Social attitudes towards conservation 355
TABLE 2 Experience of and attitudes towards carnivores in rural communities in the Nahuelbuta Range, in central-southern Chile (Fig. 1), according to local people surveyed during December 2013–January 2014.
Carnivores
Darwin’s fox Lycalopex fulvipes
Culpeo fox Lycalopex culpaeus
Chilla fox Lycalopex griseus
Puma Puma concolor
Kodkod Leopardus guigna
1Based on a six-point scale: 1, never/almost never; 2, low–medium frequency; 3, medium frequency; 4, medium–high frequency; 5, high frequency; 6, always. 2Based on a six-point scale: 1, strong rejection; 2, medium rejection; 3, low rejection; 4, low support; 5, medium support; 6, strong support.
TABLE 3Willingness to adopt management practices for domestic animals to reduce predation by carnivores in rural communities in the Nahuelbuta Range, central-southern Chile (Fig. 1), according to local people surveyed during December 2013–January 2014.
Responsible practice
Overnight confinement of poultry in henhouses
Investment in henhouse infrastructure Overnight confinement of livestock Investment in cowshed infrastructure
Median willingness to adopt (range)1
6.0 (5–6) 5.5 (3–6)
6.0 (4–6) 5.5 (5–6)
Pasturage in places with low predation risk 5.5 (2–6) Restriction of the use of summer pasturage 5.0 (2–6) Taking care of livestock with guard dogs, or by owners
Dogs tied up on the property Dogs free on the property
3.5 (1–6) 2.0 (1–4)
6.0 (3–6)
1Based on a six-point scale: 1, fully disagree; 2, disagree; 3, slightly disagree; 4, slightly agree; 5, agree; 6, fully agree.
ethnicity and communities’ traditional and local manage- ment practices, which strongly influence the relationships among people, species and ecosystems (Dominguez et al., 2010; Lejano et al., 2013; Gavin et al., 2015; Guèze et al., 2015; Lopez-Maldonado & Berkes, 2017; Reyes-García et al., 2017; Soares et al., 2017). This suggests that conserva- tion agencies should adapt conservation strategies in ac- cordance with the diverse relationships between rural communities and carnivores across landscapes and cultures. Although cultural and personal experiences of the loss of domestic animals shape social willingness to conserve native carnivores, self-reported experiences do not normally coin- cide with the frequency of attacks on domestic animals re- ported to public agencies (Rasmussen, 1999; Holmern et al., 2007). Thus, the low willingness to conserve particular car- nivores (e.g. pumas and foxes) may be a consequence of overestimating their level of predation on domestic animals.
Such overestimation of predation and economic losses caused by native carnivores may increase negative attitudes towards carnivores and their conservation (Amit & Jacobson, 2017b). We encourage wildlife managers to esti- mate real versus perceived predation of domestic animals in rural landscapes, which appears to be a determinant fac- tor in how carnivores are perceived by local communities and therefore a pivotal element in the success of conserva- tion actions for carnivores. Conservation biologists have called for the adoption of
management practices that decrease losses of domestic animals and reduce the persecution and killing of carnivores by local people in Chile (Silva-Rodríguez et al., 2009; Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014) and elsewhere (Woodroffe et al., 2007; Inskip & Zimmermann, 2009; Campbell & Alvarado, 2011; Amador-Alcala et al., 2013; Soto-Shoender & Main, 2013; Abade et al., 2014; Eklund et al., 2017; Moreira-Arce et al., 2018). We found that com- munity members were willing to adopt all of the suggested management practices to reduce the predation of domestic animals, except the leashing of dogs. People argued that dogs are more effective if they are free-ranging because not only do they drive carnivores away (thus preventing pre- dation of domestic animals) but they also increase the secur- ity of households. Domestic dogs are used to protect farm animals and guard houses in rural landscapes, and they are left to roam outside the properties (Vercauteren et al., 2014). Described as rural free-range dogs by Vanak & Gompper (2009), these dogs normally remain close to houses, but also make occasional excursions into native for- ests and protected areas via dirt roads and trails (Sepúlveda et al., 2015). In Chilean temperate forests free-range dogs have been reported to negatively affect the habitat use of chilla foxes and southern deer Pudu puda (Silva- Rodríguez et al., 2010; Silva-Rodriguez & Sieving, 2012), preying on endemic and threatened small mammals (Silva-Rodríguez & Sieving, 2011), and acting as reservoirs
Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 351–358 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000832
Median self-reported predation of domestic animals (range)1
1.0
3.5 (2–5) 2.0 (1–5) 3.0 (1–6) 1.1 (1–2)
Median self-reported lethal control by local people (range)1
1.0
1.0 (1–2) 1.0
1.0 (1–2) 1.0
Median willingness to conserve carnivores (range)2
6.0 (4–6) 4.0 (3–6) 4.5 (3–5) 3.0 (2–6) 5.5 (5–6)
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
