Anaconda Conservation: A Reply to Rivas

COMMENTARY IGUANA • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 • MARCH 2008 51 COMMENTARY Anaconda Conservation: A Reply to Rivas Tomás Waller and Patricio Alejandro Micucci Fundación Biodiversidad, San Martín 945 piso 3 #23, Buenos Aires, Argentina C1003AAS Rivas’s views are based almost entirely on a brief visit he S ince 2002, Fundación Biodiversidad (FB) has conducted a management program for Yellow Anacondas (Eunectes notaeus) in Formosa Province, Argentina. The main objective of made during September 2002 to Formosa, at the end of the first experimental hunting season. He was seeking images of Yellow the program has been to establish a sustainable-use model that Anacondas for a National Geographic Channel (NGC) docu- ensures equity among users while promoting research and con- mentary. Two years later, FB was invited to review the servation of the resource. Recently, Rivas (2007. Iguana 14(2): “Objective Anaconda” script with a commitment of “… not 74–85) criticized the program in the context of his opinions putting on-air the documentary until all comments were taken regarding the impact of global economic development on the into consideration” (V. Linares, in litt., NGC — Research, conservation of Green Anacondas (Eunectes murinus). Although Standards, & Practices, 30 March 2004). Since the most ques- we provided a detailed review of the Argentine program (Micucci tionable opinions were made by Rivas on-the-air, this apparent and Waller. 2007. Iguana 14(3): 160–171), we believe a more compromise was not adequately addressed, and the final prod- specific response to his comments is appropriate and necessary. uct was, at least, controversial. In reviewing his recent article in Iguana, we quickly came to the conclusion that, in these subse- quent years, he has chosen not to inform himself properly regarding the basics of the program, which would have allowed him to support his position with facts instead of errors and mis- conceptions. Specifically, Rivas stated that the Argentine program pro- motes the hunting of specimens larger than 2.3 meters, not spec- ifying if this size relates to skin size, snout-vent length (SVL), or total length. He also mentioned that hunting takes place “... at the beginning of the warm season...,” when, in fact, the Program allows local people to harvest snakes above 2 m SVL during the local winter (June–August). Additionally, Rivas stated that the skin minimum size limit established (2 m SVL = 2.3 m skin length) responds to a commercial requirement for large skins. On the contrary, the current skin size limit was established as a control variable (Micucci et al. 2006). Historically, specimens over 1.3 m SVL were hunted with no additional considerations, affecting all size classes in the population; the 2-m limit reduced by half the snakes vulnerable to hunters. Logically, the interna- tional markets prefer large hides (this is true of all reptilian species in the skin trade); the coincidence between market pref- erences and program requirements is circumstantial but advan- tageous because it warrants economic sustainability. Further, Rivas provided a simplistic analysis of the pro- gram’s economics by referring to what he called “the lion’s share” of the income going to the private sector. However, on the ‘cost’ side of his analysis, he only took into consideration the price of TOMÁS WALLER the skins paid to hunters (in 2002), but forgot to mention the other costs that are paid by the private sector (e.g., program research and running expenses, logistics, freight, state and Yellow Anacondas (Eunectes notaeus) harvested as part of the Yellow Anaconda Management Program (YAMP) in Formosa Province, national taxes). Rivas’s logic falls apart if we apply the same cri- Argentina. Snakes are held alive for biological studies before being teria to other examples, such as comparing the price of a valued killed and skinned. fish on a fancy restaurant menu to the cost of that fish paid at  52 IGUANA • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 • MARCH 2008 WALLER AND MICUCCI acquisition from the fisherman. Rivas implied that the program This author also stated that the program resulted solely failed to ensure resource (land and snakes) protection without from a proposal by the private sector in Formosa in response to providing any evidence — and based only on a weekend-trip the 2002 breakdown suffered by Argentina. This is, to say the during the first year of the program! He ignored the realities that least, false and absurd. FB conceived and proposed the Yellow the La Estrella marsh is an area protected by law since 2005 and Anaconda program as an alternative to the historical misuse of that the anaconda harvest program is the only operation permit- this living resource that had been exploited without restrictions ted in that wetland. Another misconception occurred when he for more than 60 years! Rivas chose to ignore decades of tradi- proposed that “... the program was less of an effort to manage tion of Argentina as a wildlife exporter (e.g., up to 1 million Tegu anacondas than an economic enterprise using anacondas as a lizard hides/year and 300,000 fox hides/year) and demonstrated capital commodity...” We see no contradiction in managing ana- considerable naivety by suggesting that the impact of the harvest conda populations for selling skins to benefit local people and of 5,000 Yellow Anacondas per year would modify the course of committed investors, similar, for example, to programs that the nation’s or even the province’s, economy! In addition, his ranch and harvest alligators in the United States, crocodiles in interpretations of national or provincial competence at manag- Cuba, or caimans in Venezuela. ing natural resources are simplistic. Since the Yellow Anaconda EMILIO WHITE Emergent logs and logs covered by climbing plants, locally known as “champas,” are preferred basking sites of Eunectes notaeus in La Estrella marshes in northeastern Argentina. Snakes seek these microhabitats during the winter, when water temperatures drop to 15 °C or lower. Both males and females need warmer temperatures to complete gonadal cycles before the onset of the mating season in spring. EMILIO WHITE Yellow Anacondas (Eunectes notaeus) are most vulnerable to collection during the winter when they are cold and leave the water to bask. COMMENTARY IGUANA • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 • MARCH 2008 53 (i.e., Yellow Anacondas in Argentina, most fisheries) demands a previous assessment of a species’ population size and intrinsic rate of increase and that obtaining basic biological data is a prerequi- site for management are both readily disputable. Sustained-yield models were devised to manage non-easily assessable populations (like most fisheries) and, due to the feedback that management provides, estimates of basic demographic parameters like abun- dance and rates of increase are then possible (Caughley and Sinclair 1994). In fact, management decisions rarely result from pure research (Webb 2002), and the “adaptive management” concept (Hollings 1978) evolved to overcome the usual insur- mountable difficulties that represent acquisition of basic demo- graphic parameters as a prerequisite for wildlife management. Rivas opined that some practical conservation initiatives are laudable, but that conservationists would be more effective in Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) skins (>230 cm) harvested between achieving conservation goals by subscribing to anti-globalization 2002 and 2007. Average: 3,800 (dotted line). *Definitive value pending. movements is non-realistic. Predicting the outcome of changing economic policies that are not expected to be realized for 25–50 is a CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered years is impossible (Wallerstein 1999). Moreover, opposition to Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) Appendix-II species, the gov- economic changes does not provide solutions for wildlife conser- ernment’s only responsibility is to assure compliance with Article vation, as the main concerns of such movements are socio-eco- IV (non-detriment finding) of the Convention. nomic in nature, and have little to do with human population Rivas affirmed that the program harvests mainly female growth and its effects on wildlife and habitats. Although we totally snakes. Although 75% of the animals harvested are females, the agree that the world’s emphasis on development at all costs fails to rationale for this practice does not correspond to his unsophis- address many crucial issues, we are simultaneously convinced that ticated deductions. Instead, this proportion results from the practitioners of conservation should address actual problems with interplay of a minimum size limit, the species’ natural size dis- available tools and technologies in order to be effective. Boycotting tribution, and a pronounced female-biased sexual size dimor- current conservation strategies in favor of ideological utopias is phism (Micucci and Waller 2007). If the minimum size were both ineffective and discouraging. If I suffer from a smoking- reduced in an effort to reduce the proportion of females versus related illness, even though I believe it would be laudable for my males taken (presumably because more males would be hunted), physician to support anti-tobacco movements, I still need his the actual result would be an increase in the absolute numbers of medical expertise right now in order to preserve my life. In con- females harvested, since allowing smaller animals to be taken clusion, we emphasize that “care must be taken to assure that sub- would inevitably entail the sacrifice of young and small adults of jective criteria about what the natural world should look like are not both sexes that currently are protected by the program. confused with objective management goals” (Sinclair 1997). Ultimately, what matters is the actual proportion of females taken from the population, which we estimate to be less than References 5%. Rivas also erroneously stated that pregnant females are dif- Caughley, G. and A.R.E. Sinclair. 1994. Wildlife Ecology and Management. ferentially affected by the harvest, on the assumption that gravid Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, Massachusetts. females are most visible when basking. However, at our latitude Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. J. the harvest occurs during the cool winter months, exactly when Wiley, London. the species is not reproducing, a fact that he as an anaconda spe- Micucci, P.A. and T. Waller. 2007. The management of Yellow Anacondas (Eunectes notaeus) in Argentina: From historical misuse to resource appre- cialist should not ignore. At the end of his article, he affirmed ciation. Iguana 14: 160–171. that local hunters “... anticipated a sharp decline in anacondas...” Micucci, P.A., T. Waller, and E. Alvarenga. 2006. Programa Curiyú. Para la con- This comment, aside from a lack of scientific rigor, is far from servación y aprovechamiento sustentable de la boa curiyú (Eunectes reality, since, five years after his visit, the 2007 harvest season notaeus) en la Argentina. Etapa experimental piloto 2002–2004, Formosa, pp. 77–92. In: M.L. Bolkovic and D. Ramadori (eds.), Manejo generated record results — without significant changes in skin de Fauna Silvestre en la Argentina. Programas de Uso Sustentable. Dirección size or sex structure of the population. de Fauna Silvestre, Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, We consider that Rivas’ article was fostered by an exagger- Buenos Aires. ated concern for anacondas. According to CITES statistics, cur- Rivas, J.A. 2007. Conservation of Green Anacondas: How Tylenol conserva- tion and macroeconomics threaten the survival of the world’s largest rent volume in trade is null or negligible compared to historical snake. Iguana 14: 74–85. records and aquatic habitat destruction has been slight on a Sinclair, A.R.E. 1997. Carrying capacity and the overabundance of deer, pp. global scale, especially when compared to the fate of terrestrial 380–394. In: W.J. McShea, H.B. Underwood, and J.H. Rappole (eds.), ecosystems. Consequently, we believe that Rivas exploited these The Science of Overabundance — Deer Ecology and Population Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. “TV-fashionable” animals in order to express his personal views Wallerstein, I. 1999. The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the on the world economy and his prejudices against wildlife-utiliza- Twenty-first Century. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. tion policies that he rejects for subjective reasons. For example, Webb G. 2002. Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife: An evolving con- his statements that management under sustained yield models cept. Pacific Conservation and Biology 8: 12–26.