Warning: this article contains graphic images that may disturb some readers.
The photograph shows two men kneeling in the back of a white pickup truck, surrounded by the unspoiled darkness of nightfall in Patagonia. One poses happily, an Indiana Jones-style fedora on his head, rifle propped up behind him against the cab of the truck. The other wears an expression of tired satisfaction. Four more pairs of lifeless eyes stare out from the photo, lit up eerily by the flash of the camera – four dead pumas, their tongues and muzzles covered in blood, lay like sphinxes in the bed of the pickup. They are held by the scruffs of their necks by their grinning killers, paws dangling over the edge of the open tailgate.
This and similar photos sparked outrage this past August when they began making the rounds on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites. For the most part, they consist of the same elements: pumas strung up by their ankles or sprawled out in the grass, dismembered heads and paws on display alongside the rifles that dispatched them, smiling men and women in baseball caps and camouflage. In one, a young man hugs one of the creatures like a giant stuffed animal – it is nearly twice his size.

Four pumas were killed for sport in Patagonia sparking outrage across the various social networks. (Photo via Facebook)
The photos, often uploaded to social networking profiles by the hunters themselves, have been appropriated and circulated throughout the internet by animal rights activists as a sort of online escrache, or public shaming. Comments towards the images range from impassioned, eloquent defences of animal rights, to angry, violent calls for retribution against the hunters.
“Outrageous and demoralising” says one internet forum user.
“Why is there no legal intervention?” asks another. “He’s a murderer and deserves to be condemned.”
Much of the initial outcry surrounding the controversial photographs came from Chile, where the puma population is protected and hunting them is punishable by law – hence the calls for legal justice. The two hunters from the photograph, however, are Argentine citizens and most likely committed the acts in Argentine Patagonia. On this side of the Andes, the indiscriminate killing of pumas is not only legal, but encouraged by various provincial governments.
Law 763: Combat Against Wild Animal Species
In August 2010, almost exactly two years before the incendiary photos sparked such criticism online, the provincial government of Río Negro announced that it would begin paying $500 for every puma killed in the province, citing the animal as a “plague” for farmers and ranchers in the area.
The controversial decision to compensate hunters was simply an extension of a law which has been in existence in the province for the last 40 years. Law E 763 “of combat against wild animal species harmful to livestock and agriculture” was passed in Río Negro in 1972. Similar legislation exists throughout Patagonia – control hunting (caza de control) is permitted in Chubut, Santa Cruz, and Neuquén, with economic incentives offered by the Chubut and Santa Cruz governments (Santa Cruz, with the country’s greatest sheep population, offers the greatest payoff). Sport hunting (caza deportiva) is permitted in Río Negro and Neuquén.
Sport hunting of pumas was banned in La Pampa in 2007 when it was discovered that many of the animals were being captured in other provinces and sold to game preserves. They were often drugged for hunters from Argentina and abroad, some of whom would pay up to US$10,000 for hunting trips in which a kill was guaranteed. The ban remains in place as scientists continue studying the sustainability of the province’s puma population.
“An effective fight against the puma requires systematic organisation,” says Martín Oscos, general director of livestock for the Ministry of Production, which provided ranchers and hunters with metal traps for capturing the animal. Funds to compensate hunters come out of taxes paid by producers, who benefit most from the practice in the primarily agricultural province.
Río Negro’s economy is heavily dependent on agriculture, specifically fruit production. In those areas of the province too dry and infertile to support this endeavour, the main economic activity is cattle or sheep ranching. Thirteen percent of all wool and sheep meat consumed in Argentina comes from Río Negro, third in the country after the other Patagonian provinces of Santa Cruz and Chubut.
In 2010, Argentines consumed 66,000 tonnes of lamb (taking into account both meat and bones), about 8,500 of which came from Río Negro, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC).
The law is meant to “provide a legal framework that allows producers to defend their property from predatory animals, which is their source of work and family support,” according to Luís Sacco, president of the Federation of Rural Societies. Pumas are known to occasionally attack livestock.

Sheep on Cerro Cazador with Cerro Castillo and Cerro Tenerife in the background. (Photo: Brian Romans)
“The problem is that there is improper management of livestock”, Daniel Ramadori, then National Director of Wildlife, told newspaper Página/12 after the announcement. “There are very large fields with very little care for the livestock, and every so often they [pumas] encounter them. So we cannot expect that they will not eat sheep.”
He also added “It is believed that pumas are expanding, and they are appearing in places where not long ago there were none, like Iberá [in Corrientes].”
Necessity vs. Sport
Pumas, also known as cougars, mountain lions, or catamounts, are one of the most widely found animals in both North and South America, inhabiting an area stretching from the Yukon to Patagonia. They form six distinct subspecies, five of which are found only in Latin America.
The species in question, Puma concolor puma, or the southern South American puma, exists from as far north as Coquimbo in Chile to the Strait of Magellan in southern Argentina. Its conservation status varies from province to province and from organisation to organisation. For example, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) lists the puma as a threatened species, and its hunting is prohibited in Buenos Aires province, Corrientes, Santa Fe, and Entre Ríos, as well as throughout Chile. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), on the other hand, lists the puma as a species of “least concern,” and this seems to be the stance the Patagonian provinces have taken, as well.
“Each province has ownership over its natural resources and each province has a distinct view regarding its wildlife”, says Andrea Michelson, Coordinator of the Protected Areas Program for Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina. “At the national level they are not classified as an endangered species, and even less so at the world level. But they are threatened in the sense that if the hunting continues in certain areas, it will ultimately reduce the population.”
Puma hunting has been a reality for ranchers in the area for as long as ranching has existed in Argentina. Most estancias even traditionally employed someone known as a ‘leonero; whose sole job was to hunt and kill the wild felines. The government’s decision to monetarily reward the killing, however, caused many to worry that the line between killing out of necessity and killing for pleasure would be blurred to the point of nonexistence.
“Imagine that any hunter can go to the south to hunt, and that by killing a few pumas he has all his expenses covered”, writes Ricardo Antoniotti, founder of the Facebook group ‘For the creation of a puma preserve in Patagonia’. “It’s paradise for the hunter with no sense of right or wrong.”
Reaching a Consensus
Some environmentalists and animal rights activists point to the role that deforestation and the advance of the agricultural frontier plays in causing puma populations to seek prey closer to human centres of activity, although no recent studies have conclusively linked the two phenomena. What is generally agreed upon among those opposed to the legislation, however, is that the incidents involving pumas and livestock do not warrant the methods being taken in Río Negro and other provinces.

Puma tracks towards the Cerro Torre. (Photo: Simone Capretti)
A study conducted in Chile’s Torres del Paine National Park revealed that the average puma’s diet consists of about 8% domestic livestock, such as cows or sheep, 41% wild hare, and 20% guanaco, the llama-like animal indigenous to South America.
“It’s true that sometimes pumas attack domestic livestock, but it doesn’t happen often”, environmentalist Álvaro Meza told Chilean newspaper La Segunda. “It happens when the mother teaches their young to hunt, but that’s natural. You might lose ten sheep, but it’s the learning process for the pups.”
He added “What the ranchers don’t understand is that they [pumas] are an important part of the food chain. For example, in Magallanes the condor population would not exist and not be as healthy if not for the puma, which attacks the guanaco, whose remains the condors eat.”
Ranchers, on the other hand, have pointed out that those hypothetical ten sheep, or 8% that forms part of the average puma’s diet, represent a portion of their livelihood that they are not so willing to part with. When provincial legislator Beatriz Contreras proposed, in 2011, that hunting should be limited only to adult males and females that are demonstrably causing damage, the Federation of Rural Societies expressed its opposition. In a signed letter, President Luís Sacco invited legislators to “inform themselves of the reality of provincial producers, with points of view necessary to modify the existing legislation.”
Environmentalists like Michelson agree that in order to come to a rational agreement, all parties’ opinions must be taken into account.
“It’s not all black and white”, she says. When an individual puma “is too accustomed to hunting in excess, and for many days or months is attacking livestock, obviously that individual is a problem, and a spot check should be done on that individual. But if a law is established where they pay for each puma hide, then I can deliver the hide of a puma that didn’t necessarily kill many sheep.”
She also notes that, similar to Chilean law, a mechanism exists in the province whereby ranchers can request authorisation from the Wildlife Office to eliminate a specific, problematic puma. “But that’s a process that takes a couple of days, and generally, the producers do not take that route.
“Solutions exist,” she says, “there can be a compromise, and that’s what we’re looking for.”
Next Steps for Río Negro
A new opportunity for compromise came on Tuesday 23rd October, when regional lawmakers, scientists, and specialists convened in Choele Choel, Río Negro, to discuss alternatives that would curb the indiscriminate killing of pumas while taking into consideration the producers’ needs to protect their livestock. Neighbouring Chubut also sent representatives; the province’s ‘Puma Management Plan’, while it does not outright ban hunting, has been suggested as a template for Río Negro lawmakers to work from.
“The idea is that we can work upon the existing approach, improving or modifying it, taking everyone’s opinions into account”, Contreras said in September upon the meeting’s proposal.
“Since 2010 we have been proposing alternatives to the poor and unsustainable policy of indiscriminate puma hunting in our province, encouraged by paying farmers and lack of state control,” she added. “Now we see with gratification that the technical teams of the Environment and Wildlife Departments are concerned with finding a real solution to the problem and the protection of native species.”
Present at the meeting were Río Negro Secretary of the Environment Laura del Valle Juárez, as well as representatives from the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations (CONICET). It is hoped among environmentalists and animal rights activists that this most recent round of dialogues will make Law E 763’s repeal a real possibility, although Juárez had previously stated that it would remain in place until all alternatives were discussed thoroughly.
Although opposition to the anti-puma legislation has existed for some time, it could be argued that the most recent wave of public outcry, sparked by the uploading, posting, sharing, and retweeting of the hunter’s “trophy” photographs, is what motivated lawmakers to revisit the issue. By sharing their exploits online, those who took advantage of Río Negro’s hunting laws may have unintentionally initiated the process of repealing them.
Lead image by Vyacheslav Bondaruk