Nearly all countries have extensive legal frameworks designed to carefully regulate human interactions with the natural environment. Many of these laws have been carefully drafted to align with global treaties (such as the CBD and CITES) and specifically prohibit the over-exploitation or degradation of certain natural resources. Some countries, such as Brazil, go even further and prohibit most forms of hunting and keeping of wild animals. And yet… hunting is still remarkably widespread throughout Brazil (de Azevedo Chagas et al., 2015; El Bizri et al., 2015), prosecutions are rare (Barreto et al., 2009; Kuhnen and Kanaan, 2014) and fines resulting from prosecutions are hardly ever paid (da Silva and Bernard, 2016). Moreover, the very fact that it is illegal means that it is very hard to gather data about either the hunters or the species they are exploiting, leaving local conservation managers to make decisions in an information vacuum.

According to the Wildlife Protection Law (Law No. 5197/67), wildlife hunting and trade in Brazil is criminalized. However, the current law and its subsequent revisions (Law No. 7653/88) distinguish between predatory and non-predatory hunting. The first refers to commercial hunting and poaching and is fully criminalized. In contrast, non-predatory hunting (including subsistence hunting, hunting for controlling wildlife populations, hunting for scientific purposes, and recreational/sport hunting) should be regulated, monitored and controlled. Theoretically, the only barrier to legally practice non-predatory hunting in Brazil is to obtain a license – through this process is both costly and bureaucratic (Pinheiro, 2014). Given the lack of incentives for private individuals to engage with this process, most hunting in Brazil (whether predatory or non-predatory) continues to be unregulated and illegal with significant negative consequences for animal populations, biodiversity and ecosystem processes (Antunes et al., 2016; Cullen et al., 2001; de Araujo Lima Constantino, 2016; Tabarelli et al., 2010).

Recognizing the weaknesses of existing legislation, Brazil's congress is currently debating a new proposal (PL 6268/2016) which, if approved, will revoke the current Wildlife Protection Law and promote the creation of private hunting reserves. Significantly, the new proposal will not explicitly prohibit commercial hunting, and has the potential to increase wildlife trafficking and animal suffering. While supporters of the new legislation claim that it will finally regulate hunting in Brazil, many environmentalists see this as a retrograde step. Interestingly, while the new proposal was being debated, São Paulo's state government approved a law (PL299/2018) which ban all forms of wild animal keeping and hunting within the state. Such decision has direct impact on the control of the invasive wild pig in the state, which was previously regulated by a Federal Decree (Instrução Normativa Ibama 03/2013).

Whether (or not) there will be a change in the federal legislation, there is a broad consensus among academics, practitioners and wildlife managers that hunting is a major conservation issue in Brazil (Fernandes-Ferreira and Nóbrega Alves, 2017; Fernandez et al., 2012). From a technical perspective, there is a general lack of data about wildlife and population dynamics in Brazil and, more generally, in Latin America (Roper, 2006). Additionally, designing effective policies to protect wildlife and manage different species across megadiverse regions spanning from semi-arid and savannah environments (Caatinga and Cerrado) to the world's largest tropical wetland area (Pantanal) is extremely challenging (Alves and Souto, 2011). To further complicate this picture, hunting is culturally discouraged in much of Brazil, especially among urban populations (Marchini and Crawshaw, 2015). In contrast, the social acceptability of hunting is usually greater in rural areas where livelihoods are traditionally more reliant on the exploitation of natural resources (Gama et al., 2016; Bragagnolo et al., 2017a,b). Thus, the development of effective conservation strategies also requires identifying and assessing the relative importance of the factors that motivate illegal practices within specific socio-political and economic contexts (Duffy et al., 2016). Nevertheless, our understanding of why people hunt in Brazil is rudimentary a frequently anecdotal. For example, while poverty may drive subsistence hunting in some remote rural areas of poorest regions, hunting behaviour seems to cross socio-economic boundaries (El Bizri et al., 2015). Moreover, a perceived lack of enforcement could encourage non-compliance for economic gain, or even for social enjoyment and/or prestige (Regueira and Bernard, 2012).

In this context, enlarging our understanding of what is driving such widespread non-compliance is an important initial step towards developing more effective policies to deal with non-compliant behaviours and better supporting wildlife management across the country. In the following article, we consider the main factors which could be driving non-compliance with hunting legislation in Brazil with the aim of stimulating a critical debate on how to deal with hunting in the future.

Perhaps the first prerequisite of compliance is being aware of rules. Ignorance of the law is among the most important drivers of non-compliance with environmental regulations (Winter and May, 2001). This might be compounded by high levels of social acceptability and participation: it could be considered rational to believe that an activity is legal if it is widely and freely practiced. Moreover, communication of legal obligations relating to hunting may be ineffective. For example, studies conducted in Nigeria (Adefalu et al., 2013) and Madagascar (Keane et al., 2011) indicate higher levels of ignorance about wildlife laws and policies among local hunters with no formal education, less educated individuals and those not involved with tourism and community-based resource management. Ignorance of hunting laws is a common reason for non-compliance, even in developed countries (Eliason, 2004), but may be especially problematic in areas where illiteracy is still high. Such a situation is prevalent in remote rural areas and poorer states of Brazil. Furthermore, even if prohibitions on hunting are recognized, some rural residents may lack a comprehensive understanding about its complex requirements and bureaucratic hurdles (i.e. the licensing system regulating non-predatory hunting) or they may associate hunting ban only inside Protected Areas (Bragagnolo et al., 2017a,b). Additionally, education campaigns and outreach activities aimed at raising public awareness about wildlife hunting are generally rare, and/or not effectively targeted. Public debates concerning illegal exploitation of natural resources and hunting are also sporadic and commonly addressed by a mixture of academics, conservationists, decision-makers and anti-poaching activists.

Poverty is another factor often considered as an underlying motivation for illegal wildlife hunting, the implication being that the rural poor are driven to hunt by the absence of livelihood alternatives and the comparatively cheap prices of wildlife products (Apaza et al., 2002; De Merode et al., 2004). However, since poor people may hunt for both subsistence (“cooking pot”) and income (“pocket book”) (Kahler and Gore, 2012), distinguishing between commercial hunting and subsistence hunting is very challenging (Duffy et al., 2016; Fa et al., 2002). In rural Africa for example, Brashares et al. (2011) showed that wildlife consumption follows a very complex rural-urban gradient that includes subsistence-based rural consumption (the poorest people from more isolated settlements consume more bush-meat), mixed subsistence-commercial hunting (small scale farmers), hunting for commercial urban markets (wealthier households in settlements nearer to urban areas consume more bush-meat), and even hunting for the international trade in bush-meat.

In Brazil, subsistence hunting is not technically illegal and is allowed on Indigenous Lands and poor rural areas as a means to ensure the rights of indigenous populations (traditional hunting) and to improve food security of rural people living in poverty. However, due to the current illegality of commercial hunting and the bureaucratic hurdles to officially register as a subsistence hunter, it is difficult to get accurate figures on the prevalence, geographic distribution or temporal trends of these activities. This is further complicate by poor management and enforcement with clear implications for wildlife, especially game species (Peres and Nascimento, 2006). Moreover, there is evidence that subsistence hunting is increasingly being coupled with commercial hunting as an alternative income source. For example, van Vliet et al. (2015) used questionnaires to reveal how urban hunters in the Amazon hunt for both subsistence and trade. Subsistence hunting and poverty should also be placed in the context of recent social changes. On one hand, the massive federally funded social programmes introduced in the early 2000s in Brazil (i.e. Programa Bolsa Família) have hugely improved the income of poor rural residents, potentially decreasing the ‘need’ to hunt for food. For example, Barboza et al. (2016) showed that the preference for bush-meat over livestock displayed by rural residents in northeast Brazil was more a matter of taste than a dietary necessity. In this region, preferences for wild meat are also traditionally shaped by climate since drought periods make bush-meat the only sources of protein due to crop losses and starvation of livestock and small domestic animals. Urbanization also contributed to change dietary habits and lifestyles blurring the distinction between urban and rural contexts and making processed and industrialized foodstuff more available and affordable even for traditional communities living in the most remote villages (Nardoto et al., 2011). Global urbanization processes are also contributing to changes in human values. For example, in some parts of the World the demand for wild animal products is escalating, driven by wealthier urban individuals who view bush-meat as a status symbol (Drury, 2011; East et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2008). This situation is especially recognizable in the Brazilian Amazon, where several species such as, for example, the giant river turtle (Podocnemis expansa), have been transformed from a subsistence food for riverine people into a delicacy for high society (Schneider et al., 2011). Other studies point to how cultural drivers are key factors in shaping diet preferences and food-related behaviours of urban dwellers, cautioning about the increasing demand for bush-meat in Amazonian towns (Morsello et al., 2015).

Globalization has also increased the availability of modern weapons and accessories in remote areas, making hunting and trading strategies more efficient (e.g. mobile phones, etc.) and encouraging illegal commercial hunting and trade. In this context, hunting might no longer be driven by basic needs, but may increasingly become a recreational and/or commercial activity. This is certainly true in developed countries such as the United States where social welfare has dramatically reduced the necessity to hunt for poor rural residents, but where wildlife law violation occurs for diverse reasons including (among others) economic gain and recreational satisfaction (Eliason, 2004).

Self-actualization also plays an important role in shaping human behaviour (Maslow, 1943). It is often overlooked that many people hunt and fish because they enjoy it (recreational satisfaction) and such enjoyment is by no means limited to financially privileged and fully licensed individuals in developed countries (Sharp and Wollscheid, 2009). Sport hunters may also be motivated by social relations and the sense of belonging to a group or club (formal or informal). The latter is partially considered in Brazilian law which demands that each sport hunter must be affiliated to a registered shooting club. Hunting can be also practiced to gain prestige and to strengthen social relationships in small communities (Morsello et al., 2015). In Brazil, sport hunting is further perceived by some as having a noble status, reminding citizens of their colonial heritage (Nassaro, 2011). Moreover, recreational hunting may be a symbol of power and immunity from the law, especially for those people that have legal permission to possess firearms (i.e. police officers, security guards, members of shooting clubs).

The widespread acceptance of hunting as a recreational activity has broadly decreased in industrialized and urbanized contemporary societies since the early 1970s in response to shifting ethical and moral attitudes to human relationships with nature (McLeod, 2007; Peterson, 2004). Such concerns can make it difficult to legitimize hunting as a sport and/or as a component of a broader conservation strategy (Batavia et al., 2018; Fischer et al., 2013). For example, animal rights activists may (reluctantly) accept killing animals for subsistence and food provisioning, but may be absolutely opposed to hunting for ‘fun’. Such attitudes may be in direct opposition to natural resource managers who recognize the role of recreational hunters in generating broader wildlife conservation and collective economic benefits and who seek to integrate their knowledge and rights into wildlife management policies (Dickson, 2009; Van de Pitte, 2003). In Brazil, mass media (magazines, newspapers, television and radio) has played a key role in changing public perceptions about hunting since the early 1980s by increasingly associating hunting and hunters with serious environmental problems (i.e. deforestation of the Amazon, biodiversity loss, etc.). As a result, Brazilian public opinion has been increasingly polarized among pro- and anti-hunting factions (Fernandes-Ferreira, 2014). This was clearly reflected in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, where animal rights activists and environmentalists co-opted a pro-environmental argument (lead contamination caused by the release of ammunition) to suspend sport hunting in the only region where it had been successfully implemented and managed since the 1970s (Lau, 2016). Indeed, it has been persuasively argued that sport hunting in Rio Grande do Sul contributed to: (i) protecting species (Nascimento and Antas, 1995); (ii) testing new management schemes (Efe et al., 2005); and (iii) generating information about the routes of migratory birds and, more generally, the spatial distribution of key species (Nascimento et al., 2000).

Outside of the now defunct example of Rio Grande do Sul, sport hunting in Brazil has been largely unregulated. There is also evidence that illegal sport hunting is growing across the country. El Bizri et al. (2015) detected an increase in posting of videos on YouTube related to sport hunting, identifying the hunters as predominantly wealthier urban residents and descendants of European countries. This pattern may be partially explained in terms of Brazilian urban residents who have recently migrated from rural areas and are still maintaining their rural identity. It is worth noting that many hunters have both a strong knowledge about game species and their ecology, and a deep relationship with landscapes and prey. In Brazil, ethnozoological studies have started to reveal the enormous value of this type of knowledge and its potential utility for improving biodiversity conservation and wildlife management (Alves, 2012). The majority of these studies have been in the Northeast region (Caatinga and Atlantic Forest of Northeast Brazil) where hunting pressure is higher (Fernandes-Ferreira, 2014) and where hunting is a strongly embedded cultural practice (Bragagnolo et al., 2017a,b).

Hunting might be so deeply culturally embedded that people disregard the law en masse. In other words, a law loses force (and is ignored) when it is perceived as criminalizing behaviours that fall within social norms. Geographically localized social surveys suggest that unregulated hunting is a common practice in many rural regions of different Brazilian ecoregions (Fernandes-Ferreira et al., 2012; Fernandes-Ferreira and Nóbrega Alves, 2017; Gama et al., 2016; Teixeira et al., 2014). Moreover, illegal trapping/hunting of wildlife is often socially acceptable (Alves et al., 2009; Morcatty and Valsecchi, 2015) and frequently practiced even inside and surrounding protected areas (de Carvalho and Morato, 2013; Ferreira and Freire, 2009). Despite very limited resources, seizures of wild animals in Brazil are frequent and probably represent the tip of a very large ‘iceberg’ (de Azevedo Chagas et al., 2015). Ineffective enforcement of environmental policies in Brazil is also a major limitation, since it does not obviously contribute to increased compliance or behavioural change (Barreto et al., 2009; da Silva and Bernard, 2016). Moreover, corruption is perceived by many Brazilians as the main cause of poor enforcement of environmental laws (Aklin et al., 2014).

Ultimately, illegal hunting in Brazil is similar to many other regions of the world, being characterized by considerable overlap between hunting for subsistence, for income generation, and for recreation (Loveridge et al., 2006; Morsello et al., 2015; Sánchez-Mercado et al., 2016). Other less common motivations may include thrill killing, trophy poaching, protection of self and property (human-wildlife conflicts), poaching to assert a traditional right and as a form of protest against a disputed regulation (Muth and Bowe, 1998) or a conservation policy (Mischi, 2012). In other words, there are multiple possible reasons for the high level of non-compliance with hunting regulations in Brazil and very little data on which to base a robust and well-targeted policy response. In such circumstances it is important to return to first principles, using multiple sources of data to identify which suite of policy measures may be most appropriate in any given cultural context.

In situations where an illegal activity is very widely practiced and culturally embedded, an obvious and potentially politically attractive solution would be to revoke the laws or decriminalize the behaviour. This is partially what the new legal amendment (see above) is proposing for commercial hunting. Nonetheless, a radical change such as this could have unintentional consequences for overexploited species, altering population and ecological dynamics and ultimately affecting ecosystem functions and services. This may be particular true in many tropical and subtropical regions (i.e. rainforests) where population densities of larger species are typically low (Roper, 2006) and illegal hunting remains one of the main impacts driving species’ extinction (Bodmer et al., 1997; Corlett, 2007; Laurance et al., 2006). In this context, legislators and the Brazilian society more generally should strategically evaluate the trade-off between decriminalizing some types of hunting and preserving biodiversity, i.e. to what extent a social group (i.e. hunters) could be benefited (and thereby “decriminalized”) over the common right to preserve a species, an ecosystem or an ecological function. Solving this ethical question in Brazil is by no means straightforward, especially in the current climate of divided public opinion and the absence of comprehensive information about hunting and its consequences. Assuming that some citizens choose not to hunt (or hunt less frequently) due to fear of prosecution, decriminalization of some types of hunting could significantly increase hunting pressure in some areas and for some species. Nevertheless, we would argue that relatively minor changes to legislation might be sufficient to improve monitoring, discriminating distinct types of hunting and hunters, and bringing more hunters into existing legal structures.

We strongly advocate a more flexible, open-minded and scientifically-driven approach by policy-makers, protected area managers, environmental activists and animal defenders, and generally recommend the adoption of one or more of the following options depending on the specific cultural and environmental context: (i) simplifying the process to become an officially registered subsistence hunter; (ii) expanding participation in licensing schemes; (iii) linking hunting to community-based wildlife management programmes; (iv) introducing alternative livelihoods in areas with high levels of illegal subsistence hunting; (v) modifying hunting supply chains through substitution; (vi) trialling broad-based education and social marketing campaigns aimed at key demographics. Policy options (i) to (iii) can be applied where hunting is considered desirable and needs to carefully regulated and monitored. Policy options (iv) to (vi) are applicable to situations where illegal hunting needs to be controlled or where hunting pressure needs to be reduced.

Debating an issue such as hunting in Brazil will be not straightforward until we have accurate data on its prevalence, and geographic and temporal trends and we understand why people are hunting. Nevertheless, there are several general principles that can be immediately applied. Firstly, due to its continental size and diversity, wildlife management and hunting in Brazil needs to be geographically and social-context specific (e.g. bird trapping for the cage bird trade in northeast Brazil, jaguar hunting by farmers in the Pantanal and Amazon, armadillo hunting for food in the Cerrado). Secondly, different types of hunting need to be clearly defined, assessed and regulated according to context, evaluating likely threats and considering different policy options (see Table 1). Finally, the gap between scientific evidence and policy decisions should be closed (see Azevedo-Santos et al., 2017), including the political will to develop legal instruments integrating different policy sectors (e.g. establishing some experimental management programmes in protected areas, assessing the environmental effects of social and poverty alleviation policies, establishing land-use based strategies, etc.). Achieving any of these actions requires increased investment in research and the generation of evidence-based support for effective managing wildlife. More efforts are also required for promoting education and human conservation management, assessing the sociocultural viability of legal hunting and identifying the social value of native species and biomes, by incorporating human dimensions into wildlife management. Finally, appropriate policy options unquestionably require being broadly and democratically debated and decided, avoiding top-down bureaucratic approaches and political manoeuvres using pseudoscientific promises to please privileged lobbies and/or deliver short-term mandates.