Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A ...

6.2.2 Mechanisms of acquisition of ethnoecological knowledge
Interviews on ethnoecology often provided useful insights into how the knowledge
reported was acquired, via the statements of interviewees about how they came to
know a particular fact. The most important point to be made is that most of the
information provided appears to be empirical. When someone told me something
based on something other than direct personal experience, they generally qualified it
as such, and this nonetheless was relatively rare. Statements about the sources of
information indicated that a subset of the methods employed in biological research is
effectively employed.
Direct observation is of major importance, particularly for arboreal species such
as primates and many birds. This generally takes place on a casual basis, and not in
the sustained and repeated fashion employed in biological research. Some people do
go out of their way to observe animals and learn more about their behaviour. One
interviewee, for example, told me that he had climbed a tree used for sleeping by
spider monkeys, in order to observe their distribution and posture when asleep. The
observation and interpretation of animal spoor is also commonly practiced, and is
perhaps more important for many of the less easily observed species. I had many
opportunities to observe this in practice when with people in the forest. Tracks and
feeding signs are closely observed and interpreted, and dung may be examined for
evidence of current diet. The diets of hunted animals are also revealed by inspection
of gut contents, during the cleaning of carcasses in preparation for preservation or
cooking.
6.2.3 Organisation and analysis of ethnoecological data
The discussion that follows is largely restricted to the data obtained in formal
interviews, as this method can be treated as fairly standard for analytical purposes. A
total of 204 interviews were conducted on the ecology of named animal species. For
a number of species in the focal groups, there were interviews with several different
informants, and these sets of interviews formed the basis of detailed analysis. The
species concerned were: Tayassu tajacu (11 interviewees), T. pecari (15), Tapirus
terrestris (13), Mazama americana (13), Agouti paca (14), Dasyprocta agouti (12),
Ateles paniscus (12), Alouatta seniculus (9), Cebus apella (7), C. olivaceus (5),
Pithecia pithecia (7), Chiropotes satanas (5) and Saimiri sciureus (7). Two different
rationales were employed in selecting these species for in-depth research. The first
applies to the first six species, five of whom were shown by the results on Wapishana
cultural ecology to be among the most important game animals locally (see chapter