptions about other groups............................................ .... .. .............. 97
D ocum ent Review ......... .. ................. .................................. ............ .. 100
P population D ensity................... ......... .................... ... ................ ...... .................. 100
Hunting Pressure .......... ........... .... ..... ......... .. .... .... .. .......... 103
Authorized Harvest ....... ........ ....... ............................... ............ .. 104









4 D ISCU SSION ..................................... ................. ............ .............. 106

D em graphics ................................. .............................. 106
Sport Hunting as a Tool for Wildlife Conservation............................. 107
Stakeholder A analysis ............................................... .. .. .. .. .......... .. 107
Current H hunting Practices ......................................................... .............. 113
Population D ynam ics .............. .... ...... .............. ........................ .. ............ 116
Sport Hunting as a Tool for Sustainable Development ........................................... 116
U .S. Sport H unting.. ................. ............................... ... ................ ........ ................... 120
C on clu sion s ........................................................... ........ ...... 12 2
R ecom m endations .... .......................... ...... .. ...................... .................. 123

APPENDICES

A ANNUAL HUNTING PRESSURE AND CONSUMPTION FREQUENCY...........126

B SPORT HUNTING MAPS OF QUINTANA ROO AND CAMPECHE...................135

C SURVEYS USED DURING INTERVIEWS WITH SPORT HUNTERS,
SUBSISTENCE HUNTERS AND EJIDO NON-HUNTERS .....................................138

Sport H hunter Questionnaire ............................... ... .................................... 139
Subsistence Hunter Questionnaire .................................. 143
N ON -H hunter Questionnaire ............................... ... .................................... 148

REFERENCES .................................. .. .......... ..............152

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................ ............................................156
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. States that respondents claim as their place of origin* ............................................... 35

2. Residency status of individuals living in ejidos. Ejidatarios have greater influence on
the decisions made in the community than pobladores. .............................36

3. Mean number of years as a resident of the five corresponding sites, including
Chetumal, Campeche, Tres Garantias, Caobas, and Xbonil* ...........................37

4. M ean age of individuals interviewed per group* ................................... ............... 37

5. Average number of years of education by group* ........................................................38

6. Prim ary occupation held by individuals by group* ........................................ ................39

7. Average number of individuals in per household by group*.............................................40

8. Annual income profiles in U SD ................................. ....................................... 41

9. Hunting Tradition in the Family. Groups having a high proportion of fathers and/or
grandfathers who hunt signify that hunting is a strong tradition for the group* .43

10. Primary reasons that motivate individuals of each group to hunt *...............................44

11. Comparison of average frequency of hunting per year for each group .........................45

12. Comparison of the various uses of deer species between groups .............. ....................47

13. Comparison of the various uses of peccary species between groups. Peccaries have
significant food value and little trophy value. ......................... ..................48

14. Comparison of the various uses of game birds and agouti paca between groups ...........49

15. Amount of income gained (USD) by selling artiodactyls by ejido hunters in 1999........53

16. Amount of income gained (USD) by selling game birds and agouti paca by ejido
h u n ters in 19 9 9 ...................... .. .. .............. ................. ................ . 5 4









17. Total revenue gained by selling all game meat...................... ................... .......... 54

18. Comparison of annual domestic and game meat consumption (Kg) in Ejidos ...............56

19. Comparison of group perceptions on ownership of wildlife found on ejido lands*........60

20. Ejido responses to the question "To whom does the wildlife belong when an animal is
on your parcel of land?" ........... ................ ....... .............................. 60

21. Ejido responses to the question: "Do you know what an UMA is?" Responses
indicate the level of knowledge ejido residents have about wildlife
m anagem ent on their land.* ...................................................................... ..... 6 1

22. Responses to the question: "Do you know the law concerning wildlife?" Responses
indicate the effectiveness of SEMARNAP communicating policies that
directly im pact sport hunters and ejidos.* .................................................... 62

23. Responses to the question: "Are you aware of how much hunting is permitted?"
Responses indicate the level of knowledge individuals have on hunting bag
lim its .* ..................................................................... . 6 2

24. Responses to the question: "Do you know if subsistence hunting is permitted?" ........63

25. Responses to the question: "Do you know if wildlife commercialization is
permitted?" Responses indicate knowledge of wildlife uses that are legal
under the UM A strategy.* ................................................. ..........................64

26. Perceptions on the quality of government enforcement of wildlife hunting
regu nation s* ........................................................................6 5

27. Ejido perceptions on the quality of enforcement of local hunting restrictions by ejido
le a d ers ............................................................................ 6 5

28. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating sex of Artiodactyls. No
individuals claim ed to seek out fem ales. .................................. ..................67

29. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating sex of Agouti Paca and
Game Birds. No individuals claimed to seek out females. .................................68

30. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating age class of Artiodactyls.
No individuals claimed to seek out juveniles. ................................. ................69

31. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating age class of Agouti Paca
and Game Birds. No individuals claimed to seek out juveniles ........................70

32. Comparison of hunting periods of White-Tailed Deer among groups* ..........................71

33. M months of Collared Peccary Hunts* .......................................................................... 73









34. M months of Ocellated Turkey Hunts ................................................... ..................74

35. M months of Curassow H unts* ............................ .................................... ............... 75

36. M months of Brocket D eer H unts* ............................................. ............................. 76

37. M months of W hite-Lipped Peccary Hunts* .................................................. ...............77

38. M months of A gouti Paca H unts ................................... ............................ ............... 77

39. Comparison of perceived change in population size of Artiodactyls among groups ......79

40. Comparison of perceived change in population size of game birds and agouti paca
am ong groups. .......................................................................80

41. Respondents' perceptions of Artiodactyl populations becoming more distant from the
c o m m u n ity ...................................................... ................ . 8 2

42. Respondents' perceptions of game bird and agouti paca populations becoming more
distant from the com munity...... .............................................. .. ............... 83

43. Ejido responses to the question relating to acceptance of a sport hunter entrance fee as
w wildlife m anagem ent revenue ........................................ ......................... 85

44. Comparison of ejido prices to charge as an entrance fee for Mexican sport hunters if
revenue were to be invested in wildlife management* .....................................85

45. Comparison of ejido prices to charge as an entrance fee for foreign sport hunters if
revenue were to be invested in wildlife management* .....................................86

46. Ejido responses to the question relating to acceptance of a sport hunter entrance fee as
com munity public w orks revenue ............................................. ............... 87

47. Comparison of ejido prices to charge as an entrance fee for Mexican sport hunters
with revenue to be invested in community public works projects.* ....................87

48. Comparison of ejido prices to charge as an entrance fee for foreign sport hunters with
revenue to be invested in community public works projects.* ............................88

49. Amount sport hunters are willing to pay as an UMA entrance fee to an ejido if the
money were used for wildlife management ............................... ............... .89

50. Amount sport hunters are willing to pay as an UMA entrance fee to an ejido if the
money were used for community benefit..........................................................90

51. Sport hunter responses to the question: "How do you get along with ejido
resid ents?" ..............................................................................9 7









52. Sport hunter responses to the question: "How much hunting pressure do you think
ejido hunters are responsible of"* ....................................................................97

53. Ejido responses to the question: "How do you get along with Mexican sport
hunters?*" ................................................................................98

54. Ejido responses to the question: "Do you like United States hunters hunting in your
ejido ?*" ........................................................................................ 9 8

55. Ejido responses to the question: "Do you think sport hunters over hunt?" ....................99

56. Ejido responses to the question: Does sport hunting benefit you personally?"* ............99

57. Ejido responses to the question: "Do you think sport hunting benefits your
com m unity?"* ....................................................................................... 99

58. Game Population Size in the 20,000 ha or 200 km2 of the UMA in Tres Garantias.
Ranges are shown below the averages. ..................................... ...............101

59. Annual hunting pressure in Tres Garantias.................................. ........................ 103

60. Total number of animals hunted, eaten, and sold in Caobas in 1997 ...........................103

61. Highest hunting pressure in 1995, 1996, and 1997 by month in Caobas......................104

62. Authorized harvest in Tres Garantias in 2000 ...................................... ............... 104

63. Authorized harvest in Caobas in 1999 ........................................ ......................... 105

64. Authorized harvest in Xbonil in 1999 and 2000 ................................................105

A-1. Hunting Pressure by Groups in 20001 ............ ....... ........................................... 126

A-2. Hunting Pressure by Groups in 1999 .......................................... ............... 128

A-3. Hunting Pressure By Groups in 1998 ........................................ ........................ 130

A-4. Annual Frequency of Wild Meat Consumption per Group ........................................132















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1. Compatibility of Stakeholder Responses in Campeche on Entrance Fees Used for
W wildlife M anagem ent ............................................. ............................. 91

2. Compatibility of Stakeholder Responses in Quintana Roo on Entrance Fees Used for
W wildlife M anagem ent ............................................. ............................. 92

3. Compatibility of Total Sport Hunter and Ejido Responses on Entrance Fees Used for
W wildlife M anagem ent ............................................. ............................. 93

4. Compatibility of Sport hunters and Ejido Residents in Campeche on Entrance Fee
Responses Used for Community Development ............................................94

5. Compatibility of Sport Hunter and Ejido Responses in Quintana Roo on Entrance Fees
Used for Community Development ...................................... ............... 97

6. Compatibility of Total Sport Hunter and Ejido Responses on Entrance Fees used for
Com m unity D evelopm ent.................... ......... ........................ ........ ....... 98

B-1. Sport hunting sites in Quintana Roo .............. .... .......................................... 136

B-2. Sport hunting sites in Campeche .................................................137















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

THE FEASIBILITY OF SPORT HUNTING AS A WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TOOL IN SOUTHERN MEXICO
By

Jennifer Lechuga

August 2001


Chairman: Dr. Richard Bodmer
Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology

Wildlife decline in southern Mexico is mainly attributed to overexploitation and

habitat destruction. The Mexican government recently developed a progressive wildlife

management strategy based on a system of wildlife conservation, management, and

sustainable use units (SUMA), which allows sustainable uses of wildlife while providing

economic alternatives to local communities. The greatest attribute of the new wildlife

management program is the structure it offers for community-based co-management of

the resource on ejido lands.

This study evaluated the success of the SUMA strategy on ejidos that support

sport hunting as a wildlife use option in southern Mexico. The evaluation was divided

into two parts: sport hunting as a tool for wildlife conservation, and sport hunting as a

tool for sustainable development. Sport hunters, subsistence hunters, and ejido non-

hunters were interviewed on hunting importance, wildlife value, knowledge, perceptions,

economics and demographic information. The information gathered was used to analyze









stakeholder dynamics, current use practices, game population trends, economic feasibility

and stakeholder compatibility.

Wildlife conservation, management, and sustainable use units (UMAs) that

provide sport hunting as a wildlife use option have not been successful in Quintana Roo

and Campeche, but show great potential for future success. Data showed that several

insufficiencies have hindered success. Potential for improvement exists because

stakeholders show a willingness to conserve and work together.

Based on the results of this research and other successful community-based

management projects, it was suggested for ejidos to charge UMA entrance fees to sport

hunters. This would generate revenue for community development and provide a

stronger incentive to value and conserve wildlife populations.

The strengths and weaknesses of Mexico's wildlife management program add to

the understanding of community-based wildlife co- management and conservation in the

neotropics.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Natural resources in Mexico's southern region have faced increased pressure for

the past thirty years. For example, during the 1970s, the government encouraged

colonization of sparsely populated states in southern Mexico. This resulted in

overexploitation of forest and wildlife resources (Escamilla et al., 2000). Escamilla et al.

(2000) found that the two greatest threats to tropical wildlife populations are habitat

destruction and hunting pressure. To address these threats, Bodmer and Puertas (2000)

suggest that management strategies must fit the socio-economic and political realities of

the region.

Southern Mexico is economically poorer than the rest of the country, yet is rich in

natural resources. Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Chiapas are among the states with the

lowest contribution to domestic GNP and the lowest employment rates in the country

(Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica, 1999a). Mexico's southern

region also has a large percentage of ejido (communally owned) lands (Calme and

Sanvicente, pers. com.). To address local needs and develop acceptable alternatives to

overexploitation, an effective strategy is community-based conservation (Bodmer and

Puertas, 2000).


Wildlife Management Approaches

There are several basic structures of wildlife management. These include

management by the state, communities, and co-management between various stakeholder









groups. Wildlife management in the United States has a central structure under federal

and state control. The Fish and Wildlife Service develops, implements and enforces

wildlife management plans. Africa offers examples of community-based wildlife

management. The Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources

(CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe and the Administrative Management Design for Game

Management Areas (AMADE) in Zambia are examples of a community-based wildlife

management programs that use sport hunting as a wildlife conservation and sustainable

development tool. The programs provide employment and revenue at a local level, and

have experienced varied success in some districts. The communities in Zimbabwe that

implemented CAMPFIRE with bureaucratic control had less success than those that used

a community-based decision-making process and a means for direct economic benefits

(Metcalfe, 1994). This suggests that communication and consensus in a community

increase the chances for the success of the management strategy.

Lewis and Alpert (1997) discuss how trophy hunting provides important

economic revenue for wildlife conservation in Zambia. Using the Zambian case, Gibson

and Marks (1995) raise important issues regarding direct and indirect socio-economic

benefits and empowerment through community-based management. They found that

simply generating income was not enough to ensure the success of a wildlife

conservation program. They argue that for community-based management to achieve

intended goals, leaders must realize the importance of wildlife to local residents, consider

how the decision-making process works, and how the economic benefits are distributed.

The African programs focus on addressing hunting motivations. Based on these

motivations, the programs focused on providing incentives to change behavior. In









situations where wildlife is perceived as a common resource, experts believe that if

communities have legal rights and a significant stake in the resource, they are motivated

to conserve (Gibson and Marks, 1995). Gibson and Marks (1995) also found that

community-based management may improve enforcement, but does not necessarily

guarantee equitable distribution of socio-economic benefits. In the Zambian case, tribal

leaders were given significant decision-making power, including selecting personnel (i.e.:

as game wardens) and a location for the program. Since the ADMADE program did not

clearly specify management composition or procedure, the chiefs used the benefits of the

program to reward kin and loyalists (Gibson and Marks, 1995).

There are various lessons to be learned from community-based wildlife

management programs, including the importance of identifying motivations for wildlife

use, perceptions of resource access, and the decision-making process. This understanding

could ensure more equitable distribution of economic benefits, and support for the

program.

Bodmer and Puertas (2000) discuss a community based co-management approach

for wildlife in the Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo communal reserve in the Peruvian Amazon

(RCTT). Community members took an active role in managing wildlife with the support

of other stakeholders, including researchers, NGO extensionists, and government

agencies. The community provided information from the skulls of hunted animals. In

addition, the community maintained a hunting registry to track hunting pressure. The

authors outline numerous benefits of the approach, including commitment, information

sharing, and trust among the various stakeholder groups.









There have not been any reports in Latin America of co-management on

communal lands using sport hunting as an economic incentive to conserve, other than

those from Mexico. Since the first game law of 1952, Mexico has made great progress in

developing a policy that incorporates conservation and economic development with

wildlife management.


Mexico's Wildlife Management Program

The Mexican Game Law of 1952 was the first law to address wildlife use and

conservation in the country (Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, 1999a). The purpose of the

law was to "direct and guarantee the conservation, restoration, and development of the

wildlife which live freely in Mexican territory, regulating its exploitation" (Leopold,

1959, p. 531). The game law decreed wildlife as the property of the nation under Article

3. The law established sport hunting as the only wildlife use option. Article 33 regarded

hunting or taking wildlife without a hunting permit and without an arms license as an

offense. Hence, those without a hunting license or arms permit, such as subsistence

hunters, were acting against the law. Article 16 prohibited commercial hunting (Leopold,

1959; Sanvicente, 1996). It also considered "the sale, commerce in or advertising of

meats, products, or remains of wild animals" as an offense (Leopold, 1959, p. 535). Only

by presidential authorization could wildlife be used for investigation, cultural purposes,

and breeding programs. Thus, the game law had many deficiencies, including not

addressing local needs, other sustainable uses, and alternatives for wildlife management

and conservation (INE, 1999a).

The General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection, Ley

General del Equilibrio Ecol6gico y la Protecci6n alAmbiente (LGEEPA), was passed on









January 28, 1988 and ratified on December 13, 1996 (INE, 1999b). The purpose of the

law was to define principles of environmental policy and instruments for its

implementation, and to address social and economic benefits compatible with ecosystem

preservation. Article 87 authorizes wildlife use for economic gain if the population can

be replenished in captive or semi-captive breeding projects, or if the harvest is less than

the reproductive rate of the population (INE, 1999b).

The wildlife conservation and production diversification program in the rural

sector and the SUMA (system of wildlife conservation, management, and sustainable use

units) strategy laid the foundation for a new progressive wildlife law to be passed in

Mexico. The new wildlife law, Ley General de Vida Silvestre, was passed in 2000

(Llorens, pers. com.). It is more progressive than the Mexican game law of 1952 because

it not only supports conservation, but also supports alternative sustainable uses of

wildlife, including subsistence, commerce, research, and other nonconsumptive utilities

(Guerrero, pers. com.). Although post facto, it gives a legal framework to the SUMA

program and gives SEMARNAP, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y

Pesca (the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources, and Fish) the authorization to

execute and manage the program.


Extractive Uses of Wildlife

Subsistence Hunting

The three predominant extractive uses of wildlife in Mexico are subsistence

hunting, small-scale commerce, and sport hunting (Leopold, 1959). Household

consumption was the most important wildlife use among the agricultural community and

economically impoverished rural population (Leopold, 1959; Avila, 1995; Jorgenson,









1993). Only a few individuals in the rural communities hunted as their primary daily

activity, and the greatest hunting pressure occurred when farming conditions were

unfavorable (Leopold, 1959). Leopold (1959) suggested that over hunting is due to

subsistence hunting in poor socio-economic conditions. Further, he stated that wild game

was an important protein source in the diet.

Hunter preference for a particular species has been consistent for many years. In

1959, Leopold found that white-tailed deer was the most important game for sport and

subsistence hunters. Recent studies from Quintana Roo and Campeche also report white-

tailed deer as one of the most important game for ejido communities (Escamilla et al.,

2000; Quijano, 1999; Reyna et al., 1999).

Small-Scale Commerce

Before the 1952 general game law, Ley de Caza, wildlife products were sold in

open markets (Leopold, 1959). Although wildlife trade was declared illegal, it was and

still is practiced in the rural communities. Leopold (1959) concluded that wildlife trade

existed in lesser proportion than hunting for food and trophy, and was the least beneficial

to the country.

Sport Hunting

The sport hunting tradition existed in the wealthy and governing classes of

Mexico for hundreds of years (Leopold, 1959). Sport hunting today is still practiced by a

small section of the population. Leopold (1959) believed that sport hunting had a

negligible impact on wildlife populations. In 1950, 3 out of 10,000 individuals held a

hunting license. In 1954, only 8,162 licenses were sold in Mexico (Leopold, 1959). This

does not represent the number of hunters in Mexico at the time, since the majority of the









population could not afford a license and law enforcement was very scarce (Leopold,

1959).

Current information on sport hunting statistics is very limited. Guerrero (2000b)

found that the revenue generated from sport hunting permit sales in Campeche increased

from approximately $988 USD in 1995 to $5,468 in 1997. After 1997, the number of

permits sold fell by 92 causing a loss of about $1,735 USD. Instead of being reinvested

in wildlife programs, the revenue from the permit sales goes to the federal government.

Mexican sport hunters have to fulfill several requirements before they can legally

hunt. Mexican citizens must first obtain a gun permit from the Estado Mayor de la

Secretaria de la Defensa (Office of the Defense Secretary) in order to obtain a hunting

license. Sport hunting clubs facilitate the purchase of the gun permit by vouching for the

conduct of its' members. Sport hunting club membership is a prerequisite to obtaining a

hunting license (Leopold, 1959 and Guerrero, pers. com.). Article 18 of the Ley Federal

de Caza states that every licensed hunter must be a member of a club registered with the

Federacion Nacional de Caza, Tiro, y Pesca (National Hunting, Shooting, and Fishing

Federation).

The sport hunting club of Quintana Roo, Club de Caza Tiro y Pesca de Quintana

Roo, A.C., is located in the capital city of Chetumal. The club has approximately 60

members, of which 36 primarily hunt and the rest fish. The registered club in Campeche,

Club de Caza, Pescay Tiro de Campeche, A.C., has about 98 members. The club of

Campeche has three women registered as members, but Quintana Roo has none.

Based on the premise that sport hunters spend money wherever they hunt,

Leopold (1959) stated that sport hunting should be encouraged to benefit the local









economy. He believed that the social and economic values of wildlife lie principally in

its recreational potential rather than in subsistence and commerce.

Sport hunting has been used successfully as a management strategy for wildlife

conservation in various parts of the world including North America, Africa, and Europe.

Sport hunting in the United States is an effective management tool for conservation

because it not only helps manage wildlife populations at a level that the environment can

support, but also funds conservation efforts. Hunting and license fees serve as important

revenue for wildlife management programs (Williamson, 1987). Furthermore, there are

numerous examples of game population recovery because of sport hunting. For instance,

wild turkeys were on the brink of extinction in 1910, but after decades of regulated

hunting and reinvestment of hunting revenues into management they increased to about 4

million in 1996 (Budiansky, 1996). Likewise, the population of pronghorn antelope has

grown from about 5,000 in 1910 to over a million in the 1990s (Budiansky, 1996). Sport

hunting has been argued to be an effective conservation tool because hunters value and

want to conserve game species in order to enjoy the activity in the future.

Mexico's wildlife management program, Sistema de Unidades para la

Conservaci6n y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Vida Silvestre (SUMA), was

introduced in 1997. It addresses important conservation issues which were neglected in

the Mexican Game Law of 1952 (Llorens-Cruset and Berlanga-Garcia, 1998). The

SUMA strategy is designed to include local communities in the management plan and to

allow other sustainable uses of wildlife, including subsistence and commercial (Guerrero,

pers. com.). For the first time, Mexico is integrating community development, wildlife

conservation and natural resource management.









Wildlife Conservation, Management and Sustainable Use Units: UMAs

Unidades para la Conservaci6n, Manejo y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la

Vida Silvestre (UMAs), translated to wildlife conservation, management and sustainable

use units, are areas of land that allow nonconsumptive and consumptive uses of wildlife

based on an approved management plan (Guerrero, pers. com). Nonconsumptive uses

include ecotourism and environmental education. Consumptive uses encompass sport

hunting, subsistence hunting, and small-scale commerce of wildlife. Sport hunting

through the SUMA strategy is a means to bring financial resources from urban areas to

the rural sector (Villarreal, 2000). The UMA strategy incorporates wildlife and habitat

conservation, while giving local people new, legal and economic alternatives, and

decision-making power. This study is focused on the sport and subsistence hunting

options under the SUMA plan.

A national program directed by the Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE), a branch

of SEMARNAP, created the UMA strategy. The program was called Programa de

Conservaci6n de la Vida Silvestre y Diversificaci6n Productiva en el Sector Rural 1995-

2000, or the program for wildlife conservation and production diversification in the rural

sector 1995-2000 (Diario Oficial, 1998). The program's objective was to integrate

conservation and sustainable use of wildlife by giving the rural sector economic

alternatives. It aims to provide revenue for species management and economic benefits

to the property owners and managers. The required management plans and yearly reports

serve as an important database for government agencies to manage wildlife more

efficiently (Llorens-Cruset and Berlanga-Garcia, 1998).

There are two types of UMAs. Intensive UMAs are fenced-in wildlife breeding

farms. These areas are relatively smaller than extensive UMAs. They are used to









propagate endangered or rare species, and for environmental education, investigation, or

the production and commercialization of wildlife and derived products (Calme, pers.

com.). Extensive UMAs are larger non-fenced areas that incorporate habitat management

and population monitoring, and are used for sport hunting, ecotourism, or wildlife

commercialization (Llorens-Cruset and Berlanga-Garcia, 1998).

UMAs are often found in the buffer areas of national reserves, private land,

government land (federal, state, municipal), and ejido lands. In general, a large

percentage of the UMAs in northern Mexico are privately owned and in the south are

ejido owned (Llorens and Quinto, pers. com.).

A number of steps need to be followed to register a parcel of land as an UMA.

Any individual or group of individuals holding land title may submit an application to

SEMARNAP to make an area of their land an UMA. A technician must be contracted to

conduct a biological assessment, including habitat description and censuses of the species

of interest. The technician then consults with the title owners and recommends harvest

based on the species biology and population size (Guerrero, pers. com.). The locals then

decide how they want to use a species. For example, if 20 white-tailed deer could be

harvested in one year, the community-members may decide to allot 7 for sport hunting

and 13 for subsistence. The technician must produce a management plan and submit it

with the biological study to SEMARNAP for approval. UMAs can be registered, but

cannot operate without a management plan. The management plan must contain the

number of animals of each species proposed to be harvested based on the census data, a

management plan, and enforcement strategies. The UMA also has to provide an annual

report. Therefore, in order for an UMA to operate, it must be registered with









SEMARNAP, have and execute a management plan, monitor wildlife populations,

regulate use, and have a participatory enforcement program (Llorens-Cruset and

Berlanga-Garcia, 1998).

The first UMAs were registered and operating in 1997, although intensive and

extensive sport hunting ranches were operating before then (Guerrero, pers. com.). There

are 2,175 registered UMAs in Mexico, encompassing 14,427,176 hectares. As of the

summer of 2000, Quintana Roo had 7 extensive UMAs. Three UMAs focus on

ecotourism, 2 focus on commerce, and 2 concentrate on sport hunting. At the same time,

Campeche had 11 intensive and 34 extensive UMAs registered, of which only 10 and 17

respectively, were in operation. The others did not have management plans. Eight of the

operating UMAs were on ejidos; the others were on private lands (Guerrero, 2000a).

Sport hunting is very popular and lucrative in the north of Mexico, but has not

been as successful in the south (Llorens, pers. com.). No information exists on the

impacts of sport hunting in the south, or the impacts of the UMAs on the local

communities where the sport hunting takes place. To determine the success of sport

hunting UMAs in the south of Mexico and what program improvements might be

necessary, information is needed on stakeholder activities, wildlife population dynamics,

and current use practices.


Ejidos

In 1992 there were approximately 29,000 ejidos (communal land holdings with a

collective title), comprising 50% of the land territories in Mexico and containing about

25% of the Mexican human population (Land Tenure Center, 1992; Chavez, 2001). The

amendment to Article 27 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution and a new agrarian law









passed in 1992 gave the ejido members (ejidatarios) more economic and political

strength (Aguina, 1993).

Ejidos are organized into three land use areas that include a housing area in the

community center, individual parcels, and a communal area (Procuraduria Agraria,

1999). The communal area cannot be divided and the natural resources are usufruct. The

benefits derived from the communal area are divided among all ejidatarios (Quinto, pers.

com.). Since 1992, ejidatarios are allowed to sell, rent, sharecrop, or mortgage their

individual parcels after gaining a two-thirds vote in their general assembly (Procuraduria

Agraria, 1999; Land Tenure Center, 1992). Therefore, each ejidatario could

economically benefit from the production on his individual parcel. This fosters a new

perception of private property for the ejido residents, and may have implications on

conservation attitudes (Freese, 1998).

UMAs located on ejido lands enable community-based co-management to be an

integral part of Mexico's wildlife conservation and rural development plan. The success

of UMAs on ejidos depends on how well the management plan fits into the socio-

economic organization of the community.


Research Objectives

Two research objectives were identified to determine the feasibility of sport

hunting as a wildlife conservation and sustainable development tool under the SUMA

program in southern Mexico. The first was to examine sport hunting as a wildlife

conservation tool based on stakeholder dynamics, current uses, and population trends.

Stakeholder dynamics were based on five criteria: 1) importance of hunting, 2)

importance of wild game species to each stakeholder group, 3) perceptions of wildlife









ownership, 4) knowledge about the SUMA program, and 5) enforcement of hunting

restrictions. Assessment of current uses was based on selection of game by sex, age, hunt

period, and hunt locations. Evaluation of population trends was based on perceived

wildlife population decline and distance from the center of the community.

The second research objective was to determine if sport hunting is a feasible tool

for sustainable socio-economic development in southern Mexico. Economic feasibility

and stakeholder compatibility were analyzed to meet this objective. Economic feasibility

entailed determining agreement on entrance fee price and employment possibilities

through sport hunting. Stakeholder compatibility was based on group attitudes and

perceptions concerning other stakeholders.

This study evaluates the current success and future feasibility of sport hunting

UMAs in southern Mexico. The study provides information on Mexico's program for

wildlife management and sustainable development that may serve as a useful model for

other countries in Latin America.


Focal Game Species

Numerous studies have looked at the importance of game species in Latin

America (Bodmer, 1995a; Bodmer, 1995b; Jorgenson, 1993; Quijano, 1999; Reyna et al.,

1999; Robinson and Bodmer, 1999; Robinson and Redford, 1991). Based on previous

research, preliminary interviews, and on conversations with reliable sources, seven game

species were identified as among the most important game to both sport hunters and ejido

residents. Escamilla et al. (2000) observed in their study that the most important species

for subsistence in southern Campeche were white-tailed deer, brocket deer, collared

peccary, agouti paca and curassow. In this study, the game species discussed include the









white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), brocket deer (Mazama americana and

Mazamapandora), white-lipped peccary (Tayassupecari), collared peccary (Pecari

tajacu), agouti paca (Agoutipaca), ocellated turkey (Agriocharis ocellata), and the

curassow (Crax rubra).


Study Approach

To understand the effectiveness of sport hunting as a tool for wildlife

conservation and sustainable development, the study groups are described using general

background information. Information gathered includes an individual's place of origin,

number of years as a resident of the study area, resident status if living in an ejido, age,

education, occupation, number of individuals living in the household, and annual income.

Information on origin demonstrates the regional mix of the predominantly mestizo

rural (ejido residents) and urban (sport hunters) populations studied. Length of residence

is often related to respondent's personal investment in an area. For ejido communities, in

particular, length of residence often determines the individual's influence on the

community.

The resident status of the ejido population factors in their influence on decisions

made in the ejido. Two types of resident status exist in most ejidos: ejidatario and

poblador. Ejidatarios not only have a parcel to work, but also have voting privileges

during their community assemblies. Pobladores do not have voting privileges, but

possess land parcels, and thus impact wildlife management. Ejidatarios are, therefore the

most influential in the decision-making process in the ejidos. Thepobaldores are less

influential, but are active users of wildlife.









Information on age, education, and occupation is useful for wildlife managers to

effectively communicate wildlife conservation plans. Information on the number of

individuals living per household, and their economic profiles gives important baseline

information on the financial status of each group. Annual income provides a basis for

comparison between groups in economic analyses.

The second section of the analysis evaluates the feasibility of using sport hunting

as a tool for wildlife conservation in the region. For any wildlife conservation plan to be

successful, stakeholder dynamics, current use practices, and wildlife population dynamics

must be considered. The three stakeholder groups in this analysis are the two main user

groups, sport hunters and ejido residents (including subsistence hunters and non-hunters),

and the government agency, SEMARNAP. It is important to understand the motivation

and value the users have towards hunting and wild game, in order to develop proper

incentives for groups to participate in the program on a long-term basis. SEMARNAP

should effectively communicate relevant information to the users and enforce the

management plan.

Stakeholder Dynamics

Analysis of stakeholder dynamics includes 1) perceived value of hunting, 2) game

importance, 3) perceptions of resource access, 4) knowledge about the management plan,

and 5) enforcement of hunting restrictions. The perceived value of hunting is based on

tradition, motivation, hunting frequency, and financial expenditures, in the case of sport

hunters.

The traditional or cultural importance of hunting is often manifested in multiple

generations within a core family unit (i.e.: immediate kin) practicing the activity. For the

purpose of this study, an activity is considered to have the strongest traditional ties when









the immediate family, especially the "family lead figure" engages in the activity. In

Mexican society, "family lead figure" refers to the patriarch, be it the father and/or

grandfather. Response categories of "father", "grandfather," and "father and

grandfather" indicate the strongest ties and possess equal weight. The "other family

member" category carries less weight, and the "no one in the immediate family" response

category indicates the weakest traditional ties. The study hypothesizes that hunting has

equally strong traditional ties for sport and subsistence hunters, but is more of a tradition

in the family for hunters than for non-hunters.

Information about differences in the motivations to hunt aids group understanding

and facilitates stakeholder collaboration. For instance, the question "does one group hunt

significantly more for food and/or revenue compared to other groups?" may indicate the

room for compromise by the groups to work together under the UMA plan. Hunting due

to need allows for less flexibility in making compromises than if the motivation is

recreational.

Reasons for non-hunters not to hunt were also recorded to understand if

abstinence was due to conviction or opportunity. Reasons given as lack of opportunity

may indicate that the individual may hunt in the future if the chance arises. Lack of

opportunity is expected to be the predominant response for this section.

The number of times an individual hunts may also reflect the importance of the

activity. Groups hunting often are considered to value the activity more than those who

hunt less frequently. Subsistence hunters are expected to hunt more often than sport

hunters.









The amount one spends on a recreational activity is compelling evidence of how

an individual values the activity. The more money one spends on anything associated

with hunting in relation to their income, the more important the activity may be to the

individual. This analysis focuses on sport hunters since they do not hunt on the basis of

need. This information will aid in understanding how groups value recreational hunting.

Understanding the perceived value of the wildlife that is most consumed helps

identify common objectives and facilitates stakeholders to work together. Identifying

species that are most important helps to understand which species faces the greatest

hunting pressure by a particular group. Thus, conservation efforts can focus on these

species and work more efficiently. These findings also show if a particular species is

important for more than one group. In this case, these groups have a greater stake in

working together to ensure the viability of the population. This information can be used

to help sport hunters and subsistence hunters cooperate to ensure the future enjoyment of

the species under the UMA plan. In this study, wildlife value is defined by the following

criteria: a) use, b) hunting pressure, c) revenue gained from meat sales (for ejido

residents), d) consumption frequency, and e) species preference.

Species uses are analyzed using a continuum from "food and revenue" at one end

followed by "food", "sell", "food and trophy", "food, fun, and trophy", and "trophy" on

the other. This order follows a gradient with "need" at one end and "want" at another.

The primary use of a species is discussed as well as the group having the greatest need

for the species. The study hypothesizes that there is a difference in use patterns between

groups and that subsistence hunters use the species more for food and sport hunters use

the species more for trophy.









The number of animals of a species that the group hunts indicates its value to the

group. The higher the hunting pressure, the higher the species value. This analysis does

not account for a hunter's skill and chance as possible biases. Information identifying a

group that places the highest hunting pressure on a particular game population can be

used to help direct conservation efforts.

Ejido residents were the only groups to sell game meat as an important part of

their annual revenue. The higher the revenue gain from selling meat of a particular

species, the more important that species is for the individual. The study hypothesizes that

species value in this respect is the same for all ejido residents.

The species most often consumed is the most important wild game for a group's

diet. Consumption frequency is based on the amount hunted and/or bought. The groups

with the highest consumption of each species will also be reviewed. To understand the

importance of wild meat in the diet, wild meat consumption frequency will be compared

to domestic meat intake. The hypothesis is that all groups consume chicken in the

greatest amount because it is the cheapest and most available meat, and wild meat in the

least amount, due to its higher price and limited availability.

Game preference also indicates the importance of a species to an individual. If a

relationship exists between game preference and hunting pressure and/or consumption

frequency, it is important to know which species is the most preferred by a group. This

information can also serve as an element of common ground to motivate stakeholders to

work together.

Apart from hunting and game importance, perceptions of wildlife ownership have

a large impact on resource conservation. If an individual feels a claim to the resource, he









will have a higher tendency to conserve it in order to ensure future enjoyment. When one

perceives a resource as having no owner and openly accessible, the individual is in

competition with others for resource access. As a result, there is little incentive to

conserve (Hardin, 1968). The majority of sport hunters are expected to consider wildlife

as belonging to no one, and as open access, while the ejido residents are expected to

consider the wildlife as belonging to the ejido. Taking one step further, ejido residents

are expected to consider the wildlife belonging to the ejido, even when found on their

parcel of land.

Stakeholder knowledge about the UMAs and relevant regulations is critical for

the program's success. This section evaluates the SEMARNAP's effectiveness of

providing information to sport hunters and subsistence hunters about the UMA strategy

and its regulations. Because the number of hunting tags a sport hunter is permitted to

purchase varies between UMAs, the hypothesis is that sport hunters are more

knowledgeable than subsistence hunters about the UMA program, the uses possible under

the strategy, and the new wildlife law that gives the program legal authorization.

Enforcement of hunting regulations is important to ensure the sustainable use of

wildlife resources. Educating main stakeholders of the UMA may not be sufficient, since

some individuals may choose not to follow the regulations without enough incentives.

The study hypothesizes that there is a general sentiment among all participants that the

government is doing a below-average job of enforcing hunting restrictions, due to limited

resources.

The three ejidos studied have a core forest area considered a key resource base

and is conserved by the community. The ability of ejido leaders to enforce restricted









hunting zones is an additional factor in wildlife conservation. Based on the economic

conditions among its population, the study hypothesizes that the quality of the

enforcement of hunting restrictions within the ejido is not effective.

Current Use Practices

Data on current hunting practices will indicate if efforts are needed to improve

sustainable use of wildlife. Sport hunting as a conservation tool may not be enough to

make the UMA system successful. If hunting groups do not discriminate between the age

and sex of an animal, or between the periods of harvest, more education may be needed

to assure the viability of the wild game populations. Targeting males of a hunted species

as opposed to not differentiating between sexes will allow the females to reproduce and

replenish the population. Avoiding the harvest of juveniles will help the population's

chances to reproduce in the future. Abstaining from hunting during critical time periods

of a species' life cycle, such as reproductive periods, will help populations reproduce and

sustain limited harvesting pressure. Since sport hunters are expected to have more

interest in the trophy value of a kill and subsistence hunters focus on the value of a

species as a food source, the hypothesis is that sport hunters hunt more adult males during

specific month intervals, and that subsistence hunters will not discriminate between age,

sex, or time period when harvesting a species.

Population Dynamics

Studying the population dynamics of a species helps identify if a population can

be harvested and at what level. This analysis focuses on perceived changes in population

size and distance from the communities. Local perspectives and document review were

used to determine wildlife population decline. Users' perspectives on population trends

were treated as a source of information. The study hypothesizes that there is general









consensus that populations are perceived to be diminishing and their proximity to the

community is decreasing.

Economic Feasibility

The study also evaluates the feasibility of sport hunting as a tool for sustainable

development in the ejidos of southern Mexico. In order for sport hunting to be a feasible

tool for wildlife conservation, it must address the needs of the communities for the

resource. In this case, working with the economic needs of the community through

community development would be an option. To determine if sport hunting is a feasible

tool for sustainable development, economic feasibility and group compatibility should be

considered.

Contingent valuation was used to determine economic compatibility, which refers

to an overlap of the price that one group of respondents was willing to pay and the price

another group was willing to charge. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is a

popular method for estimating economic values of nonmarket resources drawn from the

ecosystem (Milon and Johns, 1982). CVM is based on an individual's reaction or

claimed behavior in a hypothetical situation, and can be used to identify potential impacts

of a new project before it is implemented. CVM directly measures consumers'

willingness to pay for a particular good or service (King and Mazzotta, 2000). It involves

measuring consumers' responses based on the description of a detailed hypothetical

scenario that includes the expected results if the scenario was implemented, and if it was

not (Portney, 1994). The greatest advantage of CVM is that it provides managers and

policy-makers an idea of possible consequences of changing current management

practices (Layman et al., 1996). The biggest drawback of CVM is the hypothetical nature

of the method. Its value lies solely on what people say they will do, as opposed to how









they actually behave (Milon and Johns, 1982). Many decision makers, therefore, place

little faith in the model. However, after extensive study, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) determined that CVM studies "can produce

estimates reliable enough to be the starting point of a judicial process of damage

assessment, including lost passive use values" (Portney, 1994, p. 8). Portney (1994)

believes that CVM may be the only mechanism able to indicate potentially important

values of nonmarket resources because it reveals people's intended behavior in a realistic

hypothetical scenario.

To evaluate the economic feasibility of sport hunting as a sustainable

development tool, sport hunters were asked about their willingness to pay an entrance fee

and to hire locals as assistants. Specifically, they were asked about their willingness to

pay an entrance fee to hunt in an ejido if that revenue would be used for wildlife

management. If the sport hunters were willing to pay a fee, they were asked the

maximum price they would be willing to pay. Using the same scenario, sport hunters

were asked if they would be willing to pay an entrance fee if the revenue would be used

for community development projects, and if so, what the maximum price would be. This

study also explored sport hunters' willingness to provide subsistence hunters direct

incentives to hunt less and allow sport hunting, if sport hunters provided employment

opportunities.

Ejido residents, on the other hand, were asked about their willingness to accept an

entrance fee from sport hunters to hunt in their ejido, with the understanding that they

would use the income for wildlife management. If residents supported this option, they

were asked what the minimum price they were willing to accept per sport hunter. The









same questions were repeated for income that would be meant for community public

works projects that may benefit more people. Prices mentioned by sport hunters and

ejido residents were then compared. Lastly, ejido residents were asked if they would be

willing to work for a sport hunter as a guide or cook with the understanding that the

employment was meant to reduce their need to hunt.

Stakeholder Compatibility

The study explores group perceptions and inter-group compatibility to determine

the feasibility of stakeholders working together. Sport hunters were asked if they held a

positive opinion of ejido residents, and if they believed that subsistence hunters placed

too much pressure on wildlife populations. Ejido residents were asked if they had a

positive opinion of sport hunters, and if they would allow foreign sport hunters hunting in

their ejidos. Ejido residents were asked if they believed that sport hunters were putting

too much pressure on wildlife populations. Finally, the study explored if sport hunting is

thought to benefit the ejidos. Ejido residents were asked if they feel that sport hunting

benefited them personally, and if it benefited their community.

In sum, this study provides baseline information on the importance of hunting to

sport and subsistence hunters, as well as the importance of the most used game species to

the wildlife consumers in Quintana Roo and Campeche. The study also examines the

possibilities of sport hunters and ejido residents working together under the SUMA

program. Information was gathered through a survey of local perceptions and an analysis

of economic incentives. This research serves as a guide for government agencies and

local decision makers to effectively conserve wildlife while meeting local economic

needs.














CHAPTER 2
METHODS




Study Sites

Research was conducted from 4 May 2000 15 August 2000 in five study sites in

Quintana Roo and Campeche, located on Mexico's Yucatan peninsula. In Quintana Roo,

the ejidos of Tres Garantias and Caobas were surveyed because they contain the only

sport hunting UMAs in Quintana Roo. The ejido of Xbonil, located west of the Calakmul

Biosphere Reserve, was the sport hunting UMA studied in Campeche. All three ejidos

have large forested areas of at least 20,000 hectares. Data on sport hunting was collected

in the capital cities of Chetumal and Campeche.

The state of Campeche is located at 19.50 N latitude and 90.32 W longitude, on

the west coast of the Yucatan peninsula (INEGI, 1995). The state's land is composed of

1.1% agriculture, 6.8% pasture, 83.4% forest, and 4.5% mangrove (INEGI, n.d.). The

capital city of Campeche has a surface area of 43.6 km2 and elevation of 10 msnm. The

climate is warm and humid with mean temperature of 260 C and mean precipitation of

1,000-1,100 mm (CNA. registro mensual de precipitaci6n pluvial). The state of

Campeche has a population of 689, 656 individuals, of which 178,160 people live in the

capital city (INEGI, 1999a).

Quintana Roo is located on the eastern side of the Yucatan peninsula, at latitude

18.30 N and longitude 88.18 W (INEGI, n.d.). Land cover comprises 0.05% agriculture,









0.7% pasture, 89.9% forest, and 3.0% mangrove (INEGI, n.d.). The capital city of

Chetumal has a surface area of 27.5 km2 and elevation of 10 msnm. The state is

characterized by a warm sub-humid climate with average rainfall 1200-1300 mm.

Quintana Roo has 873, 804 inhabitants, of which 115,152 live in Chetumal (INEGI

1999a).

The ejido Tres Garantias is located 114 km southwest of Chetumal and consists of

44,000 ha of land, including an UMA of 20,000 ha (SEMARNAP, 2000; Avila, 1998b).

The ejido was founded in 1943 and has a population of 749, of which 346 are women and

403 are men. There are 105 ejidatarios (ejido members with all community privileges)

and 298 pobladores (ejido residents without rights to economic benefits from communal

resources or voting privileges). No woman formally has the status of ejidataria.

Caobas is located 87 km southwest from Chetumal. The ejido was founded in

1950 and has 1,342 inhabitants, including 300 ejidatarios (Caballero, 1996). Fifty-one

percent of the ejido population is men and 49% is women. The ejido is composed of two

communities, Caobas and San Jose. Since both Caobas and San Jose share the same

socio-economic and political benefits in the ejido, they are considered together in this

study. The ejido Caobas has a total surface area of 68,533 ha, of which 30,000 ha are

forest, 15,000 ha agriculture, and 23,533 ha cattle ranches. The UMA comprises the

30,000 ha forested area (Jimenez, 1996).

Apart from subsistence agriculture, the main economic activity in Tres Garantias

and Caobas is timber harvesting. Since 1985, each ejido has communally managed a

sustainable timber harvest with the help of forest technicians from the civil association,

Sociedad de Productores Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo, located in Chetumal. The









ejidos also have a tree nursery program to replant harvested areas. Other important

economic activities include cattle ranching, and honey and gum production (although

gum production has been suspended since the late 1990s) (Avila, 1995).

Xbonil is located 200 km southeast of the capital Campeche and encompasses

46,600 ha. The Mayas founded the ejido originally in 1929, although the population is

now of mixed origin (Reyna et al., 1999). In the year 2000 local clinic report, the

population of the ejido was 492 (242 women and 250 men) comprising 140 families,

including 191 ejidatarios. The UMA was established in 1997 and is 25,000 ha, which

corresponds to the area dedicated to forest harvesting (SEMARNAP, 1999). The main

economic activity aside from subsistence agriculture is honey production. The most

lucrative crops are jalapefio and habanero chilies (Reyna et al., 1999). Forest harvesting

has been suspended since 1998, because the exploitation permit has not been renewed

(Reyna et al., 1999).


Sampling Method

The sample for this study represents at least 95% of the hunter populations in each

of the three ejidos. Ninety-eight percent of the hunter population in Tres Garantias was

surveyed. In Caobas, all but 7 people on the list of hunters were interviewed. The seven

not interviewed were not available. In Xbonil, all the available hunters in the village

were interviewed. Approximately four hunters were not available.

Sport and subsistence hunters were selected nonrandomly. Individuals who had

hunted at least once within the past three years were interviewed to obtain a current

perspective. Non-hunting residents were also interviewed since they are often consumers

of wild meat and take part in the decisions made by the ejido general assembly. Ejido









residents who never hunted or had not done so within the past 5 years were considered

non-hunting residents. Non-hunters were randomly selected until 30 individuals were

interviewed.

A total of 282 men were interviewed. The sample was composed of 41 hunters

and 32 non-hunters in Tres Garantias, 64 hunters and 40 non-hunters in Caobas

(including the San Jose annex), 22 hunters and 22 non-hunters in Xbonil, 31 sport hunters

in Chetumal, and 30 sport hunters from Campeche. Interviews in Tres Garantias took

place between May 15 and June 16, in Caobas from May 30 to June 19, and in Xbonil

from July 17 to July 19, all in 2000. Sport hunters from Chetumal were interviewed from

May 22 to August 7, 2000. In Campeche, sport hunters were interviewed from July 3 to

July 21, 2000.

All ejido residents known to hunt were identified and interviewed. In Tres

Garantias, two hunters-turned guides and the town restaurant owner, who is the principal

wild game buyer of the community, identified 29 hunters. Twelve additional hunters

were identified and interviewed during the non-hunter surveys.

Local hunters who had given up hunting after becoming hunting guides, acted as

assistants for the study. Respondents were assured anonymity and were assigned

numbers.


Surveys

Three surveys were tailored to the three main user groups of sport hunters,

subsistence hunters, and ejido non-hunters (Appendix C). The surveys were divided into

six different sections: introduction, preference and motivation for use, contingent

valuation, knowledge and perceptions, and demographic information. The introduction









and demographic sections collected background information for individual profiles.

Preference and motivation identified the species used, in what manner and how often.

Information collected in this section was analyzed to understand species use, hunting

pressure, hunting practices, species preference, consumption frequency and perceptions

on population dynamics.

Hunting pressure was asked for the years 2000, 1999, and 1998. To reduce the

amount of error from limited memory, individuals who stated that they hunted a certain

number of times per week or month throughout the year were asked questions on hunting

pressure in terms of weeks or months, as was relevant.

To understand the importance of game meat in their diet, ejido residents were

surveyed on the value of game and domestic meat. Specifically, individuals were asked

how often they ate meat, and how many kilograms of various domestic meats and game

meat (as a whole) were purchased per month. Information given in weeks was converted

to months.

Contingent valuation information was used to determine the feasibility of using

sport hunting as a community development tool. Responses revealed the willingness of

sport hunters to pay an entrance fee and to hire local helpers. The section also measured

the willingness of ejido residents to accept an entrance fee in exchange for sport hunter

access to the wildlife resources on their lands. It was explained that entrance fees would

be paid by each hunter each time he came to hunt, and that the tags for each animal

hunted were a separate charge. Employment serving as an incentive to decrease hunting

pressure was tested.









The knowledge and perceptions section evaluated the effectiveness of

SEMARNAP's communication about the UMA program, and dissemination of

information concerning the new wildlife law. This section also identified the

effectiveness of current hunting enforcement by the government agency and the ejido

leaders. In addition, perceptions about the other main user group measured compatibility

between ejido residents and sport hunters. Individuals were also asked about their

perceptions of the benefits of sport hunting at the personal and community levels.

The section on travel and associated costs measured sport hunters' costs incurred

by hunting. This section was based on the principles of the travel cost method, which

states that the more money, time and effort one spends on an activity, the more the

activity is valued (Milon and Johns, 1982, King and Mazzotta, 2000; Layman et al.,

1996). Data in this section measured the recreational importance of sport hunting to the

individual based on the amount spent on the activity as a percentage the individual's

annual income. The three questionnaires are shown in Appendix C.

The surveys were tested in a small community in Campeche located near the

Calakmul Biosphere reserve. Pilot surveys were conducted on 5 individuals. Based on

the responses from the pilot surveys and consultation with experts, questionnaires were

redesigned to reduce bias.

Permission was obtained from the president of the sport hunting clubs to

interview sport hunters. Sport hunters were contacted by phone, or personally for an

appointment. At the end of each interview, the sport hunters were requested for one or

more names and contacts for the next interview. All sport hunters were interviewed in

person, except for two who were interviewed over the telephone.









Statistical Analysis

The statistical package used for data analysis was SPSS version 9.0 for Windows.

Part 1: Background Information

Cross tabulations and chi-square tests were used to comp are groups on the basis

of origin, ejido residency, occupation, and annual income categories. Means

comparisons and analysis of variance were used to compare groups based on years of

residency, age, years of education, and number of individuals in the household.

Percentages calculated for origin, ejido residency, occupation, and income

category were taken from original group size, unless specified otherwise. Group sizes are

as follows: Chetumal sport hunter n=31, Campeche sport hunter n=30, Tres Garantias

hunter n=41, Tres Garantias non-hunter n=32, Caobas hunter n=64, Caobas non-hunter

n=40, Xbonil hunter n=22, and Xbonil non-hunter n=22.

Income categories to which each sport hunter belonged were recorded.

Categories started at 10,000 pesos ($1038 USD) or below, and went up in intervals often

thousand pesos. The ejido residents were asked how much they earned per month. If

they did not know, their earnings were calculated based on their daily wage and the

number of days they worked per month. Monthly wages were extrapolated to obtain

annual income. Income from Procampo subsidies and timber sale earnings, and other

sources were included. Procampo earnings were based on 450 pesos ($47 USD) per ha

of traditional crops planted (the limit for the subsidy is ten ha). Timber sale earnings

varied between timber working groups in the ejido. To compare sport hunter income

with that of ejido residents, the median sport hunter income was calculated to obtain a

discrete value. A new frequency distribution was run to include all respondents' annual

incomes. Based on the frequency distribution, new income categories were created after









converting the pesos into dollars based on the average exchange rate for the time period

(9.63 pesos per dollar in 2000).

Part 2: Sport Hunting as a Wildlife Conservation Tool

Analysis of hunting tradition consisted of asking hunters if the father, grandfather,

and/or other family members hunted. Percentages reported for tradition, reasons for

hunting, and for not hunting were based on the number of people who answered the

question in each group. Tradition, motivation to hunt, and not to hunt were tested using

cross tabulation and chi-square tests.

Hunting costs for sport hunters were computed using the equation: trip cost

(includes gas, food, etc.) + annual expenditure on bullet purchases + tag/permit cost (total

expenditure in 1999) + entrance fee (into a hunting area; not common) + sport cost.

Sport cost was derived from club fee + arms registration and permit (125 pesos) + sport

hunter identification card (255 pesos). Club fees in Chetumal totaled 5600 pesos ($582

USD) and in Campeche 3100 pesos ($322 USD).

Due to the skewed distribution of hunting frequencies, the Kruskal-Wallis non-

parametric test was used to compare differences between groups.

Percentages calculated for wildlife use were based on the number of responses per

group. For hunting pressure in 1998, percentages were based on the number of responses

of the total size of a particular hunting group.

Hunting pressure, income during 1999 from wild meat sales in the ejidos, annual

consumption frequency of game meat, and annual meat consumption by weight were not

normally distributed, causing a large variation within groups and the standard deviation

to be larger than the mean. To solve this problem the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test

was used to compare groups.









Means were used to compare species value based on hunting pressure, revenue

gained, and consumption frequency/ amount within groups, because Kruskal-Wallis

rankings are done on a per-species, not on a per-group basis.

For ranking the importance of species uses, the group having a majority response

relative to the number of responses on a high-ranking use is considered having the most

need for the species.

All groups were asked which species they preferred most. Within each group, the

species with the most "votes" as first choice was the preferred species for the group. The

species with the second most "votes" as first choice was classified as the second choice

species for the group, likewise for the third choice species. Percent response for group

size indicates the amount of representation the rank holds for the species by the group

interviewed. This information aids understanding of the importance of a particular

species to a group.

Cross tabulations and chi-square tests were used to test sustainable hunting

practices, wildlife population decline, perceived ownership of wildlife, effectiveness of

government communication about the UMA program and the new wildlife law to the

main stakeholder groups, and the effectiveness of hunting restriction enforcement.

Percentages were calculated based on number of responses, unless specified otherwise.

Part 3: Sport hunting as a Tool for Sustainable Development

Cross tabulations and chi-square tests were used to test criteria for economic

feasibility and group compatibility. Percentages are based on number of responses,

unless specified otherwise. The most "popular prices" in the contingent valuation section

were based on the mode.









Document Review

Game population density and hunting pressure data for Tres Garantias and Caobas

was provided by Gilberto Avila and Francisco Quinto from the Sociedad de Productores

Forestales Ejidales de Quintana Roo, A.C. of Chetumal. Population density data for

Xbonil was from Reyna et al. (1999). SEMARNAP provided copies of official

documents that authorize the quantity of permitted species to be hunted.














CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

This chapter quantitatively analyzes the success of Mexico's SUMA program in

Quintana Roo and Campeche that offers sport hunting as one wildlife use option. It also

provides evidence to support or reject the hypothesis that sport hunting can be used as an

effective tool for wildlife conservation and sustainable development in southern Mexico.

The results are divided into four sections. Part 1 reviews group profiles to give general

background information on the individuals surveyed. Part 2 focuses on sport hunting as a

tool for wildlife conservation. Part 3 analyzes sport hunting as a tool for sustainable

community development. Part 4 shows the results of the document review on game

population size, hunting pressure, and authorized bag limits.


Group Profiles

Group profiles give the socio-economic status represented in each user group.

Place of origin differed significantly between groups (X2 =570.83, p< 0.001) (Table 1).

Out of 253 responses, the states most individuals claimed as their place of origin include

Veracruz (34%), Campeche (17%), and Yucatan (16%). Based on total responses, 58%

of Chetumal sport hunters are from Quintana Roo; 69% of Campeche sport hunters and

64% of Xbonil hunters are from Campeche; 26% of Tres Garantias hunters and 33% of

Tres Garantias non-hunters came from Yucatan; and 52% Caobas hunters, 42% of

Caobas non-hunters and 41% of Xbonil non-hunters are from Veracruz.















Table 1. States that respondents claim as their place of origin*
Tres
STATE Chetumal Campeche Garantias
Sport Hunter Sport Hunter Hunter


Campeche
Caobas
Chiapas
Coahuila
Guerrero
Hidalgo
Jalisco
Merida
Mexico DF
Michuacana
Morelia
Morelos
Oaxaca
Puebla
Quintana Roo
Tabasco
Tamaulipas
Veracruz
Xbonil
Yucatan
Zacatecas
TOTAL
Group Size
*Sig. < 0.001


1 20 5


Tres
Garantias
NON-hunter
3


Caobas
Hunter
2


Caobas
NON-hunter
1


Xbonil
Hunter
14


Xbonil TOTAL
NON-hunter
7 43


31 29 38 30 64 38 22 22 253
31 30 41 32 64 40 22 22 282









The majority of ejido residents interviewed were ejidatarios (Table 2). They

composed the following percentages of the sample: 46% of Tres Garantias hunters, 47%

of Tres Garantias non-hunters, 73% of Caobas hunters, 48% of Caobas non-hunters, and

95% of Xbonil hunters and non-hunters (X2 =54.8, p< 0.001).




Table 2. Residency status of individuals living in ejidos. Ejidatarios
have greater influence on the decisions made in the community than
pobladores. *
Ejidatario Poblador N
Tres Garantias Hunter 19 22 41
Tres Garantias NON-hunter 15 17 32

Caobas Hunter 47 17 64
Caobas NON-hunter 19 21 40

Xbonil Hunter 21 1 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 21 1 22
*Sig. < 0.001


The mean number of years as a resident in one of the study sites varied between

groups (F= 17.6, p< 0.001). Tres Garantias non-hunters had the lowest mean of 18.2

years (S.D.= 9.4), whereas Campeche Sport hunters had the highest with a mean of 40.4

years (S.D.= 15.1) (Table 3).

Mean ages between groups varied significantly (F= 2.5, p= 0.018) (Table 4). Of

all the groups studied, Tres Garantias non-hunters had the highest mean age of 47.6 years

(S.D.= 19.8), and Tres Garantias hunters had the lowest mean age of 37.8 years (S.D.=

13.5). Age ranged from a minimum of 17 years old (Tres Garantias hunter) to a

maximum of 83 years old (Caobas hunter).












Table 3. Mean number of years as a resident of the five corresponding sites,
including Chetumal, Campeche, Tres Garantias, Caobas, and Xbonil*
N Mean S.D. Min Max
Chetumal Sport Hunter 30 34.6 10.5 18 56
Campeche Sport Hunter 30 40.4 15.1 7 61

Tres Garantias Hunter 41 20.9 10.3 1 53
Tres Garantias NON-hunter 32 18.2 9.4 0.4 30

Caobas Hunter 64 24.4 8.5 4 48
Caobas NON-hunter 40 20.2 10.2 2 47

Xbonil Hunter 22 26 10.7 7 50
Xbonil NON-hunter 22 20.5 9.5 5 40
*Sig. < 0.001



Table 4. Mean age of individuals interviewed per group*
N Mean S.D. Min Max
Chetumal Sport Hunter 31 43 11.4 20 75
Campeche Sport Hunter 30 45.5 10.1 26 61

Tres Garantias Hunter 41 37.8 13.5 17 73
Tres Garantias NON-hunter 29 47.6 19.8 16 79

Caobas Hunter 63 47.4 15.6 20 83
Caobas NON-hunter 39 41.6 15.8 19 78

Xbonil Hunter 22 38.3 11.6 22 59
Xbonil NON-hunter 22 42.3 13.4 23 70
*Sig.= 0.018


Chetumal and Campeche sport hunting groups had the highest mean years of

education (mean= 12.9, S.D.= 4 and 4.4 respectively), while Caobas hunters had the

lowest at 2.2 years (S.D.= 2.6) (F= 50.8, p< 0.001). The minimum education for sport

hunters was through the sixth grade, and for ejido residents was no school (Table 5).

Chetumal sport hunters had the most educated people with 18 years of schooling,









followed by a Campeche sport hunter, a Caobas non-hunter, and an Xbonil hunter, all of

them with 17 years of education.




Table 5. Average number of years of education by group*
N Mean S.D. Min Max
Chetumal Sport Hunter 31 12.9 4 6 18
Campeche Sport Hunter 30 12.9 4.4 6 17

Tres Garantias Hunter 41 4.1 3.2 0 9
Tres Garantias NON-hunter 29 4 2.7 0 9

Caobas Hunter 63 2.2 2.6 0 9
Caobas NON-hunter 40 5 4.2 0 17

Xbonil Hunter 22 3.5 4 0 17
Xbonil NON-hunter 22 4.3 3.3 0 12
*Sig. < 0.001


Farming was reported most frequently as respondents' occupation and comprised

62% of 278 responses (Table 6). Farmers were principally composed of ejido residents

including 83% of hunters and 53% of non-hunters in Tres Garantias, 81% of hunters and

63% non-hunters in Caobas, and 100% of hunters and 77% non-hunters in Xbonil. Sport

hunters had significantly different responses about their occupation (X2 =357.7, p<

0.001). Thirty-two percent of Chetumal and 20% of Campeche sport hunters said they

were businessmen. Twenty percent of Campeche respondents stated that they were in the

tech-repair, mechanic or the key smith professions.
















Table 6. Primary occupation held by individuals by group*
Chetumal Campeche Tres Garantias Tres Garantias
Sport Sport NON-
Hunter Hunter Hunter hunter


Business
Doctor/Dentist
Farmer
Farmer & Business
Farmer & Ejido Official
Farmer & Other'
Forester/Agronomist
Gov. worker/ Police/ Military
Hunting Operator/ Tourism
Lawyer
Notary/ Public contractor/
Accountant
Student/ Retired
Tailor/ Carpenter
Teacher/ School Supervisor
Tech-repair/ Mechanic/
Key smith


Number in each group


Caobas Caobas
NON-
Hunter hunter


Xbonil

Hunter


Xbonil
NON-
hunter


TOTAL


10 6


7 6 1 2 16
31 30 41 32 64 40 22 22


*Sig. < 0.001
'Other includes woodsman, guide or beekeeper.









Mean household size varied significantly between groups (F= 4.75, df=4, p<

0.001). Campeche sport hunters had the fewest individuals per household, (mean= 3.7,

S.D.= 1.4) and Xbonil hunters had the most (mean= 5.2, S.D.= 2.7) (Table 7).

Approximately 52.5% of all sport hunters earned an annual income between

$5,711 and $12,460 USD (Table 8). The majority of all ejido groups earned between

$519 and $1,557 USD a year. Twenty-eight percent of non-hunters in Tres Garantias and

33% in Caobas earned between $1,557 and $2,595 USD. Among ejido groups, Caobas

had the most individuals in the lowest economic bracket between $93 and $519 annually.

The highest economic bracket occupied by an ejido resident was between $12,461 and

$18,691. Differences among groups were statistically significant (X2 = 321.02, p<

0.001).




Table 7. Average number of individuals in per household by group*
N Mean S.D. Min Max
Chetumal Sport Hunter 31 3.9 1.3 1 6
Campeche Sport Hunter 30 3.7 1.4 1 6

Tres Garantias 73 4.7 2.3 1 12
Caobas 103 5.3 2.6 1 12
Xbonil 44 5.2 2.7 1 14
*Sig. < 0.001















Table 8. Annual income profiles in USD*


94.50- 519.10
519.20- 1,557.50
1,557.60 2,596.00
2,596.10 3,634.40
3,634.50 4,672.80
4,672.90- 5,711.20
5,711.30- 12,461.00
12,461.10- 18,691.50
18,691.60 24,922.00
24,922.10 31,152.50
31,152.60 37,383.10
37,383.20 43,613.60
43,613.70 49,844.10
49,844.20 +


N Responses
Group Size


*Sig. < 0.001


Chetumal
Sport
Hunters
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
8
4
0
2
0
0
1


Campeche
Sport
Hunters
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
10
2
2
0
0
0
0


Tres
Garantias
NON-
hunters
4
10
9
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0


Tres
Garantias

Hunters
0
8
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Caobas
NON-
hunters
3
14
13
7
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Caobas

Hunters
20
28
6
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Xbonil
NON-
hunters
2
12
5
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Xbonil TOTAL


Hunters
2
15
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


246
282










Sport Hunting as a Wildlife Conservation Tool

Analysis of sport hunting as a wildlife conservation tool is divided into seven

sections. Sections 1-5 fall under stakeholder dynamics and consist of: 1) hunting

importance, 2) game species value, 3) resource access, 4) effectiveness of agency

communication to user groups about the UMA, and 5) enforcement of hunting

restrictions. Section 6 evaluates current hunting practices, and includes targets on sex,

age group, and months of harvest. Finally, section 7 reveals local perceptions on

population dynamics.

Importance of Hunting as an Activity

Hunting tradition

Hunting as a tradition in the family is one indication of the importance of the

activity not only to the individual hunter, but also in the community. For all the groups

sampled, more people had fathers who hunted than any other family member (Table 9).

Of 234 individuals interviewed, 44% had fathers who hunted. Most Chetumal sport

hunters had both fathers and grandfathers who hunted (11 out of 24), followed by fathers

only (10 of 24). Campeche sport hunters had 64% of fathers who hunted. Most hunters

and non-hunters in Tres Garantias had fathers and grandfathers as hunters (53% and 45%,

respectively). Sixty-four percent of Caobas hunters had fathers who hunted, whereas

non-hunter responses where closely divided between "father", "both father and

grandfather", and "no one in immediate family" categories. "Father" was the most

frequent response for both hunter and non-hunters in Xbonil. Over all, hunting has strong

traditional ties for all groups, although non-hunters were the only groups to have "no one

in the immediate family" who hunted (X2 = 86.5, p< 0.001). Percent response of hunters









who had a father, grandfather, or both as hunters was 100% for Campeche and Caobas,

91% for Chetumal and Tres Garantias and 89% for Xbonil.




Table 9. Hunting Tradition in the Family. Groups having a high proportion of fathers and/or
grandfathers who hunt signify that hunting is a strong tradition for the group*
Both Father Other Family No one in
& immediate
N Father Grandfather Grandfather Member family
Chetumal Sport
Hunter 24 10 2 11 1 0
Campeche Sport
Hunter 25 16 2 7 0 0


Tres Garantias
Hunter
Tres Garantias
NON-hunter

Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter

Xbonil Hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
TOTAL
*Sig. < 0.001


32

29

45
38

19
22
234


Reasons for hunting

An individual's motivation to hunt is an indication of the importance of the

activity to the person. Hunting for food was the primary reason for hunters living in

ejidos (63% in Tres Garantias, 72% in Caobas, and 77% in Xbonil). Conversely, hunting

for "sport and fun" was the most frequent reason stated among sport hunters (55% in

Chetumal, and 70% in Campeche) (X2 = 197.85, p< 0.001). Combining "food & money"

with "need for food" as the two most need-based motivations, 77% of Xbonil, 75% of

Caobas, and 66% of Tres Garantias' responses fell in this category. Other popular









reasons to hunt include "food, fun and tradition" as well as "food and milpa defense"

(Table 10). Overall, subsistence hunters have a stronger need to hunt than sport hunters.




Table 10. Primary reasons that motivate individuals of each group to hunt *
Chetumal Sport Campeche Sport Tres Garantias Caobas Xbonil Total
Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter Hunter

Food & Money 0 0 1 2 0 3
Need for Food 0 0 26 46 17 89
Food & Milpa
Defense 0 0 6 3 5 14
Milpa Defense 0 0 0 7 0 7
Tradition 1 4 0 1 0 6
Food & Fun/
Tradition 7 1 8 4 0 20
Fun 6 4 0 1 0 11
Sport & Fun 17 21 0 0 0 38
N 31 30 41 64 22 188
*Sig. < 0.001


Reasons for not hunting

Dislike of hunting was the principal reason given by ejido residents for not

hunting. Fifty percent of Tres Garantias and Xbonil, and 53% of Caobas non-hunters

gave this reason. Lack of time was the second most frequently stated reason for not

hunting. Results were not significantly different.

Annual hunting frequency

Since the standard deviations are very large due to the variance within groups,

mean rank values provide a better comparison among groups. Mean rank figures indicate

that per year, Xbonil hunters have the highest adjusted average hunting frequency (99.66)

and Tres Garantias hunters have the lowest (78.71) of all the hunting groups, although

there was no significant difference between groups (Table 11).












Table 11. Comparison of average frequency of hunting per year for each group
N Responses Average Std. Deviation Mean Rank
Chetumal Sport Hunter 30 35.7 33.8 97.78
Campeche Sport Hunter 30 32.3 32.4 90.67

Tres Garantias Hunter 41 27.7 33 78.71
Caobas Hunter 61 46.5 60.9 97.49
Xbonil Hunter 22 43.4 43.5 99.66



Annual hunting costs as a percentage of annual income

Sport hunters from Chetumal spent an average 6.4% of their annual income and

sport hunters from Campeche spent 5.4%. There was no statistically significant

difference between the two groups.

Importance of Wild Game Species

Species use

The use of a game species is an indicator of the degree of importance the species

has to the individual. It also indicates how flexible a group is to compromise based on

the degree of need. The greater the need, the less flexible the group may be. Use varied

considerably between groups and by species (X2 = 292.62, p< 0.001) (Tables 12-14).

Most Chetumal sport hunters (65%) used white-tailed deer for food and trophy.

Surprisingly, Campeche sport hunters along with Tres Garantias hunters, and all the non-

hunters in the ejidos used white-tailed deer primarily for food. Fifty-two percent of all

Caobas hunters interviewed ate and sold the meat. Xbonil hunters were evenly divided

between consuming the meat, and consuming and selling it. Therefore, Caobas and

Xbonil hunters have the most need for the species, and Chetumal sport hunters have the

least need. All groups principally ate collared peccary, white-lipped peccary, and agouti









paca except for Caobas hunters, who not only ate but also sold the meat (X2 = 120.72; X2

= 170.97; X2 = 57.42 respectively, p< 0.001). Again, Caobas hunters demonstrate the

most need. All groups used the ocellated turkey principally for food, although it was a

valued trophy item for many sport hunters from both states (X2 = 75.51, p< 0.001). Of all

the groups sampled, 93% use the curassow primarily for food. Campeche sport hunters

were the only group that differed by having one hunter only selling the game meat (X2 =

209.26, p< 0.001).

Overall, the primary use of brocket deer is consumption (73%). Chetumal hunters

were almost evenly divided between using the game solely for food, and for food and

trophy. Sixty-three percent of Campeche hunters used the species for food and trophy

(X2 = 229.30, p< 0.001). Most Caobas hunters preferred to consume and sell the game

meat (61%). Thus, Caobas hunters demonstrate the most need and Campeche sport

hunters demonstrate the least.















Table 12. Comparison of the various uses of deer species between groups
N' Food Trophy


Chetumal Sport Hunter
Campeche Sport Hunter

Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter

Tres Garantias NON-hunter
Caobas NON-hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
Species Totals

Chetumal Sport Hunter
Campeche Sport Hunter


Sell Food & Sell Food & Trophy Food, Trophy & Sell


32 29 0 0 0 0 0
40 31 0 0 0 0 0
22 19 0 0 0 0 0
282 157 1 2 42 29 1


Tres Garantias Hunter 36 36 0 0 0 0 0
Caobas Hunter 49 19 0 0 30 0 0
Xbonil Hunter 18 11 0 0 7 0 0

Tres Garantias NON-hunter 28 28 0 0 0 0 0
Caobas NON-hunter 35 35 0 0 0 0 0
Xbonil NON-hunter 18 18 0 0 0 0 0
Species Totals 228 166 0 0 37 24 1
*Sig. < 0.001
N= number of responses


White-Tailed
Deer*


Brocket Deer*













Table 13. Comparison of the various uses of peccary
value.


species between groups. Peccaries have significant food value and little trophy


White-Lipped Peccary*


Chetumal Sport Hunter
Campeche Sport Hunter

Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter

Tres Garantias NON-
hunter
Caobas NON-hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
Species Totals


Food
8
0


Trophy
0
0


Sell
0
1


Food &Sell
0
0


Food & Trophy Food, Trophy & Sell
1 0
0 0


24
20
8


20
16
9
107


Collared Peccary*


*Sig. < 0.001
N= number of responses


Chetumal Sport Hunter
Campeche Sport Hunter

Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter

Tres Garantias NON-
hunter
Caobas NON-hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
Species Totals


33
56
13


24
26
14
204













Table 14. Comparison of the various uses of game birds and agouti paca between groups


Food & Food &


Chetumal Sport Hunter
Campeche Sport Hunter

Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter


Tres Garantias NON-hunter 19
Caobas NON-hunter 17
Xbonil NON-hunter 19
Species Totals 151
Curassow*


Chetumal Sport Hunter
Campeche Sport Hunter

Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter


Tres Garantias NON-hunter 22


19 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0
127 1 0 4 19 0


13 11 0 0 0 2 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0


22 0 0 0 0 0


Caobas NON-hunter 23 23 0 0 0 0 0
Xbonil NON-hunter 15 15 0 0 0 0 0
Species Totals 165 153 0 1 9 2 0
Agouti
Paca*
Chetumal Sport Hunter 19 18 0 0 1 0 0
Campeche Sport Hunter 14 14 0 0 0 0 0


Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter


Tres Garantias NON-hunter 28


28 0 0 0 0 0


Caobas NON-hunter 36 36 0 0 0 0 0
Xbonil NON-hunter 12 12 0 0 0 0 0


*Sig. < 0.001


Species Totals


211 189 0 0 22 0 0


Ocellated
Turkey*


Food
12
13

14
18
15


Trophy
0
0

0
0
1


Food,
Trophy

& Sell
0
0

0
0
0


Trophy
10
9

0
0
0









Hunting pressure

From January through July 2000, Campeche sport hunters harvested the most

white-tailed deer (97 animals), ocellated turkey (81 birds), and brocket deer (77 total)

compared to any other group (Appendix A-1). Caobas hunters harvested the most

collared peccary (119) and agouti paca (238) of all the groups. Tres Garantias hunters

hunted the most white-lipped peccary (22) and curassow (114).

In 1999, Caobas hunters were the group responsible for putting the highest

pressure on the white-tailed deer (246), collared peccary (326), agouti paca (604), and

brocket deer (298) of all the groups (Appendix A-2). Tres Garantias hunters harvested

the most white-lipped peccary (75) and curassow (256). Campeche sport hunters put the

most pressure on the ocellated turkey (98).

In 1998, only 18 of 31 Campeche sport hunters hunted the most white-tailed deer

(459), 19 of 31 hunted the most ocellated turkey (97), and 53% hunted the most brocket

deer (109) (Appendix A-3). Only 8% of the Caobas hunters were responsible for putting

the most pressure on the collared peccary (110) and agouti paca (184) than any other

group. Only 3 of 64 Caobas residents hunted the most white-lipped peccary (87). Tres

Garantias and Caobas hunters put the highest pressure on the curassow by hunting 30

birds per group.

The mean rank values derived from the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test

compensate for large variances within groups and reveal any statistically significant

differences between groups on a per species basis. Results were significant for the

brocket deer in 2000 (X2 = 13.3, p= 0.01) and 1999 (X2 = 17.0, p= 0.002). In 1998,

results were significant for the collared peccary (X2 = 11.4, p= 0.02) and agouti paca (X2

= 10.6, p= 0.03).









Average harvesting rates indicate the ranking importance of each game species

for each group. In 2000, Chetumal sport hunters harvested the most agouti paca on

average followed by white-tailed deer and ocellated turkey. In 1999 and 1998, white-

tailed deer had the highest average for this group, followed by agouti paca and curassow

in 1999, and ocellated turkey and brocket deer in 1998. Campeche sport hunters

harvested the most white-tailed deer on average, followed by brocket deer and ocellated

turkey for the three consecutive years. Caobas was equally consistent with the agouti

paca holding the highest average for three years, followed by the curassow in 2000, the

brocket deer in 1999, and the white-lipped peccary in 1998. Xbonil held the highest

average for the ocellated turkey for the three years, followed by the white-tailed deer.

Tres Garantias was not as consistent. Agouti paca held the highest average for 2000 and

1999, while the brocket deer held it during 1998. The curassow was consistently the

second most hunted species by this group for the three years.

Age was negatively correlated with hunting frequency (r= -0.195, p < 0.05) and

hunting pressure on white-tailed deer (r= -0.175, r= -0.160, p < 0.05) and curassow (r= -

0.203, -0.216, p< 0.05) during 1999 and 2000 respectively. Younger hunters hunted

more agouti paca in 1999 (r= -0.198, p< 0.05). In 2000, younger hunters put higher

pressure on the white-lipped peccary (r= -0.3, p < 0.05) and ocellated turkey (r= -0.203, p

< 0.05). Hunting pressure on collared peccary was the only game not to be significantly

correlated with hunters' age.

1999 income generated from selling wild meat by ejidos

The amount of income earned from selling game meat is an important element of

the value of the species for the individual and the community. Caobas hunters made the

most total revenue from selling white-tailed deer ($18,946 USD), collared peccary









($5,699 USD), agouti paca ($1,891 USD), curassow ($390 USD), and brocket deer

($5,839 USD) than any other group (Tables 15-17). Consequently, Caobas earned the

highest revenue for 1999, totaling $33, 874. Tres Garantias earned a total of $4,541, and

Xbonil totaled $790 in wild meat sales for the year. Small sample sizes may be a factor

for values that were not statistically significant. Only a few hunters in each group sell

game meat, causing large standard deviations within groups. The Kruskal-Wallis

nonparametric test gives a more accurate comparison between groups when there are

large variations within groups. The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test indicated no

significant difference between groups for the amount earned for each species' meat sold.

Based on average earnings, the top three income generating species for Tres

Garantias in 1999 were the white-lipped peccary ($768), collared peccary ($387), and the

agouti paca ($248). The top three species for Caobas were the white-tailed deer ($631),

brocket deer ($216), and the collared peccary ($190). Finally, the top three income

generating species for Xbonil are the white-tailed deer ($62), brocket deer ($25), and the

white-lipped peccary ($12).















Table 15. Amount of income gained (USD) by selling artiodactyls by ejido hunters in 1999


White-Tailed Deer


N Total


Avg.


S.D. Mean Rank


Tres Garantias
Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter


Brocket Deer





Collared Peccary





White-Lipped
Peccary


Species Totals 42 $1,929.76 $466.28 $1,929.76

Tres Garantias Hunter 5 $503.25 $100.65 $127.19 18.20
Caobas Hunter 27 $5,839.41 $216.27 $532.94 21.30
Xbonil Hunter 6 $153.69 $25.61 $40.97 12.50
Species Totals 38 $6,496.34 $170.96 $455.14

Tres Garantias Hunter 4 $1,549.84 $387.46 $442.51 26.00
Caobas Hunter 30 $5,699.69 $189.99 $310.56 19.13
Xbonil Hunter 3 $23.36 $7.79 $7.79 8.33
Species Totals 37 $7,272.90 $196.56 $317.91


Tres Garantias Hunter 2 $1,536.86 $768.43 $675.53 16.00
Caobas Hunter 10 $1,106.44 $110.64 $190.09 8.90
Xbonil Hunter 5 $64.38 $12.88 $19.60 6.40
Species Totals 17 $2,707.68 $159.28 $321.72


$138.37
$18,946.97
$498.44


$34.59
$631.57
$62.31


$41.13
$2,272.70
$50.38


20.38
20.48
25.88













Table 16. Amount of income gained (USD) by selling game
hunters in 1999

Ocellated Turkey N Total


Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter
Species Totals

Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter
Species Totals

Tres Garantias Hunter
Caobas Hunter
Xbonil Hunter
Species Totals


$0.00
$0.00
$36.86
$36.86

$66.46
$390.03
$13.50
$469.99

746
1891
0
2637


birds and agouti paca by ejido

Mean
Avg. S.D. Rank
$0.00 $0.00 0.00
$0.00 $0.00 1.00
$9.22 $11.33 3.50
$7.37 $10.64


$66.46
$97.51
$4.50
$58.75

249
118
0
139


$0.00
$56.72
$5.33
$59.29

237
187
0
194


5.00
6.25
2.00


Table 17. Total revenue gained by selling all
N Total
Tres Garantias Hunter 19 $4,541.15
Caobas Hunter 64 $33,874.02
Xbonil Hunter 16 $790.24
Species Totals 99 $39,205.41


game meat
Avg. S.D. Mean Rank
$229.48 $273.74 41.55
$194.89 $204.78 52.39
$17.47 $21.34 50.47
$441.84 $499.86


Annual consumption frequency of game meat

The purpose of this analysis is to identify which species carries the most dietary

importance of wild meat to each group, and to determine which group is responsible for

the highest consumption rate of a particular species. All groups were asked how many

meals (in terms of sittings) one ate of each game species in this study. Answers given in

weeks or months were extrapolated to a year.


Curassow





Agouti Paca









All groups consumed white-tailed deer most frequently, followed by brocket deer,

agouti paca, collared peccary, curassow, ocellated turkey, and white-lipped peccary

(Appendix A-4).

Based on mean consumption frequency, the three most consumed species by

Chetumal sport hunters are white-tailed deer, collared peccary, and curassow. Campeche

sport hunters also consume white-tailed deer the most frequently followed by brocket

deer and white-lipped peccary. Non-hunters in Tres Garantias consume most often

white-tailed deer, white-lipped peccary, and collared peccary, respectively. The hunters

in the ejido consumed more often brocket deer, white-tailed deer, followed by agouti

paca. Caobas non-hunters ate collared peccary, white-tailed deer, and brocket deer most

often, whereas the hunters in the ejido consumed white-tailed deer, followed by agouti

paca, and brocket deer most often. Like other groups, Xbonil non-hunters and hunters

consumed white-tailed deer most frequently. Non-hunters consumed ocellated turkey

and curassow frequently, while the hunters ate brocket deer and collared peccary the

second and third most frequently.

According to the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test, there was a significant

difference between groups putting the highest pressure on all species (white-tailed deer

X2 = 24.6; collared peccary X2 = 16.9; white-lipped peccary X2 = 26.3; agouti paca X2 =

45.5; ocellated turkey X2 = 17.8; brocket deer X2 = 32.8, all p< 0.02), except for the

curassow. Overall, the group that consumed white-tailed deer and ocellated turkey most

often was the Xbonil hunters. Caobas hunters consumed collared peccary more than any

other group. Campeche sport hunters consumed white-lipped peccary and brocket deer

more often than any other group. Tres Garantias hunters ate agouti paca most often.












Table 18. Comparison of annual domestic and game meat consumption (Kg) in Ejidos.


Chicken*


Tres Garantias NON-hunter
Tres Garantias Hunter


Caobas NON-hunter
Caobas Hunter

Xbonil NON-hunter
Xbonil Hunter


Species Totals 188 105.56 83.6 29152

Tres Garantias NON-hunter 32 28.13 17.2 900
Tres Garantias Hunter 12 27.83 28.6 3205

Caobas NON-hunter 39 40.62 43.06 1299
Caobas Hunter 59 19.63 18.37 1653

Xbonil NON-hunter 22 23.18 18.91 510
Xbonil Hunter 22 34.91 55.91 672
Species Totals 186 28.25 32.32 14278

Tres Garantias NON-hunter 32 50.44 39.09 1614
Tres Garantias Hunter 12 40.33 36.67 484

Caobas NON-hunter 39 34.77 35.53 1356
Caobas Hunter 58 26.69 21.48 1548

Xbonil NON-hunter 22 28.36 36.58 624
Xbonil Hunter 22 39 40.98 858
Species Totals 185 35.05 34.03 6484


Tres Garantias NON-hunter 30 43.7 37.59 1311
Tres Garantias Hunter 12 17.33 31.28 208

Caobas NON-hunter 37 25.51 30.9 944
Caobas Hunter 54 11.78 19.92 636

Xbonil NON-hunter 19 22.81 21.24 433
Xbonil Hunter 22 11.45 15.59 252
Species Totals 174 21.75 28.78 3784


Average
149.25
129.33

99.38
98.46

76.91
88.36


S.D.
109.85
81.22

94.37
67.68

39.65
74.65


Total
4776
4423

3975
6303

1692
1944


Beef










Pork*










Wild
Meat*


*Sig. < 0.01









Annual meat consumption by weight (Kg)

This section compares the amount of wild meat consumed with that of domestic

meat among the ejido groups interviewed. Overall, chicken was the most consumed

meat, followed by beef, pork, and wild meat (Table 18). The amount of chicken

consumed annually by all ejido groups combined totaled 29,152 kg. Beef totaled 14,278

kg. The amount of pork consumed was 6,484 kg. Consumption of all wild meat

combined amounted to 3,784 kg a year. Based on average kilograms meat, all ejido

residents consume chicken the most and wild meat the least except for Tres Garantias

non-hunters who consume beef the least.

The Kruskal-Wallis test indicates that consumption patterns differed significantly

between groups concerning chicken, pork, and wild meat (X2 = 46.6, X2 = 11.0, X2 = 36.6

respectively, all p < 0.05). Tres Garantias hunters consumed the most chicken (mean

rank= 117.82). Tres Garantias non-hunters consumed the most pork (mean rank=

118.22), and wild meat (mean rank= 122.35) of all ejido groups.

Wild Game Preference

Species preference indicates the perceived value of one species over the others.

Differences between groups on preference ranks were not statistically significant.

White-tailed deer was the first choice for all groups except for Campeche sport

hunters who preferred the ocellated turkey. Collared peccary was the second favorite for

Chetumal sport hunters, whereas Campeche sport hunters "voted" white-tailed deer as

their second choice.

Species preference often differed between hunters and non-hunters in the same

ejido. Hunters and non-hunters in Caobas were the only two groups in the same ejido









who agreed on agouti paca as their second choice. Brocket deer was the favored second

choice for Tres Garantias and Xbonil non-hunters.

After the white-tailed deer, the brocket deer, agouti paca, and ocellated turkey

were indicated as the three most frequent choices among all groups. The curassow and

the white-lipped peccary were the least preferred species by all the groups.

Of all the groups, more Chetumal sport hunters chose the collared peccary as the

most preferred species. Chetumal sport hunters along with Campeche sport hunters, Tres

Garantias hunters, Caobas hunters and non-hunters chose the collared peccary as their

third favorite.

The white-lipped peccary had the highest score as a favored third between two

hunting groups. Only four out of sixty-four hunters in Caobas ranked the species, and all

four chose it as a third favorite. Four out of six hunters who ranked the white-lipped

peccary in Xbonil also ranked it as a third favorite.

Of the individuals in each group ranking the ocellated turkey, Campeche had the

most people choosing the species as their first choice. The ocellated turkey was a popular

third favorite among Tres Garantias non-hunters and Caobas residents. Xbonil residents

were divided on the ranking order for this bird.

Brocket deer was the most popular as a second choice species among the groups

interviewed. Of those who ranked the species, 67% of Chetumal Sport hunters, 55% of

Tres Garantias hunters, 57% of Caobas hunters, and 73% of Xbonil Hunters selected the

brocket deer as second choice.









Results showed that there was no significant difference between groups. The

highest percentages of all the groups chose white-tailed deer as their most favored

species.

Interestingly, species preference was significantly correlated to consumption

frequency for agouti paca (r= 0.180, p= 0.012), and to hunting pressure during the year

2000 for brocket deer (r= 0.185, p= 0.024). No other species consumed was significantly

correlated with preference.

In summary, species importance for each group is based on use, rank, average

consumption frequency, average hunting pressure (for two or more years), and revenue

gain (where relevant). The most valued species for Chetumal and Campeche sport

hunters, Tres Garantias non-hunters, and Caobas and Xbonil residents was the white-

tailed deer. Agouti paca and brocket deer were equally important for Tres Garantias

hunters.

Perceptions on Resource Access: Perceptions on Wildlife Ownership on Ejido Lands

Forty percent of all ejido responses claim that wildlife belongs to no one, whereas

64% of all sport hunter responses state that wildlife belongs to all citizens. Thirty-six

percent of all respondents (X2 =82.64, p < 0.001) believed that no one owns the wildlife

on ejido lands (Table 19). The highest group responses were in the following categories:

53% of Chetumal and 73% of Campeche sport hunters believe that the wildlife belongs to

everyone; Tres Garantias hunters were divided evenly (37% each) between wildlife

belonging to the ejido and belonging to no one; 41% of Tres Garantias non-hunters and

Caobas hunters, and 38% of Caobas non-hunters chose "no one"; and 45% of Xbonil

hunters and non-hunters believed that wildlife belonged to no one. Combining the two

open access categories, "all" and "no one," more ejido residents perceive that wildlife is









an open access resource. Combining all responses, 27% claim that wildlife belongs to the

ejido and that wildlife belongs to all citizens.




Table 19. Comparison of group perceptions on ownership of wildlife found on ejido lands*
Ejido All No One Me Government N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 4 17 8 0 2 31
Campeche Sport Hunter 1 22 5 2 0 30

Tres Garantias Hunters 15 7 15 0 4 41
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 11 5 13 0 3 32

Caobas Hunter 22 8 25 1 5 61
Caobas NON-hunter 7 11 15 0 7 40

Xbonil Hunter 9 2 10 0 1 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 7 4 10 0 1 22
TOTAL 76 76 101 3 23 279
*Sig. < 0.001


When ejido residents were asked to whom the wildlife belonged to on their

personal parcel of land, 66% responded that the wildlife was theirs (Table 20).

Responses did not significantly differ between groups.




Table 20. Ejido responses to the question "To whom does the wildlife belong when an animal
is on your parcel of land?"
Ejido All No One Me Government N
Tres Garantias Hunters 2 0 0 5 0 7
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 1 1 2 9 1 14

Caobas Hunter 5 0 1 21 0 27
Caobas NON-hunter 3 2 5 6 0 16

Xbonil Hunter 3 0 3 16 0 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 1 2 5 14 0 22
TOTAL 15 5 16 71 1 108









Distribution of Information (Knowledge)

Eighty-nine percent of all ejido residents did not know the meaning of UMA (X2

=28.45, p < 0.001) (Table 21). All sport hunters were assumed to be aware of the

meaning of "UMA" because the new system directly affected the number of tags of each

species the hunter was able to purchase.


Table 21. Ejido responses to the question: "Do you know what an UMA is?"
Responses indicate the level of knowledge ejido residents have about wildlife
management on their land.*
Yes No N
Tres Garantias Hunters 4 37 41
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 1 31 32

Caobas Hunter 2 58 60
Caobas NON-hunter 2 38 40

Xbonil Hunter 8 14 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 6 16 22
TOTAL 23 194 217
*Sig. < 0.001


Forty-five percent of Chetumal and 50% of Campeche sport hunters stated that

they held an average knowledge of the wildlife law (Table 22). On the other hand, 90%

of all ejido residents did not know the law at all (X2 =203.27, p < 0.001).

Eighty-two percent of sport hunters who responded were aware of how much

hunting was permitted each year, while only 21% of ejido residents who responded had

knowledge about this (X2 =88.61, p < 0.001) (Table 23). Considerably more ejido

hunters (26%) knew about the legal hunting limit than non-hunters (15%).






62





Table 22. Responses to the question: "Do you know about the law concerning wildlife?"
Responses indicate the effectiveness of SEMARNAP communicating policies that directly
impact sport hunters and ejidos.*
Very Well Well Avg. Not Well Not At All N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 4 8 14 4 1 31
Campeche Sport Hunter 4 9 15 1 1 30

Tres Garantias Hunters 0 3 2 3 33 41
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 3 0 0 0 29 32

Caobas Hunter 0 2 2 0 57 61
Caobas NON-hunter 3 0 0 0 37 40

Xbonil Hunter 0 1 1 0 20 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 0 0 1 0 21 22
TOTAL 14 23 35 8 199 279
*Sig. < 0.001



Table 23. Responses to the question: "Are you aware of how much hunting
is permitted?" Responses indicate the level of knowledge individuals have
on hunting bag limits.*
Yes No N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 20 10 30
Campeche Sport Hunter 29 1 30

Tres Garantias Hunters 10 30 40
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 5 27 32

Caobas Hunter 18 43 61
Caobas NON-hunter 3 37 40

Xbonil Hunter 4 18 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 6 16 22
TOTAL 95 182 277
*Sig. < 0.001









Seventy-four percent of all groups combined were not aware that subsistence

hunting was legally permitted under the UMA plan (Table 24). More Tres Garantias

residents, and Caobas and Xbonil hunters answered correctly than both groups of sport

hunters (X2 =13.89, p < 0.05).




Table 24. Responses to the question: "Do you know if subsistence hunting is
permitted?" *
Yes No N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 6 25 31
Campeche Sport Hunter 2 27 29

Tres Garantias Hunters 14 26 40
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 12 20 32

Caobas Hunter 20 41 61
Caobas NON-hunter 7 33 40

Xbonil Hunter 6 16 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 4 18 22
TOTAL 71 206 277
*Sig. < 0.05


Eighty-four percent of all respondents were not aware that wildlife

commercialization was permitted under the approved management plan according to the

new wildlife law (Table 25). More Campeche sport hunters were informed about this

aspect of the management plan than Chetumal sport hunters, and more hunters appeared

to be informed than non-hunters in the ejidos (X2 =27.43, p < 0.001).














Table 25. Responses to the question: "Do you know if wildlife
commercialization is permitted?" Responses indicate knowledge of
wildlife uses that are legal under the UMA strategy.*
Yes No N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 0 31 31
Campeche Sport Hunter 5 24 29

Tres Garantias Hunters 7 33 40
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 5 27 32

Caobas Hunter 21 40 61
Caobas NON-hunter 6 34 40

Xbonil Hunter 0 22 22
Xbonil NON-hunter 1 21 22
TOTAL 45 232 277
*Sig. < 0.001


Law Enforcement

Opinions on the quality of government enforcement of hunting regulations varied

significantly between groups (X2 =95.45, p < 0.001) (Table 26). Thirty-two percent of

sport hunters and 42% of Tres Garantias residents who responded believed that the

government did a very poor job. Lack of resources and concern, as well as corruption

were the reasons most often given. Thirty-six percent of Caobas residents thought that

the government was doing an average job. Sixty-nine percent of Xbonil residents, on the

other hand, stated that the government was doing a good job.












Table 26. Perceptions on the quality of government enforcement of wildlife hunting
regulations*
Very
Very Well Well Avg. Badly Badly N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 3 3 9 5 10 30
Campeche Sport Hunter 3 2 8 8 9 30

Tres Garantias Hunters 0 2 4 0 5 11
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 0 9 10 0 13 32

Caobas Hunter 0 12 17 14 14 57
Caobas NON-hunter 0 8 18 5 9 40

Xbonil Hunter 1 17 3 0 0 21
Xbonil NON-hunter 0 12 2 6 1 21
TOTAL 7 65 71 38 61 242
*Sig. < 0.001


Ejido responses varied considerably on the quality of enforcement by ejido

leaders of the hunting restrictions (X2 =50.23, p < 0.001) (Table 27). Thirty-six percent

of Caobas residents claimed that the ejido was doing an average job. Fifty-one percent of

Xbonil residents and 34% of Tres Garantias hunters said that their ejidos were doing a

good job, while 34% of Tres Garantias non-hunters stated that their ejido was doing a

very poor job of enforcing the hunting restrictions.



Table 27. Ejido perceptions on the quality of enforcement of local hunting restrictions
by ejido leaders
Very Well Well Avg. Badly Very Badly N
Tres Garantias Hunters 0 14 12 6 9 41
Tres Garantias NON-hunters 1 8 10 2 11 32
Caobas Hunter 0 12 19 11 17 59
Caobas NON-hunter 0 6 16 3 14 39
Xbonil Hunter 3 12 5 0 1 21
Xbonil NON-hunter 0 9 5 4 2 20
TOTAL 4 61 67 26 54 212
*Sig. < 0.001









Current Hunting Practices

Sex selection

The following analysis deals with the sustainability of harvesting practices. In

general, a population has a higher chance of persisting if the males are sought rather than

the females. No cases of seeking female game were specifically reported. The largest

effort to discriminate males of a game species was found with the white-tailed deer

(Table 28). Sport hunters claimed to make a concerted effort to hunt only males whereas

the majority of subsistence hunters in Tres Garantias and Caobas did not discriminate

between sexes (X2 =10.18, p < 0.05). Xbonil hunters were evenly divided.

As in the case with the white-tailed deer, most sport hunters selected male brocket

deer, whereas more subsistence hunters did not discriminate sex (X2 =10.06, p < 0.05)

(Table 28).

Campeche sport hunters were the only group to hunt only male curassow (X2

=9.54, p < 0.05) (Table 29). These statistics should be interpreted with caution since only

one of thirty individuals responded to the question, and may not be an adequate

representation of the entire group. All the hunting groups did not distinguish sex when

harvesting collared peccary, white-lipped peccary, agouti paca, and ocellated turkey

(Tables 28-29).














Table 28. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating sex of
Artiodactyls. No individuals claimed to seek out females.
White-Tailed Deer* Male No Preference N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 19 10 29
Campeche Sport Hunter 16 6 22


Brocket Deer*









Collared Peccary










White-Lipped Peccary


*Sig. < 0.05


Tres Garantias Hunter 16 18 34
Caobas Hunter 19 31 50
Xbonil Hunter 8 8 16
Species Totals 78 73 151


Chetumal Sport Hunter 15 10 25
Campeche Sport Hunter 15 5 20

Tres Garantias Hunter 15 21 36
Caobas Hunter 18 30 48
Xbonil Hunter 8 10 18
Species Totals 71 76 147

Chetumal Sport Hunter 5 19 24
Campeche Sport Hunter 0 13 13

Tres Garantias Hunter 5 28 33
Caobas Hunter 4 54 58
Xbonil Hunter 1 12 13
Species Totals 15 126 141



Chetumal Sport Hunter 0 8 8
Campeche Sport Hunter 0 1 1

Tres Garantias Hunter 3 21 24
Caobas Hunter 4 15 19
Xbonil Hunter 0 8 8
Species Totals 7 53 60












Table 29. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating sex of Agouti Paca
and Game Birds. No individuals claimed to seek out females.
Agouti Paca Male No Preference N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 0 19 19
Campeche Sport Hunter 0 14 14

Tres Garantias Hunter 1 34 35
Caobas Hunter 2 56 58
Xbonil Hunter 1 7 8


Ocellated Turkey










Curassow*


*Sig. < 0.05


Species Totals 4 130 134


Chetumal Sport Hunter 6 15 21
Campeche Sport Hunter 3 19 22

Tres Garantias Hunter 2 12 14
Caobas Hunter 2 17 19
Xbonil Hunter 8 11 19
Species Totals 21 74 95


Chetumal Sport Hunter 3 10 13
Campeche Sport Hunter 1 0 1

Tres Garantias Hunter 11 23 34
Caobas Hunter 6 34 40
Xbonil Hunter 8 9 17
Species Totals 29 76 105


Age selection

Discriminating an animal's age when hunting is important in exercising

sustainable harvesting practices. In general, a population stands a better chance of

persisting when the young are conserved and allowed to reproduce in the future. Overall,

more hunters claimed to hunt only adult individuals of all the species in this study









(Tables 30-31). Reports on white-tailed deer (X2 =10.65), collared peccary (X2 =14.17),

agouti paca (X2 =10.76), ocellated turkey (X2 =13.69), and curassow (X2 =10.02) had

statistically significant at the 0.05 level or below. Sport hunters generally had a higher

percentage response in selecting for adults compared to subsistence hunters.



Table 30. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating age class of
Artiodactyls. No individuals claimed to seek out juveniles.
White-Tailed Deer* Adult No Preference N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 25 4 29
Campeche Sport Hunter 21 1 22

Tres Garantias Hunter 24 10 34
Caobas Hunter 33 17 50
Xbonil Hunter 10 6 16
Species Totals 113 38 151
Brocket Deer
Chetumal Sport Hunter 21 4 25
Campeche Sport Hunter 17 3 20

Tres Garantias Hunter 29 7 36
Caobas Hunter 31 17 48
Xbonil Hunter 10 8 18
Species Totals 108 39 147
Collared Peccary*
Chetumal Sport Hunter 21 3 24
Campeche Sport Hunter 11 2 13

Tres Garantias Hunter 27 6 33
Caobas Hunter 34 24 58
Xbonil Hunter 6 7 13
Species Totals 99 42 141
White-Lipped Peccary
Chetumal Sport Hunter 5 3 8
Campeche Sport Hunter 1 0 1

Tres Garantias Hunter 17 7 24
Caobas Hunter 12 7 19
Xbonil Hunter 5 3 8
Species Totals 40 20 60
*Sig. < 0.05












Table 31. Comparison of group hunting practices of discriminating age class of Agouti
Paca and Game Birds. No individuals claimed to seek out juveniles.
Agouti Paca* Adult No Preference N
Chetumal Sport Hunter 16 3 19
Campeche Sport Hunter 12 2 14

Tres Garantias Hunter 26 9 35
Caobas Hunter 31 27 58
Xbonil Hunter 6 2 8


Ocellated Turkey*









Curassow*








*Sig. < 0.05


Species Totals 91 43 134


Chetumal Sport Hunter 20 1 21
Campeche Sport Hunter 20 2 22

Tres Garantias Hunter 10 4 14
Caobas Hunter 13 6 19
Xbonil Hunter 10 9 19
Species Totals 73 22 95


Chetumal Sport Hunter 11 2 13
Campeche Sport Hunter 1 0 1

Tres Garantias Hunter 28 6 34
Caobas Hunter 24 16 40
Xbonil Hunter 8 9 17
Species Totals 72 33 105


Months of game harvest

This analysis determines times of year when game populations experience the

highest hunting pressure and the existence of temporal overlap between sport hunters and

subsistence hunters. If sport hunters hunt in the same relative area and during similar

months as subsistence hunters, then these two groups will be competing for the same

resource.












Table 32. Comparison of hunting periods of White-Tailed Deer among groups*
Chetumal Campeche Tres Garantias Caobas Xbonil TOTAL
All Year 5 5 13 29 6 58
Jan-May 0 0 0 1 0 1
Mar-May 0 0 0 0 1 1
Mar-Jun 0 0 0 0 1 1
Mar-Jul 0 0 0 2 0 2
Apr 0 0 0 1 0 1
Apr-May 0 1 0 0 0 1
May-Jun 0 0 1 2 0 3
May-Jul 0 0 0 1 0 1
May-Aug 0 0 0 3 0 3
May-Sep 1 0 0 0 0 1
Jun-Jul 0 0 0 2 1 3
Jun-Aug 0 0 1 3 0 4
Jul 0 0 0 0 1 1
Aug-Sep 0 1 0 0 1 2
Aug-Dec 0 1 0 0 1 2
Sep-May 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sep-Oct 0 1 0 0 0 1
Oct 1 0 0 1 0 2
Oct-May 1 0 0 0 0 1
Oct-Nov 1 0 0 1 1 3
Oct-Jan 2 0 0 0 0 2
Nov-Dec 2 7 0 1 0 10
Nov-Jan 0 1 0 0 0 1
Dec 0 4 0 0 0 4
Dec-Mar 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dec-May 1 0 0 0 0 1
N 15 21 15 48 13 112
*Sig. < 0.001


Most hunters harvested all species year-round rather than during a particular time

period (Table 32-38). Caobas had the highest number of hunters who harvested the

white-tailed deer year round (X2 =173.39, p < 0.001) (Table 32). Campeche was the only

hunting group to have the largest percentage of hunters who hunted white-tailed deer in

November through December. All groups except Campeche hunted the collared peccary

throughout the year. Campeche's activities were scattered across a number of months









(X2 =155.96, p < 0.001) (Table 33). All the ejido communities hunted the ocellated

turkey (no significance) and curassow (X2 =112.32, p < 0.001) year round while the sport

hunters had scattered responses (Table 34-35). A significantly high percentage of the

ejido communities harvested the brocket deer year-round, followed by Chetumal and

Campeche (X2 =123.51, p= 0.016) (Table 36). Tres Garantias and Caobas hunters were

the two groups having the highest percentage of hunters harvesting the white-lipped

peccary all year-round (X2 =147.49, p < 0.001) (Table 37). The majority of all groups

hunted the agouti paca year-round (Table 38).

Overall, the few occasions when a specific time period was selected by a high

percentage of individuals in a group, the number of responses was small and not

necessarily representative of the group. Considering this and the fact that most groups

hunt species year-round, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that one group

is directly competing with another for a species.















Table 33. Months of Collared Peccary Hunts*
Chetumal Campeche Tres
All Year 5 2
Jan 0 1
Feb 0 1
Mar 0 0
Mar-Apr 0 1
Mar-May 1 0
Apr 0 1
Apr-May 0 0
ADr-Aug 1 0


Sep
Sep-Oct
Sep-May
Oct
Oct-Nov
Oct-Jan
Oct-May
Nov-Dec
Dec
Dec-Jan
N
*Sig. < 0.001


Garantias
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Caobas
39
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0


Xbonil
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


TOTAL
60
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
4
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1


13 11 12 48 7 91













Table 34. Months of Ocellated Turkey Hunts
Chetumal Campeche Tres Garantias Caobas Xbonil TOTAL
All Year 3 1 6 12 7 29
Jan 0 0 0 0 1 1
Jan-Feb 0 1 0 0 1 2
Jan-May 1 0 1 0 0 2
Feb-Apr 0 1 0 0 0 1
Mar 0 1 0 0 0 1
Mar-Apr 3 4 0 0 1 8
Mar-May 0 0 0 1 1 2
Mar-Jun 0 0 1 0 0 1
Apr 2 3 0 0 0 5
Apr-May 0 1 1 1 1 4
Apr-Jun 0 1 0 0 0 1
Apr-Jul 0 0 0 0 1 1
May 0 1 0 1 2 4
Aug-Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sep-Oct 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sep-May 1 0 0 0 0 1
Oct 1 0 0 0 0 1
Oct-Nov 1 0 0 0 0 1
Nov 0 1 0 0 0 1
Nov-Dec 0 2 0 0 0 2
Nov-Jan 0 1 0 0 0 1
Nov-May 0 1 0 0 0 1
Dec 0 1 0 0 0 1
Dec-Jan 1 0 0 1 0 2
N 13 20 9 18 15 75















Table 35. Months of Curassow Hunts*
Chetumal Campeche
All Year 1 0
Jan-Feb 0 0
Jan-May 1 0
Mar 0 0
Mar-Apr 1 0
Mar-May 0 0
Mar-Jul 0 0
Apr 0 1
Apr-May 0 0
May 0 0
May-Jun 0 0
May-Jul 0 0
May-Sep 1 0
Sep-Oct 0 0
Oct 1 0
Oct-Nov 1 0
Dec-Jan 0 0
N 6 1
*Sig. < 0.001


Tres Garantias
9
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16


Caobas
28
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
39


Xbonil
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13


TOTAL
47
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
6
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
75





*Sig. < 0.05


Table 36. Months of Brocket Deer Hunts*
Chetumal Campeche
All Year 5 6
Jan-May 0 0
Feb 0 2
Feb-Mar 1 1
Mar 0 1
Mar-Apr 1 5
Mar-Jul 0 0
Mar-Dec 0 1
Apr 1 1
Apr-May 0 0
May 0 0
May-Jun 0 0
May-Jul 0 0
May-Sep 1 0
Jun-Aug 0 0
Jun-Sep 0 0
Jul-Aug 0 0
Aug-Sep 0 0
Sep-Nov 0 1
Sep-May 1 0
Oct 0 0
Oct-May 1 0
Dec-Mar 0 0
N 11 18


Tres Garantias
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18


Caobas
32
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
46


Xbonil
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14


TOTAL
71
1
2
2
1
6
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
107















Table 37. Months of White-Lipped Peccary Hunts*
Chetumal Campeche Tres Garantias
All Year 1 0 5
Mar-May 0 0 0
Apr 0 0 1
Apr-May 0 1 2
Jun-Aug 0 0 0
Sep 0 0 0
Oct-Nov 0 0 1
Oct-May 1 0 0
Nov 0 0 1
Nov-Dec 0 0 0
N 2 1 10


*Sig. < 0.001


Table 38. Months of Agouti Paca Hunts
Chetumal Campeche Tres
All Year 5 4
Jan-Feb 0 2
Feb 0 0
Feb-Mar 0 0
Mar-Apr 1 0
Mar-Jul 0 1
Apr 0 1
Apr-May 0 0
Apr-Jun 0 0
May 0 0
May-Jun 0 1
May-Aug 0 0
Sep-Oct 0 0
Sep-Mar 0 1
Sep-May 1 0
Oct 0 0
Oct-Nov 0 0
Oct-May 1 0
Nov-Dec 2 2
Dec 0 0
N 10 12


Garantias Caobas
14 40
0 0
0 2
0 1
1 3
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 1
1 1
0 0
0 1
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 1
1 0
18 56


Caobas
12
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
16


Xbonil
2
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
7


TOTAL
20
1
1
6
1
2
2
1
1
1
36


Xbonil
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5


TOTAL
67
2
2
1
5
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
101









Hunting locations

To determine if two or more groups are in competition for the same resource,

along with species selection and time of harvest, location is an important consideration.

The majority of all ejido hunters stated that they hunted strictly within their ejidos. Most

sport hunters hunted mainly within their state. Areas named as the most frequented

hunting sites are shown in Fig. B-1 and Fig. B-2 in Appendix B. A total of 18 sport

hunters from Chetumal hunted in Tres Garantias at least once. Sixteen sport hunters from

Chetumal said that they hunted in Caobas at least once. Only 7 sport hunters from

Campeche hunted in Xbonil. Choice sport hunting sites mentioned often were not in

proximity to the UMA study sites. Very few sport hunters have hunted in the UMAs in

the study. Only 4 sport hunters from Chetumal and 8 from Campeche stated that they

had hunted in an UMA.

Population Dynamics

Perceived change in population size

Many hunters and ejido non-hunters are well acquainted with game habitat and

population dynamics through frequent contact. Therefore, their perception on population

dynamics is considered seriously. Perceptions in population size differed significantly

between groups for white-tailed deer (X2 =47.20, p < 0.001), collared peccary (X2 =40.42,

p < 0.001), agouti paca (X2 =27.25, p= 0.018), ocellated turkey (X2 =62.31, p < 0.001),

and brocket deer (X2 =39.78, p < 0.001) (Table 39-40). For all groups combined, 56% of

the people believed that there were less white-tailed deer; 53% believed that there were

less collared peccary; 65% stated that there were less white-lipped peccary; 56% believed

there were less agouti paca and brocket deer; and 61% said there were less ocellated

turkey and curassow. In general, all species are perceived to be declining.












Table 39. Comparison of perceived change in population size of Artiodactyls among
groups


White-tailed Deer*
Less More Same Total
Chetumal Sport Hunters 16 6 6 28
Campeche Sport Hunters 7 9 6 22

Tres Garantias Hunters 11 11 10 32
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters 22 3 3 28


Brocket Deer*
Less More Same Total
17 2 6 25
7 5 8 20

13 11 11 35

24 1 2 27


Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter

Xbonil Hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
TOTAL


33 5 10 48
24 4 2 30

2 6 8 16
9 1 7 17
124 45 52 221


30 8
24 3


9 47
7 34


4 6 8 18
6 3 7 16
125 39 58 222


*Sig. < 0.001


Collared Peccary*
Less More Same Total
Chetumal Sport Hunters 10 8 7 25
Campeche Sport Hunters 8 0 5 13


White-lipped Peccary
Less More Same Total
5 1 1 7
1 0 0 1


Tres Garantias Hunters
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters

Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter

Xbonil Hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
TOTAL


8 13 11 32


17 1


5 23


31 8 16 55
20 3 2 25

4 3 5 12
6 0 7 13
104 36 58 198


11 4

15 1

16 1
12 1


8 23

3 19

1 18
2 15


65 12 23 100


*Sig. < 0.001















Table 40. Comparison of perceived change in population size of game birds and
agouti paca among groups.


Ocellated Turkey*


Less More Same


Chetumal Sport
Hunters
Campeche Sport
Hunters


Total


17 1 3 21

7 9 6 22


Curassow
Less More Same Total

11 1 1 13

1 0 0 1


Tres Garantias Hunters
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters

Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter


8 1 5 14 16 7 10 33

18 0 0 18 15 1 5 21


Xbonil Hunter 4 7 8 19
Xbonil NON-hunter 9 0 9 18
TOTAL 89 20 38 147
*Sig. < 0.001
Agouti Paca*
Less More Same Total
Chetumal Sport
Hunters 7 3 8 18
Campeche Sport
Hunters 5 1 7 13

Tres Garantias Hunters 11 10 13 34
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters 18 2 7 27

Caobas Hunter 37 3 15 55
Caobas NON-hunter 25 4 6 35

Xbonil Hunter 3 2 3 8
Xbonil NON-hunter 7 1 3 11
TOTAL 113 26 62 201
*Sig. = 0.018


5 5 7 17
8 4 2 14
97 23 38 158









Perceived change in population distance

Population migration of game towards less developed habitat indicates that

disturbance maybe significant in the area. The two major causes of population

disturbance are habitat destruction and hunting pressure. Populations perceived to

become more distant might also, but not necessarily be in decline.

Difference in responses to population distance from the center of town was

statistically significant for white-tailed deer (X2 =49.69, p < 0.001), white-lipped peccary

(X2 =30.75, p= 0.006), agouti paca (X2 =41.43, p < 0.001), ocellated turkey (X2 =25.93,

p= 0.026), and brocket deer (X2 =26.67, p= 0.021) (Table 41-42). Considering all groups

combined, 69% believe that white-tailed deer are found at a distance further than before,

76% believe that collared peccary have moved further, 80% believe that white-lipped

peccary are more distant, 63% claim that agouti paca are more distant, 68% think that the

ocellated turkey are more distant, 82% perceive that the curassow are more distant, and

75% perceive that brocket deer are more distant from the center of town than before.

The Pearson's Correlation Coefficient showed a significant negative correlation

between perceived population size and perceived distance of the game population (p =

0.01). For white-tailed deer, r= -0.322; collared peccary r= -0.468; white-lipped peccary

r= -0.408; agouti paca r= -0.434; ocellated turkey r= -0.698; curassow r= -0.536; and

brocket deer r= -0.549. Hence, the smaller the perceived population size, the farther the

respondent's perceived distance of the game population from human settlement.















Table 41. Respondents' perceptions of Artiodactyl populations becoming more distant
from the community


White-tailed deer*
Same Far Close Total
Chetumal Sport Hunters 9 13 0 22
Campeche Sport Hunters 8 7 4 19


Brocket Deer*
Same Far Close Total
2 15 0 17
7 7 2 16


Tres Garantias Hunters
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters

Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter

Xbonil Hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
TOTAL


1 3 0 4

1 20 2 23

4 28 2 34
2 25 0 27


8 3 0
6 8 0
39 107 8


*Sig. < 0.001


White-lipped Peccary*
Same Far Close Total
Chetumal Sport Hunters 0 5 0 5
Campeche Sport Hunters 0 1 0 1


Tres Garantias Hunters
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters

Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter

Xbonil Hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
TOTAL


1 0


0 12


0 1

2 14


1 9 0
0 9 0

4 2 0
2 2 0
8 40 2


2 3


0 5


1 21 0 22

4 26 2 32
5 22 1 28

5 5 0 10
4 6 0 10
30 105 5 140
*Sig. < 0.05


Collared Peccary
Same Far Close Total
2 13 0 15
3 8 0 11

0 0 0 0


1 15 1


7 23 5 35
3 17 0 20

4 3 0 7
1 6 0 7
21 85 6 112


*Sig. < 0.05















Table 42. Respondents' perceptions of game bird and agouti paca populations
becoming more distant from the community


Chetumal Sport Hunters
Campeche Sport Hunters

Tres Garantias Hunters
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters

Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter

Xbonil Hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
TOTAL


Ocellated Turkey*
Same Far Close Total
3 10 0 13
10 6 1 17

1 1 0 2


0 13 0

2 8 0
0 9 0

7 6 0
4 7 0
27 60 1


*Sig. = 0.026


Curassow
Same Far Close Total
1 7 0 8
0 1 0 1

1 2 0 3

0 13 1 14


3 18 0
2 10 0


4 6 0 10
2 6 0 8
13 63 1 77
Results not statistically
significant


Agouti Paca*
Same Far Close Total
Chetumal Sport Hunters 8 3 1 12
Campeche Sport Hunters 8 2 1 11


Tres Garantias Hunters
Tres Garantias NON-
hunters

Caobas Hunter
Caobas NON-hunter

Xbonil Hunter
Xbonil NON-hunter
TOTAL


2 3 0 5

0 17 1 18

4 23 6 33
8 21 0 29


3 2
1 2
34 73


*Sig. < 0.001









Perceptions Towards Wildlife

Sixty-one percent of all sport hunters believe that there is less wildlife than

before. Ninety-nine percent of all individuals interviewed believe that wildlife should be

conserved. These results were not statistically significant.


Sport Hunting as a Tool for Sustainable Development

Analysis on sport hunting as a tool for sustainable development is divided into

two sections. The first section evaluates economic feasibility using contingent valuation.

Response agreement between sport hunters and ejido residents would indicate a high

probability of economic feasibility. The second section tests group perceptions and

compatibility to indicate if sport hunters and ejido residents can work together under the

UMA system with minimal conflict.

Economic Feasibility: Contingent Valuation

Ejido responses

This section helps determine if sport hunters and ejido residents can effectively

work with each other to make the UMA system successful in the region. Hunter and non-

hunter responses were combined in this section because both influence the decisions

made in the ejido. Ninety-four percent of those interviewed in Tres Garantias and

Caobas, and 95% of those interviewed in Xbonil would be willing to accept an entrance

fee from sport hunters and use the money for wildlife management (Table 43). The

minimum payment the ejidos were willing to accept from Mexican and foreign sport

hunters differed significantly between groups (X2 =58.37, p= 0.01; X2 =71.27, p= 0.01

respectively). The most frequently mentioned price for Tres Garantias to charge Mexican

sport hunters was 1500 pesos ($156 USD) (Table 44). The most popular price cited in









Caobas was 500 pesos ($52 USD). The two most popular prices in Xbonil were 200

pesos ($21 USD) and 1000 pesos ($104 USD). For foreign hunters, the most popular

minimum price was 1500 pesos in Tres Garantias, 1000 pesos in Caobas, and 3000 pesos

($313 USD) in Xbonil (Table 45).




Table 43. Ejido responses to the question relating to
acceptance of a sport hunter entrance fee as wildlife
management revenue
Yes No N
Tres Garantias 67 4 71
Caobas 93 6 99
Xbonil 42 2 44
Total 202 12 214


Table 44. Comparison of ejido prices to charge as an entrance fee for
Mexican sport hunters if revenue were to be invested in wildlife
management*
Mexican Hunters Tres Garantias Caobas Xbonil TOTAL
100 10 6 0 16
200 9 13 9 31
300 0 0 1 1
400 2 11 1 14
500 6 18 8 32
600 4 5 0 9
800 4 7 2 13
1000 10 13 9 32
1500 11 4 4 19
2000 10 2 4 16
2500 0 1 0 1
3000 1 3 2 6
4000 0 1 0 1
5000 0 0 2 2
>5000 0 1 0 1
N 67 85 42 194
*Sig. = 0.01




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs