Relations with Wildlife of Wichi and Criollo People of the Dry Chaco, a Conservation Perspective

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Ethnobiology and Conservation 2018, 7:11 (20 August 2018) doi:10.15451/ec2018-08-7.11-1-21 ISSN 22384782 ethnobioconservation.com Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective

Micaela Camino1,2,3,4; Sara Cortez4, Mariana Altrichter5,6; Silvia D. Matteucci2,7

ABSTRACT

Indigenous Wichís and mestizos Criollos inhabit a rural, biodiversity rich, area of the Argentinean Dry Chaco. Traditionally, Wichís were nomads and their relations with wildlife were shaped by animistic and shamanic beliefs. Today, Wichís live in stable communities and practice subsistence hunting, gathering and in some cases, fishing. Criollos are mestizos, i.e. a mixture of the first Spanish settlers and different indigenous groups. They arrived during the 20th century from neighbouring Provinces. They practice extensive ranching, hunting and gathering. Our aim was to help develop effective and legitimate actions to conserve wildlife species in this region, focused on Wichís´ and Criollos´ perceptions of and relations with wildlife. We conducted semistructured interviews (N=105) in rural settlements. We found differences in both groups´ hunting techniques, drivers and perceptions on the importance of wild meat for nutrition. However, both groups have a close relation with wildlife, they use wild animals in a variety of ways, including as food resource, medicine and predictors of future events. Wichís and Criollos also relate with wildlife in a spiritual dimension, have animistic and shamanic beliefs and have unique traditional ecological knowledge. Hunters in both communities are breaking traditional hunting norms but conservation measures grounded on these norms have a higher probability of success. Management recommendations include developing programmes focused on (i) conserving thin armadillos; (ii) conserving pregnant and breeding females of all species; (iii) managing dogs to avoid unnecessary killings and on (iv) improving local livelihoods. We also provide recommendations that are specific for each group.

Keywords: Conservation; Local Cultures; Subsistence Hunting; Chaco; Indigenous People; Mestizo People

1 Laboratory of Conservation Biology of the Centre of Applied Ecology of the Litoral Region (CECOAL). National Road 5, km2.5, Corrientes, República Argentina. CP 3400.

2 National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET); Godoy Cruz 2290, CABA, Argentina, C1425FQB.

3 EDGE of Existence Affiliate Programme, Zoological Society of London (EDGEZSL); Regent's Park, London, England NW1 4RY

4 Proyecto Quimilero, Misión Nueva Pompeya s/n; Chaco, Argentina. CP3705

5 Prescott College, 220 Grove Ave, Prescott, AZ 86301, EE. UU.

6 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); Rue Mauverney 28

1196 Gland, Switzerland.

7 Group of Environment and Landscape Ecology (GEPAMA); Ciudad Universitaria, pab3, CABA, Argentina. CP1428.

Corresponding Author: Micaela Camino.

Institutional mailing address: CECOAL; kilometer 2.5 of the National Road N°5; Corrientes; Argentina. CP3400. Telephone number: +54 911 69955917 

1 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

INTRODUCTION in the practical and symbolic dimensions (Ingold 1986; Descola 1996; Viveiros de Many societies have a close relationship Castro 2013). with wildlife. Each culture has unique Hunting is also associated with a unique relations with wildlife, shaped by its knowledge that societies accumulate and perceptions, beliefs and cosmovision use to catch their prey. Societies that have (Berkes 2012; Gadgil et al. 1993; Ingold been hunting across centuries usually hold 1986; St John et al. 2011). Although Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) perceptions of wildlife being specific to each associated with the biology and ecology of culture, there are general concepts that wild animals (Berkes 2012). This knowledge describe ways of perceiving wildlife common reveals the close relation of these societies to many different human groups. Many with wildlife and with their environment indigenous societies perceive wildlife from (Berkes 2012; Prober et al. 2011). The TEK an animistic view, i.e. humans and non associated with wildlife is commonly the human beings hold inside an equal spiritual base for socialnorms that guide sustainable essence and the difference between them is hunting and habitat protection (Berkes et al. based on their bodies, which allow different 2000, 2012; Fraser 2006, Gadgil et al. behaviours and social relations (Descola 1993). In American indigenous groups, TEK 2012; Viveiros de Castro 2013). The relation is usually combined with shamanic practices of a society with wildlife has many different to regulate the relations with the dimensions, some are subtle, i.e. not environment, favouring sustainable practices obvious, impalpable and difficult to detect, (Cordeu and Siffredi 1971; Susnik 1985; e.g. spiritual (Alves et al. 2012). Other Galinier et al. 1995). dimensions of societies´ relations with Worldwide, populations of most wildlife wildlife are more obvious, e.g. using wild species are declining (Barnosky et al. 2011; animals as a food source (Nasi et al. 2011; Ceballos et al. 2017). This affects most Ojasti and Dallmeier 2000). dimensions of the relations of humans with Hunting to acquire wild meat (WM) and wildlife and it is particularly alarming for other goods, e.g. medicine, is a widespread societies that depend on wildlife for nutrition activity around the globe (FAO 1998; Nasi et (e.g. Altrichter 2006; FAO 1998; Nasi et al. al. 2011; Ojasti and Dallmeier 2000; Silvius 2011). These societies are usually poor, et al. 2004). Hunting is shaped by the isolated, and practice subsistence hunting representation system and the perceptions for survival, i.e. extraction of terrestrial of the hunter and of the society he belongs vertebrates for trade or consumption (Nasi et to (Descola 1986; Ingold 1986, Medrano al. 2011; Ojasti and Dallmeier 2000). 2014). In fact, this practice contains a Subsistence hunting is frequently culture´s representation system itself as the unsustainable (e.g. Altrichter 2006; Peres hunter follows explicit and implicit norms, 1996; Robinson and Bennett 2000) and uses certain techniques, prefers particular therefore, poverty and wildlife over species, etc. (Ingold 1986; Descola 1986; exploitation are usually combined problems Viveiros de Castro 2013). Thus, in addition (Barrett et al. 2011; Nasi et al. 2011). to satisfying metabolic needs, hunting is a Solutions for these situations require an particular way in which each culture relates understanding of local contexts and the with nature and wild animals, and it operates development of strategies based on the

2 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

particular perceptions and interactions of et al. 2014; Suárez 2012). each culture with the environment (Manfredo With the aim to contribute to the and Dayer 2004; St John et al. 2011). development of effective conservation In many areas of the Neotropics, rural actions in this area that incorporate the indigenous people and mestizos live needs of both groups, we describe and alongside in biodiversityrich environments compare Wichí´s and Criollo´s perceptions (Camino et al. 2016; Ojasti and Dellmeier of and relations with wildlife. We studied 2000; Redford and Robinson 1987). different aspects of these societies Indigenous groups have an historical relationship with nature, including: (i) their continuity with presettler societies while perceptions of the importance of WM as a mestizos are descendants of Europeans that food resource, (ii) their hunting motivations, mixed with indigenous groups before nations (iii) techniques, (iv) patterns and (v) the conquered these territories (Altrichter 2006; different uses they give to wildlife. Our Camino et al. 2016; Silvius et al. 2004; UN hypotheses were that: (1) characteristics (i 2009). Indigenous and mestizo people have iv) are different in the Wichís and in the distinct cultures, they are minorities in the Criollos societies but (2) both groups have a countries they inhabit and are usually close relation with wildlife. We analyse these strongly connected with nature and that cultures´ perceptions of wildlife and their practice subsistence hunting (Cáceres 2003; relations with wild animals, focusing on Silvius et al. 2004; UN 2009). Comparisons hunting and on their TEK. We discuss our between these groups regarding their results from a conservation perspective, perceptions of and relations with wildlife are suggesting management actions that are scarce. Few such comparisons have been legitimate for each culture and that would carried out since Redford and Robinson help achieve the successful conservation of (1987). More extensive comparative studies wildlife in the area. would facilitate more focused and adequate conservation measures when the two groups Human Groups: indigenous Wichís are found in the same spatial location. and mestizos Criollos The South American Chaco is a biodiverse and culturally rich ecoregion that Before the 20th Century, Wichís (are also covers over 106 km2 (Bucher and Huszar known as Matacos) were nomads and 1999; Dinerstein 1995; Camino et al. 2016; followed fixed routes across the Central Metraux 1946). Despite being a Chaco. Routes were associated with deforestation hotspot, large patches of particular seasons of the year (Braunstein continuous natural ecosystems remain 1992; Cordeu and de los Ríos 1982; (more detail in Study Area section; Hansen Metraux 1946). Their livelihood was based et al. 2013; Baumann et al. 2016). We on hunting, gathering and fishing (Metraux worked in a portion of the Dry Chaco where 1946). Wichís considered that each species these remaining patches of natural has a spirit that protects and owns it, i.e. ecosystems are inhabited by indigenous owner (Braunstein 1992, 2005; Metraux Wichís and mestizos Criollos. These human 1946; Palmer 2005; Susnik 1985). Owners groups share their territories and seem to be were considered powerful beings and practicing unsustainable subsistence hunting hunting was regulated by norms and (Altrichter 2006; Camino et al. 2016; Periago shamanic practices that looked to satisfy the

3 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

owners´ will and rules (Braunstein 1992, consider that these and other spirits are still 2005; Cordeu and Siffredi 1971; Metraux present in different degrees (Barbarán 2000; 1946; Palmer 2005). The perceptions of Suárez 2012; Susnik 1985). Wichís maintain wildlife of Wichís can be framed in animism: their identity and cosmology through their humans, animals and other beings share a language (Palmer 2005). And although will or soul, i.e. husek, in different degrees externally they lost traits of their traditional (Montani 2013; Palmer 2005). identity, some authors consider that their In late 19thearly 20th centuries, the inner identity was consolidated after Argentinean state entered the Dry Chaco colonisation (Metraux 1946; Palmer 2005). region through military campaigns and Criollos, also known as Creolos or Wichís were killed or used as slaves or Campesinos, are mestizos, i.e. descendants cheap labour (Gordillo 1993; Rodriguez Mir of the first Spanish colonisers that have 2016). A strong movement to convert people mixed with indigenous groups since the to christianity was already in place since the 16thcentury (Cáceres 2003; Dasso 2010). 1600´s and continued during this period Criollos colonised the Dry Chaco during the (Palmer 2005; Rodriguez Mir 2016). 20thcentury; they came from the Indigenous groups that survived settled in neighbouring Provinces looking for one place and were no longer nomadic, i.e. grasslands to practice extensive cattle sedentarized (Gordillo 1993; Rodriguez Mir ranching (Dasso 2010). Criollos´ cultural 2016). background is a mixture of the gauchos´ Today, Wichís live in communities in culture, the first Spanish settlers, and the marginalized and isolated areas that are different indigenous cultures from the Andes very small compared to the areas that they and the Chaco region (Dasso 2010; Scarpa used in the past (Gordillo 1993; Palmer 2004). Criollos are catholic but in the Dry 2005; Rodriguez Mir 2016). These areas Chaco many became evangelist (Dasso were considered unproductive for large scale 2010; Scarpa 2004). Criollos´ beliefs and commercial agriculture until this decade rituals have indigenous influences as they (Gordillo 1993; Rodriguez Mir 2016). Many have been in contact with different groups continue hunting, gathering and indigenous groups since they entered the fishing, they also receive social government region (Dasso 2010; Scarpa 2009). Criollos aid (Gordillo 1993; Rodriguez Mir 2016). and Wichís have exchanged religious Wichís traditional religious beliefs and practices, beliefs and oral traditions (Dasso cosmovision was modified in different 2010). Criollos have borrowed indigenous degrees and thus, huntingregulation is not knowledge and their TEK is rich, at least always present (Arenas 2003; Cordeu and regarding medicinal plants (Scarpa 2004, Siffredi 1971; Palmer 2005). Most Wichís 2009). practice a protestant christianity and show Criollos practice extensive livestock shamanic characteristics in their religious ranching, mainly raising cows and goats practices (Dasso 2010; Palmer 2005). Also, (Dasso 2010; Gordillo 1993; Toledo and shamans are still present in some Trillo 2018). They also practice subsistence communities and their procedures have hunting and gathering. Many receive social evangelical attributes (Dasso 2010; Palmer government aid. The Criollos´ productive 2005; Scarpa 2009). Many Wichí groups land area is also the unique dwelling and the consider that the owners left while others first source of food for the family (Cáceres

4 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

2003; Toledo and Trillo 2018). Criollos These ecosystems are dominated by generate or harvest their own food, they do xerophytic forests of quebrachos not contribute to the national economic and (Schinopsisi lorentzeii and Aspidosperma productive system with stable labour, the quebrachoblanco) with patches of Bulnesia main force of their productive unit is the sarmientoi, Prosopis spp. and Ziziphus family and they preserve traditional practices mistol (Morello et al. 2012). There are also with little technological investment (Cáceres bushlands and grasslands among other 2003; Dasso 2010; Toledo and Trillo 2018). vegetation types (Baumann et al. 2016; Thus, Criollos preserve traditional practices Morello et al. 2012). The region experiences and navigate the margins of the hegemonic pronounced seasonality, with rain falling capitalist economicsystem (Toledo and Trillo between 550 and 800 mm mainly between 2018). October and April (Morello et al. 2012). Wichís and Criollos disagreed and fought Summer temperatures can rise over 40°C over landtenure since Criollos entered the while the winter is dry and can have territory (Palmer 2005). Wichís perceive that temperatures below 0°C (Morello et al. Criollos occupied their lands and limited their 2012). The study area is inhabited by many nomadic movements and the availability of species, including large vertebrates of high common natural resources (Palmer 2005). conservation value, e.g. chacoan peccary Criollos perceive that Wichís demand larger (Catagonus wagneri) or lowland Tapir territories that what they need and use and (Tapirus terrestris; Altrichter 2006; Camino et that they are lazy (pers. obs.). Enmity al. 2016; Periago et al. 2014). between both human groups persists even The study area is inhabited by indigenous though they share territories, beliefs and Wichí and local mestizos, Criollos. The some characteristics in the way they live Wichís live in communities up to 30 houses (Dasso 2010). Wichís and Criollos general spread throughout the forests (Palmer behaviour is very different: Wichís live in 2005). Inside the study area, there are 13 communities of up to 30 houses and their Wichí communities (Figure 1). The Criollos manners are usually gentle, they do not live and use the same areas as the Wichís usually raise their voice or use force when but they do not share settlements (Scarpa manipulating animals. On the other hand, 2004, 2009; Cáceres 2015). The Criollos Criollos live in small isolated family groups, inhabit small settlements spread throughout Criollos like to show their force and can natural environments, most of which consist rudely manipulate cows or horses while of one or two households although they may Wichís find these behaviours aggressive and reach over 15 houses (Camino et al. 2016). despicable (Dasso 2010; Toledo and Trillo There is no exact information about the 2018). number of Criollos´ houses in the Dry Chaco (pers. obs.). There are a few villages in the MATERIAL AND METHODS study area, ranging between 20 and 1300 houses and inhabited by both sociocultural Study area groups Intensive soy and, to a lesser degree, We worked in a portion of the Dry cattle production is expanding rapidly over Argentinean Chaco, in the Chaco Province these natural ecosystems (Baumann et al. where natural ecosystems remain (Figure 1). 2016; Hansen et al. 2013; Morello y

5 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Rodriguez 2009). Intensive food production images (Landsat 5) we estimated that there completely transforms natural ecosystems are 69 Criollo settlements in the study area and threatens the longterm persistence of and we randomly chose 35 of these wildlife and of the region itself (Camba Sanz settlements (51%) to perform the interviews. 2018; Morello and Rodriguez 2009; Periago In 4 of the 35 Criollo settlements we could 2014). Large vertebrate species may be not perform interviews because people did rapidly disappearing of these ecosystems, not want to participate (n=2) and because where habitat loss is confining local societies we could not access the houses due to the and wildlife to areas where subsistence bad condition of the roads (n=2). We did not hunting may be unsustainable (Altrichter perform interviews in the villages because 2006; Camino et al. 2016; Periago et al. villager´s may have different perceptions of 2014). and relations with wildlife than rural inhabitants (Altrichter 2006). Field Data Collection We conducted semistructured interviews as informal conversations, covering a list of Between November 2010 and August topics and questions (full details given in 2011 we conducted semistructured Appendix S1) which focused on determining: interviews with heads of families (males i. Perception of the importance that WM between 17 and 72 years) from both the has in their diet; Wichís (n=41) and Criollos (n=64). We ii. Hunting motivations; carried out between two and four interviews iii. Hunting techniques; per settlement, depending on the size of the iv. Most hunted species in different settlement. We surveyed the 13 Wichí periods of the year (hunting patterns); communities in the study area (Figure 1). v. Uses of wildlife (e.g. meat, utensils, Using Google Earth (Google, Inc., etc.) Mountainview, CA, USA) and satellite

Figure 1. Study Area.

6 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Through semistructured interviews we unstructured interviews with key informants also intended to acquire a broader such as elders (n=2) and government understanding of the relationship that these technicians (n=2) to deepen our cultures have with wildlife and the local understanding on the above listed topics and environment, including norms, beliefs and the region´s situation. knowledge (Appendix S1). Interviews were conducted in Spanish and lasted between Data Analysis one and four hours. We did 14 followup visits to interview With interviews and observations, we Wichís and 19 to interviewed Criollos to collected qualitative data and used it to review answers or complete information. describe perceptions, beliefs and practices When responses were ambiguous or associated with the topics of our study (iv). uncertain we excluded them from the We also used quantitative analysis (for analysis. We chose this sampling design to topics i, ii, iv and v): we coded and cover a broad diversity of perceptions –a categorized the responses we received for snowball sample design may have left aside different questions and calculated the geographically or socially isolated people. percentage of respondents in each category. We interviewed only men because hunting is We analysed Wichís and Criollos data locally considered a male activity (Arenas separately. To address the perceived 2003; Palmer 2005; Toledo and Trillo 2018). importance of WM (i), we determined the Also, many Wichí women of this area do not percentage of Wichí and of Criollo speak Spanish (pers. obs.). Interviewing only respondents that consume WM, the men may have limited our results. percentage that consider it essential for their Before the interview we explained our nutrition and the percentage that have interests, the aim of our study, the access to other sources of meat. This last procedures to carry out our study, the question was also associated to (ii) hunting institutions we belonged to and how we were motivations. To determine the (iv) most going to use and publish the information. We hunted species, we calculated the also informed local people about their right percentage of hunters of each group that to decline our invitation to participate. hunt each species in each season. We also Interviews only commenced when we had categorized the most common uses of the verbal consent from the interviewee. wildlife and the percent of Wichís and Underage (<18) respondents were only Criollos that give these uses to wildlife (v). interviewed if their legal guardians also gave To test if Wichís and Criollos differ in the their consent. After explaining that our analysed characteristics (iv) we used questions were for research purposes and qualitative information. For topics (i, ii, iv and that our aim was having a better v) we also determined if the number of Wichí understanding of the local reality, and after and Criollo was significantly different using clarifying that we did not belong to any Chisquare test. When the number of control agency, the interviewees answered respondents in one or more categories was questions about hunting without showing ≤ 5 we used Fisher´s exact test instead. discomfort. During all interviews, we also To determine if Wichís and Criollos have conducted observations (Appendix S2). a close relation with wildlife, we used In some settlements we performed qualitative and quantitative information

7 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

regarding uses of wildlife. We also checked the family has (19%) and the community if TEK and hunting norms were present in they belong to (18%). these cultures. Criollos, on the other hand, raised domestic livestock and hunted even if they RESULTS had animals to slaughter (66%). 95% of Criollos consumed WM in their own Importance of WM as a food household, and meat was not shared with resource and motivations for hunting the community. Criollos indicated that when they find a prey they may leave it, hunt it, or Most Wichí (88%) and Criollo (69%) return the day after. This decision was respondents consumed WM and their reported to depend on different interrelated primary motivation for hunting was meat factors: (i) the particular species detected acquirement. However, their perceptions of and how palatable they consider it; (ii) the the importance of WM in their diets differed condition of cattle (e.g. cattle are thin and (χ2=18.7, df=1, p<0.005): only 35% of weak during the dry season and thus Criollos considered WM essential for their domestic meat availability is low, so hunting nutrition compared to 81.5% of Wichís. The is a profitable activity); (iii) the reason for Criollos expressed that their need for meat is walking (e.g. they may have been looking greater during the last 2 months of the dry after a newborn calf, a priority over hunting); season, when they perceive their livestock to (iv) the dogs they have, e.g. if they find be thin and inedible. On the other hand, the collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) and do not Wichís considered that without hunting, meat have specialized dogs, then they do not hunt consumption would be 12 days/month them); (v) distance to the house. Most Criollo (average) and that this was deemed respondents (95%) considered that factors insufficient for proper nutrition. (i) and (ii) are directly related to seasonality The two groups also differed in how they and that wild species´ availability changes could access meat. Most Wichís (94%) did throughout the year. 98% of Criollos also not have domestic cattle and those who did, perceived that cattle condition similarly raised goats more as pets than as animals changes seasonally. that provide economic benefits. Wichís with Although Criollos reported that their main or without goats purchased meat in town motivation for hunting was meat with money they or their relatives earned acquirement, 88% admitted hunting pumas through temporary jobs, e.g. building work, (Puma concolor) with the aim of eliminating or social plans. When they did not have the species. This is because pumas prey on more cash, access to meat depended on the goats, pigs, young horses or cows. hunting and, for some, on fishing. All Wichí During the interviews, Criollos referred to hunters reported that they only hunt when pumas using adjectives such as mean, they do not have access to meat and that ungrateful and miserly. Wichís showed no they share WM with other families in their desire of eliminating pumas or any other wild communities. Thus, only 66% of Wichís that species. Wichís did not describe pumas in consumed WM practiced hunting. Wichís any particular way but they did refer considered that how much they hunt is sometimes to jaguars as other human influenced by the number of people with beings. whom they share meat (91%), the income

8 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Hunting techniques individuals they were allowed to hunt. The shamans would communicate with spirits Hunting techniques differed between the that own and protect the game through two sociocultural groups. The Wichís who specific rituals. Wichís reported that practice hunting are specific members of shamans are no longer present this area and their communities known as mariscadores. hunters no longer perform these hunting Mariscadores go out hunting to places that rituals. have their own names and are known by the Conversely, Criollo hunters are normally mariscadores of all clans in a 30km radius opportunistic and rarely go out specifically to from the hunting sites. Most hunting areas hunt. As extensive ranchers, they herd their are separated from the communities, not cattle walking every day between 2 and 10 populated by humans and cannot be km through natural environments that identified by any particular characteristic. surround their houses. During this activity, Mariscadores pick in advance the area prey is sometimes detected with dogs where they will go hunting, but not the helping detect prey. Most Criollos practice species they will hunt. Mariscadores may hunting and hunt alone (67%), using hunt individually or in groups, depending on specialized dogs and guns. Those who did the clan they belong to. Although some not hunt alonestated they hunt with friends, mariscadores use guns sporadically (N=21; family or neighbours. 9.5%), most of them use clubs or slingshots and dogs that are not trained to hunt Hunted species particular prey but help in detecting and catching wild animals. All Wichís indicated The most frequently hunted species were that traditionally, the mariscadores would the same for both groups with three visit a shaman before hunting and this exceptions (Table 1). Wichís hunt a larger shaman would then inform the mariscador if number of species than Criollos (27 and 19 hunting of a particular species was permitted species respectively and see others in Table for him that day and the number of 1). Wichís and Criollos are opportunistic

Table 1. Percent of Wichís (N=18) and Criollos (N=40) that hunt each species or group of species. (*) denotes a significant difference (p < 0.005) in the number of hunters of each sociocultural groups that catch each species or group of species, analysed using Chisquare ( χ2; df=1) or Fisher´s exact test (Ƒ) on raw counts.

9 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

hunters but Criollos do look for certain and it is mostly overcast. Another description species. Criollos´ most frequently sought they provide is that temporal is the season species, in order of preference, were chaco when armadillos Tolypeutes matacus chacalaca (Ortalis canicollis), chacoan cavy conduct courtship behaviour. Locally hunted (Pediolagus salinicola) and southern three and consumed species change with the banded armadillo (Tolypeutes matacus). seasons (Figure 2). In both sociocultural Other armadillo species that are not groups, armadillos are hunted most during specially sought but killed if the opportunity the temporal season (Figure 2). The species exists are (in order of preference): is also hunted in the wet season (Figure 2) Chaetophractus vellerosus, C. villosus, although both Wichí and Criollo hunters said Euphractus sexcinctus, Dasiphus this should not be done because armadillos novencinctus, D. sexcinctus and Cabassous are thin in this season. The tegu lizard chacoensis. All respondents of both groups (Tupinampis spp.) is almost exclusively expressed their preference for fat individuals hunted during the wet season (Figure 2). when hunting. And even when consuming The proportion of Criollos hunting grey beef or other domestic animals, individuals brocket deer and peccaries decreases with more fat are preferred. during the wet season (Figure 2). The There are species that both Wichís and proportion of Wichís who hunt these species Criollos consider unpalatable and never eat, is low and we did not evaluate changes e.g. giant anteater (Myrmecophaga through the year. tridactyla). Wichís also had rules regarding The Chacoan cavy was hunted by a large the consumption of certain species, e.g. number of interviewees along the year pregnant women should not eat plains without significant fluctuations (Figure 2). viscachas (Lagostomus maximus). Although The proportion of people hunting plains all Wichís know this rule, they do not follow it viscacha and chaco chacalaca showed because of considering it “old”. Another rule, some seasonal fluctuations, and these stated by all Wichí and Criollo hunters, was changes differed between Wichís and that pregnant or breeding females of any Criollos (Figure 2). species should not be hunted. However, most Wichí (68%) and Criollo (78%) hunters Other uses of wildlife admitted to hunting pregnant or breeding females and said their dogs were to blame. Many interviewees use the appearance or They also blamed the other sociocultural sight of some species as a predictor or group of not respecting this norm. indicator of a future event (Figure 3). Wichís All respondents of both sociocultural stated that they use the appearance or sight groups perceive three seasons according to of some wild animal species as predictors or weather characteristics (e.g. rainfall), the indicators. However, Wichí respondents most frequently hunted species and the were reluctant to respond which particular behaviour of wildlife. These seasons are: dry species they use as predictors or indicators, (JulySeptember), wet (OctoberFebruary) and which events these species were related and “temporal” (MarchJune). Wichí and to. One Wichí respondent said that although Criollo describe temporal as the season there are many animals that indicate that when misty rain falls during many something is happening or will happen, there successive days, the ground remains wet are other beings, ahot or spirits, that do not

10 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Figure 2. Seasonal changes in wild species hunting. (A) Wichí (N=18), (B) Criollo (N=40). (*) Significant difference in the number of hunters when comparing seasons, Fisher´s exact test, p<0.01. follow our western society´s logic, and that use are birds. Birds indicate weather are better indicators than wildlife species. conditions: rain, high temperatures, drought Other three respondents referred to owners period starting or ending; birds also indicate that, when seen in the forest, indicate that time of the day and of the year, a persons´ that person should not enter that area again. arrival to the house, death or marriage and They also referred to the viborón, a spirit other meanings. Criollos also consider that: closely related to the lampalagua (Boa (1) the appearance of tapirs (Tapirus constrictor occidentalis) that indicates that terrestris) indicates the beginning of a the Bermejo River will grow. drought period; (2) the appearance of Criollos also use wildlife species as tortoises indicates bad luck; (3) the presence indicators or predictors and they were not of chacoan peccary in a forest indicates that unenthusiastic to answer our questions it is well preserved (they referred to well regarding this topic. Most of the species they preserved forests as silent forest) and that

11 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

(4) when caimans (Caiman spp.) are present observe them when visiting their houses in a pond, water will remain across the year. (Figure 3). Respondents of both groups use some Another relation with wildlife was in the species for medicinal purposes (Figure 3). spiritual dimension. 94% of Wichís reported The most commonly reported medicine was that animals have a spiritual component the fat of puma, alligator or tegu lizards, besides the physical one. Both groups which is used to alleviate bruises and expressed that they believe in the existence respiratory problems. The giant anteaters´ of spirits that own and protect wildlife fat was also used as a medicine and Criollos species. Wichís related to these spirits also used its fur to make ropes. The tapir’s through shamans in the past but this practice fur was used by some Criollos for making is now reported to be lost. Criollos did not ropes without any treatment, while giant historically have shamans but 80% of them anteaters´ is always previously braided. reported the existence of spirits that protect Criollos also use some species as pets, e.g. and own wild animals and that a hunter can peccaries, grey brocket deer, armadillos, see these spirits when overhunting a geoffroyʼs cat´s (Leopardus geoffroyi) and species, as a signal to the hunter to stop. small anteaters (Tamandua tetradactyla). Also, many Criollos had parts of wild animals as ornaments in their houses (Figure 3), e.g. geoffroyʼs cats’ fur, skulls of peccaries and grey brocket deer. No Wichí respondent expressed these uses and neither did we

Figure 3. Percent of respondents of each sociocultural group and the different uses they reported for wildlife. (*) Significant difference in the number of Wichís and the number of Criollos that use wildlife species as Pets or Ornaments.

12 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

DISCUSSION and when hunting them, Wichís may need to enter territories dominated by Criollos. Wichís always try to avoid direct Indigenous Wichís and mestizos Criollos confrontation and conflicts (Palmer 2005). of the Dry Chaco have distinctive Thus, it is possible that Wichís do not perceptions and relations with nature, currently hunt these species in order to avoid consistent with their unique cultures and confrontation. livelihoods. Wichís and Criollos practice Besides some differences in the species subsistence hunting with seasonal changes they hunt the most, Wichís and Criollos also and the main purpose of their hunting is differ in their perceptions of the importance meat acquirement. Both groups also of WM in their diets and in their hunting coincide in their preference for hunting and drivers and techniques. The differences consuming animals with fat, and in using fat between the two human groups seem of different species as medicine. Other Wichí associated with: (a) the sources and communities also preferred fatty individuals availability of animal protein within each and used fat as medicine (Arenas 2003). sociocultural group; (b) their differing social Qom and Mocoví indigenous groups, also structure: Wichís live in communities and found in the Chaco ecoregion, also showed traditionally share harvested products this preference (Medrano 2014). For the –including WM through mechanisms of Qom, consuming fat and using it as general reciprocity (Rodriguez Mir 2016) medicine was associated with the while Criollos´ sociallives are isolated incorporation of the power of the dead (Dasso 2010; Toledo and Trillo 2018) and animal (Medrano 2014). In the past, most they consume WM within their own Chaquenian indigenous groups considered household. that consuming a wild animal implied Despite their differences, both Wichí and acquiring its´ characteristics (Metraux 1946). Criollo people have a close relation with Further research could clarify if the wildlife. This is evident in the variety of ways preference and use of fat by Wichís and that both groups use wild animals, including Criollos indicates a present belief of power their use as food and medicinal resource acquisition. and as indicators. Although we list some Wichís and Criollos also coincide in the indicators and predictors associated to the species they hunt the most, with some symbolism and meanings given to wild exceptions. Wichís rarely hunt large species species by these cultures, further research probably because they do not usually have could provide more information. Wichís did guns or trained dogs. Our results differ from not want to answer detailed questions about previous studies, where Wichí hunters used this topic. Owners and other spirits –ahot fire guns and trained dogs to hunt peccaries seem to be related to indications and and other large terrestrial vertebrates predictions about nature and future (Barbarán 2000; Metraux 1946). A possible situations. There is a chance that Christian explanation for this difference is the history institutions and past evangelization oflandtenure conflicts between these groups processes have prohibited the expressions in our study area. Although Wichís and of this knowledge. Another possible Criollos share a territory, there are areas explanation is that they do not want to share dominated by one or the other human group. this knowledge because they do not want to Large terrestrial vertebrates use large areas

13 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

offend the ahot related with it. The relation of characterisation of the year: an annual cycle both Wichís and Criollos with wild animals is of four seasons (Barúa 2004; Palmer 2005). also present in a spiritual dimension: they However, the threeseason year consider that species owners are present characterization may always have been and that there are paths to connect with present in indigenous knowledge. We these spirits. Although Wichís and Criollos believe that the threeseason classification is define themselves as Christians, these are more evident in the present because it is animistic beliefs. more useful than in the past. Firstly, because According to our results, traditional Wichís are now sedentary and the four animistic and shamanic cosmovision seem season year cycle was associated with to persist in Wichí society and are also Wichís´ traditional cosmology and with their present in Criollos´ perceptions and nomadic movements (Barúa 2004). Second, representations of reality. Both human because the threeseason cycle relates groups referred to animal owners. Wichís seasonal patterns with animal ecologies, described jaguars as other humans and as which are the base of hunting norms that beings that own a husek, i.e. a soul or will aim to secure food supply. Norms associated (Camino et al. 2016). To some degree, with sustainable use of resources and TEK Wichís present perceptions agree with are found in many other societies worldwide perspectivism, i.e. humanity and the human and reveal an intimate relation between local soul is the common background of existence cultures and nature (Fraser et al. 2006; of humans and animals and each species Prober et al. 2011). sees itself as human (Viveiros de Castro Socialnorms based on TEK could be a 2013). In the case of Criollos, animistic tool to prevent overexploitation of wildlife beliefs are also reflected in the adjectives (Berkes et al. 2000; Fraser et al. 2006; they use to refer to pumas. By describing Gadgil et al. 1993). Yet, most Wichí and animals with human traits and personalities, Criollo hunters are breaking these norms. frontiers that separate humans and animals This could be related to a TEK crisis, i.e. a become imprecise (Medrano 2014). Criollos´ decline in the transferal or uptake of local are relating with wildlife, or at least with TEK. The breaking of norms could also be pumas, based on social and ideological explained by a hypothesis proposed by institutions that organise their own symbolic Arenas (2003) and Suárez (2012): Wichís universe. Criollos´ perceptions of relations have always taken from nature all the with wildlife are framed in a socio resources they need and they have always cosmological conception and reality broken their socialnorms even if there was representation similar to that of Chaquenian punishment. We do not consider this indigenous groups (Medrano 2014). hypothesis very plausible because Wichís´ The close relation that Wichís and traditionally feared the ahot, spirits among Criollos maintain with wildlife and nature is which are the animal and forest owners also demonstrated by these groups´ TEK (Braunstein 1992, 2005; Palmer 2005; and huntingnorms. Opposed to scientific Suarez 2012). In Wichís´ traditional classification (sensu Morello et al. 2012), cosmovision, the ahot are the main cause of members of both sociocultural groups otherness, i.e. a state where humans are no differentiate three seasons. These three longer humans and that threatens the seasons also differ to the Wichís´ traditional individual and the society (Metraux 1946;

14 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Palmer 2005). Wichís avoid otherness with Our results coincide with Metraux (1946), an extremely cautious behaviour (Cordeu Palmer (2005) and Galinier et al. (1995), and and de los Ríos 1982; Palmer 2005). contradict the idea that Wichí norms and Breaking hunting norms does not shamanic practices did not limit the number correspond with Wichís typical cautious of harvested individuals (Barbarán 2000). In behaviour. the present, it is highly probable that there Hunting is shaped by cultural traits but it are some species being unsustainably is also conditioned by past and present hunted, e.g. peccaries (Altrichter 2006; political and economic characteristics and Camino et al. 2016). Overhunting combined dynamics (Gordillo 1993). Thus, a third with the high deforestation rates of the Dry explanation of why Wichís and Criollos are Chaco mean wildlife species may fast be breaking hunting norms is the social, disappearing out of the region (Camino et al. economic and political abuse that these 2016; Periago et al. 2014). This threatens societies are experiencing under the wildlife species as well as Wichís´ and Argentinean government and the capitalist Criollos´ existence: previous wildlife productivesystem (Gordillo 1993; Rodriguez extinctions in Chaco already caused the Mir 2016). Both Wichís´ and Criollos´ disappearance of other human groups, e.g. productivesystems differ to the hegemonic Pilagá groups (Metraux 1946). capitalist system and consequently, they are Deforestation has started in a large area economically excluded (Cáceres 2003; of the Dry Chaco but large patches of natural Gordillo 1993; Rodriguez Mir 2016; Toledo ecosystems remain (Baumann et al. 2016; and Trillo 2018). Also, Wichís and Criollos Hansen et al. 2013). As wildlife species and legal rights are usually violated (Dasso 2010; their habitats are still present, successful Palmer 2005; Rodriguez Mir 2016). Under management and sustainable hunting may economic and legal marginalization, an still be possible. And even if huntingnorms individual and a society may not be able to are not fully adhered to, they are associated follow rules that reduce his/her chance of with local perceptions and may therefore be ingesting food. Additionally, these human the base for effective conservation measures groups usually have precarious land tenure (Prober et al. 2011; St John et al. 2011). (Cáceres 2015), a situation that increases Conservation measures that are consistent the probabilities of natural resources with local seasonal changes and aligned to overexploitation (Altrichter and Basurto local norms and beliefs will be easier to 2008). implement and more likely to succeed. Whatever the reasons why Wichís and Criollos are breaking huntingnorms, the Conservation recommendations for result is an increase in the probability of Wichís and Criollos of the Dry unsustainability of hunting. For Wichís, the Argentinean Chaco absence of shamans may aggravate the situation. According to our results, shamans Conservation measures will benefit from were a social institution that combined with considering the unique perceptions and TEK and norms to maintain the equilibrium beliefs of Wichís and Criollos. Existing with nature. They communicated with the huntingnorms and animistic beliefs could be owners and prescribed the species and used as a basis for conservation actions for number of individuals a hunter could harvest. both sociocultural groups. Nevertheless,

15 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

further research on these topics is required can focus on this activity, the time spent on and we recommend the participation of hunting decreases. Wichís reported they anthropologists when designing and used to hunt more before receiving social applying conservation measures in the Dry plans and that their hunting is associated Chaco. Based on the similarities of the with income. The truth of these affirmations perceptions, beliefs and relations with is supported by the comparison of our wildlife and nature of the Wichís and results and those of a study developed in the Criollos, there are conservation measures late 1990´s (Barbarán 2000). In the 1990´s that could be appropriate for both groups. Criollos did not have government social aid Among these we recommend: (1) working on or support for cattle and goat ranching, and conserving and locally discouraging the hunt they hunted every day (Barbarán 2000). of armadillos when these are thin; (2) a local During our study, Criollos had government awareness and educational programme support and hunted less than in Barbarán´s focused on conserving pregnant and research (2000), e.g. during our study the breeding females of all species. If applying Social Development Ministry provided awareness and educational programmes, we veterinary clinics. Therefore, measures that also recommend that (3) these include improve local livelihoods could have positive information on how to manage dogs. impacts on wildlife. However, for these Information about how to train and look after measures to be effective, they should be dogs should be provided to both groups part of a larger conservation and sustainable because most people blame their dogs for use plan, and local inhabitants should be killing nontarget prey. included in the governance of their natural For Criollos, these programmes should resources (Barbarán 2000; Bitanyi et al. also include information about the 2012; Persha et al. 2011; Teel et al. 2007). importance of pumas for conserving local Improvement of Criollos´ livelihoods could ecosystems (Quiroga et al. 2016). Most include actions for a more efficient livestock Criollos hunt pumas with the aim of locally production. This measure would have extinguishing the species but they do not additional benefits: (a) alleviating habitat know the ecological roles of this species. degradation due suboptimal extensive Criollos are also unaware that the density of ranching (Morello et al. 2012), and (b) pumas is low in this territory (Quiroga et al. decrease the attacks of pumas on Criollos´ 2016). The information about pumas should livestock (Quiroga et al. 2016). There are be targeted at the Criollos and the education other ways of alleviating conflicts between and awareness programme should be extensive ranchers and wild carnivores, e.g. applied simultaneously with: (a) measures to economic compensation for livestock loses decrease the attacks of pumas on Criollos´ (Gallardo et al. 2009). However, as the livestock. If not, the measure would probably Criollos have a different logic and perception be insufficient. (b) An anthropological of pumas compared to the western society, approach that aims to change the social these other alternatives are more difficult to relationship that Criollos have with pumas. apply and require further anthropological Both Criollos and Wichís believe that research. when their livelihoods improve, they hunt For Wichís, it is not clear how to improve less. Criollos prioritize extensive ranching their livelihoods because their sense of over hunting so they state that when they economic wellbeing is not framed in the

16 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

western perception of productivity (Gordillo members of the Wichí communities and they 1993; Palmer 2005). We recommend the cannot be predicted by any particular maintenance or increase of social aid for characteristic. Therefore, before deciding these societies and further research on their landuses and management actions, perceptions of production and of managers and planners in the Dry Chaco improvement of economic wellbeing. It is should always carefully address for this and highly probable that Wichís need larger other cryptic landuses. territories to sustain their hunting and gathering activities. This observation CONCLUSION coincides with results of etnographical research (Palmer 2005). We agree with The accelerated loss of wildlife species in Barbarán´s recommendation of a the world (Barnosky et al. 2011; Ceballos et comprehensive ecosystem management that al. 2017), besides having obvious negative looks for the sustainable exploitation of its effects on the biodiversity, threatens all the resources (Barbarán 2000). dimensions of the relations that humans According to our results, there are have with wildlife. It is particularly worrying differences inside each human group, e.g. the threat that this situation poses to the Wichís of this area never eat the giant food security of the many societies who anteater but Wichís of other areas within the depend partially or completely on Dry Chaco do consume this species (Arenas subsistence hunting. Conservation 2003). Another example: most Criollos measures to solve these situations are more believe that wildlife is not essential for their effective when based on local inhabitant´s nutrition but others have the opposite perceptions of and relations with wildlife perception of this. Considering the diversity (Manfredo and Dayer 2004; St John et al. within Wichís and Criollos societies will also 2011). There are areas occupied by more faciliate more focused and effective than a sociocultural group, e.g. in many conservation actions (Bitanyi et al. 2012; areas of the Neotropics coexist indigenous Brechin et al. 2002; Treves et al. 2009). and mestizo peoples. These groups may Managers and researchers should consider have close relations with wildlife and there that information available about Wichís and may be similitudes in these relations, in their Criollos may not be true for all areas of the TEKs and in their perceptions of wildlife. Dry Chaco. Other researchers already These similarities can be the basis of noticed a high diversity between Wichí general conservation measures for these groups in different cultural traits (Palmer areas. However, differences between ethnic 2005). Taking into account heterogeneity groups that share a territory may also exist. within groups of the same society will The fact that different cultural backgrounds increase probability of success of engender different perceptions of and conservation measures (Dahal et al. 2014). relations with wildlife supports the idea that Finally, we also encourage managers and different cultures may need alternate landuse planners to consider that Wichís approaches and actions for conserving hunt in unpopulated areas. For them, these wildlife, even when sharing the same areas are important places to acquire a food territories. resource which they consider vital. These For Wichís and Criollos of this area of the areas are recognized only by specific Dry Chaco we propose conservation

17 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

measures grounded on their TEK and REFERENCES hunting norms. For both groups we recommend (1) discourage the hunt of thin Altrichter M (2006) Wildlife in the life of local armadillos and develop conservation people of the semiarid Argentine Chaco. measures focused on conserving them, (2) Biodiversity and Conservation 15:27192736. developing a local awareness and Altrichter M, Basurto X (2008) Effects of Land educational programme focused on Privatisation on the Use of Commonpool conserving pregnant and breeding females Resources of Varying Mobility in the Argentine Chaco. Conservation and Society of all species and (3) another one focused 6:15465. on how to manage dogs for them not to kill Alves RR, Rosa IL, Neto NAL, Voeks R (2012) unwanted preys. We also suggest improving Animals for the gods: magical and religious local livelihoods and research on Wichís´ faunal use and trade in Brazil. Human Ecology needs for economic wellbeing. For Criollos, 40 (5):751780. we also recommend management and Arenas P (2003) Ethnography and diet of the anthropological research to decrease the tobañachilamoleek y wichílhuku’tas of Chaco (in Spanish). Authors´edition, Buenos attacks of pumas on Criollos´ livestock. Aires, Argentina. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GOU, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, et al. (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass This research was financially supported extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57. by Progetto Güembé, the National Agency of Barrett CB, Travis AJ, Dasgupta P (2011) On Science (PICT 2450) and the University of biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Buenos Aires. We thank the support of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(34): 1390713912. Group of Environment and Landscape Ecology (www.gepama.com.ar); local Barbarán FR (2000) Recursos alimenticios derivados de la caza, pesca y recolección de inhabitants of the Dry Argentinean Chaco for los Wichi del Río Pilcomayo (Provincia de sharing their time and knowledge with us. Salta, Argentina). Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en Thanks to REDAF, Prof. J.H. Morello for his Amazonia y Latinoamérica. CITES support and inspiration; M.L. Pizzi, H.H. Paraguay–Fundación Moisés Bertoni–University of Florida. Asunción, Paraguay: 507527. Córdoba, A. Kees, G. Insaurralde, A. Silva Barúa G (2004). Lo "eterno" y lo "fugaz": el and N. FleitaZain for their logistical support; ritual del yatchep entre los wichí bazaneros. and the Chaco Province for the permissions. Archivos, Departamento de Antropología Cultural And thanks to reviewers for their interesting del CIAFIC 2: 181206 comments and for helping us in giving the Baumann M, Gasparri I, PiquerRodríguez M, article an interesting perspective. Thanks to Gavier Pizarro G, Griffiths P, Hostert P, C.Gray and C.Murray, biologist and social Kuemmerle T (2017) Carbon emissions from agricultural expansion and intensification in scientists of ZSL (Zoological Society of the Chaco. Global change biology 23(5): 1902 London, UK), for their useful comments and 1916. for correcting our English; and also to Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rachel Kemp for checking our English. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5): 12511262. Berkes F (2012) Sacred Ecology. 3rd Edition. Routledge – Taylor and Francis, New York, USA.

18 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Bitanyi S, Nesje M, Kusiluka LJ, Chenyambuga Cordeu E, De los Ríos M (1982) Un enfoque SW, Kaltenborn BP (2012) Awareness and estructural de las variaciones socioculturales perceptions of local people about wildlife de los Cazadores Recolectores del Gran hunting in western Serengeti communities. Chaco. Revista del Centro de Estudios Tropical Conservation Science 5(2): 208224. Antropológicos 17: 1. Braunstein JA (1992) Presentación. In Dahal S, Nepal SK, Maschuett MA (2014) Braunstein JA (ed) Hacia una carta étnica del Examining Marginalized Communities and Gran Chaco. Centro del Hombre Antiguo Local Conservation Institutions: The Case of Chaqueño, Las Lomitas, Formosa, Argentina. Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area. Environmental Management 53: 219–230. Braunstein JA (2005) Los pueblos indígenas del Gran Chaco. Mundo de Antes 4:127137. Dasso MC (2010) Memorias y representaciones sobre el criollo del chaco Brechin SR, Wilhusen PR, Fortwangler CL, West argentino. Confluenze. Rivista di Studi PC (2002) Beyond the square wheel: toward a Iberoamericani 2(2): 236253. more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and Descola P (2012) Más allá de naturaleza y political process. Society and Natural cultura. Amorrortu, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Resources 15: 4164. FAO (1998). Wildlife utilization and food Bucher EH, Huszar PC (1999) Sustainable security in Africa. FAO Conservation Guide, management of the Gran Chaco of South Rome, Italy. 110 pp. America: ecological promise and economic Dinerstein E, Olson DM, Graham DJ,Webster AL, constraints. Journal of Environmental Primm SA, Bookbinder MP, Ledec G (1995) A Management 57: 99–108. Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Cahoone L (2009) Hunting as a Moral Good. Ecoregions of Latin America and the Environmental Values 18: 67–89. Caribbean. The World Wildlife Fund and The World Bank, Washington/District of Columbia, Camino M, Cortez S, Cerezo A, Altrichter M USA. (2016) Wildlife conservation, perceptions of different coexisting cultures. International Fraser DJ, Coon T, Prince MR, Dion R, Journal of Conservation Science 7(1): 109122. Bernatchez L (2006) Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in biodiversity Cáceres D (2003) El campesinado conservation: a population level case study. contemporáneo en la República Argentina. In: Ecology and Society 11(2): 4. Thornton R and Cimadevilla G (eds) La extensión rural en debate. Concepciones, Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenous retrospectivas, cambios y estrategias para el knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Mercosur. INTA, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 173 Ambio 22(23): 151156. 197 pp. Galinier J, Lagarriga I, Perrin M (1995) Lógica Cáceres DM (2015) Accumulation by Chamánica. Chamanismo en Latinoamérica: dispossession and socioenvironmental Una revisión conceptual. México, Plaza y conflicts caused by the expansion of Valdés: 120. agribusiness in Argentina. Journal of Agrarial Gallardo G, Nuñez A, Pacheco LF, RuizGarcía Changes 15: 116–147. doi: 10.1111/joac.12057. M (2009) Conservación del puma en el Parque Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R (2017) Nacional Sajama (Bolivia): Estado Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth poblacional y alternativas de manejo. mass extinction signaled by vertebrate Mastozoología Neotropical 16(1): 5968. population losses and declines. Proceedings Hansen MC, Ptapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, of the National Academy of Sciences 114(30): Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau SV, Goetz 60896096. SJ, et al. (2013) Highresolution global maps Cordeu E, Siffredi A (1971) De la algarroba al of 21stcentury forest cover change. Science algodón: movimientos milenaristas del Chaco 342: 850–853. argentino. Juárez Editor, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

19 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Gordillo G (1993) La actual dinámica Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2011) Social económica de los cazadores recolectores de and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, Gran Chaco y los deseos imaginarios del forest livelihoods, and biodiversity esencialismo. Publicar Antropología y Ciencias conservation. Science 331: 16061608. Sociales (3): 7396. Peterson MN, Hansen HP, Peterson MJ, Ingold T. 1986. The appropriation of nature. Peterson TR (2011) How hunting strengthens Essays on human ecology and social social awareness of coupled humannatural relations. Manchester University Press. systems. Wildlife Biology in Practice 6(2): 127 Manchester, UK. 143. Manfredo J, Dayer AA (2004) Concepts for Prober SM, O’Connor MH, Walsh FJ (2011) exploring the social aspects of Australian Aboriginal peoples’ seasonal human–wildlife conflict in a global context. knowledge: a potential basis for shared Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 317–328. understanding in environmental Medrano C (2014) Zoosociocosmología qom: management. Ecology and Society 16(2): 12. seres humanos, animales y sus relaciones en Quiroga VA, Noss AJ, Paviolo A, Boaglio GI, Di el Gran Chaco. Journal de la Société des Bitetti MS (2016) Puma density, habitat use Américanistes 100(1): 233265. and conflict with humans in the Argentine Metraux A (1946) Ethnography of the Chaco. Chaco. Journal for Nature Conservation 31: 9 In: Steward JH (ed) Handbook of South 15. American Indians. Washington, USA. 197370 Redford KH, Robinson JG (1987). The game of pp. choice: patterns of Indian and colonist Morello J, Rodriguez A (2009) El Chaco sin hunting in the Neotropics. American bosques: la Pampa o el desierto del futuro. Anthropologist 89(3): 650667. GEPAMA y UNESCO Programa sobre el Rodriguez Mir J (2016) La lucha por el capital y Hombre y la Biósfera, Buenos Aires, Argentina. la lucha por la subsistencia. La violencia del 492pp sistema capitalista en los indígenas wichí del Morello J, Matteucci SD, Rodríguez AF, Silva M Chaco argentino. Antropología Experimental 16 (2012) Ecorregions and ecosystem (24): 365379. complexes of Argentina (Spanish). Orientación Robinson JG, Bennett EL (2000) Hunting for Gráfica Editora, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia Nasi R, Taber A, Van Vliet N (2011) Empty University Press, New York NY, USA. forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and Scarpa GF (2009) Etnobotánica médica de los livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. indígenas chorote y su comparación con la International Forestry Review 13(3): 355368. de los criollos del Chaco semiárido Ojasti J, Dallmeier F (2000) Wildlife (Argentina). Darwiniana 47(1): 92101. management in the Neotropics (Spanish). Scarpa GF (2004) Medicinal plants used by the Smithsonian Institution/Monitoring and Criollos of Northwestern Argentine Chaco. Assessment of Biodiversity (MAB), Washington Journal of Ethnopharmacology 91(1): 115135. DC, EUA. Scruton R (2010) The sacred pursuit Palmer J (2005) The wichi´s good will, an reflections on the literature of hunting. In: indigenous spirituality (Spanish). APCD/ Kowalsky N (Ed). Hunting—Philosophy for CECAZO/EPRAZOL, Grupo de Trabajo Ruta 81, Everyone: In Search of the Wild Life. Blackwell, Formosa, Salta. London, UK. pp 187–197. Peres CA (1996) Population status of white Silvius KM, Bodmer RE, Fragoso JMV (2004) lipped and collared peccaries in hunters and People in Nature: Wildlife Conservation in nonhunted Amazonian forests. Biological South and Central America. Columbia Conservation 77: 115123. University Press, New York NY, USA. Periago ME, Chillo V, Ojeda RA (2014) Loss of St John FA, EdwardsJones G, Jones JP (2011) mammalian species from the South American Conservation and human behaviour: lessons Gran Chaco: empty savanna syndrome? from social psychology. Wildlife Research Mammalogical Review 45. doi: 37(8): 658667. 10.1111/mam.12031.

20 Camino et al. 2018. Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective Ethnobio Conserv 7:11

Suárez ME (2012) Spirits related with the Toledo BA, Trillo C (2018) Practices and spaces forest and its plants in the world of the Wichí by gender: landscapes and rural tasks of people of the Semiarid Chaco, Salta, livestock producers of the Sierras Chicas Argentina (Spanish). In: Arenas P (Ed) from Córdoba, Argentina. Ethnobiology and Ethnobotany in arid and semiarid areas of the Conservation 7:8 Southern Cone of South America. CEFYBO, Treves A, Wallace RB, White S (2009) CONICET, UBA, Buenos Aires, Argentina. pp Participatory planning of interventions to 145178. mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Sušnik B (1985) Los aborígenes del Paraguay: Conservation Biology 23: 1577–1587. Aproximación a las creencias de los UN; United Nations, Secretariat of the Permanent indígenas. Museo Etnográfico Andrés Barbero, Forum on Indigenous Issues (2009) State of the Asunción, Paraguay. world's Indigenous peoples. United Nations Teel TL, Manfredo JM, Stinchfield MH (2007) The Print, New York NY, USA. Need and Theoretical Basis for Exploring Viveiros de Castro E (2013) La mirada del Wildlife Value Orientations CrossCulturally. Jaguar. Tinta Limón, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 12: 297305. doi: Viveiros de Castro E (1998) Cosmological 10.1080/10871200701555857 deixis and Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3): 469 488.

Received: 03 July 2018 Accepted: 06 August 2018 Published: 24 August 2018