Learning to hunt Crocodiles: social organization in the process of knowledge generation and the emergence of management practices among Mayan of Mexico

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Erin IJ Estrada-Lugo¹  Eduardo Bello-Baltazar¹  Fernando Zamudio² 

[1] Departamento de Gestión Comunitaria de los Recursos Naturales, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur-Unidad San Cristóbal de las Casas Chiapas- Ap. 63, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas 29290, Mexico;Grupo de Etnobiología, Instituto de Biología Subtropical – sede Iguazú, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Univ. Nac. de Misiones and Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA), Bertoni 85, 3370, Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina

关键词: Crocodylus moreletii;    Common resources;    Commercial hunting;    Mayan;    Local ecological knowledge;    Learning;    Social organization;   

Others  :  862399
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-9-35

 received in 2012-11-20, accepted in 2013-05-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

New kinds of knowledge, usage patterns and management strategies of natural resources emerge in local communities as a way of coping with uncertainty in a changing world. Studying how human groups adapt and create new livelihoods strategies are important research topics for creating policies in natural resources management. Here, we study the adoption and development of lagartos (Crocodylus moreletii) commercial hunting by Mayan people from a communal land in Quintana Roo state. Two questions guided our work: how did the Mayan learn to hunt lagartos? And how, and in what context, did knowledge and management practices emerge? We believe that social structures, knowledge and preexisting skills facilitate the hunting learning process, but lagarto ecological knowledge and organizational practice were developed in a “learning by doing” process.

Methods

We conducted free, semi-structured and in-depth interviews over 17 prestigious lagartos hunters who reconstructed the activity through oral history. Then, we analyzed the sources of information and routes of learning and investigated the role of previous knowledge and social organization in the development of this novel activity. Finally, we discussed the emergence of hunting in relation to the characteristic of natural resource and the tenure system.

Results

Lagarto hunting for skin selling was a short-term activity, which represented an alternative source of money for some Mayans known as lagarteros. They acquired different types of knowledge and skills through various sources of experience (individual practice, or from foreign hunters and other Mayan hunters). The developed management system involved a set of local knowledge about lagartos ecology and a social organization structure that was then articulated in the formation of “working groups” with particular hunting locations (rumbos and trabajaderos), rotation strategies and collaboration among them. Access rules and regulations identified were in an incipient state of development and were little documented.

Conclusions

In agreement to the hypothesis proposed, the Mayan used multiple learning paths to develop a new activity: the lagarto hunting. On the one hand, they used their traditional social organization structure as well as their culturally inherited knowledge. On the other hand, they acquired new ecological knowledge of the species in a learning-by-doing process, together with the use of other sources of external information.

The formation of working groups, the exchange of information and the administration of hunting locations are similar to other productive activities and livelihood practiced by these Mayan. Skills such as preparing skins and lagartos ecological knowledge were acquired by foreign hunters and during hunting practice, respectively. We detected a feedback between local ecological knowledge and social organization, which in turn promoted the emergence of Mayan hunting management practices.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Zamudio et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sears RR, Padoch C, Pinedo-Vasquez M: Amazon forestry tranformed: integrating knowledge for smallholder timber managemet in Eastern Brazil. Hum Ecol 2007, 35:697-707.
• [2]Ballard HL, Huntsinger L: Salal harvester local ecological knowledge, harvest practices and understory management on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Hum Ecol 2006, 34:529-547.
• [3]Olsson P, Folke C: Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 2001, 4:85-104.
• [4]Turner NJ, Berkes F: Coming to understanding: developing conservation through incremental learning in the Pacific Northwest. Hum Ecol 2006, 34:495-513.
• [5]Berkes F: Sacred Ecology: Tradicional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis; 1999.
• [6]Berkes F, Turner NJ: Knowledge, Learning and the Evolution of Conservation Practice for Social-Ecological System Resilience. Hum Ecol 2006, 34:479-494.
• [7]Ingold T: El forrajero óptimo y el hombre económico. In Naturaleza y Sociedad. Perspectivas antropológicas. Edited by Descola P, Pálsson G. México: Siglo XXI; 2001:37-59.
• [8]Cheverud JM, Cavalli-Sforza LL: Cultural transmission among Aka Pygmies. Am Anthro 1986, 88:922-934.
• [9]Davidson-Hunt IJ, Berkes F: Learning as you journey: Anishinaabe perception of social-ecological environments and adaptive learning. Conserv Ecol 2003, 8:5.
• [10]Thé GAP, Nordi N: Common Property Resource System in a Fishery of the São Francisco River, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Hum Ecol Rev 2006, 13:1-10.
• [11]Parlee B, Manseau M, Lutsël K'é Dene First Nation: Using traditional knowledge to adapt to ecological change: denésôainé monitoring of caribou movements. Artic 2005, 58:26-37.
• [12]Jarvenpa R, Brumbach HJ: Socio-spatial organization and decision-making processes: observations from the Chipewyan. Am Anthropol 1988, 90:598-617.
• [13]Gezelius SS: The social aspect of fishing effort. Technology and community in Norway’s Blue Whiting Fisheries. Hum Ecol 2007, 35:587-599.
• [14]Murray G, Neis B, Johnsen JP: Lessons learned from reconstructing interactions between local ecological knowledge, fisheries science, and fisheries management in the commercial fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Hum Ecol 2006, 34:549-571.
• [15]Gilchrist G, Mallory M, Merkel F: Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology & Society 2005, 10:20.
• [16]Thorbjarnarson J: Crocodile tears and skins: Internacional trade, economic constraints, and limits to the sustainable use of crocodilians. Conserv Biol 1999, 13:465-470.
• [17]Schlaepfer MA, Craig H, Jr Kenneth D: Challenges in Evaluating the Impact of the Trade in Amphibians and Reptiles on Wild Populations. Bioscience 2005, 55:256-264.
• [18]Alves RRN, Pereira-Filho GA: Commercialization and use of snakes in North and Northeastern Brazil: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 2007, 16:969-985.
• [19]Alves RRN, Pereira Filho GA, Lima YCC: Snakes used in ethnomedicine in Northeast Brazil Environ. Environment, Development and Sustainability Dev Sustain 2007, 9:455-464.
• [20]Alves RRN, Vieira WLS, Santana GG: Reptiles used in traditional folk medicine: conservation implications. Biodivers Conserv 2008, 17:2037-2049.
• [21]Klemens MW, Thorbjarnarson JB: Reptiles as a food resource. Biodivers Conserv 1995, 4:281-298.
• [22]Alves RRN: Relationships between fauna and people and the role of ethnozoology in animal conservation. Ethnobiology Conservation 2012, 1:1-69.
• [23]Zamudio F: Conocimiento ecológico y sistema de manejo maya del lagarto (Crocodylus moreletii) en Quintana Roo, México. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur; 2005. Master thesis
• [24]Zamudio F, Bello-Baltazar E, Estrada-Lugo EIJ: Integrando Conocimientos Mayas y Científicos sobre el Lagarto (Crocodylus moreletii) en el Ejido de Xhazil y Anexos, Quintana Roo, México. In Cultivar el territorio maya; conocimiento y organización social en el uso de la selva. Edited by Bello-Baltazar E, Estrada-Lugo EIJ. México: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Universidad Iberoamericana, AC; 2011:161-188.
• [25]Estrada-Lugo EIJ: Grupo Doméstico y Usos del Parentesco entre los Mayas Macehuales del Centro de Quintana Roo: El caso del Ejido Xhazil y Anexos. México: Iberoamericana; 2005. PhD thesis
• [26]Bello-Baltazar E, Estrada-Lugo EIJ, Macario-Mendoza P, Segundo-Cabello A, Sánchez-Perez L: Transdisciplina y sustentabilidad Maya. Ciencia Ergo Sum 2002, 9:260-272.
• [27]Macario-Medoza PA: Efectos del cambio en el uso del suelo sobre la selva y estrategias para el manejo sustentable de la vegetación secundaria en Quintana Roo. México: Universidad de Merida; 2003. PhD thesis
• [28]Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE): Programa de Manejo de la Reserva de la Biósfera de Sian Ka’an, Quintana Roo, México. México: INE/SEMARNAP, D.F; 1996.
• [29]Olmsted I, Durán R: Vegetación de Sian Ka`an. In Diversidad Biológica en la Reserva de la Biosfera de Sian Ka`an Quintana Roo, México. Edited by Navarro DL, Robinson JR. México: Centro de Investigaciones de Quintana Roo; 1990:1-11.
• [30]Olmsted I, Duran R: Aspectos ecológicos de los petenes de Florida, Campeche y Quintana Roo. In Memorias del Simposio Internacional sobre la Ecología y Conservación del Delta de los ríos Usumacinta y Grijalva: 2-7 febrero 1987. Edited by INIREB. Tabasco: ; 1988:517-536.
• [31]Johannes RE, Freeman MMR, Hamilton RJ: Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish 2000, 1:257-271.
• [32]Davis A, Wagner JR: Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying “Experts” When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Hum Ecol 2003, 31:463-489.
• [33]Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C: Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptative management. Ecol Appl 2000, 10:1251-1262.
• [34]Atran S, Medin D, Ross N, Lynch E, Vapnarsky V, Ek’ Ucan E, Coley J, Timura C, Baran M: Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons: A garden experiment in the Maya Lowlands, 1991–2001. Curr Anthropol 2002, 43:421-450.
• [35]Ohmagari K, Berkes F: Transmission of Indigenous Knowledge and Bush Skills Among the Western James Bay Cree Women of Subarctic Canada. Hum Ecol 1997, 25:197-222.
• [36]Boster JS, Johnson JC: Form or Function: A Comparison of Expert and Novice Judgments of Similarity among Fish. Am Anthropol 1989, 91:866-889.
• [37]Boster JS: Requiem for the Omniscient Informant: There’s life in the Old Girl Yet. In Directions in Cognitive Anthropology. Edited by Dougherty J. Champaig: University of Illinois Press; 1985:451.
• [38]Bernard RH: Social Research Methods. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. UK: Sage Publications, Inc; 2000.
• [39]MacDonald K: Cross-cultural Comparison of Learning in Human Hunting Implications for Life History Evolution. Hum Nat 2007, 18:386-402.
• [40]Morales-Garzon C, Bello-Baltazar E, Estrada-Lugo EIJ, Gonzalez M: Cacería de Subsistencia en tres comunidades de la zona Maya de México. In Cultivar el territorio maya; conocimiento y organización social en el uso de la selva. Edited by Bello-Baltazar E, Estrada-Lugo EIJ. México: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Universidad Iberoamericana, AC; 2012:113-160.
• [41]Berkes F: Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 2009, 90:1692-1702.
• [42]Rival L: Cerbatanas y Lanzas. La Significación Social de las Elección Tecnológicas de los Huaorani. In Naturaleza y Sociedad. Perspectivas antropológicas. Edited by Descola P, Pálsson G. México: Siglo XXI; 2001:169-191.
• [43]Parlee BB, Berkes F: Indigenous Knowledge of Ecological Variability and Commons Management: A Case Study on Berry Harvesting from Northern Canada. Hum Ecol 2006, 34:515-528.
• [44]Bello-Baltazar E: Milpa y madera: la organización de la producción entre mayas de Quintana Roo. Universidad Iberoamericana; 2001. PhD thesis
• [45]Alvarado DSH: Religiosidad y espacio social: una miro-región de Quintana Roo. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur; 2003. Master thesis
• [46]Estrada Lugo EIJ: Territorio y parentesco en una comunidad maya de Quintana Roo. Simposio Internacional: Familia y Parentesco en México y. Mesoamérica: Unas miradas Antropológicas. Universidad Iberoamericana; 1998.
• [47]Ostrom E: Reformulating the Commons. Ambiente & Sociedade 2001, 10:1-21.
• [48]Hernández-Xolocotzi E: Maize and Man in the Greater Southwest. Economic Botany 1985, 39:416-430.
• [49]Arce-Ibarra AM, Charles A: Non-management of Natural Resources: The Case of Inland Fisheries in the Mayan Zone, Quintana Roo, México. Hum Ecol 2008, 36:853-860.
• [50]León P, Montiel S: Wild meat use and traditional hunting practices in a rural mayan community of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Hum Ecol 2008, 36:249-257.
• [51]Jorgenson J: Gardens, wildlife, and subsistence hunting by maya indians in Quintana Roo, México. University of Florida; 1993. PhD thesis
• [52]Pinedo D, Summers P: Bienes comunes enraizados: descripción densa de dos casos de manejo comunitario en la Amazonía peruana. In Peru: El problema Agrario en Debate. Edited by Pulgar-Vidal M, Zegarra E, Urrutia J. Lima: SEPIA; 2002:107-147.
• [53]Feeny D, Berkes F, McCay BJ, Acheson JM: The tragedy of commons: twenty-two years later. Hum Ecol 1990, 18:1-19.
• [54]Berkes F: Cooperation from the perspectiva of human ecology. In Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. Edited by Berkes F. London: Belhaven Press; 1989:70-88.
• [55]Berkes F: Common property resources and hunting territories. Anthropologica 1986, 28:145-162.
• [56]McCullough DR: Spatially structured populations and harvest theory. J Wildlife Manage 1996, 60:1-9.