356 F. Zorondo-Rodríguez et al.
of pathogens of threatened carnivores (Cabello et al., 2013; Sepúlveda et al., 2014a). In the Nahuelbuta Range dogs also negatively affect the habitat use of Darwin’s fox and the kodkod (Moreira-Arce et al., 2015). Our results suggest that for the long-term success of carnivore conservation in the region, efforts to implement dog management practices should consider not only the implications for carnivore ecology but also the consequences these practices would have on human well-being. Our findings highlight the urgency of controlling free-
range dogs in Chile and elsewhere, and that the low social willingness to manage dogs in rural landscapes is a major challenge for conservation efforts to protect native fauna. Although rural communities perceive the conservation of some threatened carnivores positively, the conservation ac- tions they are willing to carry out will not yield positive outcomes unless these communities also adopt dog manage- ment practices. In rural landscapes,where dogs fulfill a social- ly important role and it is not possible to remove them or restrict them by night confinement or leashing, the use of complementary measures needs to be considered, such as vaccination programmes, environmental education, improved feeding strategies, or programmes for mitigation and compensation of the impacts of livestock losses for small- scale farmers (Montecino-Latorre & San Martín, 2018). For biodiversity conservation in rural landscapes, management practices must be evaluated thoroughly, and related to human well-being, if they are to be implemented successfully.
Acknowledgements We appreciate the hospitality, kindness and friendship of the local communities in theNahuelbuta Range, and the fi- nancial support received fromtheMinistry of the Environment of Chile through Fondo de Protección Ambiental (FPA NAC-I-008-2012) and Proyecto Basal USA 1555–Vridei O91775ZR PUBLIC, Universidad de Santiago de Chile. FZR was supported by Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico yTecnológico (FONDECYT)Project
11160672.DMAwas sup- ported by a Becas-Chile ComisiónNacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica scholarship and FONDECYT Project 3160056.
Author contributions Survey conception and design: FZR, DMA; survey administration: FZR, DMA; data analysis: FZR; contribution of analysis tools: DMA, SB; writing: DMA, SB, FZR.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx Code of Conduct. Free, prior and informed consent was sought before focus group discussions and interviews.
References
ABADE, L.,MACDONALD, D.W.&DICKMAN, A.J. (2014) Assessing the relative importance of landscape and husbandry factors in determining large carnivore depredation risk in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape. Biological Conservation, 180, 241–248.
ACOSTA-JAMETT, G., SIMONETTI, J.A., BUSTAMANTE, R.O. & DUNSTONE,N. (2003) Metapopulation approach to assess survival
of Oncifelis guigna in fragmented forests of central Chile: a theoretical model. Mastozoología Neotropical, 10, 217–229.
AMADOR-ALCALA, S., NARANJO, E.J. & JIMÉNEZ-FERRER,G.(2013) Wildlife predation on livestock and poultry: implications for predator conservation in the rainforest of south-east Mexico. Oryx, 47, 243–250.
AMIT,R.&JACOBSON, S.K. (2017a) Stakeholder barriers and benefits associated with improving livestock husbandry to prevent jaguar and puma
depredation.HumanDimensions of Wildlife, 22, 246–266.
AMIT,R.&JACOBSON, S.K. (2017b) Understanding rancher coexistence with jaguars and pumas: a typology for conservation practice. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, 1353–1374.
BEEDELL,J. & REHMAN,T.(2000) Using social–psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 117–127.
BREITENMOSER, U., ANGST, C., LANDRY, J.M., BREITENMOSER- WÜRSTEN, C., LINNELL, J.D.C. &WEBER, J.M. (2005) Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? (eds R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz), pp. 49–71. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
BUTLER, J.R.A., DU TOIT, J.T. & BINGHAM,J.(2004) Free-ranging domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) as predators and prey in rural Zimbabwe: threats of competition and disease to large wild carnivores. Biological Conservation, 115, 369–378.
CABELLO, J., ALTET, L., NAPOLITANO, C., SASTRE, N., HIDALGO, E., DÁVILA, J.A. &MILLÁN,J.(2013) Survey of infectious agents in the endangered Darwin’s fox (Lycalopex fulvipes): high prevalence and diversity of hemotrophic mycoplasmas. Veterinary Microbiology, 167, 448–454.
CAMPBELL, M.O. & ALVARADO, M.E.T. (2011) Public perceptions of jaguars Panthera onca, pumas Puma concolor and coyotes Canis latrans in El Salvador. Area, 43, 250–256.
CBD (CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY)(2010) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets: “Living in Harmony with Nature”.
Https://www.cbd.int/2011-2020/ [accessed 31 October 2018].
DICKMAN, A.J., MACDONALD, E.A. & MACDONALD, D.W. (2011)A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 13937–13944.
DOMINGUEZ, P., ZORONDO-RODRÍGUEZ,F. & REYES-GARCÍA,V. (2010) Relationships between religious beliefs and mountain pasture uses: a case study in the High Atlas Mountains of Marrakech, Morocco. Human Ecology, 38, 351–362.
DORRESTEIJN, I., MILCU, A.I., LEVENTON, J., HANSPACH,J.& FISCHER,J.(2016) Social factors mediating human–carnivore coexistence: understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in central Romania. Ambio, 45, 490–500.
EAGLY, A.H. & CHAIKEN,S.(1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, FortWorth, USA.
ECHEVERRIA, C., COOMES, D., SALAS, J., REY-BENAYAS, J.M., LARA, A. & NEWTON,A.(2006) Rapid deforestation and fragmentation of Chilean temperate forests. Biological Conservation, 130, 481–494.
EKLUND, A., LÓPEZ-BAO, J.V., TOURANI, M., CHAPRON,G.&FRANK, J. (2017) Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific Reports, 7, 2097.
EVANS, G.W. & LEPORE, S.J. (1997) Moderating and mediating processes in environment–behavior research. In Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design: Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization (eds G.T. Moore & R.W. Marans), pp. 255–287. Plenum Press, New York, USA.
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
