Sociocultural Importance of Dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris ) in Maya Subsistence Hunting: Revelations From Their Participation in the Traditional Group Hunting ( Batida ) in Yucatan

Abstract

Historically, dogs have played a prominent role in subsistence hunting. In the contemporary Mayab, the group hunting or batidaprovides multiple sociocultural benefits for those who practice it, in addition to wild meat. Here, we analyze the social perception of dogs used in batidaas part of the cosmovision of Maya peasant-hunters in a rural community of Campeche, Mexico. We conducted semistructured interviews with 36 local batidahunters who owned a total of 51 dogs. Batidadogs provide different benefits (meat and social prestige for Maya peasant-hunters) depending on their roles as maestros(leader dogs) or secretarios(support dogs) and the type of prey captured. Hunting dogs go beyond their utilitarian value as a hunting technology and play an important role in the sociocultural dynamic of the batida, one of the main wildlife practices mediating the relationships between peasant communities and their natural surroundings in the Yucatan Peninsula.

Keywords

Maya peasant-hunter wildlife use wild meat hunting dogs Los Petenes Biosphere Reserve Mexico

Introduction

For almost 30,000 years, human beings have used dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in hunting activities (Bleed, 2006; Treves & Bonacic, 2016), taking advantage of their abilities to follow orders and participate efficiently in coordinated activities, thereby making it easier to catch game (Lupo, 2011; Range & Virányi, 2015). As such, over time the human–dog bond has been strengthened in different sociocultural contexts (Morey, 1994; Treves & Bonacic, 2016). In addition to their utilitarian value, dogs have become symbolic actors in myths and rituals present in ancestral and contemporary societies (Morey, 2006; Schwartz, 1998; Snyder & Moore, 2006).

In contemporary subsistence hunting, dogs support hunters in tracking, pursuing, and catching prey (Koster, 2008a), particularly terrestrial vertebrates whose meat is an important source of animal protein for hunters and their families (see Barrera-Bassols & Toledo, 2005; Koster, 2009). In this type of hunting, the use of dogs together with other hunting technologies, such as rifles (Koster, 2008a), can double the number of wild vertebrates caught, particularly in agroforestry systems (Koster, 2008b). Despite their key role in successful hunts, little is known about the sociocultural benefits of dogs in subsistence hunting (Hughes & Macdonald, 2013; Koster, 2008b; Young, Olson, Reading, Amgalanbaatar, & Berger, 2011), especially in the Yucatan Peninsula and other Mesoamerican rural communities where this hunting practice continues to be used (Oliva & Montiel, 2016; Plata, 2017; Rodríguez, Montiel, Cervera, Castillo, & Naranjo, 2012; Santos-Fita, Naranjo, Estrada, Mariaca, & Bello, 2015).

As part of the multiple-resource-use strategy attributed to the Maya culture (Barrera-Bassols & Toledo, 2005; Toledo, Barrera-Bassols, García-Frapolli, & Alarcón-Chaires, 2008), several hunting methods (performed individually or in a group) continue to be important for obtaining wild animals to feed the rural population (León & Montiel, 2008; Oliva, Montiel, García, & Vidal, 2014; Santos-Fita et al., 2015). In the Yucatan Peninsula, group or batidahunting is a collective method that permits Maya peasant-hunters (a) to obtain a portion of wild meat (ca. 2 kg per capita) per trip; (b) to establish space for recreation and coexistence; and (c) to increase status and prestige within the hunting group, which traditionally contributes to reaffirming the indigenous identity of the hunter (Rodríguez et al., 2012).

The batidaconsists of ambushing terrestrial animals, mainly white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu). A group of pujerosor beaters together with their accompanying dogs moves toward the interior of the hunting area (from one edge). If they locate an animal, the pujerosattempt to drive the potential prey toward the opposite edge of the hunting area, where the group of tiradoresor shooters uses rifles to try to kill it (Montiel & Arias, 2008; Montiel, Arias, & Dickinson, 1999). The prey meat is shared among the hunting group participants, including the accompanying dogs (for a detailed description of batida, see Rodríguez et al., 2012).

In the context of batida, awarding prey meat to the accompanying dogs by their participation in this group hunting (León & Montiel, 2008; Rodríguez et al., 2012) offers a view of the sociocultural scope of dogs beyond their utilitarian value as “hunting technology” (sensuKoster, 2008a). The aforementioned is notable when considering that in Maya subsistence hunting the dogs increase the chances of obtaining socially valuable prey such as white-tailed deer, whose meat is preferentially consumed by Maya peasant-hunters and their families (Naranjo-Piñera, Tejeda, & Santos-Fita, 2012; Rodríguez et al., 2012).

This study provides ethnographic information showing the sociocultural role of dogs in Maya subsistence hunting. We document for the first time the versatile involvement of dogs in the dynamic of batida,emphasizing their value from the perspective of hunter in a rural Maya community of the Yucatan Peninsula.

Methods

Area and Study Community

The study was conducted in the Maya community of Los Petenes, one of the 19 rural communities located in the zone of influence of Los Petenes Biosphere Reserve (LPBR; 20°51′-19°49′ N, 90°45′-90°20′W), established in 1999 on the west coast of the Yucatan Peninsula (Figure 1). The regional climate is warm and subhumid, with a mean monthly temperature of 26°C and mean annual precipitation of 819 mm (Yáñez-Arancibia, Twilley, & Lara-Domínguez, 1998). Rains are highly seasonal with a dry season from December–May (mean monthly precipitation = 13.2 mm) and a rainy season from June–November (mean monthly precipitation = 149 mm) (Montiel, Estrada, & León, 2006).

Figure 1.

Peasant-hunters and their companying dogs in surroundings areas of Los Petenes, a Mayan community on the west coast of the Yucatan, Peninsula, Mexico.

The LPBR is a federal reserve (area = 282,858 ha; 36% terrestrial and 64% marine) that covers a coastal wetland of great ecological and social importance in the Maya region of Mesoamerica (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, 2006). The LPBR presents hundreds of forest fragments or petenes(forming conspicuous clusters of forest-mangrove) that have developed naturally on a seasonally flooded matrix dominated by savannah and mangroves (González-Hamud, 2017; Montiel et al., 2006; Munguía-Rosas & Montiel, 2014). Inside and outside the LPBR, it has been documented that the local Maya populations continue to utilize a wide variety of fauna resources (ca. 54 species; Méndez-Cabrera & Montiel, 2007) for subsistence, mainly targeting terrestrial mammals (ca. 9 species; León & Montiel, 2008; Montiel, 2010).

As of the last decade, Los Petenes had a population of 885 inhabitants (467 men and 418 women; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2010), the majority of them bilingual (Maya-Spanish), and 133 dogs (Weber, 2011). The men from the community mainly practice seasonal agriculture (milpa), charcoal production, and subsistence hunting (Oliva et al., 2014; Rodríguez et al., 2012). The latter is mainly performed collectively in batidaby a group of a local hunters identified in previous studies (e.g., León & Montiel, 2008; Oliva et al., 2014; Rodríguez et al., 2012).

Data Collection and Community Work

Based on prospective visits (June–August 2016) to the community and information documented in previous studies on batidaby our research group (León & Montiel, 2008; Oliva et al., 2014; Rodríguez et al., 2012), we designed a semistructured interview (including 72 questions) on three topics: (a) dog characterization, (b) dog–hunter relationship, and (c) interaction of the hunters and their dogs during batida. For a 6-month period (starting in September 2016), semistructured interviews were applied to batidahunters in the community of Los Petenes. In-depth interviews were also applied to local prestige hunters to gain a complementary view of the role of dogs in hunting, underscoring their interaction with hunters, including traditional ceremonies.

To contextualize the relationship between hunters and their dogs during hunts, the first author (E. P.) carried out participant observation in four hunting trips using the batidamethod. The information obtained in the interviews (semistructured and in-depth) was recorded in audio/video format with the prior consent of the interviewees. Finally, to validate and contextualize the ethnographic information obtained during the fieldwork, a community workshop was held in Los Petenes following the form of a focus group (sensuNewing, 2011). Particularly, this approach was important to highlight consensus about symbolic issues related to dog’s participation in the batida.

Data Analysis

To evaluate the hunters’ perceptions of the dogs participating in batida,the response percentages of the interviewees were compared for each of the three topics included in the semistructured interview. The linkage matrix proposed by Oliva and Montiel (2016)was adjusted to identify the sociocultural importance of dogs in subsistence hunting by means of (a) sociocultural dimensions of batidaand (b) local elements associated with the dog–hunter relationship in the context of batida.

For this study, we defined three sociocultural dimensions applied to traditional group hunting based on the ethnographic data previously published (Rodríguez et al., 2012): (a) practical dimensionoriented toward its implementation, emphasizing the execution of the hunting strategy to obtain wild meat; (b) social dimensionthat express the relationships between individuals (humans and canines) that strengthen or weaken the construction of the group; and (c) symbolic dimensionfocused on the traditional beliefs and rituals that form part of a shared system of meaning in the practice of hunting. A set of 32 local elements on dogs’ features was inferred based on the majoritarian responses from semistructured interviews and then complemented with the ethnographic data from participant observation, in-depth interviews, and the focus group.

The sociocultural importance of dogs in subsistence hunting was inferred from the local elements and their correspondence with the three sociocultural dimensions of batidain two potential ways: (a) paired correspondence (one element and one dimension) and (b) multiple correspondence (one element and two or three dimensions).

Results

BatidaHunters

In Los Petenes, a total of 36 men (94% of them heads of households) practice batidain the vicinity of the community. They identified themselves as peasant-hunters and mentioned 33% of them have taken their dogs to the batida. On average, these hunters were aged 48 years (range = 16–81) and had four family dependents (range = 1–9).

The interviewees reported performing traditional group hunting in areas near the community, which were selected under the guidance of local leaders or chingones, who also coordinated the groups of tiradoresand pujeros. In Los Petenes, hunters mentioned to participate mainly as tiradores(81%), recognizing only two chingonesper batidatrip. During the participant observation, we recorded that dogs are guided by pujerosinto the hunting area.

Hunting Dogs in Los Petenes

The 36 batidahunters own 51 dogs. The majority of these dogs were male (57%) with an estimated average age of 3 years (range = 0.5–7 years). At least 50% of the hunters interviewed had acquired their dogs for the purpose of hunting.

Most local hunters (69%) obtained their juveniles dogs (puppies) through gifts from relatives or friends. The interviewees seek to conserve the lineage of a good hunting dog by placing its puppies with relatives and friends, then obtaining puppies in return from subsequent litters.

I gave [puppies] to other partners, so they would raise them too, so they have good dogs, because the day my dog dies, I can get one from there. (Hunter aged 48)

In contrast, the purchase of puppies was a less commonly reported method (14%) for obtaining hunting dogs by peasant-hunters seeking good tracking dogs, which are greatly appreciated for hunting deer. The rest of dogs were stray dogs (11%) lifted from nearby communities or breeded at home (6%).

In Los Petenes, the batidahunters are assisted by at least two dogs per hunting trip. Interviewees hunters recognized two types of hunting dogs: (a) malixdogs or mongrels (n = 44), derived from interbreeding local dogs without a specific or distinguishable breed, and (b) sabuesosor scent hounds (n = 7), identified as dogs specialized in tracking prey, which have been introduced to the community in the last 30 years. The malixtype is a cheap dog obtained as a gift and can be fed with leftover food from the household. In addition to withstanding the rigors of the hunt, malixdogs are appreciated for their versatility in other everyday tasks such as guarding agricultural areas (milpa) and homes. During batida, the hunters preferred malixdogs (a) for pursuing prey due to the speed of this type of dog and (b) to acquire a greater variety of prey, including those that are aggressive and potentially difficult to face (e.g., coatis and collared peccaries).

Meanwhile, sabuesoswere valued for their abilities to track particular prey such as white-tailed deer, an ungulate that is highly appreciated by the Maya families in the region. The hunters stated that these dogs are expensive (ca. 100 US$) and in contrast with malixdogs, required better food (with greater protein content), as well as vitamin supplements acquired by hunters in veterinary clinics, normally in neighboring communities.

Sabuesosare refined; when they don’t give them special food, they don’t do it [the hunting]. (Hunter aged 54)

Dogs in Batida

According to the batidahunters, the dogs can participate from the age of 6 months, 79% of the hunters train the juvenile dogs in the wild so they can be exposed to the scents of prey species. The dogs learn to follow the trail of an animal and are also stimulated by the hunter, exposing them to tracks, excretions, or blood of specific prey. The other 21% of hunters take juvenile dogs on the batidato participate in the tracking and pursuit of prey following more experienced hunting dogs.

During the observed hunt, up to 10 dogs participated in batidatrips, with at least two experienced hunting dogs for each batida.According to the batidahunters, the accompanying dogs can fulfill two roles: (a) leader dogs or maestros,central to the batidahunting strategy, that track and effectively drive the deer toward the group of tiradoresand (b) support and apprentice dogs or secretariosthat are not effective for hunting deer without the guidance of maestrodogs. During batida, we observed a greater number of secretarios(78%) than dogs participating as maestros(22%).

Sometimes they also take the poor ones [secretariodogs], but they don’t know how to track deer. The maestrois the one that will find them. (Hunter aged 48)

As referred by interviewees and confirmed during participant observation, if the maestrodogs are not available or are withdrawn by their owners during the batida, hunters are unwilling to participate and the hunt can even be canceled. Although the secretariosare not expected to play an important role specifically when catching deer, their participation in the batidacan be useful for catching prey such as coatis (Nasua narica), iguanas (Ctenosaura similis), or ocellated turkeys (Meleagris ocellata).

All but one of the hunters acknowledged that their dogs obtained a reward for participating in batida(Figure 2). The reward depended on the merits of the participation of each dog: (a) the maestrodogs obtained a portion of meat equivalent to that received by human hunters in the batida, while (b) the secretariodogs only obtained remains such as blood and entrails due to their limited role in catching prey.

Figure 2.

Distribution of meat at the end of a batida. A group of hunters can be observed (left image) dividing up the portions of meat obtained into equal parts in the colored recipients. Two of these recipients correspond to the dogs that actively took part in the batida. Once the distribution is complete (right image), the dogs look for remains of blood and entrails of the animal that was butchered on a bed of leaves.

Only the maestrodog gets his share [of meat], the others don’t get any, the entrails are shared out among the other dogs. (Hunter aged 48)

Fifty-six percent of hunters stated that a maestrodog can provide social recognition through the respect and admiration of other hunters. Similarly, 51% indicated that owners of this type of dog are habitually invited to take part in batidaor their dogs are requested for rental. A similar portion of meat distributed to each batidaparticipant is given to the owner of a maestrodog, even if that person did not participate in the hunting activity.

If you have a dog that follows deer, they come and ask you for it, even if you don’t go on the batida. If they shoot one, they bring you venison. (Hunter aged 54)

Symbolism Associated With Hunting Dogs

In addition to their role in hunting, the majority of hunters (70%) acknowledged that their dogs serve to look after their owner in the forest. Furthermore, 65% mentioned that the dogs protect against potential dangers posed by spiritual beings (aluxes) and supernatural illnesses (for instance, mal vientoor “bad wind”), both popular beliefs in the community.

It’s like they feel the bad vibrations and bad winds. The dogs look after you. If you are lost, the dog will stay by your side. He won’t leave. Whenever he sees something, he’ll bark and he won’t leave. (Hunter aged 54)

Forty-three percent of hunters acknowledged that instead of them, their dogs can become ill in the forest due to mal viento, the symptoms of which are a debilitation of the dog and unusually aggressive behavior. To cure this illness, 41% of hunters cut the tips of the dog’s ears and tail to remove the bad wind as the principal remedy. Others also expose dried chili and copal incense to the nostrils of the dog, or rub alcohol on the dog’s body, as traditional remedies for curing and preventing bad wind.

If the dog falls ill and gets bad winds, we have to cut his ear or tail to get it out. We just cut a small piece; that cures him. (Hunter aged 35)

Only 27% of hunters use traditional methods to bestow luck on the dog and improve its performance in batida. Exposing the nostrils of the dog to different substances (dried chili, deer’s blood, and copal incense smoke) has the dual purpose of bestowing luck on the dog and protecting it from bad winds. Another method consists of extracting a substance described as a “powder” from between the hooves of a deer, known as the secret of the deer, and giving the dog this substance to eat so that it never loses the trail of the animal. The purposes of these practices were confirmed in the focus group.

Yes, first they said it was chili in his nose to give him a better sense of smell, another thing was deer’s foot powder, the dog should eat it and that’s enough. (Traditional healer aged 80)

Sociocultural Dimensions of Hunting Dogs

Based on the ethnographic information collected, it was possible to define 32 local elements associated with the sociocultural connotation of dogs in batida(Table 1). Of all of the local elements associated with hunting dogs, 56% had a multiple correspondence and 44% had a paired correspondence with the batidasociocultural dimensions. In the first case, the practical and social dimensions shared the greatest correspondence of elements (72%), followed by the elements shared between the three dimensions (17%). The elements corresponding to the practical and symbolic dimensions had the lower correspondence (11%).

Table 1.

Hunting Dog Elements (Local Elements) and Sociocultural Dimensions of batida.

Hunting dog elements	Sociocultural dimensions			Explanatory bases of the relationship
Hunting dog elements	P	S	Sy	Explanatory bases of the relationship
Dog characterization
Acquirement purpose	●			Participation of the dog in hunting.
Type of dog	●			Malix(low cost and resistant to the fatigue of batida) and scent hound (specialized in deer tracking).
Acquirement method	●	●		Gift and purchase (in the case of scent hounds).
Nourishment	●			Fed with household leftovers. Pellets and meat for good hunting dogs.
Disease	●	●	●	Parasites, fatigue acquired in batidaand bad wind.
Additional care	●			Vitamins for good hunting dogs.
Shelter	●			Shelter of good hunting dogs to prevent them wandering around the town.
Commands for cohabitation	●	●		Commands that permit the incorporation of the dog into domestic life.
Dog–hunter relationship
Recognized capabilities	●			Stamina and speed when pursuing prey and olfactory capacity of batidadogs were recognized.
Behavioral attributes	●	●		Obedience, a calm temperament and defensive character of the dogs during batidawere recognized.
Interbreeding control	●			Only in the case of scent hounds or to conserve the lineage of a good hunting dog.
Juvenile management	●	●		Juvenile dogs given as gifts to strengthen friendships and conserve the lineage of a good hunting dog.
Primary use	●	●	●	Primary use for hunting activity and secondary for looking after the milpaand homestead. In the forest, the dogs take on a value as a guardian against supernatural threats.
Age of onset in hunting	●			Incorporation into batidafrom 6 months when the puppy can withstand the fatigue.
Hunting training	●	●		Training through practice prompted by the hunter and the guidance of more experienced dogs.
Local element
Perception and interaction of hunters with dogs
Number of dogs per batida	●	●		Average of 3 dogs (range = 1–3) per hunting trip. The lack of a dog collectively recognized as a maestrocan lead to the cancelation of the batida.
Function in batida	●	●	●	Facilitates obtaining prey with high social value such as white-tailed deer. A good hunting dog obtains an additional portion of meat for his owner and improves his status within the hunting hierarchy.
Types of prey	●	●		Maestrosobtain larger prey (e.g., deer). Secretariosare useful for obtaining smaller prey (e.g., iguanas and coatis).
Commands to the dog during batida	●	●		Commands from hunters to their dogs for coordinated execution of batida.
Dog–hunter communication during batida	●			Mutual recognition of body and voice signals among hunters and dogs during batida.
Awarding of meat	●	●		Portion of meat for dogs that obtain deer (i.e., maestros).
Recognition of the hunter because of his dog	●	●		Gaining of prestige due to the participation of his dogs in batida.
Loan of dogs	●	●		Norms recognized by the hunting group govern the benefits awarded to the owner of the dog and obligations of the person who loans it from them.
Risks in batida	●			Venomous snakebites, being injured by potential prey (e.g., coatis), receiving an accidental gunshot and fatigue during batida.
Norms associated with the dog	●	●		Norms recognized by the hunting group to minimize potential risks to the dogs in batida.
Time invested to recover dogs in batida	●			Hunters recover dogs in the event they get lost in the forest.
Initiative for hunting	●	●		Hunting dogs can join in batidawithout the knowledge of their owners. Obtaining prey earns the recognition of the hunting group through a portion of meat.
Utility of dogs beyond batida	●		●	Protecting the owner from supernatural beings, venomous snakes and jaguars.
Ability to detect beings imperceptible to the hunter			●	Detection of different classes of harmful spirits by dogs.
Hunting ritual	●		●	Exposure of the dog’s nose to deer’s blood and copal incense smoke.
Protection ritual and practices			●	Use of alcohol, dried chili and copal incense smoke.
Healing ritual and practices			●	Cuts to the ears and tail of the dog to cure bad wind.

P = Practical; S= social; Sy = symbolic. The hunting dog elements (left) are ordered into three categories defined by the semi-structured interviews. In the middle, the P, S, and Sy sociocultural dimensions of batida show the correspondence with hunting dog’s elements. Note that paired and multiple correspondence are indicated with one or two or three dots, respectively. In the ethnographic database (right), the key information that supports this correspondence is presented.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the multidimensional value of dogs in the contemporary context of Maya hunting for the first time. This multidimensional value underscores the importance of hunting dogs not just in the actual execution of a subsistence practice such as batidabut also integrating them into the multiple-natural-resource-use strategy conceived and exercised by the Yucatec Maya ethnic group (Barrera-Bassols & Toledo, 2005; Toledo et al., 2008).

Hunting Dogs in Los Petenes

In Los Petenes, most batidadogs were malixor mongrels, of Mesoamerican ancestry prior to the European conquest (Ramos, 2009; Valadez, Padilla, Galicia, Rodríguez, & Jiménez, 2003) and subsequently interbreeding or replaced with their Eurasian conspecifics, brought to America by Europeans starting in the 16th century (see Leonard et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1998). Malixare valued because they can subsist on leftovers from the homestead (Ley-Lara, Vela-Padilla, & Götz, 2015) and provide significant support in hunting (León & Montiel, 2008; Rodríguez et al., 2012).

For batidahunters in Los Petenes, the malixtype is easy to obtain (abundant and usually acquired as a gift), does not have specific care or dietary requirements, and withstands the demanding batida. These characteristics are common in dogs from Mesoamerican rural areas where subsistence hunting is practiced (see Koster, 2008a, 2009).

In contrast to malixdogs, sabuesosare experts at tracking prey. This ability (usually considered innate by the hunter) distinguishes this type of hunting dog, beyond just its physical characteristics (e.g., long ears, tail, and snout) perceived subjectively by each individual hunter. At the time of the study, only five dogs of the sabuesotype were identified. Despite being highly appreciated by the hunters, they stressed the costs to acquire and feed them.

The small number of sabuesosfound in Los Petenes permits the assumption that these specialized hunting dogs are not accessible to all batidaparticipants, despite being highly valued for their utility in tracking prey (deer) and as a result, promoting participation in complex exchange networks (Koster, 2009). Although elsewhere specialized dogs are especially useful for catching prey that defend themselves aggressively when pursued (Redford & Robinson, 1987), the Los Petenes hunters avoid these confrontations for fear of sabuesosgetting injured. Catching dangerous prey such as coatis or peccaries was the role of malixdogs.

In Los Petenes, dogs are mainly used for locating and driving large game animals (e.g., deer) into an ambush laid by the waiting group in batida. Elsewhere, hunters in tropical zones (for America, Alves, Mendonça, Confessor, Vieira, & Lopez, 2009; Koster, 2008aand for Africa, Lupo, 2011) used their dogs instead for tracking and cornering smaller size prey (e.g., armadillos and pacas) or prey injured through other hunting techniques.

In Los Petenes, the participation of dogs contributes to a better benefit–cost ratio in hunter activity compared with other nongroup hunting methods (see León & Montiel, 2008) and reduces the number of human hunters necessary to obtain large game (Lupo, 2011). Furthermore, dogs increase encounter rates and reduce prey pursuit times (Koster, 2008a) and, as occurs in batida, are especially effective in conjunction with firearms (i.e., rifles) (Koster, 2008b).

Batidais more successful with greater participation of malixdogs that perform risky tasks (i.e., pursuing dangerous prey species), which potentially can discourage hunters from taking part in this hunting method (Rodríguez et al., 2012). In the Neotropics, the risks faced by dogs in forest areas (e.g., snakebites, hunting accidents and attacks from other animals) have frequently been reported in hunting (Koster, 2009) and may encourage hunters to use malixdogs in scenarios expected to be risky.

Sociocultural Benefits of Dogs in Batida

Dogs perform an active role in the sociocultural dynamic of batidathrough their incorporation as maestrosor secretariosin the hunting hierarchy, as well as subsequently awarding them with game biomass, showing that the dogs are recognized as members of the hunting group. In other subsistence hunting contexts, rewarding dogs (as in the case of secretarios) with prey remains (e.g., entrails and blood) is a common practice (see Koster, 2009; Lupo, 2011). However, in the batidacontext, rewarding dogs depends on their role into the group dynamic and merits attained when executing the hunting strategy.

In Los Petenes, we observed that only the maestrodogs that actively participated in obtaining prey (mainly deer) got the same portion of meat to what the human hunters participating in the batidareceived. Given that the secretariodogs participate in batidawithout any incentive other than the remains of the prey, this revels that the meat awarded only to the maestrodogs is a recognition analogous to that received by other batidahunters.

Hunting dogs that obtain prey such as deer (e.g., maestrodog) also engender respect and admiration toward their owners by other hunters. This confirms that having good hunting dogs increase the prestige among batidahunters, complementing their abilities (e.g., tracking animals and shooting a moving prey) acknowledged in this collective hunting (Rodríguez et al., 2012). This could be of great benefit to inexperienced or less skillful hunters, because a maestrodog not only guarantees them a portion of meat but also a better status in the hunting group hierarchy.

Batidadogs can mediate the relationships within and outside of the hunting group, mainly through their participation in exchange networks as gifts and the norms that govern loaning them for hunting activities. Hunting is one of the main mediating activities between nature and culture, transforming sociocultural values of human groups and their relationship with nature (Ingold & Pálsson, 2001). In batida,dogs go beyond their primary function as a hunting accessory and become a gift(something given without obligation or guarantee that creates a social relationship, see Mauss, Lévi-Strauss, & Martín-Retortillo, 1971) in the exchange networks maintained by the hunters.

In Los Petenes, the norms recognized by the hunters also contemplate the participation of the dogs, allowing to govern aspects (e.g., precautionary measures to reduce the risk suffered by the dogs during the hunting activity or obtaining additional meat and social prestige) that can incentivize the owners of hunting dogs to take them to the batidaor dissuade them from doing so. Consequently, the batidagroup must maintain good relationships with these maestrodog owners, allowing them to accumulate social relationships that promote cooperation for mutual benefit or social capital (Putnam, 1993). This suggests that some dogs may be key for the relationships of the hunting group, promoting the hunt as an ideal space for mediating intragroup relationships (Nothnagel, 2001).

Symbolism Associated With Hunting Dogs

Maya traditional beliefs are extended to the batidathrough rituals that seek, in one hand to provide dogs with luck by exposing their noses to copal smoke an act known as sahumaror “perfuming”, which represents a pre-Hispanic practice for purifying people, animals and objects (Olivier, 2015), and on the other hand, offering prayers for the intervention of divine forces in favor of the hunter and his dog. Another practice mentioned in Los Petenes was rubbing the body and nose of the dog, for example, with deer’s blood or dried chili. The exposure of the dog (mainly via its nose) to different substances constitutes a common practice reported in other traditional hunting contexts (see Bennett & Alarcón, 2015; Koster, 2009; Lupo, 2011).

The significance of dogs to contemporary Maya peasant-hunters goes beyond the merely utilitarian and social aspects of hunting activity, positioning them as symbolic guardians against various otherworldly beings. In Los Petenes, the hunters maintain the belief in deities and guardian spirits of nature, collectively known as “owners of the forest,” notable among which are Yum K’aaxor “lord of the forest,” Zipor “king of the deer,” the aluxesand the personification of evil or “bad wind,” which are widely held across the Yucatan Peninsula (Terán & Rasmussen, 1994; Villa-Rojas, 1978) and with parallels in all of Mesoamerica (see Dehouve, 2008; Olivier, 2015). The belief that dogs detect beings imperceptible to humans is widely held among batidahunters. For example, it is believed that if the hunter applies the ocular secretions (rheum) of the dog to his eyes, this will give the hunter the ability to see otherworldly beings such as aluxes, bad winds, or malignant spirits. In the forest, the dogs can warn of the presence of spirits by barking or howling, preventing them from harming the hunter.

The symbolic guardian character of dogs has been described as part of the cosmovision of the pre-Hispanic Maya and other Mesoamerican peoples, emphasizing them as an important mythological element (e.g., civilizing being and carrier of divine fire) and as a guide and protector of human beings on their final journey to the underworld (De la Garza, 1997). The view of dogs as protectors of human beings and their role as barriers against otherworldly spirits make dogs appear vulnerable to the potential harm that these beings can cause, such as illnesses related to bad wind (excessive debilitation and insanity). In Los Petenes, the hunters identified protective (e.g., balms based on alcohol and dried chili) and curative remedies (via induced bleeding of the animal’s ears and tail) for dogs accompanying their owners in the forest.

Implications for Conservation

In the contemporary Mayab, batidaprovides sociocultural benefits to its participants through the individual merits demonstrated during the hunting activity. The owners of dogs that obtain prey valued by the hunters (i.e., deer and peccaries) acquire additional benefits in the form of additional portions of wild meat and social prestige. In addition to this, the dogs not only participate as mediators of the relationships within and outside of the hunting group (exchange networks and dog loans) but also as protectors against the spiritual beings in the cosmovision of contemporary Maya peasant-hunters.

Acknowledging the importance of involving local stakeholders in management strategies in biosphere reserves (as in the case of LPBR), it is of great importance to take into account the possible multidimensional implications of traditional practices, especially for subsistence purposes (Oliva & Montiel, 2016). Hunting dogs go beyond their utilitarian value as a hunting technology and play an important role in the sociocultural dynamic of the batida, one of the main wildlife practices mediating the relationships between peasant communities and their natural surroundings in the Yucatan Peninsula.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the inhabitants and peasant-hunters of Los Petenes for their hospitality and support during fieldwork. Armando Rojas, Jimena Illescas, Samir González, and Estefanie González provided support to carry out the community workshop. The authors also thank CINVESTAV-Mérida for the logistical support provided for the fieldwork in Los Petenes.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was partially funded by a Master’s scholarship (425832) awarded to the first author (Elias Plata) by Mexico’s Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT). The authors also thank CINVESTAV-Mérida for the partial funding.

References

Alves

R. R.

Mendonça

L. E.

Confessor

M. V.

Vieira

W. L.

Lopez

L. C.

(2009). Hunting strategies used in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 5(1), 1–16.

Barrera-Bassols

Toledo

V. M.

(2005). Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya: Symbolism, knowledge and management of natural resources. Journal of Latin American Geography, 4(1), 9–41.

Bennett

B. C.

Alarcón

(2015). Hunting and hallucinogens: The use psychoactive and other plants to improve the hunting ability of dogs. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 171, 171–183.

Bleed

(2006). Living in the human niche. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 15(1), 8–10.

Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas.(2006). Programa de Conservación y Manejo de la Reserva de la Biósfera Los Petenes. México City, México.

Dehouve

(2008). El venado, el maíz y el sacrificado. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Diario de Campo, Cuaderno, 4, 1–39.

De La Garza

(1997). El perro como símbolo religioso entre los mayas y los nahuas. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl, 27, 111–133.

González-Hamud

(2017). El efecto de borde en petenes: Una aproximación a su magnitud, penetración y relación con la extracción de la palma de huano (Sabal spp.) en el noroeste de la Península de Yucatán (Tesis de maestrıa). Mérida, México: Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Unidad Mérida.

Hughes

Macdonald

D. W.

(2013). A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biological Conservation, 157, 341–351.

10.

Ingold

Pálsson

(2001). Naturaleza y sociedad: Perspectivas antropológicas. CDMX, México: Siglo XXI.

11.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2010). Censo de Población y Vivienda. Retrieved from http://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/proyectos/ccpv/2010/

12.

Koster

(2008a). Hunting with dogs in Nicaragua: An optimal foraging approach. Current Anthropology, 49(5), 935–944.

13.

Koster

(2008b). The impact of hunting with dogs on wildlife harvests in the Bosawas Reserve, Nicaragua. Environmental Conservation, 35(03), 211–220.

14.

Koster

(2009). Hunting dogs in the lowland Neotropics. Journal of Anthropological Research, 65(4), 575–610.

15.

León

Montiel

(2008). Wild meat use and traditional hunting practices in a rural Mayan community of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Human Ecology, 36(2), 249–257.

16.

Leonard

J. A.

Wayne

R. K.

Wheeler

Valadez

Guillén

Vila

(2002). Ancient DNA evidence for Old World origin of New World dogs. Science, 298(5598), 1613–1616.

17.

Ley-Lara

V. M.

Vela-Padilla

D. I.

Götz

C. M.

(2015). Dejando huella (Parte I): Implicaciones tafonómicas y etnográficas sobre la relación entre el perro y ser humano en el norte del área maya. AMMVEPE, 26(6), 157–167.

18.

Lupo

K. D.

(2011). A dog is for hunting. In Ambarella

Trentacoste

(Eds.), Ethnozooarchaeology: The present and past of human–animal relationships(pp. 4–12). Oxford, England: Oxbow Books.

19.

Mauss

Lévi-Strauss

C. D.

Martín-Retortillo

T. R.

(1971). Sociología y antropología. Madrid, España: Tecnos.

20.

Méndez-Cabrera

Montiel

(2007). Preliminary assessment of the wild fauna and flora used by the Mayan populations of two coastal communities in Campeche, Mexico. Universidad y Ciencia, 23(2), 127–139.

21.

Montiel

(2010). Aprovechamiento de fauna silvestre en la Península de Yucatán: Usos y costumbres. Diagnóstico en la Región de Los Petenes. Revista FOMIX-Campeche, 2(4), 29–32.

22.

Montiel

Arias

(2008). La cacería tradicional en el Mayab contemporáneo: Una mirada desde la ecología humana. Avance y Perspectiva, 1(1), 21–27.

23.

Montiel

Arias

Dickinson

(1999). Traditional hunting in northern Yucatan: Description of a community practice. Revista de Geografía Agrícola, 29, 43–51.

24.

Montiel

Estrada

León

(2006). Bat assemblages in a naturally fragmented ecosystem in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico: Species richness, diversity and spatio-temporal dynamics. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22(3), 267–276.

25.

Morey

D. F.

(1994). The early evolution of the domestic dog. American Scientist, 82(4), 336–347.

26.

Morey

D. F.

(2006). Burying key evidence: The social bond between dogs and people. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(2), 158–175.

27.

Munguía-Rosas

M. A.

Montiel

(2014). Patch size and isolation predict plant species density in a naturally fragmented forest. PloS One, 9(10), 1–7.

28.

Newing

(2011). Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Naranjo-Piñera

Tejeda

Santos-Fita

(2012). El manejo de fauna silvestre en la frontera sur: Una perspectiva comunitaria. In Bello

Vandame

(Eds.), La otra innovación para el ambiente y la sociedad en la frontera sur de México(pp. 59–69). México: ECOSUR, REDISA, CONACYT.

30.

Nothnagel

(2001). La reproducción de la naturaleza en la física actual de alta energía. In Ingold

Pálsson

(Coords.), Naturaleza y sociedad: Perspectivas antropológicas(pp. 295–315). CDMX, México: XXI.

31.

Oliva

Montiel

(2016). Stakeholder linkage in conservation strategies: A qualitative tool for improving the management of a biosphere reserve in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Tropical Conservation Science, 9(1), 423–438.

32.

Oliva

Montiel

García

Vidal

(2014). Local perceptions of wildlife use in Los Petenes Biosphere Reserve, Mexico: Maya subsistence hunting in a conservation conflict context. Tropical Conservation Science, 7(4), 781–795.

33.

Olivier

(2015). Cacería, sacrificio y poder en Mesoamérica: Tras las huellas de Mixcóatl “Serpiente de Nube.” CDMX, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

34.

Plata

(2017). El uso del perro (Canis lupus familiaris) en la cacería maya tradicional en grupo (batida): Relevancia práctica y sociocultural. (Tesis de maestría). Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Unidad Mérida, México.

35.

Putnam

R. D.

(1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.

36.

Ramos

(2009). El papel del perro (Canis lupus familiaris) en la sociedad maya prehispánica de las tierras bajas del norte. (Tesis de pregrado). Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, México.

37.

Range

Virányi

(2015). Tracking the evolutionary origins of dog-human cooperation: The “Canine Cooperation Hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10.

38.

Redford

K. H.

Robinson

J. G.

(1987). The game of choice: Patterns of Indian and colonist hunting in the Neotropics. American Anthropologist, 89(3), 650–667.

39.

Rodríguez

Montiel

Cervera

M. D.

Castillo

M. T.

Naranjo

E. J.

(2012). The practice and perception of batida(group hunting) in a Maya community of Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology, 32(2), 212–227.

40.

Santos-Fita

Naranjo

E. J.

Estrada

E. I.

Mariaca

Bello

(2015). Symbolism and ritual practices related to hunting in Maya communities from central Quintana Roo, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11(1), 170–171.

41.

Schwartz

(1998). A history of dogs in the early Americas. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

42.

Snyder

L. M.

Moore

E. A.

(2006). Dogs and people in social, working, economic or symbolic interaction. London, England: Oxbow Books.

43.

Terán

Rasmussen

C. H.

(1994). La milpa de los mayas: La agricultura de los mayas prehispánicos y actuales en el noreste de Yucatán. Mérida, México: Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán.

44.

Toledo

V. M.

Barrera-Bassols

García-Frapolli

Alarcón-Chaires

(2008). Multiple use and biodiversity within the Mayan communities of Yucatan, Mexico. Interciencia, 33(5), 345–352.

45.

Treves

Bonacic

(2016). Humanity’s dual response to dogs and wolves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(7), 489–491.

46.

Valadez

Padilla

A. B.

Galicia

B. R.

Rodríguez

F. V.

Jiménez

K. O.

(2003). La investigación etnozoológica y el estudio del cánido mesoamericano. AMMVEPE, 14(6), 186–194.

47.

Villa-Rojas

(1978). Los elegidos de Dios: Etnografía de los mayas de Quintana Roo( Vol.56). CDMX, México: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

48.

Weber

(2011). Perros (Canis lupus familiaris) y gatos (Felis catus) ferales en la Reserva de la Biósfera Los Petenes (Informe final proyecto SDP-18-2008 PNUD-CONANP-ECOSUR, México). Campeche, México: Diagnóstico sobre los efectos en la fauna nativa y perspectivas de control.

49.

Yáñez-Arancibia

Twilley

R. R.

Lara-Domínguez

A. L.

(1998). Los ecosistemas de manglar frente al cambio climático global. Madera y Bosques, 4(2), 3–19.

50.

Young

J. K.

Olson

K. A.

Reading

R. P.

Amgalanbaatar

Berger

(2011). Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. BioScience, 61(2), 125–132.