Striving to Manage Patagonia Guanacos for Sustained Use in the Grazing Agroecosystems of Southern Chile
Author(s): William L. Franklin, Bas M. Fernando, Cristian F. Bonacic, Cunazza P. Claudio, Soto V. Nicolas
Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 1, International Issues and Perspectives in Wildlife Management (Spring, 1997), pp. 65-73
Published by: Allen Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783283 .
Accessed: 23/02/2011 18:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acg. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Photo by W. L. Franklin
Striving
to
manage
Patagonia
guanacos
for
sustained
use
in
the
grazing
agroecosystems
of
southern
Chile
William L. Franklin, Fernando Bas M., Cristian F. Bonacic,
Claudio Cunazza P., and Nicolas Soto V.
South America is markedly lacking in large herbi- vores. On the entire continent there are only about 19 species of native, wild ungulates compared with 93 in Africa (Keast 1972, Franklin 1982). On the ex- pansive pampa grasslands, the altiplano paramo-puna grasslands, and the arid Patagonian steppe, where we would expect to find high densities and diversity of large herbivores, there are only 4 wild ungulates: 2 cervids and 2 camelids. Foremost in distribution, numbers, size, and commercial and cultural impact are the camelids: the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) and the vicufia (Vicugna vicugna; Franklin 1982).
The guanaco is the widest ranging ungulate in South America, distributed from 8" to 55? south latitude. It
inhabits a diverse range of arid and semi-arid habitats from sea level to 4,500 m on the Andes' west slope from northern Peru to central Chile and on the dry, east-facing slopes of the southern Andes, across the Patagonia and to the islands of Tierra del Fuego and Navarino (Fig. 1; Franklin 1982, Marchetti et al. 1992, Wheeler 1995). On the Patagonia steppe the guanaco was historically the most common large mammalian herbivore. Ecologically, the guanaco was to South America what the bison (Bison bison), pronghorn an-
telope (Antilocapra americana), elk (Cervus
canadensis), desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus crooki) and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) were to North America (Franklin 1982).
Address for William L. Franklin: Department of Animal Ecology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA; and Patagonia Wildlife Research Station, Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. Address for Fernando Bas M.: Departamento de Zootecnia, Pontificia Univer- sidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Address for Cristian F. Bonacic: Departamento de Ingenieria Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Address for Claudio Cunazza P. and Nicolas Soto V.: Region de Magallanes y Antartica Chilena, Corporaci6n Nacional Forestal, Punta Arenas, Chile.
Key words: camelid, Chile, grazing agroecosystem, guanaco, Lama guanicoe, meat production, Patagonia, scientific harvest, South America, sustained yield, ungulate, wool production
66 Wildlife Society Bulletin 1997, 25(1):65-73
Fig. 1. Current and former distribution of guanacos in South America and Chile (adapted from Frankin 1982, Marchetti et al. 1992).
Based upon current livestock stocking rates, Raedeke (1979) estimated the aboriginal guanaco population to have been 30-50 million when Euro- peans first arrived in southern South America in the late 1500s. Overhunting, human encroachment, fences, and competition with domestic livestock have caused serious declines in guanaco popula- tions over the intervening years (Franklin 1982, Tor- res 1992). By the mid-1900s guanacos essentially had been eliminated from the Patagonia pampas (Howard 1970). Today, only about 575,000 guana-
cos remain in South America; the majority (95%) are
found in Argentina (see Franklin 1982, Torres 1992, Marchetti et al. 1992). The historical distribution
has been reduced by 75% in Chile and Peru and by
60% in Argentina. Most populations are confined to fragile ecosystems of low productivity (Bas et al. 1995). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) classified the guanaco in Appendix II, which means it can be managed for limited use (Barozzi and Bonacic 1993).
Interest in the preservation and conservation of the guanaco has increased recently in the host countries of
Argentina (Puig 1992), Bolivia (Velasco et al. 1992), Chile (Cunazza 1992a), Ecuador (Paucar 1992), Paraguay (Rios 1992), and Peru (Hoces 1992). Na- tional and international strategies are evolving to con- serve and restore populations, and in some cases there are plans to use the guanaco for meat and wool prod- ucts (see Marchetti et al. 1992, Bas and Bonacic 1993). Chile has been an active leader in guanaco conser- vation programs. In this paper we assess recent progress and remaining challenges to sustained-yield management of guanacos in Chile. Specific objectives are to: (1) assess the guanaco's potential uses as an economic resource, (2) summarize implications of cur- rent research on the population and behavioral ecol- ogy of guanacos as applied to their potential, and (3) evaluate the primary restrictions for sustainable use.
Guanaco population status in
Chile
Historically, guanacos were most abundant in south- ern Chile where the landscape was dominated by clas-
Guanacos on Tierra del Fuego, Chile O o 0 z (0 0 .0 E Z Year
Fig. 2. Numbers of guanacos on the Island of Tierra del Fuego, Chile, 1977-1993 (no date for 1986; adapted from Soto 1994).
sical Patagonia steppe, both on the continental main- land and the island of Tierra del Fuego. Because of se- verely declining populations in Chile, the guanaco be- came a protected species in 1929 (Miller et al. 1973) and is still a vulnerable species today (Cunazza 1992a). In the early 1970s the Chilean National Forest and Park Service (Corporaci6n Nacional Forestal; CONAF) es- tablished the Guanaco Conservation And Management Project in the austral or southern region of the country (Magallanes: Region XlI). The program was regionally centered in Tierra del Fuego, with the largest remain- ing populations of guanacos only about 4,500 animals in an area of 2,000 km2. The project supported a series of field studies on the population biology, distribution, and size of guanacos (Raedeke 1978 and 1979) and es- tablished a Faunal Protection Corps of game guards for patrolling against illegal hunting. In 1980 CONAF cre- ated a national guanaco management and conservation program to protect and monitor key guanaco popula- tions throughout the country.
As a result of the programs in Tierra del Fuego, populations of guanacos dramactically rebounded at an average annual increase of 12% over the next 20 years, reaching a high of nearly 21,000 animals in 1992 (Soto 1993; Fig. 2). Density increased from 2.7 to 8.2 guanacos/km2. In the same area, there were
99,846 sheep and 6,073 cattle with guanacos repre- senting 20-25% of the total Animal Units (AUs; Soto 1994). One guanaco is considered to be equivalent to 2.5-3.0 sheep (Raedeke 1979). In 1994 the stock- ing rate of grazing animals (sheep, cattle, guanacos) in this intensive agroecosystem was 150 AUs com- pared to land carrying-capacity of 125 AUs (Soto
1994). The grazing system was overloaded.
Today there are 40,000-50,000 guanacos in Chile, 85% of which are concentrated in the Magallanes Re- gion (Cunazza 1992a,b; Soto 1993, 1994). Guanacos have been declassified in this region and are no longer considered vulnerable or endangered. The conservation program has been so successful in fact, that guanacos in Tierra del Fuego are considered a nuisance wildlife species by sheep ranchers.
Because sheep ranching is the dominant land use and a major economic concern in this region, the conflict between sheep and guanacos poses a serious threat to the guanaco's future. Ranchers were reluc- tantly tolerant of the increasing numbers of guana- cos. Now, more and more land owners are becoming disenchanted with guanacos because of grazing com- petition and the lack of concrete economic benefits after >20 years of protection and studies (Cunazza 1992a). The long-time suspicion by ranchers that guanacos compete with livestock for resources was recently confirmed by year-round studies that showed a 66% overlap in the diets of guanacos, sheep, and cattle (Bonino and Sbriller 1991).
Why should private land owners value and help to conserve a large, wild herbivore that is competing with their livestock for forage? As the stewards of this arid landscape, where making a living is difficult, how are they benefiting? If guanacos provided some economic return, however, ranchers would be more interested. Unless a proactive management ap- proach is taken, increased illegal hunting pressure and a decrease in cooperation with game guards can be expected (Cunazza 1992b).
Thus, the justification and rationale for the current direction and emphasis (Iriarte 1993) of the Chilean guanaco conservation programs is to demonstrate that guanacos can be an important economic re- source for land owners and local communities (Cu- nazza 1992a).
Guanaco economic
values
and uses
Historical use
For centuries young guanacos (chulengos) were tamed by native Indians as pets and food (Gilmore
68 Wildlife Society Bulletin 1997, 25(1):65-73
1950). Newborn chulengos are easily captured (Franklin and Johnson 1994) and tamed; in fact, they readily become imprinted on people and follow them around (Franklin 1981).
While the guanaco was used as a resource through- out its pristine range, on the Patagonia it played a vital role in the culture as well as the economies of primi- tive peoples (Gilmore 1950). Because of their high abundance, guanacos were readily available to the In- dians of the Patagonia plains. For the Tecuelches, Puelcbes, Huarpes, Onas, and northeastern Arauca- nians, guanacos provided meat for food, wool and hides for clothing and shelter, bones for tools, internal organs, bezoar stones and glands for medicines, and sinews for sewing. Guanacos were pervasive in the myths, religious beliefs, and the stories that indians used to teach their children. Indians hunted guanacos with bow and arrow, spears, bolas, sometimes dogs, and finally with horses, which were introduced by the Spaniards in the sixteenth century. The Onas, the in- land tribe on the island of Tierra del Fuego, were not only a guanaco hunting-society, but they were almost totally dependent on guanacos for their existence in a hostile environment (Bridges 1950). Thus, histori- cally the guanaco was an extremely important cultural and economic resource to a variety of indigenous tribes in southern South America.
Tourism and bunting
Because guanacos are large, attractive animals oc- curring in large social groups, they are popular with tourists visiting national parks and reserves in south- ern Chile. At Torres del Paine National Park in south- ern Chile, the guanaco is one of the most visible wildlife species and is often used in motifs and litera- ture on the park. Since the park's establishment in the mid-1970s, guanacos have not only increased in numbers, but have become so habituated to people that tourists typically observe and photograph guana- cos from distances of 25-100 m without leaving their vehicles. Guanacos in Torres del Paine are probably the most observable and accessible population in South America. Because of such national parks, how- ever, it is unlikely that tourists would pay ranchers to see guanacos on private lands where they tend to be more flighty and less approachable. But in Torres del Paine, guanacos have proved to be a tourist attrac- tion. As a result, local hotels and businesses adjacent to such parks benefit from tourists who have come to see wildlife and, in particular, the guanacos.
Guanacos have little or no trophy value as a big game species. They have no prized horns or antlers of symbolic value as trophies. Hunters are unlikely to pay private land owners to hunt guanacos. Thus,
overall, for hunting and tourism, guanacos hold little to no economic value to private land owners. Meat products
Verscheure (1979) investigated the potential com- mercial use of guanaco meat, wool, and skin prod- ucts, and found meat to have the highest market potential for Chile. Guanaco and beef had similar protein and ash levels, but guanaco had less fat. Taste-tasting found no differences between beef and guanaco in flavor, aroma, or appearance. However, guanaco meat was judged to be less tough than beef, and when superior cuts of both meats were sampled, guanaco was preferred over beef (Verscheure 1979). Dried meat or jerky (charqui) is popular in many ar- eas of South America, especially where meat spoilage is a problem. Dried meat can be stored, is easy to transport, and has higher nutritional value than fresh meat (Soto et al. 1991). Consumers evaluating gua- naco jerky reported no difference in color, aroma, taste, tenderness, or appearance of guanaco when compared to beef and horse jerky (Verscheure 1979). Salted dry jerky was preferred over other methods of preparing guanaco dried meat (Soto et al. 1991).
Live weight of guanacos >2 years old on Tierra del Fuego (Cunazza 1978, Raedeke 1979, Soto et al. 1991, and Bonacic et al. 1994) averaged 117 kg over-
all (119.6 ? 11.5, n = 100; 120.2 ? 12.2, n = 19; 115.8 + 4.9, n = 5?; and 111.9 ? 12.3, n = 11, respectively).
As might be expected for a monomorphic species, there was no difference between the weight of males and females. Mean carcass dressing percentage was 56.4% (55.9 + 5.4, 57.0 ? 5.5, 56.7 + 1.6, and 56.1 +
5.7, respectively), slightly higher than cattle (55%) and sheep (50-55%; Bonacic et al. 1994). Both Cu-
nazza (1978) and Bonacic et al. (1994) suggested that the best age for harvesting animals for meat was 2.5 years old.
Lamb and sheep are the preferred meats in this re- gion. Before a market for guanaco meat could be de- veloped locally, communities and rural residents would have to modify their food habits (Cunazza 1992a). There is an active international market, however, spe- cializing in game meat. Leading exporters of game meat in 1985 were Argentina (11,627 tons), United Kingdom (4,695 tons), New Zealand (1,291 tons), and South Africa (1,033 tons). Chile exported 147 tons the same year. Leading importers of game meat were Ger- many (17,431 tons), France (8,696 tons), Italy (2,900 tons), and Belgium, Switzerland, and Sweden each im- porting between 1,500-2,000 tons (Luxmoore 1989). Although as yet untested and undeveloped, fresh- frozen and dried guanaco meat have strong potential for contributing to this international market.
CONAF experimentally harvested 98 guanacos on Tierra del Fuego in 1980 and 1981 at a total cost of $8,100 (U.S. equivalent at the time) and projected in- come of $9,800 based upon meat ($1.40/kg) and tanned skins ($52/skin). Potential wool sales were not included (Cunazza 1985). The study also revealed that 76% of guanacos harvested exhibited varying de- grees of sarcocystosis, caused by the protozoan Sar- cocystis. Guanacos were apparently an intermediate host for the parasite, for which a carnivore host was undefined. Sarcocystosis produces macroscopic le- sions in the muscle tissue. Although it is not harmful for human consumption, the lesions may be disagree- able to consumers (Cunazza 1985, Franklin and Fritz
1991). The parasite is killed when guanaco meat is frozen at -18 to -24?C, cooked above 60?C (Gorman and Alcaino 1982), or salted and dried under natural conditions (Rubilar and Soto 1988).
Wool and skins
Guanaco wool has long been used by indigenous Indian groups and Patagonia gauchos. Soft and fuzzy chulengo pelts have been especially popular for bed- spreads and covers (Gilmore 1950, Franklin 1981). Traditional uses of guanacos in Chile have been pri- marily as dried meat in central Chile and as chulengo pelts in southern Chile (Cunazza 1992a).
On a larger scale, guanaco wool and pelts have been shown to be economically viable products at the na- tional and international level. In Argentina the legal har- vest of chulengo pelts has been a multimillion dollar in- dustry. From 1972 through 1979,443,655 guanaco pelts were exported from Argentina (Ojeda and Mares 1982), and 40,000 skins in 1992 (Iriarte 1994). From 1976 to 1979, 223,610 chulengo pelts valued at $5.6 million were also exported from Argentina (Mares and Ojeda
1984). Men's full-length coats made in Italy from gua- naco wool cloth have sold for $3,000-5,000 in the United States. A 100-g piece of finished guanaco cloth in Eng- land can cost >$64 (Bas et al. 1995). In the United States, crude guanaco wool is worth $50-75 per pound among handspinners and the wool home-cottage industry.
Guanaco wool is valuable for many reasons. A gua- naco has a cinnamon-brown body color with a gray- black head, white throat, and white countershading. Guanaco body wool is silky soft because of its fine di- ameter (16-18 microns; Franklin 1982). Wool charac- teristics reported for captive guanacos are: fiber diam- eter 16-18.6 microns, fiber length 3.0-3.6 cm, medu- lated fibers 11-28%, guard hairs 3-9%, guard-hair diameter 73-90 microns, guard-hair length 5 cm, fleece weight 400-500 g, grease content 1.4-1.6%, and after- washing yield 88-96% (Verscheure 1979, Bonacic et al. 1994, Sarasqueta 1993). Russell (1990) found that as
Photo by W. L. Franklin
guanaco fleece weight increased, wool quality did not decrease. Of wool shorn from live chulengos, 78% av- eraged 13.6 microns in diameter (Bas et al. 1995).
Thus guanaco wool is highly attractive because of its color, softness, warmth, and uniqueness. With technology, it is possible to produce elegant prod- ucts. The economic value of guanaco wool has been clearly demonstrated; it holds the potential to be one of the finest wool products on the world market (Bas 1993). At this stage, however, there is neither suffi- cient nor regular enough production of guanaco wool to maintain a commercial market.
Alternative management
approaches
Failing to take a proactive approach at this junction in guanaco conservation would be a step backward. Latin American wildlife conservation has entered an era that includes scientifically managed use. Robinson and Redford (1991:3) argued that "people must use and therefore value wildlife, otherwise wildlife will be lost." The "use it or lose it" philosophy (Franklin and Fritz 1991) certainly applies to the guanaco.
As a species under the CITES Appendix II, guana- cos can be sold internationally with proper host- country permits verifying that exportation does not jeopardize the survival of the species and that ani- mals are obtained legally. With proper permits,
70 Wildlife Society Bulletin 1997, 25(1):65-73 Chilean law allows capture of wild guanacos to be raised in captivity for commercial purposes within and outside the country (Barozzi and Bonacic 1993). Although guanacos are now studied and managed pri- marily as wild populations, captive programs are be- ginning to play a more important role. Each ap- proach offers different advantages.
Captive populations
Guanacos can be raised in captivity. Semi-captive herds use large fenced-in areas, while animals are al- lowed to live naturally with minimal supplemental feeding. Fully captive herds use smaller fenced areas, where sex and age composition of groups is con- trolled and supplemental feeding is important. Ani- mals in fully captive herds are usually tamer and eas- ier to work with. Raising guanacos in captivity (gua- naco farming) would add to the diversification of the Patagonia agroecosystem.
Captive herds can provide basic biological infor- mation of economic interest, i.e., wool characteris- tics, shearing and fleece use, growth patterns, food habits and nutrition, disease, and reproductive pa- rameters (Cunazza 1992a, Bas et al. 1995). Captive herds can also provide for controlled production of wool, meat, and hides within the species' original range (Marchetti et al. 1992).
Argentina has been the leader in raising guanacos in captivity since 1979 (Sarasqueta 1985, 1993). Since 1987 there have been several successful ventures with captive herds of guanacos in southern Chile. Results have been variable with mortality as high as 85% of the original chulengos captured. Lack of passive immu- nity, digestive and respiratory infections, and parasites were the primary causes of death. Other problems en- countered were: the capture of wild chulengos for es- tablishing and renewing captive herds, hand feeding of chulengos, first-year mortality, and design of corrals that would habituate guanacos to people (Bonacic
1993). Nevertheless, these initial experiments were valuable learning experiences providing information on basic management and husbandry procedures for raising captive guanacos on a larger scale in the future (Bas et al. 1995, Bonacic et al. 1994).
Wild populations
The standard approach to guanaco conservation and management in southern Chile has been protec- tion and census of wild populations. The guanaco population in Torres del Paine National Park is fully protected and not being considered for use as meat and wool. The Tierra del Fuego population, however, is the focus of attempts at potential sustained harvest. Marchetti et al. (1992) suggested that, in management
of wild guanaco populations, the objective should be sustained production that contributes to the socioeco- nomic improvement of rural communities, and that ef- forts should be made to recover guanaco populations where the species has been eliminated or reduced.
Selected sites for management of wild guanaco populations should include characteristic habitat, nat- ural populations (sedentary if possible), avoidance of land-use conflicts, accessibility for patrolling, and suf- ficient planning and funding to effectively protect the animals against illegal hunting (Marchetti et al. 1992). Marchetti et al. (1992) also recommended that sites selected for management of captive and wild popula- tions should be marginal land with low productivity and rigorous climate, taking advantage of the adapt- ability of the species. However, although the guanaco is well known for its adaptability in rigorous, arid land- scapes (Franklin 1982), the inclusion of preferred and favorable habitats is important if recovery to poten- tially harvestable populations is expected.
Chilean law allows for the capture and release of wild guanacos and use of their wool on the island of Tierra del Fuego. Not all ranchers accept this man- agement approach. In fact, guanaco farming would probably be more appealing because it fits with tradi- tional ranching in Patagonia (Cunazza 1992b). If ef- fective and efficient live-capture techniques were available, use of wild guanaco might be attractive also.
Guanaco farming does not imply that captive pop- ulations would replace wild guanaco populations or current domestic animal systems; rather, it would be a supplemental and complementary alternative to tra- ditional livestock production in this grazing agro- ecosystem. Guanaco conservationists and managers should emphasize that guanacos can be used in the wild. If we want to maintain wild guanaco popula- tions for purposes of sustained-yield production, however, then it is up to managers to develop and demonstrate effective capture techniques.
Challenges remain in managing wild guanaco popu- lations for sustained use. Capture of guanacos and use of corrals are in the experimental stage on the island of Tierra del Fuego. Preliminary capture attempts have encountered problems with roundup techniques, size and design of fencing, insufficient animals captured for shearing, and the occasional presence of ectoparasites that could affect wool quality (Bonacic 1993).
Biological basis for use of wild
populations
Miller et al. (1973) correctly warned that the im- plementation of wildlife management for economic
return in Chile requires "substantial augmentation of the biological data bases upon which effective con- servation plans must be based." Various authors (Franklin and Fritz 1991; Cunazza 1992a,b; Marchetti et al. 1992; Bas and Bonacic 1993) emphasized that sustained-use management for the guanaco must be based on sound biological principles and data.
With this challenge in mind, Franklin and Fritz (1991) studied the life history and population data on the free- ranging guanacos at Torres del Paine National Park in the early 1980s. The park offered the advantages of open-terrain landscape and guanacos habituated to the close approach of observers, which allowed for accu- rate counting and classification of animals. Age-specific survival rates (px) werepo = 0.69,p, = 0.83,p2 = 0.95,p3 = 0.86, 4 = 0.87, p5 = 0.85, P6 = 0.88, p7 = 0.71, P = 0.55, and >p9 = 0.00. The mean natality of females >3 years old was 0.74, and the mean exponential popula- tion-growth rate from population censuses was r = 0.12. These data were used in a modified Leslie-matrix simu- lation model to explore the harvestability of guanaco male groups. The simulation model, however, did not yield a similar r value and the model was not validated.
The potential sustained-yield harvest rate of guana- cos depends strongly on the degree of polygyny achievable by males in a given population (Franklin and Fritz 1991). The harvesting of chulengos was dis- couraged because of potentially strong social objec- tions. Random removable of animals was also not recommended because of the likely disruptions of family groups, which are the reproductive units of guanaco social organization (Franklin 1983, Ortega and Franklin 1995). Male groups composed of non- breeding immature and mature males were the rec- ommended social group for harvesting for meat and wool. These authors also estimated preliminarily that 30% of the males in guanaco male groups could be harvested annually without reducing population size. They cautioned, however, that additional informa- tion was needed on adult female natality and juvenile mortality rates to improve the accuracy of their model and estimates of guanaco male group har- vestability. To meet this need, long-term research with the same population, using marked juveniles (Franklin and Johnson 1994), has been in progress for the past decade. In addition, other research is on- going on Tierra del Fuego to update original studies conducted by Raedeke (1979) in the early 1970s.
Understanding the annual cycle of social organiza- tion and movements is vital to management of guanaco populations (Franklin 1982, Ortega and Franklin 1995). If male groups are to be used for sustainable use as pro- posed by Franklin and Fritz (1991), then it must be rec- ognized that such groups are not just a potential bio-
I
Fig. 3. Flow chart of attributes and obstacles to sustainable harvest of guanacos on the Island of Tierra del Fuego, Chile (modified from Bonacic and Bas 1993, Bonacic 1993).
logical surplus, but also the backbone of guanaco pop- ulations because of their role in providing fit breeding males for the population (Ortega and Franklin 1995).
Where to go from here?
The guanaco is a renewable wildlife resource that has significant potential value to regional economies (Franklin and Fritz 1991). Its value as a resource for wool and meat products and as a tourist attraction at national parks has been established. Yet several problems, although solvable and surmountable, re- main in the way as Chilean conservationists and sci- entists attempt to manage guanacos for sustained use. Bonacic and Bas (1993) summarized the general situ- ation for future guanaco management and potential use in southern Chile (Fig. 3). Major challenges in- clude: (1) improvement of capture and shearing tech- niques, (2) improvement of population data and in- teractive models for estimating harvest rates, (3) re- search and development of markets for wool and meat products, (4) improved enforcement of existing laws to minimize illegal hunting, and (5) procure- ment of national and international funding to achieve these goals.
72
Wildlife
Society Bulletin
1997, 25(1):65-73
Conclusions
Guanacos in southern Chile have rebounded and are doing exceptionally well in protected areas rep- resenting only a micropercentage of their original range in this region, now dominated by grazing agroecosytems. The primary problem is the future of guanacos on private lands where high densities cause increased competition with sheep and dissatisfaction from land owners. Chilean conservationists and sci- entists are striving to manage wild guanacos for sus- tained-yield production of meat and wool products that would be of economic benefit to ranchers. Re- search on meat and wool, preliminary experiences with captive guanacos, long-term ecological studies, and capture and shearing experiments are encourag- ing. Problems and obstacles remain. Strong momen- tum, however, has been established towards achiev- ing the goal of sustained-yield management for mar- ketable products. Much remains to be accomplished, but the benefits of sustained-yield management of guanacos are numerous (Bas 1993, Bas et al. 1995) in- cluding: (1) survival of the guanaco; (2) an alternative and complementary source of income; (3) land- owner stewardship, involvement, and cooperation in guanaco conservation and use; and (4) the guanaco would become a pioneering model of sustained use for other wildlife species in Chile.
Literature cited
BAROZZI G., A., AND C. BONACIC S. 1993. Bases legales para el
manejo y uso sustentable del guanaco en Chile. Pages 26-30 in Actas I Taller Binacional de Manejo Sustentable del Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en la Patagonia Chileno-Argentina. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Chile, Santiago. 70pp.
BAS, F. 1993. Potencial productivo del guanaco. Pages 54-59 in
Actas I Taller Binacional de Manejo Sustentable del Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en la Patagonia Chileno-Argentina. Pontifi- cia Universidad Catolica del Chile, Santiago. 70pp.
BAS, F., AND C. BONACIC. 1993. Actas I Taller Binacional de Manejo
Sustentable del Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en la Patagonia Chileno-Argentina. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Chile, Santiago. 70pp.
BAS M., F., J. FERNANDEZ D., C. BONACIC S., N. SOTO V., J. GIMPEL R.,
AND A. CONCHA S. 1995. Crianza y aprovechamiento comercial
del guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en condiciones de cautiverio de la Region XII Region-Chile. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 86pp.
BONACIC, C. 1993. Un modelo para el manejo sustentable del guanaco.
Pages 45-53 in Actas I Taller Binacional de Manejo Sustentable del- Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en la Patagonia Chileno-Argentina. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Chile, Santiago. 70pp.
BONACIC, C., AND F. BAS. 1993. A diagnostic model of the guanaco
situation in the Chilean southern Patagonia: research needs for a sustainable use. Proceedings I Int. Wildl. Manage. Congr., San Jose, Costa Rica.
BONACIC, C., F. BAS, AND J. GIMPEL. 1994. Extraccion experimental
de guanacos en Tierra del Fuego: Estudio preliminar del poten- cial productivo del guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Informe Tec- nico, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Chile, Santiago. BONINO, N., AND A. PELLIZA SBRILLER. 1991. Comparacion de las di-
etas del guanaco, ovino y bovino en Tierra del Fuego, Ar- gentina. Turrialba 41(4):452-457.
BRIDGES, E. L. 1950. Uttermost part of the earth. E. P. Dutton and Co., New York, N.Y.
CUNAZZA P., C. 1978. Rendimiento de carne en el guanaco (Apendice 2). In K. J. Raedeke, ed. El guanaco de Magallanes, Chile. Su distribucion y biologia. Corporacion Nacional Fore- stal, Departamento de Conservacion del Medio Ambiente, Pub- licacion Tecnica No. 4, Santiago, Chile. 182pp.
CUNAZZA P., C. 1985. Extraccion experimental de 100 guanacos en el sector Cameron, Tierra del Fuego. Pages 100-115 in Actas de la IV Convencion Internacional Sobre Camelidos Sudameri- canos. C. C. Venegas and C. Cunazza P., eds. Universidad de Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Chile.
CUNAZZA P., C. 1992a. Situacion del guanaco en Chile: Situacion actual y perspectivas futuras de manejo. Page 133 (Anexo No. 11) in B. Marchetti, J. Oltremari Arregui, and H. Peters, eds. Es- trategias para el manejo y aprovechamiento racional del gua- naco (Lama guanicoe). Oficina Regional de la FAO para Amer- ica Latina y el Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 162pp.
CUNAZZA P., C. 1992b. The guanaco. Pages 16-18 in H. Torres, ed.
South American camelids: an action plan for their conserva- tion. IUCN (Int. Union for Conserv. Nat. and Nat. Resour.) South Am. Camelid Spec. Group, Gland, Switzerland. 58pp. FRANKLIN, W. L. 1981. Living with guanacos: wild camels of South
America. Natl. Geogr. 160(1):62-75.
FRANKLIN, W. L. 1982. Biology, ecology, and relationship to man of the South American camelids. Pages 457-489 in M. A. Mares and H. H. Genoways, eds. Mammalian biology in South Amer- ica. Pymatuning Symp. Ecol. Spec. Publ. Ser. Vol. 6. Univ. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
FRANKLIN, W. L. 1983. Contrasting socioecologies of South Amer-
ica's wild camelids: the vicuna and guanaco. Pages 573-629 in J. F. Eisenberg and D. Kleiman, eds. Advances in the study of mammalian behavior. Spec. Publ. No. 7, Am. Soc. Mammal., Shippensburg, Pa.
FRANKLIN, W. L., AND M. A. FRITZ. 1991. Sustained harvesting of the
Patagonia guanaco: Is it possible or too late? Pages 317-336 in K. Redford and J. Robinson, eds. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.
FRANKLIN, W. L., AND W. E. JOHNSON. 1994. Hand capture of new-
born open-habitat ungulates: the South American guanaco. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:253-259.
GILMORE, R. M. 1950. Fauna and ethnozoology of South America. Pages 345-464 in J. Steward, ed. Handbook of South American Indians. Bul. 143, Vol. 6. Bur. Am. Ethnol., Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C. 715pp.
GORMAN, T., AND H. ALCAINO. 1982. Estudio sobre el efecto de la tem- perature sobre la viabilidad de Sarcocystis en came de guanaco. Report to CONAF from the Universidad de Chile, Santiago. 41pp. HOCEs R., D. 1992. Situacion del guanaco en Peru. Pages 139-148
in B. Marchetti, J. Oltremari Arregui, and H. Peters, eds. Es- trategias para el manejo y aprovechamiento racional del gua- naco (Lama guanicoe). Oficina Regional de la FAO para Amer- ica Latina y el Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 162pp.
HOWARD, W. E. 1970. Relationship of wildlife to sheep husbandry in Patagonia, Argentina. FAO Rep. 14:1-31.
IRIARTE W., A. 1993. Subred de fauna silvestre del cono sur. Flora, fuana y areas silvestres (Chile) 7(18):20-24.
del conosur sudamericano. Organizacion de las Naciones Unidas, Oficina Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el Caribe Documento Tecnico No. 13. Santiago, Chile. 120pp. KEAST, A. 1972. Comparison of contemporary mammal faunas of
southern continents. Pages 433-501 in A. Keast, F. C. Erk, and B. Glass, eds. Evolution, mammas, and southern continents. State Univ. New York Press, Albany. 543pp.
LUXMOORE, R. A. 1989. Wildlife production systems. In R. J. Hud- son, K. R. Drew, and L. M. Baskin, eds. International trade. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
MARCHETTI, J. OLTREMARI ARREGUI, AND H. PETERS. 1992. Estrategias
para el manejo y aprovechamiento racional del guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Oficina Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el
Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 162pp.
MARES, M. A., AND R. A. OJEDA. 1984. Faunal commercialization and
conservation in South America. BioScience 34:580-584.
MILLER, S. D., J. ROTTMAN, AND R. D. TABER. 1973. Dwidling and en-
dangered ungulates of Chile: vicuna, llama, hippocamelus, and pudu. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf, 38:55-68.
OJEDA, R. A., AND M. A. MARES. 1982. Conservation of South American mammals: Argentina as a paradigm. Pages 505-521 in M. A. Mares and H. H. Genoways, eds. Mammalian biology in South America. Pymatuning Symp. Ecol. Vol. 6. Univ. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa
ORTEGA, I. M., AND W. L. FRANKLIN. 1995. Social organization, dis-
tribution, and movements of a migratory guanaco population in the Chilean Patagonia. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 68:489-500.
PAUCAR M., A. 1992. Situacion del guanaco en Ecuador. Pages
131-135 (Anexo No. 13) in B. Marchetti, J. Oltremari Arregui, and H. Peters, eds. Estrategias para el manejo y aprovechamiento racional del guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Oficina Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 162pp. PUIG, S. 1992. Situacion del guanaco en Argentina: Estado del
conocimiento y perspectivas de manejo. Pages 79-95 (Anexo No. 8) in B. Marchetti, J. Oltremari Arregui, and H. Peters, eds. Estrategias para el manejo y aprovechamiento racional del gua- naco (Lama guanicoe). Oficina Regional de la FAO para Amer- ica Latina y el Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 162pp.
RAEDEKE, K. J. 1978. El guanaco de Magallanes, Chile: su distribu-
cion y biologia. Corporacion Nacional Forestal Publ. Tecnica No. 4. 182pp.
RAEDEKE, K. J. 1979. Population dynamics and socioecology of the
guanaco (Lama guanicoe) of Magallanes, Chile. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Washington, Seattle. 404pp.
ROBINSON, J. G., AND K. H. REDFORD. 1991. The use and conserva- tion of wildlife. Pages 3-5 in K. Redford and J. Robinson, eds. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.
RIos A., E. 1992. Situacion del guanaco en Paraguay. Pages 137-138 in B. Marchetti, J. Oltremari Arregui, and H. Peters, eds. Estrategias para el manejo y aprovechamiento racional del guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Oficina Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 162pp.
RUBILAR, L., AND N. SOTO. 1988. Estudio preliminar sobre la viabili-
dad del Sarcocystis del guanaco en charqui. Universidad de Concepion, Chillan. 19pp.
RUSSEL, A. 1990. Camelid fibre production. Pages 38-42 in Proc.
First Conference of the British Camelid Owners and Breeders Assoc., Aberdeen, Scotland.
SARASQUETA, D. 1985. Cria de guanacos en semicautividad. In J.
Cajal andJ. Amaya, eds. Estado actual de investigaciones sobre camelidos en la Republica Argentina. SECYT.
SARASQUETA, D. 1993. Cria de guanacos en semicautiverio. Pages
35-44 in F. Bas and C. Bonacic, eds. Actas I Taller Binacional
de Manejo Sustentable del Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en la Patagonia Chileno-Argentina. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Chile, Santiago. 70pp.
SOTO V., N. 1993. Situacion del guanaco en la XII region de Chile y rol de CONAF en la conservacion del recurso. Pages 9-17 in F. Bas and C. Bonacic, eds. Actas I Taller Binacional de Manejo Sustentable del Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) en la Patagonia Chileno-Argentina. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Chile, Santiago. 70pp. SOTO V., N. 1994. Proyecto conservacion y manejo del guanaco
Lama guanicoe en Isla Tierra del Fuego: estimacion poblacional- 1993. Corporacion Nacional Forestal, Punta Arenas, Chile. 38pp. SOTO V., J. N., F. GONZALEZ S., AND R. SILVA S. 1991. Altemativas de elab-
oracion de charqui de guanaco. Pages 376-405 inJ. 0. Arregui, ed. Gestion en recursos naturales: un unfoque integrado para el desar- rollo. Actas del n Congreso Intemacional, Tomo II, Valdivia, Chile. TORRES, H. 1992. South American Camelids: an action plan for their conservation. IUCN (Int. Union for Conserv. Nat. and Nat. Re- sour.) South Am. Camelid Spec. Group, Gland, Switzerland. 58pp. VELASCO, A., A. CARDOZO, AND H. ALZERRECA. 1992. Situacion del guanaco en Bolivia. Pages 105-111 (Aneno No. 10) in B. Mar- chetti, J. Oltremari Arregui, and H. Peters, eds. Estrategias para el manejo y aprovechamiento racional del guanaco (Lama guanicoe). Oficina Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el Caribe, Santiago, Chile. 162pp.
VERSCHEURE S., H. E. 1979. Estudio preliminar de la utilizacion del gua-
naco de Magallanes (Lama guanicoe Muller) como recurso nat- ural renovable. Thesis, Universidad de Chile, Santiago. 143pp.
WHEELER, J. 1995. Evolution and present situation of the South
American Camelidae. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 54:271-295.
William L. (Bill) Franklin (photo) received his M.S. in Game Man- agement from Humboldt State University and his Ph.D. in Wildlife Biology from Utah State University. Bill is a Professor of Animal Ecology at Iowa State University. He and his students have been conducting field studies on the South American camelids in Peru and Chile for the past 3 decades. His research on guanacos in the southern Patagonia has emphasized behavioral and population ecology as it applies to the management of this keystone species.
