The typical socio-economic contrasts of Latin American society are mirrored in the distinction between rural hunters, for whom wildlife is a means of subsistence, and urban or sport hunters who hunt for recreation. This latter and mainly urban middle-class group mostly comprises weekend hunters. They know and often respect the game rules and regulations, and are more interested in the recreational than the monetary value of their kill. For this reason they may be after quite different species from those hunted for food or sale.
There are a number of popular books on sport hunting in Latin America (14, 94, 241, 270, 344, 345, 379, 381). A number of major events have also been held, such as the 1° Convención Nacional de Caza (Mexico, 1964) and the Seminario sobre caça amadorista (Brazil, 1976). And yet, there is not much data describing the characteristics and scope of sport hunting, the type and number of kills, etc. An international survey (Table 20) found that the main game mammals are ungulates (deer, peccaries), hares and rabbits, and ducks, doves and partridges. A survey of Venezuelan sport hunters (237) found the average kill per hunter per season to be 54: ducks 61 percent, doves 17 percent, partridges 7 percent, snipe 6 percent, rabbits 6 percent and others (chachalacas, pacas, agoutis, peccaries, 3 percent). Some of the most valuable species are either now banned, or not hunted, or kills are not reported. This and other fragmentary data (67, 197, 198, 238, 269, 336, 298, 473) suggest that the sport hunter in tropical America is basically a field bird hunter (ducks, doves and partridges) who also hunts big game, preferably deer. He is inclined to go after species that allow him to test his skills as a marksman. Most of the birds mentioned are fairly small (and therefore less attractive to subsistence hunters), relatively prolific, tolerant of environmental modifications and abundant in many areas. Some hunters do specialize in animals that are spectacular, rare or valued as trophies, such as the big cats, Nelson's bighorn, bears, and so forth (14, 198, 248, 336, 514).
Table 19. Export of primates from Latin America to the United States from 1964-1980 (No. of specimens). Source (357)
|
Year |
Bolivia |
Colombia |
Guyana |
Peru |
Others |
Total |
|
1964 |
- |
6 841 |
660 |
36 847 |
1 282 |
45 630 |
|
1965 |
- |
9 123 |
261 |
33 634 |
550 |
43 568 |
|
1966 |
- |
9 491 |
237 |
37 384 |
154 |
47 266 |
|
1967 |
267 |
13 879 |
955 |
39600 |
241 |
54 942 |
|
1968 |
- |
24 105 |
916 |
53 773 |
1 295 |
80 089 |
|
1969 |
- |
17563 |
260 |
45 890 |
1 000 |
64 803 |
|
1970 |
- |
16 826 |
- |
32 729 |
3 268 |
52 823 |
|
1971 |
- |
15 910 |
481 |
31 550 |
1 885 |
49 826 |
|
1972 |
100 |
16 124 |
336 |
27 288 |
1 566 |
45 414 |
|
1973 |
333 |
6444 |
708 |
22 669 |
717 |
30 871 |
|
1974 |
3 760 |
2 313 |
1 066 |
2251 |
1 479 |
10 869 |
|
1975 |
4 135 |
21 |
2 940 |
640 |
3437 |
11 173 |
|
1976 |
3 787 |
- |
895 |
- |
3071 |
7 753 |
|
1977 |
3 095 |
- |
- |
- |
1 898 |
4 993 |
|
1978 |
2258 |
- |
433 |
- |
959 |
3 650 |
|
1979 |
2063 |
- |
368 |
- |
591 |
3022 |
|
1980 |
2563 |
- |
838 |
100 |
836 |
4 337 |
|
Total |
22 361 |
138 640 |
11 354 |
364 445 |
24 229 |
561 029 |
|
% |
4.0 |
24.7 |
2.0 |
65.0 |
4.3 |
100.0 |
Table 20. Main species hunted for sport in Latin America. Source of information: country surveys and bibliography. The numbers after the names of countries indicate the number of survey replies.
|
Country |
Mammals |
Birds |
|
Mexico (6) |
Odocoileus virginianus |
Zenaida asiatica, Z. macroura Migratory ducks |
|
Nicaragua (1) |
Odocoileus virginianus |
Zenaida asiatic |
|
Costa Rica (3) |
Odocoileus virginianus |
Columba fasciata |
|
Panama (1) |
Odocoileus virginianus |
Anas discors, Cairina moscata Doves |
|
Colombia (4) |
Odocoileus virginianus |
Zenaida auriculata |
|
Venezuela (3) |
Odocoileus virginianus |
Dendrocygna spp., doves |
|
Curaçao (1) |
Sylvilagus floridanus |
Columba corensis, C. squamosa |
|
Trinidad (1) |
Dasyprocta leporina |
Dendrocygna spp. |
|
Suriname (3) |
Tayassu pecari |
Crax alector, ducks |
|
Brazil (5) |
Tayassu pecari, T. tajacu Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris |
Dendrocygna spp. |
|
Ecuador (1) |
Tayassu tajacu |
Dendrocygna spp. |
|
Peru (5) |
Odocoileus virginianus Tayassu spp., Mazama americana |
Nothoprocta spp. |
|
Paraguay (1) |
Tayassu spp., felids |
Dendrocygna viduata |
|
Uruguay (2) |
Axis axis, Lepus europeus Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris |
Nothura maculosa |
|
Argentina (3) |
Lepus europeus, |
Nothura maculosa |
|
Chile (6) |
Oryctolagus cuniculus |
Zenaida auriculata |
Sport hunters are a heterogeneous group. Partially overlapping with other wildlife users, they are in some ways unique. Usually well-informed on the laws in force, they often hunt legally with the respective permit. Normally urban dwellers, they need to get from the city to their destination, so fees can be levied at control points along the highway. Since a sport hunter can be controlled to some extent, he is the user most affected by prohibitions, limits and other such legal restrictions. The sport hunter hunts intermittently and, being highly mobile, may not always hunt in the same places. Sport hunters generate income through the purchase of equipment and materials and payment for various services (lodging, food, guides, etc.) in hunting destinations. They often belong to hunting and shooting clubs and federations. This facilitates communications between hunters and wildlife administrators and gives hunters clout as an interest or pressure group. Hunters may be instrumental in promoting new reserves or experimental hunting areas and in fostering applied research on wildlife management and sustained production, including exotic species.
The number of sport hunting licences issued in the various countries of the region (Table 21) shows that sport hunters are a tiny group; roughly 0.01-0-1 percent of the total population (excepting Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname and the province of Cordoba in Argentina). In the developed countries, licensed hunters usually comprise 5 percent or more of the total population. The low number of licences in most Latin American countries is linked to the elite nature of sport hunting in the region (164, 336, 536). A certain percentage of sport hunting enthusiasts may also be hunting without a licence, particularly rural landowners on their own land. The growing number of hunting permits, e.g. in Mexico (269, 388, 528) and in Costa Rica (347), probably owes more to the increase in legality than to a real increase in the number of hunters.
The statistics on the scope of sport hunting, though fragmentary and biased, do seem to indicate far less impact from sport than from subsistence hunting (and in some areas commercial hunting). It involves fewer people, less time and greater opportunity for control, and targets fairly abundant animal species. The socio-economic impact of sport hunting thus basically concerns the recreational aspect and the fact that it generates income for third parties.
Table 21. Sport hunting licences and hunting clubs in various Latin American countries. Source: Surveys and bibliography
|
Country |
Number of licences |
% of population |
Number of clubs |
Membership |
Source |
|
Mexico |
69 838 (1981) |
0.09 |
964 |
? |
(388) |
|
Nicaragua |
750 (1982) |
0.03 |
24 |
12 000 |
IRENA, 1982 |
|
Costa Rica |
241 (1979)1 |
0.09 |
2 |
? |
(347) |
|
Panama |
- |
- |
4 |
200 |
(592) |
|
Colombia |
(40 000)2 |
0.14 |
|
? |
Hernández, 1982 |
|
Venezuela |
13 000 (1987) |
0.07 |
151 |
7000 |
Quero, 1988 |
|
Peru |
2 000 (1981) |
0.01 |
|
? |
Cardich, 1982 |
|
Trinidad |
4 000 (1981) |
0.33 |
|
? |
Ramdial, 1982 |
|
Suriname |
12 000 (1981) |
3.00 |
1 |
? |
Baal, 1982 |
|
Brazil |
12 000 (1981) |
0.01 |
|
? |
Petry Leal, 1981 |
|
Chile |
15 000 (1981)3 |
0.13 |
|
25 000 |
Rottman, 1982 |
|
Argentina (Córdova) |
150 000 (1981) |
7.1 |
162 |
150 000 |
Rendel, 1982 |
1 Total hunters 10 - 12 000 (López Pizarro, pers. comm. 1983).
2 Approximate number of sport hunters; permit not required.
3 Plus 15 - 30 000 unlicensed hunters (Rottam, pers. comm. 1982).
