Search

Hunting has traditionally been associated with practices that reduce wildlife populations. This assumption does not explain the many examples of hunting strategies used in the long term by various indigenous groups worldwide. Therefore, the aim of this study was to document the local knowledge of wildlife management and the maintenance of stable wildlife populations by indigenous people in their local ecosystems. Understanding the hunting practices of indigenous people is essential for designing policies and practices that protect vulnerable wildlife populations. The Togutil tribe is an indigenous hunter–gatherer tribe that leads a nomadic lifestyle along the riverside areas bordering the forest on Halmahera Island, Indonesia. Data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews spanning four months, with seven key, ten main, and two supporting informants. The results suggested that the Togutil tribe applies a unique ecological hunting calendar and adheres to distinct ethics by using a sustainable 6-2-4 cycle system that can contribute to wildlife conservation. Trappers had three hunting periods: Obutana, Ohinoto, and Oiyata. Hunting activities during the Obutana period were conducted for six months during the rainy season, i.e., from October to April. Peak hunting activities occurred during the Obutana hunting period, when hunters trap wildlife during the fruiting and flowering seasons. Ohinoto is a hunting period that lasts two months, from May to June, marking the onset of the dry season. The Oiyata period extends from July to October (i.e., from the dry season to the beginning of the rainy season). This timing is based on prevalent encounters with wildlife in the forest, specifically during the fruiting and flowering seasons. This study supports future Togutil tribe livelihoods through calendar-based community projects to minimize the loss of vulnerable key species. Consequently, an effective strategy for conserving biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods can be implemented by empowering the Togutil tribe based on their ecological hunting calendar. Our results provide a fundamental understanding of calendar-based hunting practices for future wildlife management and conservation.

The diagnosis of drug allergy is essentially based on a detailed anamnesis, involving the doctors who first treated the patient, and skin testing (prick, intradermal and epicutaneous / patch tests). In the allergological practice / clinic, provocation tests with the presumed trigger are only carried out if the indication is very clear (see articles in this issue on drug allergy children, allergies to betalactam and other antibiotics as well as analgesic intolerance). The provocation with a probably tolerable alternative is in the foreground. Unfortunately, the skin tests of certain drug groups have a low sensitivity even under optimal conditions, but very good specificity. Accordingly, positive skin tests are mostly relevant, but negative skin tests cannot rule out an allergy. In recent years, it has therefore proved successful to carry out supplementary laboratory tests in the clarification of drug allergies. The serological tests (IgE) are of little help. In contrast, the test forms based on the analysis of leukocytes (basophil activation test, BAT, and lymphocyte transformation test, LTT) have gained in importance and complement the diagnostic repertoire. In the combination of all test methods (skin test, LTT, BAT, sometimes provocation test) the trigger of a drug allergy can be defined in a good 70 % of cases and in most cases a safe therapeutic alternative can be found. In the following, we will discuss the importance of laboratory diagnostics in drug allergy.