Bushmeat Utilization in Oban Sector of Cross River National Park: A ‘Biodiversity Palaver’ ( Global Exposition of Wildlife Management )

Publication series : Global Exposition of Wildlife Management

Author: Sunday Adedoyin Saka Jimoh and James Omifolaji  

Publisher: IntechOpen‎

Publication year: 2017

E-ISBN: INT6297466685

P-ISBN(Paperback): 9789535130253

P-ISBN(Hardback):  9789535130260

Subject: S7 Forestry

Keyword: 林业

Language: ENG

Access to resources Favorite

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Bushmeat Utilization in Oban Sector of Cross River National Park: A ‘Biodiversity Palaver’

Description

This chapter examines the ecological effects of bushmeat extraction activities/methods and utilization of wildlife resources in the study area. It also highlights the perception of rural dwellers on the abundance of wildlife resources in the past 10 years as well as suggesting solution to this impending danger of depletion. Two different methods were used. The first method being stratified sampling method was used to investigate the activities involved in the extraction and utilization of wildlife resources, while the other method used a questionnaire to investigate the local people’s perceptions on the abundance of wildlife resources. Results showed that gunshots were the most used (32.4%) of all the methods of extracting bushmeat in the study area, followed by the use of snares (25.5%). However, 86% (n = 86) of the respondents admitted that they consume bushmeat, while only 14% (n = 14) claimed otherwise. Buying bushmeat from markets and hunters ranked highest 55% (n = 33) among the methods of getting bushmeat in the study area, followed by the method of indirect hunting 30% (n = 18). Respondents claimed that bushmeat was occasionally consumed 38.1% (n = 37). Furthermore, 88% (n = 86) of the respondents agreed that there has been drastic change, while only about 12% (n = 12) objected to the marked difference in wildlife abundance in the park in the last 10 years. Note that 53% (n = 49) of the respondents agreed that wildlife resources in the study area have been depleted.

The users who browse this book also browse