34 J. S. Alexander et al.


probability of use (e.g. Molinari-Jobin et al., 2012). To model the probability of detecting lynxes, we used the following survey covariates, representing the respondent’s familiarity with the area: (a) number of years living in the area, (b) an- nual number of hunting or herding outings, and (c) activity (hunter or pastoralist). We fitted single-season, single-species occupancy models


using the package RPresence (MacKenzie & Hines, 2018)in R 4.4.0 (R Core Team, 2024) to determine the probability of site use and detection probability. We ranked the models using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and used model averaging, given that the top model did not have an AICweight.0.9 (Burnham&Anderson, 2002).Anymodels that did not convergewere dropped prior tomodel averaging.


Analysis of themes Responses elicited in the interviews were transcribed using the software ATLAS.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, 2022). Our approach was inductive, identifying patterns through the coding of recur- rent themes presented by respondents. We coded motiva- tions for hunting and pastoralism along recurrent themes (Supplementary Table 5). Responses could be coded in more than one category. Similarly, we conducted content analysis on responses regarding the actual and potential impact of lynx on hunting and pastoralism activities (Supplementary Table 5). We coded discrete segments of the transcribed responses that linked to recurrent themes highlighted by respondents. Finally, the responses related to management and conservation strategies were coded and categorized into discrete topics.


Results


Typology of respondents We interviewed a total of 29 independent respondents across the Giffre Valley, including at least one respondent from each commune, with the exception of one commune in which no interviews were conducted. Respondents were hunters (n = 22, 76%), pastoralists (6, 21%) or both (1, 3%). They were primarilymen (28, 97%) and were 18–80 years old. Most respondents (26, 90%) had been active in hunting and pastoralism in the area during at least the previous 10 years. Of the 23 hunters, most had held a formal hunting permit


since the age of 16–18 years (19, 83%). Many reported that they accompanied older family members on hunting trips during early adolescence. The mean period since obtaining a hunting permit was 27 ± 4 SD years. The majority of hun- ters (20, 87%) hunt with dogs. Most reported hunting large game such as wild boar (23, 100%), chamois (22, 96%), red deer (22, 96%) and roe deer (22, 96%). Fewer hunters re- ported hunting hare (8, 35%) or bird species such as the black grouse (7, 30%). Depending on the game, respondents


usually hunt in groups (23, 100%) and sometimes alone (11, 48%). All reported hunting regularly during the season, and most did so on all available hunting days (i.e. 3 days per week). The mean number of hunting outings for any indi- vidual in the past year was 28 ± 14 SD (0–60). Hunters also reported engaging in other activities in the mountains, such as mushroom collection (6), fishing (4), cutting hay (4) and hiking (4). Of the seven pastoralists, most (86%) reported herding


cows for dairy products (milk, cheese) and just over half (4, 57%) herded small stock (goats or sheep) for meat. Pastoralists reported that their herds occupy designated high mountain pastures during the summer months (June–September). Large livestock are left unattended in electrically fenced areas and visited regularly (daily for milking cows and every 1–2 days for heifers). Most pastures are in the open, but some were said to include forested edges or areas. Sheep and goats are kept in smaller penned areas and are guarded closely by protection dogs and her- ders to prevent wolf predation (no particular efforts were reported to prevent lynx predation). During the winter, large and small livestock are kept indoors in large stables.


Lynx detections


All 29 respondents could identify the lynx correctly from photographs. Almost half (13, 45%) of the respondents re- ported detecting lynxes in the valley. A total of 21 detec- tions were reported over the last four decades, between 1982 and 2022. Of these detections, the majority were category C3 (direct observations; 12, 57%), while others were category C1 (camera-trap photos; 4, 19%) and cat- egory C2 (chamois or roe deer carcasses; 6, 29%).Most de- tections (14, 67%) occurred in the previous 10 years (2013–2022). Nearly all (28, 97%) respondents believed that lynxes


were present in their commune in 2022. Many thought that the lynx was resident (13, 45%) or passing through (11, 38%). Five respondents were unsure. No respondents reported observing a lynx with kittens or young.


Probability of site use


Between 2013 and 2022, the respondents reported having de- tected lynxes in 15 of 129 grid cells, giving a naïve site use estimate of ψ = 0.12 (Fig. 2). Lynx site use was best explained by the model that included both proportion of area that is forested and number of years the respondent had lived in the area as covariates (forest area cumulative Akaike weight = 0.81, years in area cumulative Akaike weight = 0.60; Table 1). The probability of site use was positively related to per cent forest cover (β = 1.92 ± SE 1.30). Per cent of area occupied by housing did not influence lynx site use.


Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 31–39 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000334


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140