Capybaras once roamed the flooded savannas of the Orinoquia for tens of millions of years. High reproduction rates have led to pest classification in some countries and periodic calls to allow regulated hunting. Two decades of state- and university-led research suggest removing 5–10% annually would not harm overall population structure and could utilize meat, bones, or skin under biodiversity agreements. Natural cyclical die-offs from droughts factor into population dynamics. Animal rights advocates reject hunting as cruel, note legal meat largely comes from captive breeding, and question the reliability of enforcement.
Scientists point out that over 20 years of research, led by public universities and funded by state coffers and international cooperation, demonstrate that allowing hunting of between 5% and 10% of the population does not affect its overall composition. They argue that part of the population dies cyclically due to droughts and that the sustainable use of the animals' meat, bones, or skin can be promoted, in compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Colombia signed in 1992.
As with Pablo Escobar's hippos, the debate about allowing the hunting of capybara is revived from time to time: it has such high reproduction rates that in Argentina and Brazil it has been considered a pest. The positions of scientists and animal rights activists seem irreconcilable. Although Lena Estrada ruled out the possibility in one of her final decisions before resigning as Environment Minister, Lopez Arevalo and his colleagues reacted with indignation. The debate continues.
Collection
[
|
...
]