Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:29:28.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modern technology and customary use of wildlife: the harvest of Sooty Shearwaters by Rakiura Maori as a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2002

P.O'B. LYVER
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
H. MOLLER
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand

Abstract

Rakiura Maori (a tribe of indigenous people in New Zealand) continue a centuries-old customary use of Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus, titi, muttonbird) chicks from islands adjacent to Rakiura (Stewart Island). Some muttonbirders pluck chicks by hand, while others have recently changed to a plucking machine. We compared traditional and modern processing methods to see if new technology stands to increase the efficiency, size and cost effectiveness of harvest. On average, chicks were plucked 6 seconds quicker with a machine, which could potentially increase the catch by up to 4%. Innovation by using wax rather than water to remove down left after plucking saved muttonbirders 29–97 minutes per day, potentially allowing up to a 15% increase in the number of chicks harvested. Both wax and plucking machines increased costs, which led to a modest financial gain from using wax, but a net loss from using a plucking machine. Modern technologies have been introduced mainly for convenience and to ease labour in this customary use of wildlife. New technology may erode traditional skills, but does not necessarily pose a risk to the sustainability of a resource. Financial investment in harvest technologies might provide an incentive to increase harvest levels, but could equally provide an incentive to manage for sustainable use. Preservation lobbies are not justified in presuming that new technologies will always threaten wildlife traditionally used by indigenous people.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1999 Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)