As a result of the authorization by the Directorate of Natural Resources and Inspection of Entre Ríos to enable small sport hunting of native species, a controversy was generated between conservation associations and adventure tourism workers and tour operators.
The 2024 small game hunting season was enabled by the Government of Entre Ríos between May 10 and August 23 through Resolution No. 997 of the Directorate of Natural Resources and Inspection. This rule prohibits doing so in Ramsar sites under provincial jurisdiction as well as in protected natural areas, the Salto Grande Reserve and natural monuments.
Enables hunting of piebald duck (Netta peposaca) 5; Barcino duck (Anas flavirostris) 3; Sirirí pampa duck (Dendrocygna viduata) 2; Sirirí bicolor duck (Dendrocygna bicolor) 2; Cutirí duck (Amazonetta brasiliensis) two 2; corn duck (Anas georgica) 2; Collared duck (Callonetta leucophrys) 2; Capuchin duck (Spatula versicolor) 2; little partridge (Nothura maculosa) 8 and hare (Lepus europaeus) 4.
After the publication of the Resolution, the Center for the Study and Defense of Wild Birds (Ceydas) issued a statement in which they described what was resolved by the Government of Entre Ríos as “outrageous.” “Despite the judicial record of unconstitutionality and the overwhelming social rejection of hunting, the government of Rogelio Frigerio decided to allow the killing of nine species of native birds,” they denounced.
Regarding the species and quantities authorized in Resolution No. 997 for hunting in the Departments of La Paz, Gualeguaychú, Diamante and part of Gualeguay, Victoria, Nogoyá and Villaguay, they indicate that “it is considerably higher compared to previous years, as well as the surface where you can practice hunting, clearly favoring the business of hunting reserves.”
Adventure tourism workers expressed their opinion
Meanwhile, from the Civil Association for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Entre Ríos Ecosystem (Acetra), made up of adventure tourism and hunting tourism workers, they raised before diary One their position regarding the 2024 small game season.
Acetra indicated that the resolution is based on “serious and accredited scientific information” generated by renowned biologists from national universities UNL, UBA, UNLP and UNC who carried out a population survey of ducks and partridges in three provinces. They mention that these studies were carried out under an agreement, dated 2023, between the University of La Pampa, professionals from INTA, Directorate of Natural Resources and Supervision of the Province of Entre Ríos. “From this work, in which many Departments of Entre Ríos were included, it was possible to estimate the abundance of each species, its distribution, and the evolution and behavior of these could be evaluated thanks to the sequence obtained with the studies carried out. in the years 2019 and 2022,” they noted.
“Unfortunately, just as public order advances based on science, in the face of this measure, animal attacks with misinformation and outright lies intensify, which forces us to make some clarifications. On the one hand, the resolution of the Directorate of Natural Resources and Supervision is not unconstitutional, and this has been determined by the Justice (Exp. 2,843,815/23 Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos). These lies are based on a ruling that was not reviewed by the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos,” they indicated in a statement.
And they add: “Likewise, we want to highlight that the resolution is not tailored to hunting reserves, but is based on an exhaustive technical analysis, using various scientific research studies for this purpose. It enables, for this season, a minimum extraction rate, adds the prohibition of the use of lead in ducks and it is duly noted that the 2024 inspection will be exhaustive, thus guaranteeing important regulation of the impact of the activity.”
The workers and tour operators in defense of their sector also highlighted that “the resolution is not rejected or criticized by society, but by a small group of people who call themselves environmentalists or animalists who, in the absence of arguments, resort to lies to misinform and support their story.”
Finally, they point out that in this effort “they leave aside the important economic spillover that this adventure tourism activity has on the rural economy, in which there are hundreds of workers who generate their livelihood directly, as well as merchants and services from all over the region.” community”.
