Inca Project: Human-felid conflict in the Golfo Dulce Region
Transcripción
Inca Project: Human-felid conflict in the Golfo Dulce Region
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 INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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). INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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) INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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. INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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 INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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 INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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. INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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. INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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 INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION ¿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 INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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. INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION 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. INCA PROJECT: HUMAN-FELID CONFLICT IN THE GOLFO DULCE REGION Page 13 of 13