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