Hunting Activities in the Semiarid Potiguar Under the Students Perspective

Lima, Robson Júnio Pereira De; Barbosa, Edja Daise Oliveira; Chaves, Márcio Frazão

doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc0019r2vu18l4ao

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several factors influence in the knowledge about hunting and the use of cinegetic animals [35]. In a widely context, the influence of the socioeconomic factors in relation to the use of animal as food is evident, and individuals with lower incomes often mention that they hunt for subsistence or to obtain additional income for the acquisition of essential products [e.g., clothing and tools, medicinal and magic religious purposes] for the survival of their families [36,37]. The temporal effect recorded during interviews may have resulted in memories of sightings in the past years, but they have forgotten to report them in details.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of ethnozoology for the mammal conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado

Vidica-Oliveira

Hannibal

2021

Sci. Plena

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we investigated the ethnozoological practices adopted by the population of the São Domingo dos Olhos D´Água (SDOA) settlement for the conservation of mammals in a fragmented landscape of the Cerrado, southern Goiás State, Brazil. Initially, we surveyed the mammal fauna in the legal reserve areas of SDOA through the active search and interview. Subsequently, we applied socioeconomic and ethnozoological questionnaires to 30 people to investigate the association of these two approaches in mammal conservation. We found 14 species of large and medium-sized mammals (5 threatened species) in the SDOA settlement. More than 90% of the interviewees have a low level of scholarly education, aged between 45 to 77 years, with agriculture and livestock as their main economic activity. All interviewees have lived in the area for more than 10 years, and 67% said they do not fish and 90% do not hunt. The inhabitants of the SDOA know its mammal fauna, regardless of scholarly education or hunting and fishing practice. On the other hand, monthly income and residence time at the settlement are socioeconomic factors that affected the degree of perception about the mammals. Ethnozoological studies associated with socioeconomic factors are an important approach in predicting knowledge about local biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of ethnozoology for the mammal conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado

Vidica-Oliveira

Hannibal

2021

Sci. Plena

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dogs are useful elements in hunts due to their ability to track, capture, and kill prey [ 12 ], especially fossorial and semi-fossorial animals [ 36 , 67 ], although they are employed occasionally in certain localities [ 66 ]. They also represent the increased probability of encountering and capturing animals with nocturnal habits during the day [ 65 , 68 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hunting practices in southwestern Amazonia: a comparative study of techniques, modalities, and baits among urban and rural hunters

Oliveira

Braga-Pereira

Bizri

et al. 2023

J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hunting is a vital means of obtaining animal in various human populations. Hunters rely on their knowledge of species ecology and behavior to develop and employ hunting techniques and increase their chances of success. The comparison of the hunting practices of different human societies can shed light on the sustainability of hunting and the impact it has on species’ populations. In this study, we examine and compare the techniques, modalities, and baits used by urban and rural hunters in Rondônia, a state in southwestern Amazonia, Brazil. We expected that rural hunters would use these elements and have greater knowledge when compared to urban hunters. We also expect that the use of specific hunting techniques and modalities will have greater selectivity and specificity of capture for rural hunters and that this knowledge will differ between groups. Methods We conducted 106 semi-structured interviews with rural and urban hunters from October 2018 to February 2020. We analyzed the data using PERMANOVA and Network analyses to compare and contrast the hunting practices of each group. Results We recorded four main hunting techniques divided into ten modalities with three techniques and seven modalities being the preferred choices among hunters. Waiting for at a Fruit Tree was cited as the primary technique employed by hunters living in urban and rural areas indicated. While the techniques and modalities were similar among hunters, the composition of species targeted and baits used differed between groups. Our network approach showed that modularity in urban areas was numerically lower than in rural areas. All species had one to more techniques associated with their capture. Conclusions Hunters living in urban and rural environments showed high similarity in their practices, probably due to sharing similar environments to hunt containing similar species, as well as targeting preferably the same species.

show abstract