354 F. Zorondo-Rodríguez et al.
TABLE 1 Perceived frequency of occurrence of threats towards native carnivores in the Nahuelbuta Range in central-southern Chile (Fig. 1), according to local people interviewed during December 2013–January 2014.
Threats towards carnivores
Deforestation/replacement of native forest by exotic plantations
Forest fires
Hunting of carnivore prey Attacks by domestic dogs
Median perceived frequency of occurrence (range)1
3.0 (2–6)
1.0 (1–2) 2.5 (1–6) 3.0 (1–6)
1Based on a six-point scale: 1, never/almost never; 2, low–medium fre- quency; 3, medium frequency; 4, medium–high frequency; 5, high fre- quency; 6, always.
chilla foxes and pumas were reported to be more frequent than attacks by kodkods and Darwin’s foxes (Table 2). Participants mentioned that lethal control of native carnivores is rare in the region, but culpeo foxes and pumas are sometimes killed in response to presumed predation on poultry and livestock, respectively (Table 2).
Willingness to conserve carnivores Although participants reported high willingness to promote the conservation of Darwin’s fox and the kodkod (median.5 in both cases), there was lower support for the conservation of the culpeo and chilla foxes and the puma (Table 2).
Willingness to adopt management practices for domestic animals Participants showed high willingness to adopt management practices to reduce predation on domestic animals, including confinement (median = 6), and investment in henhouses and cowshed infrastructure (median = 5.5 and 6, respectively). However, they were reluctant to leash domestic dogs on theirproperties(median = 2). Most articipants preferred to keep domestic dogs free on their properties (median = 6; Table 3).
Discussion
Negative interactions between people and carnivores, often referred to as human–carnivore conflict, are a challenge in human-dominated landscapes (Treves & Karanth, 2003; Inskip & Zimmermann, 2009). We found that the social perception of carnivore conservation in the Nahuelbuta Range is of significance. Specifically, we found that (1)ru- ral communities perceived that threats towards carnivores aremoderately frequent intheir region; (2) attitudes depended on the carnivore species; and (3)most participants were will- ing to adopt management practices that support carnivore conservation, except leashing dogs.
Conservation biologists have described the replacement
of native forests by exotic plantations, the presence of do- mestic dogs, and hunting of carnivore prey as the main and most frequent threats to carnivores in Chile’s temperate forests (Echeverria et al., 2006; Silva-Rodríguez et al., 2010; Silva-Rodríguez & Sieving, 2011; Sepúlveda et al., 2014a; Moreira-Arce et al., 2015). In the Nahuelbuta Range, com- munities reported that only some of these activities are moderately frequent in this region, suggesting a gap between scientific evidence and the perceptions of threats at a local scale by rural communities. Such a gap would decrease op- portunities for controlling threats if local people consider that the activities are not taking place in the area or that their occurrence is low. For example, efforts to manage free-range dogs to prevent negative interactions with native carnivores (Sepúlveda et al., 2014b;Moreira-Arce et al., 2015) would not be successful if dog owners perceived that dog attacks on carnivores and their prey were rare. If rural communities uphold a flawed perception of socio-ecological phenomena, particularly human–carnivore relationships and the need for carnivore conservation, this could lead to these communities maintaining unsustainable practices that hinder co-existence with carnivores (Fernández- Llamazares et al., 2016). Our results reinforce the need to integrate local perceptions of carnivores, which are usually ignored by researchers and wildlife officers, into conserva- tion efforts (Amit & Jacobson, 2017a,b). Our findings indicated that personal experienceswith car-
nivores varied by species. Participants reported thatDarwin’s fox and the kodkod were not frequent predators of domestic animals, whereas culpeo and chilla foxes and pumaswere the main causes of domestic animal loss. Our results also suggest that when people are directly affected by carnivores they are less willing to conserve them. However, our findings regard- ing social support for species conservation did not necessarily coincide with other studies. For instance, the kodkod is ac- cepted in the Nahuelbuta Range but is persecuted by rural communities in the Maulino (Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014) and temperate forests (Silva-Rodríguez et al., 2009)of central and southern Chile, respectively. In contrast, reported attitudes towards the culpeo and chilla foxes were similar to those found elsewhere in Chile, for example in the Maulino forest where there was also a moderate willingness to con- serve them (Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014). Variation in support for conservation of particular species in different lo- cations may suggest that the willingness to conserve them is determined by cultural norms rather than biological and ecological traits of the species (Campbell & Alvarado, 2011; Soto-Shoender & Main, 2013). For example, the rural people we interviewed are of a different ethnic origin than those in studied in the Maulino and temperate forests (Silva-Rodríguez et al., 2009; Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014). We therefore hypothesize that differences in attitudes towards a given carnivore species are associated with
Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 351–358 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000832
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 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
