Interação homem e animal de estimação: um estudo acerca da posse de animais silvestres na cidade de Lábrea – AM

Abstract

In different parts of Brazil, it is possible to observe the presence of specimens belonging to the wild fauna as pet animals in households, even in urban areas. Even though the environmental legislation is particularly restrictive regarding the possession of wild species, in addition to campaigns promoted by protection institutions aiming at guiding both buyers and society, the illegal possession remains an issue over time. In the state of Amazonas, this scenario is evident in the daily routine either in cities and rural areas. In this context, the general objective of this paper was to understand the reasons that lead people to continue to raise wild animals as pet animals in the city of Lábrea, Amazonas state. For the field study, we applied forms and conducted individual interviews with 65 animal owners in addition to four agents of the environmental protection sector. Subsequently to the field data collection, we carried out an organization in Excel spreadsheets to be analyzed and interpreted. The most subjective information in the form were synthetized using tables and charts, which primarily required the analysis of the discourses and the grouping of ideas conveyed in simpler categories. Tables and illustrations were carried out in order to describe and summarize the data. After the analysis, it became evident that all of the reasons that influenced the decision to raise wild animals as pets are anthropocentric for placing men as the main highlight in the mananimal relationship and considering the former above the latter. The possession represents a practice related to the local tradition since it does not depend on school level or social condition; most of the respondents stated that “has always had a wild animal around”, which means that early on, they had this type of contact through parents, friends or neighbors. In this perspective, the possession may have arisen from habits intrinsic to the local culture and life styles. Regarding informational campaigns, most people never even learn about them by any sector of the institution. In the perspective of the respondents, the prohibition by IBAMA (such as possession as pet without legal authorization and acquisition of authorized aviary) regarding illegal possession are not reasonably justified for not distinguishing between the possession derived from several trafficking practices (regarded as immoral and with negative impact on animals) and local possession (regarded as not harmful to animals). Others believe that the prohibitions benefit only the government through its bodies and limit the legalized possession to privileged social classes. In general, we observed that the raisers do not known the social, sanitary and environmental risks inherent to the possession of wild animals. Over half of the participants do not associate the possession with consequences to the animals, neither to society or the environment as a whole. For some, this is because they do not know the topics approached in the research, especially concerning zoonosis risks. However, for the issues related to the animals and the environment, some owners seemed to be aware, but preferred to ignore or minimize them. In this scenario, we understand that de resolution of the illegal possession issue will only show advances when the environmental protection bodies become locally active in a way that makes them able to monitor, demand the application of the law and above all make the local community aware of the possible medium- and long-term consequences of the possession regarding different focuses.