58
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
Questionnaires were distributed during the weekend and most were collected on Sunday, after church, because people tend to stay in the village to prepare themselves for religious and social
activities. A total of 562 questionnaires were returned for analysis. Three collaborative hunters from each village were recruited and trained to complete an
information sheet about their weekly hunting take. This information included whether or not they were successful, and if so, how many individuals per species were killed, their common
names and the different types of weapons that had been used after Carpaneto and Fusari 2006; Fusari and Carpaneto 2000. Information was triangulated by having informal
discussions and interviewing key respondents such as elders and community leaders during that time, so we had similar information from each collaborated hunter.
2.2 Household survey Household meal surveys were conducted to determine the level of consumption of wild meat
and other food items e.g. fish, meat, eggs, canned meat and vegetables including noodles. These surveys consisted of interviews that were addressed to housewives or to the member of
the household who was responsible for food preparation in the household n= 400. People were asked about the kind of meals which were served each day and how often within a week
those meals were consumed. This indicated the amount of meat consumed by the households. 2.3 Data analysis
All questionnaire data that could be quantified were entered into a database and analysed using log-linear model in S
+
package for the Analysis Biological Data Jones et al., 2012. Data were displayed in graphs, figures and tables. Contextual approach was used to explain the situation
in the field in order to complete description of the study sites.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The key findings of this study are 1 hunting was conducted to obtain food and gain extra income for families, 2 both active and passive hunting techniques were used by hunters, 3
most respondents actively conducted hunting every week and fortnight with 3 hunting target across the sampled villages was almost the same and 4 meals containing bush-meat
dominated the household consumption in the study sites. 3.1 Hunting patterns
Hunting was conducted for different purposes including obtaining meat for sale and consumption as well as other purposes such cultural events and pest eradication. Hunting for
sale and consumption are just below 50 while hunting for other purposes are about 5. Purpose of hunting varies among hunters Figure 2, log-linear
χ
2
= 322.64, df= 2, p = 0. Our finding is suitable with previous studies that have been conducted across tropical areas
that acknowledged the reliance of the local communities on hunting because it was an important
alternative source of family revenue. Results from hunting support all communities with different amounts of income. The contribution of hunting as a source of cash is
important for the households living in extreme poverty with daily income less than US1during the lean agriculture seasons Shively, 1997; Mendelson et al., 2003; Hilaluddin et
al., 2005.
59
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
Figure 2: Purpose of hunting in the 7 sampled villages N = 702, log-
linear χ
2
= 322.64, df= 2, p = 0 Many people in tropical forests rely on hunting because of the animal protein source to feed
their families. Bush-meat is the most accessible animal protein especially for those in rural areas Robinson and Bodmer, 1999. Fa and Yuste 2001 suggests that bush-meat was the
staple diet of forest-dwelling peoples in tropical areas during ancient times and hunting was mostly done for subsistence Fa Brown, 2009; Milner-Gulland et al., 2003; Robinson
Bennett, 2000. A variety of hunting techniques were documented in the study sites. They were bows and
arrows, spears and machetes, hunting with dogs and using guns active techniques and setting nylon snare traps passive technique. Each hunter typically used more than one technique.
Thus we recorded each of technique that has been used by hunters in hunting. About 80 of hunters used both active and passive hunting techniques while hunting with dogs was almost
40. The least common hunting technique used was guns which were only employed by 9 of hunters Figure 3 log-linear
χ
2
= 602.98, df= 2, p = 0. In this study, hunting with dog and using guns were separatedly analysis as other studies have
found that hunting with those methods severely impacted prey population Koster, 2008; Corlett, 2007; Robinson and Bennett, 2000.
The use of active techniques bows and arrows, spears and machetes applies to the previous study by Pattiselanno 2006, native Papuans commonly used traditional hunting weapons
such as bows-and-arrows and spears made from forest materials. These methods were also widely practiced in tropical Asia and Papua New Guinea Corlett, 2007; Mack and West,
2005. Greater used of traps was also indicated the way hunters maximised harvest rates for trading
purposes.
Traps are one of the simplest and most effective devices to kill animals Fa Brown, 2009.
Between 25 and 250 snare traps were set along the paths or trails the animals used in order to kill both species indiscriminately. Between 25 and 250 snare traps were set
along the paths or trails the animals used in order to kill both species indiscriminately. Trapping is more affordable, and less time consuming Lee, 2000. It can also be incorporated
into a schedule based on farming chores and operated in most wide-ranging areas. Trapping
322 341
39 45.87
48.58 5.56
50 100
150 200
250 300
350 400
Consumption Sale
Others
Purpose of hunting
Number of hunters Percentage
60
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
requires little or no money to build traps and snares because they can be built from forest materials and nylon, or ropes that can be reused Fa and Brown, 2009.
Figure 3: Percentage of hunters employing different hunting techniques within the sampled villages
Notes: Percentages do not add to 100 because typically hunters used more than one hunting technique, log-linear χ
2
= 602.98, df= 2, p = 0
Figure 4: Number and percentage of hunters who involved in different hunting frequency.
Notes: Very frequent daily and 2-3 days a week, frequent weekly and fortnigthly and rare monthly, log-linear test χ
2
= 224.20, df= 2, p = 0.
Half of the respondents conducted hunting at least once a month, while 40 hunted every week and every two weeks and 10 hunted between two and three days a week. Hunting
frequency among hunters in the sampled villages was different Figure 4, log- linear test χ
2
= 224.20, df= 2, p = 0.
584 563
280
64 83.19
80.20 39.89
9.12
100 200
300 400
500 600
700
Active Passive
Dogs Guns
Hunting techniques
Number of hunters Percentage
69 276
357
9.83 39.32
50.85
50 100
150 200
250 300
350 400
Very frequent Frequent
Rare
Hunting frequency
Number of hunters Percentage
61
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
Our study showed that frequency in hunting was closely related to other livelihood activities they were involved in the villages. Hunters went hunting every month, every week and every
two weeks because they had their own occupation and hunted when they were not working. This finding mirrored the indigenous Buglé hunters in Panama who went on hunting trips
when they had free time because they were mostly engaged in agriculture and wage labour Smith, 2005. Pangau-Adam et al 2012 reported that in the north-eastern area of Papua
hunters went hunting weekly with different amounts of time devoted to hunting because hunting was a part-time activity only. In Arunachal Pradesh north-east India, there was no
fixed hunting schedule and hunting was conducted when convenient Aiyadurai et al., 2010. 3.2 Hunting returns
Larger numbers of deer 40, followed by wild pig 35 brought home in the last hunting trips supported the practice of hunting which was mainly for sale. Native species was the least
target hunted at 27 and individual prey species killed by hunters at the last hunting excursion was different log-linear
test χ
2
= 18.76, df= 2, p 0.0001.
Table 1: Hunting returns individual animals during seven-month observation obtained from 21 hunters within the sampled villages
Villages Jul
Aug Sep
Oct Nov
Dec Jan
Total
Wefiani 5
3 4
3 2
4 3
24 Imbuan
3 5
3 4
4 7
4 30
Samfarmun 5
3 4
4 3
8 4
31 Saukorem
3 3
5 4
1 4
5 25
Wasarak 4
2 4
3 3
4 2
22 Arupi
4 6
7 3
5 9
8 42
Wekari 3
4 6
5 2
7 7
34 Total
27 26
33 26
20 43
33 208
Mean 3.86
3.71 4.71
3.71 2.86
6.14 4.71
29.71 Std. Dev.
0.90 1.38
1.38 0.76
1.35 2.12
2.14 6.90
Throughout a seven-month observed period, a 208 animals were brought home by 21 collaborating hunters. Hunting returns in the period of observation was 49 deer, 39 pig
and 12 native species Thylogale brunii Dusky pademelon and Dendrolagus inustus Grizzled Tree Kangaroo. Dressed weights harvested the weight of an animal after eviscerating, weight loss
of 40, see Albrechtsen et al., 2006 Deer and wild pig are targeted because they provide a large amount of meat for both
subsistence and sale purposes. In reference to reasons for hunting, in most cases, bush-meat markets mainly sell ungulates such as deer and wild pig. These species are the most important
source of income where trade has been documented Milner-Gulland Clayton, 2002; Fa Brown, 2009; Robinson Bennett, 2000; Luskin et al., 2014.
A total of 7623 kg of dressed weight from deer and wild pig were harvested with the local price per kilogram being 25,000 Indonesian Rupiah IDR equals to US 1.89 for venison
and 15,000 IDR or US1.13 for pork. The hunting take was valued at IDR 154.125.000 US 11,651. In contrast to studies from the Africa and South American, the bush-meat trade
in this study was still a relatively small ecocomic activity. Estimates of the national value of
62
Bogor, 21-22 October 2015
the bush-meat trade range from US42-205 million across countries in West and Central Africa Davies, 2002.
3.3 Consumption patterns Bush-meat consumption varies between 29 in Saukorem and 44 in Wekari. Non-bush-
meat consumption also varies between 56 in Wekari and 71 in Saukorem.
Table 2: Meal consumption across the sampled villages in Amberbaken District
Meals Arupi
Wekari Saukorem Wasarak Wefiani Samfarmun Imbuan
Bush-meat n 19
24 26
36 26
18 30
38 44.44
28.88 34.28
34.66 38.29
40 Fish n
15 14
28 23
19 7
14 Livestock products n
5 7
10 12
10 6
9 Vegetables + Noodles n
11 9
26 34
20 16
22 Non-busmeat n
31 30
64 69
49 29
45 62
55.55 71.11
65.71 65.33
61.70 60
Meals consumed by the households were categorised based on type diets consumed by the households during preliminary household surveys. They were meals containing bush-meat,
fish, livestock products including meat, egg and canned meat and meals containing vegetables and noodles.
Almost half of the respondents conducted hunting to obtain meat to fulfil the household’s consumption Figure 2. Therefore, the percentage of respondents who had wild meat in their
meals ranged between 29 and 44. Bush-meat was predominantly consumed within the sampled villages indicating the high reliance of households on the NTFPs along the coast of
the Bird’s Head Peninsula. The high proportion of bush-meat consumption by the respondents indicates that bush-meat
is an important component of the diets in the villages studied. However, available alternative protein allows communities to select other forms of protein fish, livestock products and
vegetables and noodles, as it is also experienced by the communities in Asia and West Africa Bennett et al., 2002; Rowcliffe et al., 2005; Brashares et al., 2004.
Providing people with alternative livelihoods is important to reduce their dependence on wild meat for food and trading. Looking at the potential of fish and livestock and the available
fodders to support their development, the first alternative is to establish programs to provide domestic animals or livestock to meet needs for rural households.
A national program to subsidize households with free health services and school fee for children may help to minimize the reliance of hunting to support medication payment and
school fee as well. Raising people’s incomes by providing alternative sources of revenue is
important to lower their reliance on wildlife hunting.
4. CONCLUSION
