Inca Project: Human-felid conflict in the Golfo Dulce Region

Transcripción

INCA PROJECT:
HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION
Jamie L Thomas
[email protected]
Seattle, Washington
USA
© June 2014
INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION
Jamie L Thomas
June, 2014
INTRODUCTION
The Golfo Dulce region of Costa Rica, one of the most bio-diverse regions in the world,
covers approximately 2,100km2, of which roughly 1,350km2 is part of the Osa Conservation
Area (ACOSA), one of Costa Rica’s conservation zones. This region has experienced
dramatic changes in the last 100 years, and, as a result, wild felids have suffered serious
habitat loss and range fragmentation. All five indigenous felid species in southern Costa
Rica—margay (Leopardus wiedii), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), jaguarundi (Puma
yagouaroundi), puma (Puma concolor), and jaguar (Panthera onca)—are at risk, their
populations are declining, and conservation is a priority (IUCN, 2013; CITES, 2014; US Fish
& Wildlife, 2014).
Humans are the largest threat to felid populations (Amit et al, 2009), and humans directly
threaten them with retaliatory killing for livestock depredation.
Several Central American studies have documented that HFC is often present when physical
factors, such as, habitat loss, fragmentation, humans in close proximity to forests, and
permitted hunting exist (Amit et al, 2009; Carrillo et al, 2000; Sáenz and Carrillo, 2002).
Social factors are equally important to physical ones. The attitudes and actions of local
people are highly influenced by their unique circumstances, including customs, personal
experiences, economics, education, and beliefs (Dickman, 2010). No solution to HFC can be
successful without understanding the human component (Dickman, 2010; Madden, 2004;
Roberts, 2014; Rabinowitz, 1997).
The Golfo Dulce region experiences all of the physical factors of HFC, however, there is little
understanding of social dynamics. If felid conservation is to be successful, efforts need to
focus on areas where no conflict data currently exists (Inskip and Zimmerman, 2009). The
Golfo Dulce region of Costa Rica was selected as the study area (FIGURE 1) to bring muchneeded social data to the topic.
N
N
FIGURE 1:
SURVEY AREA: 8.3744°N, -83.5711°W BY 8.8000°N, -83.1526°W
Page 2 of 13
AIM / OBJECTIVES
The study purpose was to assess the severity of HFC and evaluate its influence on felid
populations in the Golfo Dulce region of Costa Rica.
Objectives



Investigate attitudes of local people related to felids,
Analyse maps identifying concerns for felid conservation,
Investigate solutions to mitigate HFC and evaluate efficacy for the study region.
METHODS
As part social sciences, part literature review, and part quantitative evaluation, an
interdisciplinary methodology was adopted.
Literature Review
A search of published English- and Spanish-language scientific literature was conducted to
identify previous studies of HFC. Discussions with researchers in similar fields and internet
searches were used to identify and retrieve topical articles, books, and websites.
Mapping
To spatially characterise conflict and conservation issues facing felids and humans, land
cover, conservation areas and felid range maps were used (FIGURES 2 – 4). The land cover
map was obtained from Osa Conservation in GIS format and cross referenced against
updated on-line maps (2011).
N
FIGURE 2:
LAND COVER MAP
Conservation areas were obtained from the National System of Conservation Areas
(SINAC).
Page 3 of 13
N
FIGURE 3:
National Park
National Forest
Wildlife Reserve
National Wetlands
CONSERVATION AREAS (SINAC, 2014)
A map depicting jaguar ranges was obtained from Panthera (2014A). Jaguar and puma
territory are approximately 40km2 and 36km2, respectively (IUCN, 2013). Both species will
share territory with other felids in the range, allowing for overlap of individuals (Rinehart et al,
2014; Salom-Pérez et al, 2007).
Historic Range
Current Range
N
FIGURE 4:
HISTORIC AND CURRENT JAGUAR RANGE (PANTHERA, 2014A)
Page 4 of 13
Interviews
An interview form (Appendix A) was developed to capture how local people feel about and
interact with felids. Particular care was taken as to the content and technique used to
conduct interviews—sensitivity awareness of inquiries to ranchers relating to HFC and
questions appropriate to the audience was critical to obtaining practical results (Roberts,
2014; Rabinowitz, 1997).
The survey route was selected based on
road accessibility and proximity of forest to
ranches. Interviewers covered the route via
bicycle over four days to allow for the fullest
flexibility in meeting with interviewees
between Golfito and Puerto Jiménez
(FIGURE 5).
Each interview was conducted using a semistructured format with questions directed to
farm holdings and management; felid and
prey observations; sources of farmer
challenges; and interviewee opinions. Upon
identification of a potential interview site
(livestock present), an interview form was
numbered and GPS location recorded
regardless of the interview outcome. Each
interview was then conducted in Spanish
following the developed standards (TABLE 1).
N
FIGURE 5:
INTERVIEW ROUTE (120KM)
TABLE 1:
INTERVIEW STANDARDS
Criteria for In-Person Interviews
Keep in mind the following for each interview:
Succinct introduction of team and reason for study
Immediately following each survey, the team
privately discussed the interview to fill gaps,
add clarification, notes, and comments.
Permission received prior to conducting interview
During a separate survey, thirty-nine
interviews were conducted between Puerto
Jiménez and Carate. The data was made
available for inclusion in this study (Roberts
and Haynes, 2013).
Respect time; keep interview short (5-10 minutes)
Maintain open mind and refrain from judgement
Use non-offensive language
Allow conversation fluidity
Not all questions are relevant to all situations
Thank the participant for their time and assistance
RESULTS
Comparative Research
More than 50 scientific resources were reviewed relating to HFC. An important source was
Inskip and Zimmerman (2009), who compiled data from 349 sources and found that over
75% of the world’s felid populations are subject to HFC.
A significant underlying factor was felid conversion to livestock predation in response to loss
of habitat and natural prey removal (Carrillo et al, 2000; Sáenz and Carrillo, 2002). Between
1991—1998, 33 (four in study region) felid attacks on livestock were documented in Costa
Rica (Sáenz and Carrillo, 2002), compared to March 2008—September 2009 where 81
attacks were documented in northern Costa Rica alone (Amit et al, 2013).
Many strategies have been attempted to ease HFC (TABLE 2). Improved management
practices were the most successful at reducing livestock losses, but smaller and less
economically stable ranchers may not be able to implement them (Amit et al, 2013).
Substantially important to felid conservation is the establishment of corridors to connect
populations with each other (Panthera, 2014B; Salom-Pérez et al, 2007; Sanderson et al,
2002); without them, some populations may become isolated to the point of extirpation.
Page 5 of 13
TABLE 2:
STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT
Attempted / Implemented Solutions to Human-Felid Conflict Worldwide
Concept
Aversive Conditioning
Barriers
Corridors
Community Programs
Deterrents
Financial Incentive
Examples
Electrified human dummies or stuffed animals; recently
killed livestock injected with nauseating substance
Improved fencing; fences preventing cattle entering
forests
Connection of felid ranges with natural corridors
Community outreach & education initiatives; grants for
development and protecting wildlife
Scarecrows; lights and noises; pyrotechnics
Lethal Control
Compensation, insurance, incentive schemes,
ecotourism
Proactive agriculture extension, livestock grazing free
areas, resettlement of humans
Selective removal of felids
Livestock Guarding
People or dogs protecting livestock
Livestock Husbandry
Relocation
Improved protection, synchronization of calving
seasons, immunization
Problem animals relocated to protected area
Zoning
Separating livestock grazing from felid habitat
Land Use Control
Mapping
Overlapping land cover with felid ranges confirms significant fragmentation of the range.
Habitat loss and fragmentation are so severe that forest area can no longer sustain major
jaguar populations (Salom-Pérez et al, 2007).
In Corcovado National Park the jaguar population has been estimated at 30 individuals
(6.98/100km2); but the space could maintain up to 50 (Salom-Pérez et al, 2007). Another
survey, southeast of the park, estimates the population at two individuals (4/102km2)
(Bustamante, 2008). These estimations are within other Costa Rican jaguar population
estimates (Alfaro, 2006; Amit, 2006; Gonzalez, 2008). The Salom-Pérez et al (2007) and
Bustamante (2008) study areas differ in land use—the first is a National Park while the
second is private land with primarily forest, ranch, and agriculture uses.
Since 2006, Panthera has been working on the implementation of the Jaguar Corridor
Initiative as a component to felid conservation. In order for an area to be included in the
corridor, the jaguar population it supports must be significant enough to warrant its inclusion
(Panthera, 2014B). The jaguar population located on the Osa Peninsula is one of the
populations included in Panthera’s Jaguar Corridor Initiative. In the Golfo Dulce region, the
jaguar corridor is overlapped with the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve. Improved corridor
protection is essential to guarantee long-term survival of the jaguar in Costa Rica (SalomPérez et al, 2007).
Significant changes have occurred in felid ranges primarily resulting from human population
growth—over 122% between 1927 and 2011 (Nunley, 1960). The development of Puerto
Jiménez (1914), Golfito (1930’s) and the Inter-American Highway (1957) contributed to
deforestation of the region. During the 1970’s, Costa Rica had the highest deforestation rate
of any Central American country (Weber, 2001). Even as the National System of
Conservation Areas (SINAC) (1987) was established, the government did not own significant
Page 6 of 13
portions of these lands; and permits had been previously granted allowing human uses
(Weber, 2001), which limited conservation efforts and continues to influence felid ranges.
Interviews
Of the 57 interview attempts made by Inca Project and Roberts and Haynes combined, 32
(13 Inca Project and 19 Roberts and Haynes) documented the presence of livestock and
were included in the data set.
Farm size holdings ranged from three to 700 hectares, 120 hectares was the average and
37.5% were less than 20 hectares. Most farmers held fewer than 100 animals, the most
common are cows (76.9%), horses (53.8%), pigs (34.6%) and poultry (57.7%) (TABLE 3).
TABLE 3:
FARM HOLDINGS
Farm Size
n=24
Area
%
(hectares)
1 — 19
37.5%
20 — 99
37.5%
100 — 299
16.7%
300 +
8.3%
Quantity of Livestock
n=32
Quantity
%
Range
1 —
9
6.3%
10 — 49
40.6%
50 — 99
28.1%
100 — 299
15.6%
300 +
9.4%
Size Range:
Average Size:
75.0% of farmers have fewer
than 100 animals.
3 to 700 ha.
120 ha.
All respondents had some type of livestock
protection (TABLE 4): canines, humans, and/or
reinforced fencing. Additionally, 16% reported
that protection is not necessary and keep
dogs primarily as companions.
Average
Count
Cows
76.9%
156
Horses
53.8%
9
Pigs
34.6%
8
Poultry
57.7%
23
Burros
7.7%
1
Goats
3.9%
1
65.3% of livestock owners have more than
one type of livestock.
Animal
TABLE 4:
The frequency of wildlife observances varies
by species (TABLE 5). Respondents reported
that they encounter jaguars (37%) and pumas
(43%) at least twice per year and smaller
felids are seen as frequently as monthly
(53%). The collared peccary, white-lipped
peccary, and coati are known felid prey
(Bustamante, 2008; de Oliveira, 2002) and
are seen regularly by survey particpants.
TABLE 5:
Type of Livestock
n=24
%
LIVESTOCK PROTECTION METHODS
Livestock Protection Methods
n=25
Protection Type
%
Canines
44%
Humans
32%
Reinforced Fencing
44%
Protection Not Necessary
16%
The majority of farms utilise multiple types of
protection for livestock.
Of those that reported protection is not necessary,
100% owned dogs.
FREQUENCY OF WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Wildlife Observations
n=
22
21
17
13
20
16
18
24
22
23
21
Observation Frequency
Once / Year
Twice /
4 Times /
Monthly
or Less
Year
Year
Jaguar (Panthera onca)
64%
14%
9%
14%
Puma (Puma concolor)
57%
19%
—
24%
Small Wild Felids*
35%
6%
6%
53%
Tapir (Tapirus)
69%
8%
—
23%
Collared peccary (Pecari tajacu)
30%
25%
5%
40%
White-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari)
38%
38%
—
25%
Spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi)
17%
6%
—
78%
Squirrel monkey (Saimiri oerstedii)
4%
13%
—
83%
Capuchin (Cebus capucinus)
5%
14%
—
82%
Howler monkey (Alouatta palliata)
9%
9%
—
83%
Coati (Nasua narica)
33%
10%
—
57%
* Includes margay (Leopardus wiedii), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi)
Species
Page 7 of 13
Wildlife observations indicated that both felids and their prey were present in the survey
area. When mapped, the locations of large felid observations occurred at higher frequencies
near Corcovado National Park (FIGURE 6). When asked about depredation experiences (n=29)
(FIGURE 7), few reported damage to livestock (n=8). When felid depredation was experienced,
it was in the same region as felid observations (FIGURE 8) (locations were approximated to
protect participant confidentiality). The two participants who experienced felid depredation
also endured depredation by other wild animals.
Regardless, interviewee attitudes were generally interpreted as supportive of conservation
for felids and their ranges (91%). Participants reported that few challenges associated with
raising livestock and several went on to explain it is a tranquil way of life. For those that
elaborated (n=15); in addition to wild animal depredation (n=8) and having no problems
(n=2); interviewees faced issues with development (n=2), changing laws (n=3), and
livestock illness (n=2).
Interviewees complained about snakes (n=4), coati (n=2), and tayra (n=2) most frequently.
Also mentioned were possum and mosquitos.
Monthly
Four Times / Year
Twice / Year
N
JAGUAR (Panthera onca)
PUMA (Puma concolor)
FIGURE 6:
Once / Year or Less
FREQUENCY AND LOCATION OF LARGE FELID OBSERVATIONS
Felid*
n=2
5.7%
Other Wild Animals
n=6
17.1%
No Depredation
n=27
77.1%
Felid Depredation
N
Other Wild Animal Depredation
FIGURE 8:
DEPREDATION LOCATIONS
* Respondents who experienced felid depredation also
experienced depredation by other wild animals
FIGURE 7:
DEPREDATION EXPERIENCED
DISCUSSION
The overarching goal of the project was to assess the severity of the HFC and evaluate its
influence on felid populations in the Golfo Dulce region of Costa Rica. The research shows
that HFC is present in the region and conflict severity is low. Many respondents commented
that they are aware of HFC "in the mountains” even if they did not experience it themselves.
Page 8 of 13
“Conflict occurs when wildlife’s requirements overlap with those of the human populations,”
World Conservation Union (2003).
Typically, the largest determinant of HFC is the
depredation of livestock (Dickman, 2010; Inskip and Zimmerman, 2009). In the survey
region, the only felid depredation occurred southeast of Corcovado National Park.
These results were not entirely surprising given that depredation is often lower in areas of
close proximity to human populations (Michalski, 2005). Likewise, depredation is higher
near forested areas. Observations while conducting surveys and the land use map both
show much of the area contained high human population densities—particularly in the
Golfito region and between Rincón and Puerto Jiménez.
Since depredation is higher near forest areas and given the proximity of the survey route to
multiple protected areas, we did expect to find a higher intensity of conflict. There were
several social factors that became clear during the interviews that pointed to reduced conflict
severity. Most all-encompassing was the sense that wildlife and conservation were
important to the people who live in the region. When wildlife and conservation are viewed
favourably, perceived conflict is reduced (Dickman, 2010; Hoogesteijn and Hoogesteijn,
2010).
A frequent underlying factor to HFC is human-human conflict, such as between governments
and the local people (Madden, 2004). We found that the local population was reasonably
sympathetic and familiar with laws relating to conservation and hunting. Indications that
education and community efforts were being employed and somewhat successful were
evident in the survey group.
Although still critical, HFC was not as influential on felid populations as habit loss and
fragmentation. The team observed higher rates of fragmentation and palm plantations than
expected. Land use management is an acute factor to long-term conservation efforts and
minimizing HFC. Experts agree that improved links between the corridors that connect felid
populations is a key to their conservation (Panthera, 2014B, Salom-Pérez et al, 2007,
Vaughn and Temple, 2002).
It is important to felid conservation to conduct additional social research in order to maintain
an understanding of the severity HFC in the region. Conservationists must be aware as
attitudes and beliefs change over time. Monitoring of felid populations are recommended to
continually analyse their status and use of ranges and corridors. Both of these efforts
together will assist in the long-term survival of felids in Costa Rica.
SUMMARY




HFC in the Golfo Dulce region of Costa Rica is present, but low.
Human activity has changed the geographic region radically, causing severe habitat
loss, deforestation, and fragmentation.
There are many HFC strategies employed worldwide and social factors need to be
considered more thoroughly.
Improved links connecting felid populations is key to their conservation.
Page 9 of 13
APPENDIX A: SURVEY FORM
FRONTIER
TIENE USTED GANADO?
OBJETIVOS DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN: Entender las actitudes con
respecto a los gatos silvestres. Determinar si existe un conflicto entre
los humanos y los gatos en la Península de Osa. Soluciones
potenciales del conflicto.
¿En caso afirmativo, podría
por favor, dedicar breves
minutos a contestar las CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Sus respuestas se mantendrán privado, y no
incluirán información que permita identificarle en cualquier informe
siguientespreguntas?
que podríamos publicar.
Al completar la encuesta debajo de usted de acuerdo en permitir esta información que se
utilizará para la investigación descrita. No hay ninguna compensación por su participación.
Ubicación de la granja (ciudad/región)
Tamaño de la granja (hectáreas)
¿Tiene ganado? ¿Cuánto?
¿Cuáles tipos?
_____1 – 9
_____10 – 49
_____100 - 299
_____300+
_____50 – 99
_____Vacas
_____Cabras
_____Cerdo
_____Burro
_____Caballos
_____Gallinas
_____Otro
¿Con qué frecuencia ve alguno de los siguientes gatos silvestres?
1 vez al año o
2 veces al año
4 veces al año
menos
Jaguar
Puma
Gatos Silvestres Pequeños
Mensualmente
¿Con qué frecuencia ve algún otro animal silvestre mencionado a continuación? ¿Causan daños al ganado?
¿Provoca el
1 vez al año
animal daños
2 veces al año 4 veces al año Mensualmente
o menos
al ganado?
Tapir (Danta)
Saíno (pecari de collar)
Chanco de Monte
(pecari de labios blancas)
Mono araña
Mono titi
Mono carablanca
Mono congo
Tepezcuinte
¿Tiene algún método para proteger a su ganado? ¿Cuál?
_____Perros
_____Personas _____Vallado Reforzado
_____Otro
¿Cuáles son las causas principales de la pérdida de ganado? Ordene las siguientes opciones del 1 al 6:
siendo 1 la causa principal de la pérdida de ganado. Seguidamente, enumere por favor, la cantidad de
animales que ha perdido en cada causa.
Causa de pérdida
Rango
Cantidad de ganado
perdido en 2013
Cantidad de ganado
perdido 2008 – 2013
Nacimiento
Enfermedad
Depredación por gatos silvestres
Depredación por animales
Falta de agua
Falta de alimentación
Nutrición pobre
Robo
¿Qué impacto le causa la pérdida de ganado?
______Pérdida directa de alimentos ______Pérdida económica
______Otro
¿Sabe si se ha matado, cazado o atrapado algún gato silvestre?
______Coste para sus negocios
¿ En el último año?
_____Si
_____No
¿Cuántos? _____
¿ En los cinco últimos años?
_____Si
_____No
¿Cuántos? _____
¿Qué opina usted? ¿Considera que existe un conflicto entre el hombre y los gatos silvestres en la Península
de Osa? ¿Por qué o por qué no?
¿Qué soluciones para evitar la depredación de ganado causada por los gatos felinos ha intentado? ¿Qué
tan exitosas han sido éstas?
¿Tiene alguna otra idea o solución para evitar la depredación de ganado causado por los gatos
silvestres?
¿Le gustaría recibir más información acerca de nuestra investigación y su progreso?
Escribe sus nombre y información sobre nuestra lista de correo.
¡MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU COLABORACIÓN!
Page 10 of 13
SURVEY FORM (ENGLISH TRANSLATION)
FRONTIER
DO YOU HAVE LIVESTOCK? INVESTIGATION OBJECTIVES: To understand the attitudes regarding
If affirmative, could you
please
take
a
few
moments to answer our
questions?
wild felines. Determine if a conflict between humans and felines
exists on the Osa Peninsula. Potential solutions to the conflict
CONFIDENTIALITY: Your responses will be private, and no information
will be provided to the public that can identify participants.
By completing the survey you agree to permit the information to be utilized for the research
described. There is no compensation for your participation.
Location of farm (city/region)
What is the primary cause of loss of livestock? Rank your opinion from 1 to 6; with 1 being the
principle cause of loss to livestock. Then, please list the quantity of losses to animals by cause.
Reason for Loss
Rank
Quantity Livestock Lost
in 2013
Quantity Livestock Lost
2008 – 2013
Birthing
Illness
Depredation by wild felids
Depredation by other animals
Lack of Water
Lake of Food
Poor Nutrition
Theft
Size of farm (hectares)
Do you have livestock? How many?
What type?
_____50 – 99
What is the impact of the loss of livestock?
______Direct loss of food
______Other
_____Goats
_____Pigs
Are you aware of poaching, hunting or trapping of any wild felids?
_____Horses
_____Poultry
_____1 – 9
_____10 – 49
_____100 - 299
_____300+
_____Cows
_____Donkeys
_____Other
How frequently do you see wild felines?
1 time per year or
2 times per year
less
Jaguar
Puma
Small Wild Felines
4 times per year
Monthly
How frequently do you see the other wild animals mentioned below? Are they a danger to your livestock?
Is this animal
1 time per
2 times per
4 times per
a danger to
Monthly
year or less
year
year
livestock?
Tapir
Collared Peccary
White lipped Peccary
Spider Monkey
Squirrel Monkey
Capuchin Monkey
Howler Monkey
Coati
Do you have protection for your livestock? How?
_____Dogs
____People
_____Reinforced Fences
______Economic Loss
______Cost of doing business
In the last year?
_____Yes
_____No
How Many _____
In the last five years?
_____Yes
_____No
How Many _____
What is your opinion? Do you think a conflict exists between humans and wild felids on the Osa Peninsula?
Why or why not?
What solutions to depredation of livestock by wild felids have you tried? Did it work?
Do you have any other ideas or solutions to depredation of livestock by wild felids?
Would you like to receive more information about our research and progress?
Write your name and email address on our email list.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COLLABORATION!
_____Other
Page 11 of 13
REFERENCES
Alfaro, L. (2006). Estado de la población del Jaguar (Panthera onca) y sus presas en el área
de conservación Guanacaste, Costa Rica (Masters thesis). Universidad Naciónal,
Heredia, Costa Rica.
Amit, R. (2006). El Jaguar (Panthera onca) en el sector San Cristóbal del área de
conservación Guanacaste, Costa Rica: Densidad, abundancia de presas y depredación
de Ganado (Masters thesis). Universidad Naciónal, Heredia, Costa Rica..
Amit, R., Rojas K., Alfaro, L.D., & Carrillo, E. (2009). Conservación De Felinos Y Sus Presas
Dentro De Fincas Ganaderas (Technical Report). Programa Jaguar-ICOMVIS-UNA.
Universidad Naciónal, Heredia, Costa Rica.
Amit, R., Gordillo-Chavez, E.J., & Bone, R. (2013). Jaguar and Puma Attacks on Livestock in
Costa Rica. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 7 (1), 77-84.
Bustamante, A. (2008). Densidad y uso de hábitat por los felinos en la parte sureste del área
de amortiguamiento del Parque Nacional Corcovado, Península de Osa, Costa Rica
(Masters thesis). Universidad Naciónal, Heredia, Costa Rica.
CITES (2014). Checklist of CITES Species. Retrieved from (http://checklist.cites.org/); 17th
February, 2014.
Carrillo E., Wong, G., & Cuarón, A. (2000). Monitoring Mammal Populations in Costa Rican
Protected Areas under Different Hunting Restrictions. Conservation Biology, 14 (6),
1580-1591.
De Oliveira, T.G. (2002). “Ecología Comparativa De La Alimentacíon Del Jaguar Y Del
Puma En El Neotrópica” In Medellín, R.A., Chetkiewicz, C.B., Rabinowitz, A.R., Redford,
K.H., Robinson. J., Sanderson, E.W., & Taber, A.B. (Eds.), El Jaguar En El Nuevo
Milenio, pp. 265-287. Universidad Naciónal Autónoma de México/Wildlife Conservation
Society, Mexico City, Mexico.
Dickman, A.J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors
for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13, 458-466.
Hoogesteijn, R. & Hoogesteijn, A. (2010). Conserving wild felids in humanized landscapes:
Strategies for reducing conflicts between jaguars and cattle. Wild Felid Monitor, 3 (2).
Inskip, C, & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human-Felid Conflict: A Review of Patterns and
Priorities Worldwide. Oryx, 43 (1),18-34.
IUCN (2013). Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. Retrieved from:
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/); 17th February, 2014.
Madden, F. (2004). Creating Coexistence between Humans and Wildlife: Global
Perspectives on Local Efforts to Address Human–Wildlife Conflict. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife, 9, pp. 247–257.
Miller, B., & Rabinowitz, A.R. (2002). “¿Por Qué Conservar Al Jaguar?” In In Medellín, R.A.,
Chetkiewicz, C.B., Rabinowitz, A.R., Redford, K.H., Robinson. J., Sanderson, E.W., &
Taber, A.B. (Eds.), El Jaguar En El Nuevo Milenio, pp. 303-316. Universidad Naciónal
Autónoma de México/Wildlife Conservation Society, Mexico City, Mexico.
Michalski, F., Boulhosa, R.L.P., Faria, A., & Peres, C.A. (2006). Human–wildlife conflicts in a
fragmented Amazonian forest landscape: determinants of large felid depredation on
Livestock. Animal Conservation, 9, 179–188.
Page 12 of 13
Nunley, R. (1960). Distribution of Population in Costa Rica, p. 60. National Academy of
Sciences. Washington D.C.
Panthera (2014A). Range Map. Retrieved from:
http://www.panthera.org/landscape-nalysis-lab/maps; 22nd April, 2014.
Panthera (2014B). Jaguar Corridor Initiative. Retrieved from:
http://www.panthera.org/node/27; 22nd April, 2014.
Rabinowitz, A.R. (1997). Wildlife Field Research and Conservation Training Manual.
Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, New York.
Rinehart, K.A., Elbroch, L.M., & Wittmer, H.U. (2014). 19 Common biases in density
estimation based on home range overlap with reference to pumas in Patagonia. Wildlife
Biology, 20, 19–26.
Roberts, N.J. (2014). Introduction to Social Science and Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC)
Social Science Conference. Puerto Jiménez, Puerto Rico.
Roberts, N.J. & Haynes R. (2013). [Human-Wildlife Conflict between Puerto Jiménez and
Carate, Costa Rica]. Unpublished raw data.
Sáenz, J.C. & Carrillo, E. (2002). “Jaguars Depredadores De Genado En Costa Rica: ¿Un
Problema Sin Solucíon?” In Medellín, R.A., Chetkiewicz, C.B., Rabinowitz, A.R.,
Redford, K.H., Robinson. J., Sanderson, E.W., & Taber, A.B. (Eds.), El Jaguar En El
Nuevo Milenio, pp. 127-138. Universidad Naciónal Autónoma de México/Wildlife
Conservation Society, Mexico City, Mexico.
Salom-Pérez, R., Carrillo, E., & Mora, J.M. (2007). Critical Condition of the Jaguar Panthera
Onca Population in Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica. Oryx, 41 (1), 51-56.
Sanderson, E.W., Chetkiewicz, C.B., Medellín, R.A., Rabinowitz, A., Redford, K.H.,
Robinson, J.G., & Taber, A.B. (2002). “Prioridades Geográficas Para La Conservación
Del Jaguar.” In Medellín, R.A., Chetkiewicz, C.B., Rabinowitz, A.R., Redford, K.H.,
Robinson. J., Sanderson, E.W., & Taber, A.B. (Eds.), El Jaguar En El Nuevo Milenio, pp.
601-628. Universidad Naciónal Autónoma de México/Wildlife Conservation Society,
Mexico City, Mexico.
SINAC (2014). Áreas de Conservación. Retrieved from:
(http://www.sinac.go.cr/AC/Paginas/default.aspx); 23rd February, 2014.
Vaughan, C. & Temple, S. (2002). “Conservación del Jaguar en Centroamérica.” In
Medellín, R.A., Chetkiewicz, C.B., Rabinowitz, A.R., Redford, K.H., Robinson. J.,
Sanderson, E.W., & Taber, A.B. (Eds.), El Jaguar En El Nuevo Milenio, pp. 601-628.
Universidad Naciónal Autónoma de México/Wildlife Conservation Society, Mexico City,
Mexico.
Weber, A., (2001). An Introductory Field Guide to the Flowering Plants of the Golfo Dulce
Rain Forests Costa Rica. Biologiezentrum des OÖ Landesmuscums, Linz, Austria.
World Conservation Union, (2003). Preventing and Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflicts.
World Parks Congress. Durban, South Africa.
US Fish & Wildlife Service (2014). Species Report. Retrieved from:
(http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?lead=10&listingType=L); 17th
February, 2014.
Page 13 of 13

Inca Project: Human-felid conflict in the Golfo Dulce Region

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

FOR SALE - Sitges Houses

Jaguar Family Newsletter - St Lucie County School Sites

Jaguars again . Considerations on the feline theme in CeramiC