Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11566–11573
Contrasting human perceptions of and
attitudes towards two threatened small carnivores, Lycalopex
fulvipes and Leopardus guigna, in
rural communities adjacent to protected areas in Chile
I. Sacrist‡n
1, A. Cevidanes 2, F. Acu–a 3, E. Aguilar 4, S. Garc’a 5, M.J. L—pez
6, J. Mill‡n 7 & C. Napolitano 8
1,2 Programa de Doctorado en Medicina de la Conservaci—n,
Facultad de Ciencias de la
Vida, Universidad Andres Bello, Repœblica 440,
Santiago, Chile
3,4,5,6 Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias,
Universidad de Chile, Avda. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana,
Santiago, Chile
7 Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida,
Universidad Andres Bello, Repœblica 440, Santiago,
Chile
8 Instituto de Ecolog’a y Biodiversidad (IEB), Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Las Palmeras
3425, „u–oa, Santiago, Chile
1 isacristan.vet@gmail.com, 2 aitorcevi@gmail.com,
3 francisca.acuna.o@gmail.com, 4 emilio.aguilar@veterinaria.uchile.cl,
5 sgarciag89@gmail.com, 6 lopezjara.m@gmail.com, 7 syngamustrachea@hotmail.com, 8 cnapolit@uchile.cl (corresponding author)
Abstract:
The interaction between humans and small carnivores is a
phenomenon especially frequent in rural fringes, as is the case of communities
surrounding natural areas. In
Chile, two species of threatened carnivores, the DarwinÕs Fox and the Guigna, have increased their contact with humans due to
human-induced changes in their habitat. The objective of this study was to
characterize the interactions of these species with humans by assessing human
perceptions and attitudes toward them, and to assess livestock and poultry
ownership and management practices in local communities to evaluate their
possible roles in the phenomenon.
We conducted semi-structured interviews in rural communities adjacent to
natural protected areas of two different regions in southern Chile. We found that people have a more
positive perception of DarwinÕs Foxes than Guignas,
but both species are considered damaging due to poultry attacks. Livestock and poultry management was
generally deficient. Improvements in animal management and education programs
could lead to a significant decrease in negative interactions.
Keywords: Carnivore
conservation, human-small carnivore interaction, Leopardus
guigna, livestock and poultry depredation, Lycalopex fulvipes.
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4030.10.5.11566-11573
Editor:
Jim Sanderson, Small Wild Cat Conservation Foundation,
Hartford, USA. Date of
publication: 26 April 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript
details: Ms # 4030 | Received 26 January 2018 | Final received 01
March 2018 | Finally accepted 12 April 2018
Citation: Sacristan, I., A. Cevidanes, F. Acu–a, E. Aguilar,
S. Garcia, M.J. Lopez, J. Mill‡n & C. Napolitano (2018). Contrasting human
perceptions of and attitudes towards two threatened small carnivores, Lycalopex fulvipes
and Leopardus guigna,
in rural communities adjacent to protected areas in Chile. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 10(5): 11566–11573; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4030.10.5.11566-11573
Copyright: © Sacristan et al. 2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Funding: FONDECYT Iniciaci—n
N¼ 11150934 (CONICYT); FONDECYT Regular N¼ 1161593
(CONICYT); Morris Animal Foundation (MAF) Fellowship
Training Award (D15ZO-413); National Geographic
Society Conservation Trust Fund (C309-15); Mohamed
bin Zayed Species Conservation
Fund (152510351); Fondo interno
UNAB DI-778-15/R; Morris Animal Foundation (MAF)
D16ZO-825; Wild Felid Association
Grant.
Competing interests: The
authors declare no competing interests.
Author Details: Irene Sacrist‡n (IS)
obtained her degree in Veterinary Medicine in 2011 (Universidad de Extremadura,
Spain), and her MSc degree in Wildlife Management in 2013 (Universidad de
Murcia, Spain). She is a PhD candidate at the PhD Program in Conservation
Medicine at Universidad AndrŽs Bello (Chile). Her research focuses on wildlife
epidemiology and anthropization effects on Leopardus guigna
conservation. Aitor Cevidanes (AC) obtained his
degree in Veterinary Medicine in 2012 (Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain). Later,
he obtained his MSc degree in Terrestrial Ecology and Biodiversity Management
in 2014 (Universitat Autonoma
de Barcelona, Spain). He is a PhD candidate at the PhD Program in Conservation
Medicine at Universidad AndrŽs Bello (Chile). His research interest focuses in
vector-borne diseases at the wildlife/human interface. Francisca
Acu–a (FA), Emilio
Aguilar (EA) and Sebasti‡n Garc’a (SG)
are currently students of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Chile
(Chile). They are developing their final degree thesis within the framework of
the Guigna Conservation Project. Specifically, they
are working on parasites that affect guignas, and the
description of hematological and reproductive parameters of this species,
respectively. Mar’a JosŽ L—pez
(MJL) obtained her degree in Veterinary Medicine at the Universidad de Chile
(Chile) in 2018. She developed her final degree thesis within the framework of
the Guigna Conservation Project, investigating the
spatial ecology of domestic cats in rural areas and their possible interaction
with wild guignas. Javier
Mill‡n (JM) is Full Professor and
Director of the PhD Program in Conservation Medicine at Universidad AndrŽs
Bello, Chile. He is an active member of the WDA and Diplomate of the European College of Zoological Medicine
(Wildlife Population Health). His research focuses in the epidemiology of
parasitic and infectious diseases in wild carnivores and mammals in
general. Constanza Napolitano (CN) is an Associate
Researcher in the Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity at University of Chile
and the Director of the Guigna Conservation Project.
Her research is focused on the impacts of human landscape perturbation on wild
felid populations, pathogens transmitted by domestic cats and genetic diversity
of immune genes. She is member of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group and Coordinator
of the Andean Cat Global Genetics Project.
Author Contribution: Conceived
and designed the study: IS, CN, JM. Performed the surveys and data collection:
IS, AC, FA, EA, SG, MJL, JM. Analyzed the data: IS, JM, CN. Manuscript
revision: IS, AC, FA, EA, SG, MJL, JM, CN. Wrote the manuscript: IS, CN.
Acknowledgements: The
authors wish to thank the local communities who kindly agreed to be interviewed
for this study for their generous collaboration. We are grateful to the Corporaci—n Nacional Forestal CONAF Los R’os office and staff at the Alerce Costero National Park, especially
to Patricio Contreras and Patricia Barr’a for
invaluable logistical support. Thanks to the staff and park guards from the Valdivian Coastal Reserve (The Nature Conservancy) for
their helpful support. We thank Parque Tantauco, especially Alan Bannister for facilitating
logistical support. We are grateful to Mario Alvarado, Carlos Canales, Elfego Cuevas, Diego PŽrez, Nicol‡s
Latorre, Eduardo Laguna, Diego Maturana,
Diego Pe–aloza and Gonzalo Canto for assistance with
data collection. Special thanks to Eduardo Silva, Jim
Sanderson, Javier Cabello (ChiloŽ Silvestre), Ezequiel Hidalgo (Buin Zoo), John
Organ and Felipe Cecchi for providing valuable
support and input during the project.
INTRODUCTION
During the last two centuries, many carnivores
experienced substantial population declines (Ripple et al. 2014). Some of the major threats faced by
carnivores include habitat loss and fragmentation, human population growth and
persecution by humans associated with livestock and poultry depredation (IUCN
2016). The interaction between
human and small- or medium-sized carnivores is a frequent phenomenon in rural
fringes. This is accentuated by the increasing human population and the
associated rise in rates of natural habitat loss worldwide, which are forcing
carnivores to live in increasing proximity to humans (Manfredo
& Dayer 2004). In Chile, natural landscape
transformation has increased in the last decades (Echeverria et al. 2006;
Schulz et al. 2010). This
phenomenon mainly affects species that are highly dependent on dense vegetation
cover and closely associated with forest habitat, such as the Darwin«s Fox Lycalopex fulvipes
and the Guigna Leopardus
guigna.
Both species are threatened carnivores that inhabit southern Chile and
live in close proximity to humans, thus creating instances for human-carnivore
interaction (Sanderson et al. 2002; G‡lvez et al.
2013).
The DarwinÕs Fox (Image 1) is a
canid endemic to southern Chile that inhabits a large
portion of ChiloŽ Island (8,394km2), in
the Nahuelbuta Mountain Range National Park and the
continental Valdivia Coastal Range (JimŽnez & MacMahon
2004; Farias et al. 2014). The DarwinÕs Fox is classified as
Endangered by the IUCN (Silva-Rodriguez et al. 2016). The main threats faced by DarwinÕs Fox
populations are the risk of disease spillover transmission from dogs (mainly
canine distemper virus) (JimŽnez & McMahon 2004) and deforestation, but may
also include human-caused mortality in retaliation for their attack against
domestic animals (Espinosa 2011; Stowhas 2012).
The Guigna
(Image 2) is the smallest wild felid in the Americas (Nowell
& Jackson 1996) and has the most restricted distribution among New World
feline species - approximately 160,000km2 located in central and
southern Chile (30–48 0S), including ChiloŽ
Island, and a narrow strip in southwestern Argentina (39–46 0S
west of 700W) (Nowell & Jackson 1996;
Quintana et al. 2000). Considered
one of the most endangered cats in South America, the Guigna
is classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN (Napolitano et al. 2015b). The main threats against this species
include habitat loss and fragmentation, and direct human persecution
(Napolitano et al. 2015a,b).
Human interaction with these threatened
carnivore species is a very important threat to their survival. Therefore, understanding such
interaction and collecting broad information about the species biology and
behavior and how people respond to their predation on domestic animals is
critical for their conservation (Manfredo & Dayer 2004). Despite the importance of addressing human
dimensions in this interaction in order to promote and implement successful
conservation measures, the issue has been scarcely studied in Chile. Furthermore, most studies in South
America have mostly focused on conflicts involving large carnivores
(Silva-Rodriguez et al. 2007; Inskip & Zimmermann
2009).
With the goal of filling in this research gap,
we studied the interaction between humans and DarwinÕs Foxes and Guignas by assessing human perceptions and attitudes
towards these carnivores in rural communities adjacent to protected areas. We also compared human perception and
attitudes between both carnivore species and the study areas, and assessed
livestock and poultry management practices of local communities to evaluate
their possible roles in these human-carnivore interactions.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to
compare human perceptions and attitudes towards the DarwinÕs Fox and the Guigna; thus it is a descriptive and exploratory study
aimed on gaining a first set of data regarding the human dimension context.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study was conducted in two regions of
southern Chile: Los R’os and Los Lagos.
The study areas encompassed rural communities adjacent to Alerce Costero National Park and
the Valdivian Coastal Reserve in Los Rios Region; and
Tantauco Park, in ChiloŽ
Island, Los Lagos Region (Fig. 1).
Both regions are representative of the Valdivian
Temperate Rainforest, recognized by the Global 2000 initiative as an ecoregion with high conservation priority (Olson et al.
2001; Delgado 2010).
The studied communities subsist on cattle and
poultry breeding and fishing (Delgado 2010), the distance to protected areas is
between 0.2–7.0 km, and they have similar ecological and geographic
topographies: both are located in the temperate rainforest of southern Chile,
200m altitude, and with pluviometry levels between
1,700-2,000 mm per year. The
protected areas located in Los R’os Region cover 83,700ha (Delgado 2010). The Darwin«s Fox was recently discovered
in the Valdivian Coastal Reserve, being the second
confirmed area in the entire Chilean continent area where this species occurs (Far’as et al. 2014). Such findings highlight the relevance of
assessing baseline human dimension information for this species in the
area. Tantauco
Park comprises 118,000ha and is situated in southwestern ChiloŽ
Island. This island stands out for
harboring highly dense populations of Guignas and
DarwinÕs Foxes, which are the only wild felid and wild canid
species inhabiting the island (IUCN 2016).
During 2015 and 2016 we conducted
semi-structured interviews composed of eleven multiple choice questions, in
rural communities adjacent to the protected areas. Interviews were conducted
face-to-face with the household heads only. As the reliability of informants can be
affected by their degree of familiarity with the study area, we only selected
the resident population (Turvey et al. 2014). Hunting these species is illegal in
Chile (Agriculture and Livestock Service, SAG, Hunting Act 2012), so we began
interviews by clarifying that we were a non-governmental organization and that
all information provided would be treated anonymously. To ensure that all interviewees knew
these two carnivores, a detailed description of both species was requested
prior to the interview, to check whether or not the interviewees actually
recognized them. All interviews
followed the ethical guidelines of the Social Research Association (SRA
2003). To compare the results of
the different questionnaires between the two regions and between the two
species, a chi-square test was performed comparing the frequency of each answer
with the R program (R Core Team 2013).
RESULTS
A total of 111 households were surveyed; 54 in the Valdivia area and 57 in ChiloŽ
Island. In regards to the question
on whether interviewees liked the studied carnivores or not (Table 1, question
1), 57.6% (SD= 0.49) and 26.1% (SD= 0.44) answered that they liked DarwinÕs
Foxes and Guignas, respectively. Interviewees had a significantly more
positive perception of DarwinÕs Foxes than Guignas (p
= 0.0001).
Regarding carnivore population numbers (Table 1,
question 2), 56.7% (SD = 0.49) and 46.8% (SD = 0.5) of the interviewees would
like to maintain DarwinÕs Fox and Guigna populations,
respectively, to the number it is today; with significantly greater local
support DarwinÕs Fox populations (p=0.001). A higher proportion of people in
Valdivia wanted both species to decrease in number or disappear, (DarwinÕs Fox
29.6% (SD = 0.46), Guigna 42.5% (SD = 0.49)) in
comparison to ChiloŽ (DarwinÕs Fox 10.5% (SD = 0.30),
Guigna 31.4% (SD = 0.46)); these differences were
significant for both species (p = 0.005).
When inquired on whether these species are damaging (Table 1, question
3), most respondents considered them damaging (50.4% (SD = 0.50)) or very
damaging (57.5% (SD = 0.49)), but there were no significant differences between
the two species or study areas.
In regards to animal ownership and management,
73.6% (SD = 0.44) of people surveyed owned livestock and 58.5% (SD = 0.49)
poultry. Night confinement of
livestock (except bovine) and poultry was practiced by 44.1% (SD = 0.49) of the
surveyed households; whereas 38.7% (SD = 0.48) managed
their animals permanently unconfined, and only 17.1% (SD = 0.37) used permanent
confinement. 63.9% (SD = 0.48) of the respondents, however, thought that the
best method to protect livestock and poultry was indeed confinement. The majority of interviewees in Valdivia
manage their animals with night confinement, 67.5%, whereas in ChiloŽ, the most common practice is for the animals to be
permanently unconfined, 53.5% (SD = 0.50).
No statistically significant differences were found between study areas.
Regarding attacks on farm animals, overall 14.4%
(SD = 0.35) of people declared they have seen both species hunting or eating
farm animals during previous years. Most interviewees (62.2% (SD = 0.48))
declared that the number of animals killed by DarwinÕs Foxes was between one
and four, whereas for Guignas, it was greater than
five animals (68.7% (SD = 0.46)).
Darwin«s Foxes reportedly attacked both sheep and poultry, while Guignas attacked mainly poultry. The majority of people mentioned that
winter (June-August) is the season with the highest frequency of livestock and
poultry attacks, both by DarwinÕs Foxes and Guignas,
33% (SD = 0.47) in both areas. Most
respondents declared that the most frequently observed behavior of DarwinÕs
Foxes was attacking one animal and coming back later to attack more
individuals, 33.3% (SD = 0.47); whereas GuignasÕ
attacks occurred on several animals, during one or more attacks, 36.9% (SD =
0.48). The differences in the results between species and study areas were not
statistically significant.
Table
1. Perceptions and attitudes towards DarwinÕs Fox and Guigna in the two study areas.
|
Total |
Valdivia |
ChiloŽ |
|||
Darwin«s Fox |
Guigna |
Darwin«s Fox |
Guigna |
Darwin«s Fox |
Guigna |
|
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
(%) |
|
1. Do
you like them or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do
not like them at all |
7.2 |
18.9 |
5 |
18.5 |
8.7 |
19.2 |
I do
not like them |
16.2 |
29.7 |
9.2 |
24 |
22.8 |
35 |
I do
not care about them |
18.9 |
22.5 |
24 |
29.6 |
14 |
15.7 |
I
like them |
57.6 |
26.1 |
61.1 |
27.7 |
54.3 |
24.6 |
DonÕt
know/ DonÕt answer |
0 |
2.8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5.5 |
2.
Would you like for the population to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disappear |
9 |
17 |
14.8 |
18.5 |
3.5 |
15.7 |
Decrease |
10.8 |
19.8 |
14.8 |
24 |
7 |
15.7 |
Be
maintained as in the present |
56.7 |
46.8 |
57.4 |
50 |
56 |
43.8 |
Increase |
21.6 |
10 |
11.1 |
1.8 |
31.5 |
17.5 |
DonÕt
know/ DonÕt answer |
1.9 |
6.4 |
1.9 |
5.7 |
2 |
7.3 |
3. Guignas/Darwin«s foxes are: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very
damaging |
13.5 |
14.4 |
16.6 |
30.4 |
10.5 |
16.6 |
Damaging |
36.9 |
43.1 |
38.8 |
39.1 |
35 |
58.3 |
I do
not care about them |
21.6 |
7.2 |
12.9 |
15.2 |
29.8 |
8.3 |
Beneficial |
0 |
0.01 |
0 |
1.86 |
0 |
0 |
Don't
know∕ Don't answer |
28 |
35.3 |
31.7 |
13.44 |
24.7 |
32.8 |
Table
2. Animal ownership and management practices by local
communities.
|
Total
(%) |
Valdivia
(%) |
ChiloŽ (%) |
1. Do
you have farm animals? |
|
|
|
No |
26.4 |
24.5 |
30 |
Yes |
73.6 |
75.5 |
70 |
Don't
know∕ Don't answer |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2.
Which animals? |
|
|
|
Ovine |
34.2 |
43.9 |
35 |
Bovine |
31.5 |
56 |
21 |
Avian |
58.5 |
78 |
57.8 |
Porcine |
16.2 |
5 |
28 |
Rabbit |
1 |
2.4 |
1 |
Equine |
7.2 |
19.5 |
0 |
3.
How do you manage animals? |
|
|
|
Permanently
unconfined |
38.7 |
25 |
53.5 |
Night
confinement |
44.1 |
67.5 |
20.3 |
Permanent
confinement |
17.1 |
7.5 |
26.7 |
DonÕt
know/ DonÕt answer |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4.
Which do you think is the best method to protect farm animals? |
|
|
|
Confinement |
63.9 |
66.6 |
61.1 |
Use
of guardian dogs |
23.4 |
19.6 |
26.7 |
Remove
predators |
13.5 |
14.2 |
12.5 |
DonÕt
know/ DonÕt answer |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table
3. Attacks on farm animals by DarwinÕs Fox and Guigna.
|
Total |
Valdivia |
ChiloŽ |
|||
|
Darwin«s Fox (%) |
Guigna (%) |
Darwin«s Fox (%) |
Guigna (%) |
Darwin«s Fox (%) |
Guigna (%) |
1.
Have you seen them eating or hunting farm animals during the last year? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
14.4 |
14.4 |
22.2 |
12.9 |
7 |
15.7 |
No |
85.6 |
85.6 |
77.8 |
87.1 |
93 |
84.3 |
DonÕt
know/ DonÕt answer |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2.
How many animals did they eat or hunt? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1–4 |
62.2 |
31.2 |
66.6 |
0 |
75 |
11.1 |
5–10 |
18.7 |
50 |
16.6 |
14.2 |
25 |
77.7 |
>10 |
18.7 |
18.7 |
16.6 |
28.5 |
0 |
11.1 |
DonÕt
know/ DonÕt answer |
0 |
0 |
0 |
57.3 |
0 |
0 |
3.
Which season has more farm animal attacks? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winter |
33.3 |
33.3 |
37 |
40.7 |
29.8 |
26.3 |
Spring |
10.8 |
12.6 |
20.3 |
16.6 |
1.8 |
8.8 |
Summer |
7.2 |
4.5 |
7.4 |
1.8 |
7 |
7 |
Autumn |
1.8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3.5 |
1.8 |
All
of them |
9 |
12.6 |
16.6 |
14.8 |
1.7 |
10.5 |
DonÕt
know/ DonÕt answer |
37.8 |
36 |
18.5 |
25.9 |
56.2 |
45.6 |
4.
Which one of these better explains their behavior with respect to the losses
of farm animals: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hunt
one animal and disappear |
8 |
0 |
14.8 |
0 |
1.7 |
0 |
Hunt
one animal and come back for more |
33.3 |
13.5 |
42.5 |
7.4 |
24.6 |
19.3 |
Hunt
several animals and disappear |
2.7 |
13.5 |
3.7 |
22.2 |
1.75 |
5.3 |
Hunt
several animals and come back for more |
14.4 |
36.9 |
22.2 |
46.2 |
7 |
28 |
DonÕt
know/DonÕt answer |
41.6 |
36 |
16.6 |
24 |
65 |
47.4 |
DISCUSSION
The occurrence of
human-carnivore interaction in southern Chile involving rural communities,
DarwinÕs Foxes and Guignas, has been previously
reported (D’az 2005; Silva-Rodr’guez et al. 2007,
2009; Zorondo et al. 2014). These studies, however,
did not contrast human attitudes and experiences between these two carnivores
or between different geographic areas.
The majority of interviewees in this study declared that they liked
DarwinÕs Foxes better than Guignas. This could be explained by the intrinsic
and esthetic value rural communities give to the former species in southern
Chile and also for the decreased damage they cause to farm animals in
comparison to Guignas. Although a higher proportion of people
would prefer DarwinÕs Fox and Guigna populations to be
maintained at their current numbers, DarwinÕs Fox had higher local support than
Guigna populations, especially in ChiloŽ
Island. This may be due to the fact
that ChiloŽ people proudly recognize the DarwinÕs
Fox, also locally called ÒChiloteÓ Fox (i.e., native
of ChiloŽ Island), as their own heritage
species. In contrast, a third of
the people interviewed in ChiloŽ Island wanted Guigna populations to decrease or disappear. In ChiloŽ, guignas have a mythological and superstitious aura; local
farmers believe they are vampires that bite their preyÕs neck and subsequently
suck their blood (Sanderson et al. 2002), which confers Guignas
with magical abilities, possibly amplifying their negative perceptions. Other
explanation could be that Guignas kill more animals
than Darwin«s Foxes and can repeat predation events on poultry, thus providing
people with a negative perception towards them. When inquired about damage
caused by poultry depredation, most respondents in both study areas considered
both DarwinÕs Foxes and Guignas to be damaging or
very damaging, not making any difference between them. Nevertheless, real attacks seem to be
sporadic, since a low proportion (14.4%) of people claimed to have seen a
DarwinÕs Fox or a Guigna actually hunting or eating
livestock or poultry during the last year.
Farm animal predation by carnivores is deeply rooted in the cultural
history of rural communities (Molina 1795), even though comparatively fewer
real incidents occur nowadays. The high proportion of negative attitudes
reported in some studies (Stowhas 2012; Herrmann et
al. 2013) seems unjustified or at least not proportionally linked to the amount
of the currently caused damage, considering that the reported attacks performed
by Guignas and DarwinÕs Foxes seem to be rare events
and that the actual livestock and poultry losses are low. This suggests that negative attitudes
are based mostly on popular knowledge and cultural beliefs, and perhaps even
past experiences, than on actual losses (Silva-Rodriguez et al. 2007).
Regarding animal ownership and
management practices aiming on preventing the attacks, the majority of people
used only night confinement in Valdivia, whereas in ChiloŽ,
the majority of interviewees kept animals permanently unconfined. Despite permanent confinement is an
uncommon practice, the majority of people in both areas reported that the best
way to protect their animals from attacks was confinement (a few thought it was
the use of guardian dogs or removal of predators). A closer look at henhouses and
confinement structures in different rural communities revealed very precarious
and poor construction, not totally effective against carnivore attacks. The lack of adequate structures might
increase negative attitudes towards predatory species, because even when people
try to protect them, their animals suffer predation. This is possibly the reason behind the
greater negative perception towards these carnivores in Valdivia.
The potential conflict between
rural farmers and wild carnivores in southern Chile could have negative effects
for the long-term conservation of these threatened species, and requires an
immediate solution. Indirect
conflict resolution methods have been used in other countries, such as translocation
of problem individuals, loss compensation (Treves & Karanth
2003) and the use of guardian dogs (Silva-Rodr’guez et al. 2009; Sepœlveda et al. 2015). Given that in this study poultry
predation was the main reason for people to hold negative attitudes towards
carnivores, conflict resolution should focus on poultry attack prevention. The construction of adequate, good
quality coops, along with proper animal management practices and the use of
permanent confinement or close supervision, particularly during the winter (the
season with the highest number of attacks), should lead to a reduction in the
damage caused, and therefore the human-carnivore conflict. People seem to be aware of these
measures, however, the main problem to implement them is their cost being too
high for the local residents. Thus,
developing affordable measures could be an option. Cultural beliefs are deeply embedded in
the studied areas, so it is also crucial to change human attitudes and peopleÕs
perceptions through the implementation of environmental education programs. In
some countries, a better understanding of the wild beneficial function of
carnivores in the ecosystem promoted wildlife recovery with significant citizen
participation (Treves & Karanth 2003).
Next steps will be to increase
the number of communities and households interviewed throughout the
distribution of both species, in order to better understand the differences in
human perceptions and attitudes regarding these endangered species and
incorporate this information into adaptive management plans.
REFERENCES
Delgado C. (2010). Plan
de Manejo de la Reserva Costera Valdiviana. Valdivia, 138pp.
D’az, V.A.
(2005). Evaluaci—n de la dimensi—n humana, a travŽs del estudio de las actitudes y conocimientos de la gente de la
Isla Grande de ChiloŽ, X Regi—n,
para futuros planes de conservaci—n de fauna silvestre y
su h‡bitat. Thesis, Facultad de Recursos
Naturales, Universidad Cat—lica
de Temuco, Temuco, Chile, 228pp.
Echeverria, C., D. Coomes, J. Salas, J.M. Rey-Benayas,
A. Lara & A. Newton (2006). Rapid deforestation
and fragmentation of Chilean temperate forests. Biological
Conservation 130(4): 481–494; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.017
Espinosa, M.I. (2011). Dieta y uso
de h‡bitat del huill’n (Lontra provocax) en
ambientes de agua dulce y su relaci—n
con comunidades locales en el bosque
templado lluvioso, Isla
Grande de ChiloŽ, Chile. DVM Thesis, Universidad
Mayor, Santiago.
Far’as, A.A.,
M.A. Sepœlveda, E.A. Silva-Rodr’guez, A. Eguren, D. Gonz‡lez, N.I. Jord‡n,
E. Ovando, P. Stowhas &
G.L. Svensson (2014). A new population of DarwinÕs Fox (Lycalopex
fulvipes) in the Valdivian
Coastal Range. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural
87: 1–3; http://doi.org/10.1186/0717-6317-87-3
G‡lvez, N, F. Hern‡ndez, J. Laker,
H. Gilabert, R. Petitpas,
C. Bonacic, A. Gimona, A. Hestera & D.W. Macdonald (2013). Forest
cover outside protected areas plays an important role in the conservation of
the Vulnerable Gui–a Leopardus
guigna. Oryx 47: 251–258; http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312000099
Herrmann, T. M, E. Schüttler, P. Benavides, N. G‡lvez,
L. Söhn & N. Palomo
(2013). Values, animal symbolism, and human-animal relationships
associated to two threatened felids in Mapuche and
Chilean local narratives. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine 9: 41; http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-41
Hunting Act (2015). Repœblica de Chile. Modificaci—n Reglamento de la Ley de Caza. Decreto Supremo No 5 de enero
de 1998. Ministerio de Agricultura, Santiago, Chile, 45pp.
Inskip, C.
& A. Zimmermann (2009). Human-felid conflict: a review
of patterns
and
priorities worldwide. Oryx 43: 18–34; http://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530899030X
IUCN The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. V. (2016). Http:// www.iucnredlist.org
JimŽnez,
J.E. & E. McMahon (2004). Pseudalopex
fulvipes. In: Sillero-Zubiri
C., M. Hoffmann & D.W. Macdonald (eds.). Canids:
Foxes, Wolves, Jackals and Dogs. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan,
IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Manfredo, J.M.
& A.A. Dayer (2004). Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human-wildlife
conflict in a global context. Human Dimension of Wildlife 9:
317–328; http://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505765
Molina, J.I. (1795). Compendio de la historia geogr‡fica,
natural y civil del Reino de Chile. Antonio de Sancha, Madrid.
Napolitano, C., D. D’az, J. Sanderson, W.W. Johnson, K. Ritland,
C.E. Ritland & E. Poulin
(2015a). Reduced genetic diversity and increased dispersal in Guigna (Leopardus guigna) in Chilean fragmented landscapes. Journal of
Heredity, special issue on Latin American Conservation Genetics
106(1): 522–536; http://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esv025
Napolitano, C., N. G‡lvez,
M. Bennett, G. Acosta-Jamett & J. Sanderson (2015b). Leopardus guigna. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. V 2015. Http://
www.iucnredlist.org
Nowell, K.
& P. Jackson (1996). Wild Cats: Status Survey and
Conservation Action Plan. International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN/ SSC), Gland, Switzerland,
382pp.
Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake,
N.D. Burgess, G.V. Powell & E.C. Underwood (2001). Terrestrial
ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. BioScience 51(11): 933–938; http://doi.org/10.1641/0006568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2
Quintana,
V., J. Y‡nez & M. Valdevenito
(2000). Orden Carnivora, pp. 155–188. In: Mu–oz, P. & J. Y‡–ez (eds.). Mam’feros
de Chile. CEA, Santiago.
R Core
Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
Ripple, A.J., J.A. Estes, R.L. Beschta, C.C. Wilmers, E.G.
Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen,
M. Letnic, M.P. Nelson, O.J. Schmitz, D.W. Smith,
A.D. Wallach & A.J. Wirsing (2014). Status and ecological effects of the worldÕs largest carnivores.
Science 343(6167): 1241484–1; http://doi.org//10.1126/science.1241484
Sanderson
J, M.E. Sunquist & A. Iriarte
(2002). Natural history and
landscape-use of Guignas (Oncifelis
guigna) on IslaGrande
de ChiloŽ, Chile. Journal of Mammalogy 83: 608–613; http://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2002)083<0608:NHALUO>2.0.CO;2
Schulz, J.J. L. Cayuela, C. Echeverria, J. Salas & J.M. Rey-Benayas (2010). Monitoring
land cover change of the dryland forest landscape of
Central Chile (1975–2008). Applied Geography 30:
436–447; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.12.003
Sepœlveda, M.,
K. Pelican, P. Cross, A. Eguren & R. Singer
(2015). Fine-scale movements of rural
free-ranging dogs in conservation areas in the temperate rainforest of the coastal
range of southern Chile. Mammalian Biology 80: 290–297; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2015.03.001
Silva-Rodr’guez,
E.A., G.R. Ortega-Sol’s & J.E. JimŽnez (2007). Human attitudes toward wild felids in a human-dominated landscape
of southern Chile. Cat News 46: 19–21.
Silva-Rodr’aguez, E.A., M. Soto-Gamboa,
G.R. Ortega-Sol’s & J.E. JimŽnez (2009). Foxes,
people and hens: human dimensions of a conflict in a rural area of southern
Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia
Natural 82: 375–386.
Silva-Rodriguez,
E., A. Farias, D. Moreira-Arce
& J. Cabello (2016). IUCN The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. V. 2016. Http:// www.iucnredlist.org
SRA
(Social Research Association) (2003).
Ethical Guidelines. (Http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ethics.pdf
(accessed September 2017)
Stowhas, A.
(2012). An‡lisis del conflicto
entre carnívoros silvestres y campesinos en el
Sur de Chile. DVM Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Silvoagropecuarias,
Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile, 46pp.
Turvey, S.T., C. Fern‡ndez-Secades,
J.M. Nu–ez-mi–o, T. Hart,
P. Martinez, J.L. Brocca
& R.P. Young (2014). Is local ecological knowledge
a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural
landscape? Biological conservation 169: 189–197; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.018
Treves,
K. & U. Karanth (2003). Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management
worldwide. Conservation Biology 17: 1491–1499; http://doi.org//10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x
Zorondo-Rodr’guez,
F., V. Reyes-Garc’a & J.A. Simonetti
(2014). Conservation of biodiversity in private lands:
are Chilean landowners willing to keep threatened species in their lands? Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 87: 4; http://doi.org/10.1186/0717-6317-87-4