The phenomenon of bushmeat, or hunt wild animals for meat is one of the major problems of conservation. Until recently, this practice coincided with a classic poaching, and was not considered too serious cause of species decline. Only in the nineties began zoologists and managers of national parks distinguish which animals are illegally hunted for a trophy, and what becomes available cheap source of animal protein.
The notion of a trophy poaching and sale bushmeatu while still overlaps with skull and dry feet male gorilla can monetize it as well as the rest of the meat to eat. A sale of the two items most commonly occurs on the black market. Customers just a little different. Although it is not entirely true, as evidenced by an extensive survey of Tanzania.
For millions of people in Africa, South America and Asia, represents a "Bushmeat" is often the only source of animal protein. Moral dilemma on endangered species hungry people who need to feed their offspring, mostly a long time to be resolved. Catch a monkey, antelope and rare parrot means to feed a family. But even bushmeatu issue is not black and white.
Under a large-scale monitoring project released representatives of the international team of researchers in the Nordic region Tanzanian Tarangire-Manyara (TME), assuming that the situation here is different than in the south. Lives are in fact numerous Masai community that feeds on herding and agriculture. A bushmeat is usually associated more with regions where local limited ability to access, pets, goats, poultry or beef.
Researchers also hypotetizovali that eating bushmeatu is likely to vary between the Maasai and non-Masai communities, and will generally correspond to the current availability of other animal proteins. They were wrong. The first series of the questionnaire survey began in 2013, before the Tanzanian Government launched an extensive educational campaign against poaching. Interviewers visited each household in the villages and asked to eating habits. 48% of respondents admitted that they noticed the presence bushmeatu on different markets, and 38% were admitted that meat from the forest had consumed. A year later, after the end of the government's anti-poacher's campaign echoed throughout the survey. A similar result: 41% of respondents presence of meat at markets continues to be recognized, 33% is still consumed.
The authors warn that the respondents were not always completely honest with their answers, and that the numbers are probably much higher. What conclusions have come?
In addition to the recognition that the region TME definitely not eating bushmeatu unusual, it was a whole series of data about the preferences of consumers. "In contrast to what we talked about Maasai pastoralist communities thought often themselves admit bushmeatu consumption for which the forest is issued," says Christian Kiffner, lead author of the study. "Among the Maasai and non-Masai ethnic groups (ranging from 2013 -2014), the size of their household, education level of respondents owned or absence of livestock was no evidence of a difference in the consumption bushmeatu. "
Possible reasons? Kiffner and his colleagues believe that the culprit may be among the Maasai region of TME as domestic poultry. "At other Maasai communities, it is not customary, and, perhaps, does not make such a link as traditional herders." A Maasai? It admits that hunting is a matter bushmeatu offered opportunity, which is simply a pity to waste. They admit that for many of them it is a matter of prestige and a certain elevation of social status. And i bought meat from the forest to the market released at about half price.
For more information on Mongabay.com .
Author: Radomír Dohnal
Source: Ekolist.cz
