- Email: [email protected]
Rancher Perspectives of a Livestock-Wildlife Conflict in Southern Chile
RALA-00127; No of Pages 8
1
Q3 2
By F. HernA˜ndez, D. Corcoran, G. Graells, C. RU´os, and M.C. Downey
O
F
3Q2
Rancher Perspectives of a Livestock Wildlife Conflict in Southern Chile
4
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
34 35 36 37 38
U
33
Keywords: Chile, guanaco, livestockwildlife conflict, Patagonia, ranching, Tierra del Fuego. Rangelands xx(x):1—8 doi 10.1016/j.rala.2017.02.002 © 2017 The Society for Range Management.
39 40 41 42 43
“[Wildlife] has many values. It forms part of the landscape, just as the prairie forms part of the landscape…It would not be perceived well if the guanaco was exterminated, if a bird was exterminated, or any other species. A culture now exists toward 2017
R O
that end [conservation], and that has value.” – Rancher, Tierra del Fuego, Chile Rangelands play an integral role in the global well-being of human societies. Humans derive many goods and products from rangelands such as timber, grazing, and recreation. Many of the ecological processes that are critical to human livelihood, such as energy flow, water recharge, and soil development, also occur on rangelands. 1 In addition, much of the terrestrial global biodiversity may be found on rangelands. 2 Biodiversity is an ecosystem service that historically has been undervalued but recently has garnered much societal support. 2 Biodiversity and its conservation increasingly are being valued by society on moral, ethical, and aesthetic grounds. 3 However, the close link between biodiversity and the more utilitarian uses of rangelands often results in conflicts between human subsistence and biological conservation. One example of such socio-ecological struggle is the livestock– guanaco (Lama guanicoe) conflict occurring on the Patagonian steppe of southern Chile. The guanaco is one of the most culturally and ecologically important species of South America (Fig. 1A). Guanacos played an important role in the culture of native people. 4 They also helped shape the vegetation of the continent, being the only native ungulate to inhabit the Patagonian steppe since the end of the Pleistocene 5 and historically were the most common large herbivore on the Patagonian steppe, numbering 30 to 50 million. 6 However, guanaco populations declined drastically with the arrival of Europeans during the 1800s and the introduction of domestic sheep. 5 Although several factors contributed to the guanaco decline, conflict with sheep ranching is considered a primary cause. The diets of sheep and guanacos overlap considerably, resulting in substantial interspecific competition. 7 In addition, sheep grazing has resulted in vegetation shifts from palatable to unpalatable plants and has contributed to desertification of the steppe. 8 Today, guanaco populations are estimated at about 500,000 to 600,000 and believed to occupy only 40% of their original range. 4 Sheep ranching historically has been the primary land use in Patagonia and is a major economic force in the region (Fig. 1B). Conflict with sheep ranching therefore poses a real
P
D
E
14
T
13
C
12
E
11
R
10
R
9
provided by rangelands. However, the close link between biodiversity and rangelands often results in conflicts between human livelihood and biological conservation, as is occurring with the livestock guanaco (Lama guanicoe) conflict in Patagonia, Chile. • Understanding community attitudes and perspectives regarding conservation is critical for successful conservation. We conducted a study to assess rancher perspectives of traditional land-use practices and biological conservation to identify incentives for, and barriers to, guanaco conservation. • Ranchers strongly valued biodiversity and demonstrated stronger support for the cultural value, rather than economic value, of guanacos. However, a negative perception was associated with guanacos, and guanaco overabundance was identified as the primary cause of the conflict. • Use of a sustainable-harvest approach of guanaco products, which emphasizes the commercial value of guanacos, may not be an effective conservation tool for the species under current conditions. Moreover, identifying the cultural carrying capacity, ecological carrying capacity, and minimum viable population of guanacos will be important in guiding conflict resolution.
O
8
• Biodiversity is an important ecosystem service
C
7
On the Ground
N
5 6
1
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
O
F
therefore value nature, if biodiversity is to be conserved. 10,11 An emerging paradigm in conservation biology is that biodiversity ultimately is achieved at the local level. 12 Consequently, understanding community attitudes and perspectives regarding conservation is critical if conservation is to succeed. Presently, it is unknown what livestock management goals govern ranchers in the Patagonian steppe of Chile and what barriers inhibit their engagement in biological conservation. As a first step toward exploring this human–wildlife conflict, we conducted a study to assess landowner perspectives regarding traditional land-use practices and biological conservation to identify incentives for, and barriers to, guanaco conservation in southern Chile.
Methods
120
T
E
D
P
R O
Our study was conducted in XII Region of Magallanes (Magallanes, Ultima Esperanza, and Tierra del Fuego provinces), Chile. This region represented an ideal setting to investigate the livestock–guanaco conflict because the landscape contains large sheep estancias (ranches), national parks where guanacos exist without any sheep interactions, and areas where government programs have attempted to integrate guanaco conservation. The rancher community exists in a social landscape that is exposed to various degrees of guanaco conservation (i.e., traditional use of rangeland, preservationist approach, and sustainable use) allowing for a diverse breadth of perceptions. We developed a survey to collect basic demographic data of landowners (age, gender, education level, size of estancia, and years of ranching) and assess their perspectives about three general themes: rangeland management, ecosystem sustainability, and biological conservation. The survey was a two-part questionnaire that consisted of structured and open-ended questions. The structured portion of the survey consisted of 16 questions centered on the three themes and was designed to obtain specific information on the livestock–guanaco conflict. Response options included completely disagree, somewhat disagree, undecided, somewhat agree, and completely agree. The open response section of the survey consisted of 30 questions focused on the same three themes; however, questions were broader in scope (i.e., not designed to obtain information on a specific point of interest but rather general information on the socio-ecological system) and responses were open-ended, allowing survey participants the opportunity to fully expression their thoughts. The open questionnaire was based on grounded theory, 13 which uses a systematic set of procedures to collect data and arrive at a conceptual model of social processes. Its goal is not to test existing hypotheses but rather discover an emergent theory of social processes that arise from participant responses. 13 We used grounded theory as a guiding methodology because we did not have any preconceived mental models of the livestock–guanaco conflict, and our goal was to capture as accurately as possible the mental model of the ranching community. Past research indicates that it is critical to elicit local people’s view of their world as they experience it when exploring community perceptions. 11 Traditional hypothesis-testing research involving a preconceived theory therefore is not optimal in such settings; rather,
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
R
87
N C O
86
obstacle to guanaco conservation. Conservation agencies have promoted the sustainable harvest of guanaco products as a possible solution to the livestock–guanaco conflict. For example, guanacos possess valuable fiber that can be harvested via live shearing and sometimes sold at prices competitive with sheep wool. 4 Given this economic incentive, some ranchers are open to guanaco conservation, but social and ecological factors limit sustainable harvest of guanaco fiber as a conservation tool. 9 Sociologically, a negative perception remains of guanacos; ranchers generally view guanacos as competitors with sheep despite their economic value. Ecologically, concern exists regarding the potential negative effects of live shearing on guanaco survival, reproduction, and behavior. 8 Live shearing involves roundups of guanaco herds into corrals by people on horseback or motorcycle. It is unknown how the stress and risk of injury associated with the shearing process influence population viability of guanacos. Thus, sustainable use as a conservation tool for the species remains an undeveloped concept. Conservation policies traditionally have employed preservationist strategies, such as refuges and law enforcement, to conserve biodiversity. 9 However, preservationist strategies practically are limited because people need to use nature, and
U
85
R
E
C
Figure 1. A, The guanaco is a culturally and ecologically important species of South America. Guanacos played a vital role in the culture and economies of indigenous people and helped shape the vegetation of the continent. B, Unfortunately, the diet of sheep and guanacos overlap considerably and therefore a conflict exists with sheep ranching.
2
Rangelands
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162
176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Q4 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219
F
175
O
174
Figure 2. Landowner interviews were conducted in person and consisted of structured and open-ended questionnaires.
R O
173
conceptual, systems model 14 following the general protocol of grounded theory. To accomplish this, we read each interview transcript and recorded key words, phrases, and ideas expressed by landowners, noting occurrence of common concepts. We continued this iterative process until all transcripts had been processed, which resulted in a collective body of data consisting of key words, phrases, and ideas common among interviewees. We used these key words, phrases, and ideas to develop a systems model of the socio-ecological processes underlying the livestock–guanaco conflict.
P
172
D
171
E
170
T
169
C
168
E
167
R
166
R
165
a qualitative methodology that allows a general theory to emerge from the data is warranted. Collectively, the purpose of our survey was two-fold: 1) to obtain a quantitative measure of landowner perspectives on specific issues related to the livestock–guanaco conflict via a structured questionnaire, and 2) to develop a qualitative, conceptual model of landowner perspectives and the socio-ecological system via an open questionnaire. The two questionnaires (i.e., structured and open) were reviewed and refined by U.S. and Chilean colleagues (R. Rhoades, Texas A&M University-Kingsville; R. Lira, Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuaria; S. Radic, Universidad de Magallanes) prior to landowner interviews. Our U.S. colleague had extensive experience designing and implementing landowner surveys, and our Chilean colleagues had intimate knowledge of the ranching community, being locals themselves and engaging with ranchers as part of their agrarian profession. All three colleagues reviewed and refined the surveys from a scientific perspective and ease of interpretation (e.g., clarity of question, use of local terminology, etc.). We used membership of the Asociación de Ganaderos de Magallanes (ASOGAMA; Association of Livestock Producers of Magallanes)—a landowner-based organization dedicated to supporting all aspects of livestock production in the region—to identify interviewees. Most ranchers in the region belong to and are actively engaged in ASOGAMA, which serves as a venue to engage members in meetings and disseminate information to the ranching community. The organization consists of about 108 members whose landholdings represent about 95% of all rangeland area in the region (C. Ramírez, ASOGAMA, personal communication). Our goal was to interview as many ranchers as possible during the study. However, the remote, isolated, and expansive nature of Region XII placed logistical constraints on sample size. Region XII is a remote area of Chile (e.g., glaciers and fjords physically separate this region from the rest of the country) that is characterized by large, expansive rangelands, minimal roads, and low human density. These conditions limited the number of interviews that logistically could be conducted, and we established a goal of sampling approximately 20% of the rancher population as a beginning target. We randomly selected an initial sample of 20 members from ASOGAMA for personal interviews. Interviews were conducted by a two-person team (F. Hernández and D. Corcoran) during October 2014–January 2015 (Fig. 2). Prior to the interview, we provided information about the purpose of the study and general instructions. Landowners were asked to first complete the structured questionnaire. We then continued the interview with the open questionnaire. Responses to the latter were documented using an audio tape recorder for subsequent transcription. The total interview lasted about 1 hour (≈ 15 minutes for structured questionnaire and 45 minutes for open questionnaire). Responses to questions in the structured questionnaire were summarized using simple, descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, median, range, and percent). By contrast, responses from the open questionnaire were synthesized into a
N C O
164
U
163
2017
220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229
230
Results Demographics We obtained interviews from 19 ranchers, of whom 84% were male and 16% were female. The median rancher age was 65 years (mean: 59 years; range: 32–74 years). Most ranchers (84%) had a university degree and had been ranching for a median time period of 38 years (mean: 39 years; range: 10–60 years). Family tradition and/or the desire for a ranching lifestyle was the primary reason why they ranched (88%), followed by life circumstances (12%). Most ranchers (75%) expressed long-term, rangeland sustainability as their primary ranching philosophy, with less (19%) pursuing maximum production and less (6%) seeking ease of management. All ranchers employed some type of grazing scheme, which typically consisted of rotational grazing involving seasonal use (summer–winter) of areas. Median estancia size was 10,500 ha (mean: 19,651 ha; range: 2,500–110,000 ha). Two types of livestock were produced (sheep and cattle), with the majority of the estancias (88%) being dedicated primarily to sheep production with some lesser combination (5%–40% of total livestock numbers) of cattle. Meat and wool were the two commodities produced by landowners. Most ranchers (67%) emphasized primarily meat production, with fewer landowners (20%) emphasizing both meat and wool equally and only 13% emphasizing primarily wool.
3
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254
t1:1 t1:2
Table 1. Percent of ranchers (n = 19) who agree or disagree with statements relative to rangeland management, ecosystem services, and guanaco management based on in-person interviews conducted in southern Chile, Magallanes Province, October 2014January 2015
t1:3
Question
t1:4
Rangeland management
Disagree (%)
Mean agreement
SE
78.9
21.1
3.9
0.3
100.0
0.0
4.8
0.1
4.6
0.2
Stocking rate is the most critical factor impacting rangeland condition.
t1:6
Rangeland deterioration has occurred over much of the grazed Patagonian steppe.
t1:7
Soil degradation is a concern on grazed Patagonian steppe.
94.7
5.3
t1:8
Wildlife competes with livestock for forage and therefore limits livestock production.
78.9
10.5
t1:9 t1:10 t1:12
Rangelands provide important ecosystem services for humans beyond grazing.
t1:13
Environmental conservation is a civic duty.
t1:14 t1:15
0.3
100.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
94.7
5.3
4.7
0.2
P
Biodiversity is an important component of rangelands.
R O
Ecosystem services
t1:11
4.1
O
t1:5
F
Agree (%)
0.0
4.9
0.1
0.0
89.5
1.2
0.1
84.2
10.5
4.2
0.2
68.4
15.8
3.9
0.3
26.3
57.9
2.5
0.3
73.7
21.1
3.9
0.3
100.0
D
Guanaco management
Guanaco populations have been declining in the Magallanes region.
t1:17
Guanacos are a culturally important species.
t1:18
Guanacos are an ecologically important species.
t1:19
Guanacos are an economically important species.
t1:20
Guanaco wool is a commercially valuable product.
t1:21
I would be willing to conserve guanacos if their presence represented supplemental income to my estancia via wool sales.
57.9
31.6
3.3
0.4
t1:22
The hunting of guanacos is an activity with commercial value.
73.7
15.8
4.1
0.3
t1:23
I would be willing to conserve guanacos if their presence represented supplemental income to my estancia via commercial hunting.
52.6
31.6
3.3
0.3
R
R
E
C
T
E
t1:16
256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267
Rancher Perspectives Our questionnaires centered on three broad themes (rangeland management, ecosystem sustainability, and biological conservation). Regarding rangeland management, most interviewees (79%) agreed that stocking rate was the most important factor influencing rangelands (Table 1). In addition, they believed that rangeland deterioration (100% of respondents) and soil degradation (95% of respondents) had occurred on Patagonian rangelands (Table 1). Interviewees believed this deterioration had occurred during the past 5 to 50 years and cited poor management, invasive plants (specifically “pilosela,” Hieracium pilosella), and climate as contributing factors.
U
255
N C O
Note. Mean agreement is the mean score on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = t1:24 strongly agree). If the percent agree or disagree do not sum to 100%, then the remaining percent represents the undecided category. Q1 t1:25 SE, standard error.
4
There was overwhelming agreement among the interviewees regarding the importance of ecosystems and the services they provide. They unanimously agreed that biodiversity was an important component of rangelands and considered environmental conservation a civic duty. A large majority (95%) recognized that rangelands provided important ecosystem services beyond grazing (Table 1). Regarding guanacos, most interviewees (90%) did not believe that guanaco populations were declining in the region, and a large majority (84%) agreed that guanacos possessed cultural value (Table 1). By contrast, fewer interviewees (69%) agreed with the notion that guanacos are ecologically important and even less (26%) agreed with the idea that guanacos are Rangelands
268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316
• Management philosophy: rangeland sustainability; conserve rangelands for long-term use; maintain natural equilibrium; maximum production without overexploitation • Livestock-production constraints: low rainfall; invasive plants (pilosela); lack of fencing of areas of high grazing value (e.g., summer meadows) • Biodiversity: essential; part of the ecosystem; social value and benefit; coexistence with humans is possible, necessary, and appropriate • Guanacos: should be conserved but managed if overpopulated; when species increase, conflict ensues; population imbalance exists because of lack of primary predator (puma [Puma concolor]) and aboriginal hunters no longer exist • Sustainable use of guanacos: lack of market; no tradition for harvest of guanaco products; tradition of use is artisanal not commercial; high cost-to-benefit ratio; fiber difficult to harvest; meat value lessened by sarcosporidiosis • Challenges and opportunities: lack of ranching labor; need for rangeland research; need for determination of guanaco carrying capacity and minimum viable population
332
Discussion
333
The rancher community that we sampled could be characterized broadly as being educated and possessing a strong tradition of ranching, a management philosophy of rangeland
319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
334 335
U
318
N C O
331
We developed a conceptual model based on these key words, phrases, and concepts (Fig. 3). Three key relationships emerged from the conceptual model. First, landowner perception of guanaco overabundance was a key factor contributing to the negative aspects of the species and the general conflict. Second, the lack of a market and lack of a hunting tradition appeared to be contributing factors to the perceived risk of diversifying ranching enterprises to include sustainable use of guanacos. Difficulty in finding laborers for ranch work (i.e., diminishing ranch workforce) also contributed to this general resistance. Third, despite this negative perception toward guanacos, a high regard for the importance of biodiversity and a high cultural value of guanacos exerted a favorable influence on landowner views of the species and general biological diversity.
317
F
291
O
290
R O
289
P
288
D
287
2017
sustainability, and an appreciation of biodiversity. Despite this overall favorable view of nature, an unfavorable perception of guanaco overabundance existed and was a driving factor in the livestock–guanaco conflict. Below we discuss this perception of guanaco overabundance and the seemingly counterintuitive high value placed on guanacos and biodiversity by this ranching community. We also discuss the challenges of using sustainable use as a conservation tool for guanacos in this region and conclude with management implications and research needs. Most ranchers in our study did not believe that guanaco populations were declining in the region and identified overabundance as the cause of the livestock–guanaco conflict. Such perspective appears contradictory to the continental population decline and range contraction that historically has occurred with the species. 4 However, it is important to consider that the population decrease and range contraction of guanacos have occurred over a large spatial and temporal scale, that is, relative to their historic distribution on the continent and relative to historical numbers at the time of European arrival more than 150 years ago. Local areas exist at finer spatial and temporal scales where guanaco populations appear to be rebounding, such as Tierra del Fuego, Chile. The government agency, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG; Agricultural and Livestock Service), has been conducting roadside surveys of guanacos in Tierra del Fuego for the past 30 years. 15 Their data indicate that guanaco populations in the management unit Cameron of Tierra del Fuego have increased by about 300% during 1977 to 2016 (Fig. 4). This population increase possibly has resulted from the federal protection of the species and the virtual lack of guanaco predators on the island. Except for possibly the culpeo fox (Lycalopex culpaeus) and feral dogs, which may be capable of preying upon a young guanaco, 16 Tierra del Fuego is void of large carnivores posing any threat to guanaco survival. In addition, the Selk’nam—the aboriginal people of southern Chile who historically hunted guanacos and relied extensively on the species for food and clothing—were annihilated toward the end of the 19 th century. 17 In an attempt to manage the growing guanaco population and address the resulting livestock–guanaco conflict in Tierra del Fuego, SAG authorized legal, regulated harvest beginning in 2004. 15 The authorized harvest—implemented by two commercial livestock processing plants—appears to have stabilized guanaco populations (Fig. 4). However, it is unknown where the current population size lies relative to the cultural carrying capacity (i.e., population size tolerable to stakeholders), the ecological carrying capacity (i.e., population size sustainable by the environment), and minimum viable population (i.e., minimum population size for species persistence). This lack of meaningful biological and social reference points makes it difficult to assess the true success of the guanaco management plan, both from a conflict-resolution and biodiversity perspective, a point often raised by ranchers and conservationists alike. It is interesting that despite the livestock–guanaco conflict, ranchers in general still possessed an appreciation for biodiversity and guanacos. This is noteworthy because most human–wildlife conflicts, particularly those dealing with
E
286
T
285
C
284
E
283
economically important (Table 1). This lack of interest in the economic value of guanacos also was evident with respect to guanaco products. The majority of interviewees (74%) agreed that guanaco fiber was a commercially valuable product, but fewer (58%) were willing to supplement their income via the sale of guanaco fiber (Table 1). Similarly, most (74%) agreed that guanaco hunting had commercial value, but again fewer (53%) were willing to supplement their income via commercial harvest (Table 1). With respect to the open-ended questions, several common key words, phrases, and concepts emerged from the open questionnaire. These could be broadly grouped into six categories as follows:
R
282
R
281
5
336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392
F O R O P
400 401 402 403 404 405 406
70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0
Year
Figure 4. Estimated population size of guanacos on Cameron, Tierra del Fuego, Chile, 1977 to 2016. A regulated legal harvest was implemented in 2004 (indicated by red arrow). Data were obtained from Soto and Molina (2016). 15
6
a factor for the general lack of interest in the commercial value of guanacos. They noted that the tradition of using guanacos was more artisanal (i.e., use in crafts by townspeople) than commercial. An important management implication arising from this non-utilitarian perspective is that promotion of sustainable use of guanaco products may not be an effective conservation tool for guanacos in this region under current conditions because such approach inherently relies on the commercial value of a species. This scenario of a limited role of hunting in conservation is in sharp contrast to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation where hunting represents a long-standing cultural tradition and forms a founding tenet of wildlife conservation. 19 We do not know the basis for the ranchers’ more aesthetic and less utilitarian perspectives toward wildlife in our study, but it may be related to the fact that most ranchers in our sample possessed a higher education. Past research suggests that an aesthetic basis for biodiversity appears to be more pronounced in higher educated people. 20 For example, a recent study assessed the perspectives of upper, middle-class citizens of Santiago, Chile toward the reintroduction of guanacos into central Chile, which represented part of the species’ former range. 21 The study documented that the majority of respondents (67% of 198 respondents) considered guanaco reintroduction a moral responsibility, an agreement that increased for those with a higher education (74%). Similarly, the majority of respondents (60%) agreed that extinction should not be accepted as a natural process, a consensus that also increased for the higher education group (69%). In addition, a large majority of respondents (90%) rejected the idea that the important criterion to consider regarding guanaco reintroduction was its economic benefits rather than the species’ native status. In both our and the
E
T
C
E
399
R
398
R
397
N C O
396
U
395
human livelihood, often involve people who mostly possess negative perspectives about the “problem” species. 18 The intrinsic and aesthetic value of biodiversity appeared to be the primary factor influencing the favorable view of the native, local fauna in our study area. One rancher commented, “Wildlife form part of the ecosystem. They have to be present. Imagine a life without wildlife? This region, without its fauna, would be the most desolate in the world.” In addition to appreciating biodiversity, it also is intriguing that ranchers in our study valued guanacos primarily for their cultural value and not for their economic value. They cited lack of a market for guanaco products and a limited workforce as factors limiting the economic potential and use of guanacos. In addition, lack of a hunting tradition commonly was cited as
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
394
Guanaco Population
393
D
Figure 3. Conceptual model of the socio-ecological processes underlying a livestockguanaco conflict in southern Chile.
Rangelands
407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438
442
6.
7.
450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471
472
477
References
475
478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
1. The intersection of ecosystem and biodiversity concerns in the management of rangelands. In: West NE, & Whitford WG, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium: Biodiversity on Rangelands; February 1993; Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. p. 72-79. 2. WEST, N.E. 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. Journal of Range Management 46:2-13. 3. ANGERMEIER, P.L. 2000. The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology 14:373-381. 4. FRANKLIN, W.L., F.M. BAS, C.F. BONACIC, C.P. CUNAZZA, AND V.N. SOTO. 1997. Striving to manage Patagonia guanacos for sustained use in the grazing agroecosystems of southern Chile. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:65-73. 5. FRANKLIN, W.L. 1982. Biology, ecology, and relationship to man of the South American camelids. In: Mares MA, & Genoways HH, editors. Mammalian biology in South America. Pymatun-
U
474
N C O
476
Acknowledgments U. P. Kreuter and R. Lira provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This manuscript is Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Publication Number 17–101.
473
9.
10.
11.
P
449
C
448
12.
13.
14. 15.
E
447
R
446
R
445
8.
D
The rancher community in our study 1) deemed biodiversity as important; 2) emphasized the cultural value of guanacos over economic values; and 3) identified population overabundance as the cause of the guanaco conflict. This greater importance of the cultural value of guanacos suggests that the promotion of the commercial value of guanaco products via sustainable use may not be an effective conservation approach for guanacos in this region under current conditions. In addition, given the perception of overabundance, identifying both the cultural and ecological carrying capacity, as well as the minimum viable population, will be critical for facilitating a conflict resolution among the multiple stakeholders (e.g., ranchers, conservation organizations, government agencies, and general public). The cultural carrying capacity should be determined for each stakeholder group to identify a range of acceptable population sizes that may satisfy most stakeholders. 22 Having knowledge of the three parameters (cultural carrying capacity, ecological carrying capacity, and minimum viable population) will 1) permit social and biological interpretations of the current guanaco population size; 2) improve evaluation of current guanaco management relative to ecological and conflict-resolution objectives; and 3) help guide future management decisions and conservation actions for the species. We emphasize that our study represents an initial investigation into rancher perspectives on the sheep–guanaco conflict. Our study assessed about 20% of the rancher population, and the findings therefore should be viewed in this context. Future research is needed to broaden the inference of this study and to address the research needs outlined above.
E
Management Implications
444
T
443
2017
ing Symposia in EcologyPittsburgh, PA, USA: University of Pittsburgh. p. 457-489. RAEDEKE, K.J. 1979. Population dynamics and socioecology of the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) of Magallanes, Chile. [dissertation]. Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington, Seattle. BALDI, R., A. PELLIZA-SBRILLER, D.A. ELSTON, AND S.D. ALBON. 2004. High potential for competition between guanacos and sheep in Patagonia. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:924-938. BALDI, R., A. NOVARO, M. FUNES, S. WALKER, P. FERRANDO, M. FAILLA, AND P. CARMANCHAHI. 2010. Guanaco management in Patagonian rangelands: A conservation opportunity on the brink of collapse. In: du Toit JT, Kock R, & Deutsch JC, editors. Wild rangelands: Conserving wildlife while maintaining livestock in semiarid environments. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley Blackwell Publishing. p. 266-290. VON THÜNGEN, J., AND M.R. LANARI. 2010. Profitability of sheep farming and wildlife management in Patagonia. Pastoralism 1:274-290. ROBINSON, J.G., AND K.H. REDFORD. 1991. The use and conservation of wildlife. In: Redford KH, & Robinson JG, editors. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago, Illinois. p. 3-5. PRATT, D.G., D.C. MACMILLAN, AND I.J. GORDON. 2004. Local community attitudes to wildlife utilization in the changing economic and social context of Mongolia. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:591-613. PRIMBERT, M.P., AND J.N. PRETTY. 1995. Parks, people and professionals: Putting participation into protected area management. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Geneva, Switzerland: Discussion Paper No. 57. GLASER, B.G., AND A. STRAUSS. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine Transaction. RICHMOND, B. 2001. An introduction to systems thinking. Hanover, NH, USA: High Performance Systems, Inc. SOTO VOLKART, N., AND R. MOLINA URIARTE. 2016. Evaluación del manejo de la población de guanacos en el área agropecuaria de Tierra del Fuego. Informe Técnico. Punta Arenas, Chile: Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero. NOVARO, A.J., C.A. MORAGA, C. BRICEÑO, M.C. FUNES, AND A. MARINO. 2009. First records of culpeo (Lycalopex culpaeus) attacks and cooperative defense by guanacos (Lama guanicoe). Mammalia 73:148-150. CHAPMAN, A.W. 2008. End of a world, the Selknam of Tierra del Fuego. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Zagier and Urruty Publications. CONOVER, M.R. 2001. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage conflict. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press LLC. GEIST, V., S.P. MAHONEY, AND J.F. ORGAN. 2001. Why hunting has defined the North American model of wildlife conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 66. p. 175-185. GIFFORD, R., AND R. SUSSMAN. 2012. Environmental attitudes. In: & Clayton SD, editor. The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 65-80. LINDON, A., AND M. ROOT-BERNSTEIN. 2015. Phoenix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape. Ambio 44:458-471. MINNIS, D.L., AND R.B. PEYTON. 1995. Cultural carrying capacity: Modeling a notion. In: & McAninich JB, editor. Urban deer: A manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of The North Central Section. St. Louis, MO, USA: The Wildlife Society. p. 19-34.
F
441
guanaco-reintroduction studies, the intrinsic, aesthetic, and cultural values of guanacos and biodiversity appeared to be of greater importance to Chileans in these studies than the economic or utilitarian benefits.
O
440
R O
439
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
7
493 494 495 Q5 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 Q6 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 Q7 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557
558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565
Pheasants Forever, Inc, Scobey, Montana 59263, USA (Downey). This research was supported by the U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program via a teaching and research award to F. Herna´ndez. We thank the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville and the Instituto de la Patagonia de la Universidad de Magallanes for providing financial and logistical support during the Fulbright Award. F.H. was supported by the Alfred C. Glassell Jr. Endowed Professorship in Quail Research and the R. M. Kleberg, Jr. Center for Quail Research during this research.
Authors are Professor, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363, USA (Hernandez, "[email protected]); Scientific Coordinator, Ciencia Austral, Punta Arenas, Magallanes Province, Chile (Corcoran); Project Coordinator, Ciencia Austral, Punta Arenas, Magallanes Province, Chile (Graells); Director, Institute of Patagonia, University of Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Magallanes Province, Chile (Rios); and Biologist,
U
N C O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
P
R O
O
F
574
8
Rangelands
566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573
1
Q3 2
By F. HernA˜ndez, D. Corcoran, G. Graells, C. RU´os, and M.C. Downey
O
F
3Q2
Rancher Perspectives of a Livestock Wildlife Conflict in Southern Chile
4
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
34 35 36 37 38
U
33
Keywords: Chile, guanaco, livestockwildlife conflict, Patagonia, ranching, Tierra del Fuego. Rangelands xx(x):1—8 doi 10.1016/j.rala.2017.02.002 © 2017 The Society for Range Management.
39 40 41 42 43
“[Wildlife] has many values. It forms part of the landscape, just as the prairie forms part of the landscape…It would not be perceived well if the guanaco was exterminated, if a bird was exterminated, or any other species. A culture now exists toward 2017
R O
that end [conservation], and that has value.” – Rancher, Tierra del Fuego, Chile Rangelands play an integral role in the global well-being of human societies. Humans derive many goods and products from rangelands such as timber, grazing, and recreation. Many of the ecological processes that are critical to human livelihood, such as energy flow, water recharge, and soil development, also occur on rangelands. 1 In addition, much of the terrestrial global biodiversity may be found on rangelands. 2 Biodiversity is an ecosystem service that historically has been undervalued but recently has garnered much societal support. 2 Biodiversity and its conservation increasingly are being valued by society on moral, ethical, and aesthetic grounds. 3 However, the close link between biodiversity and the more utilitarian uses of rangelands often results in conflicts between human subsistence and biological conservation. One example of such socio-ecological struggle is the livestock– guanaco (Lama guanicoe) conflict occurring on the Patagonian steppe of southern Chile. The guanaco is one of the most culturally and ecologically important species of South America (Fig. 1A). Guanacos played an important role in the culture of native people. 4 They also helped shape the vegetation of the continent, being the only native ungulate to inhabit the Patagonian steppe since the end of the Pleistocene 5 and historically were the most common large herbivore on the Patagonian steppe, numbering 30 to 50 million. 6 However, guanaco populations declined drastically with the arrival of Europeans during the 1800s and the introduction of domestic sheep. 5 Although several factors contributed to the guanaco decline, conflict with sheep ranching is considered a primary cause. The diets of sheep and guanacos overlap considerably, resulting in substantial interspecific competition. 7 In addition, sheep grazing has resulted in vegetation shifts from palatable to unpalatable plants and has contributed to desertification of the steppe. 8 Today, guanaco populations are estimated at about 500,000 to 600,000 and believed to occupy only 40% of their original range. 4 Sheep ranching historically has been the primary land use in Patagonia and is a major economic force in the region (Fig. 1B). Conflict with sheep ranching therefore poses a real
P
D
E
14
T
13
C
12
E
11
R
10
R
9
provided by rangelands. However, the close link between biodiversity and rangelands often results in conflicts between human livelihood and biological conservation, as is occurring with the livestock guanaco (Lama guanicoe) conflict in Patagonia, Chile. • Understanding community attitudes and perspectives regarding conservation is critical for successful conservation. We conducted a study to assess rancher perspectives of traditional land-use practices and biological conservation to identify incentives for, and barriers to, guanaco conservation. • Ranchers strongly valued biodiversity and demonstrated stronger support for the cultural value, rather than economic value, of guanacos. However, a negative perception was associated with guanacos, and guanaco overabundance was identified as the primary cause of the conflict. • Use of a sustainable-harvest approach of guanaco products, which emphasizes the commercial value of guanacos, may not be an effective conservation tool for the species under current conditions. Moreover, identifying the cultural carrying capacity, ecological carrying capacity, and minimum viable population of guanacos will be important in guiding conflict resolution.
O
8
• Biodiversity is an important ecosystem service
C
7
On the Ground
N
5 6
1
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
O
F
therefore value nature, if biodiversity is to be conserved. 10,11 An emerging paradigm in conservation biology is that biodiversity ultimately is achieved at the local level. 12 Consequently, understanding community attitudes and perspectives regarding conservation is critical if conservation is to succeed. Presently, it is unknown what livestock management goals govern ranchers in the Patagonian steppe of Chile and what barriers inhibit their engagement in biological conservation. As a first step toward exploring this human–wildlife conflict, we conducted a study to assess landowner perspectives regarding traditional land-use practices and biological conservation to identify incentives for, and barriers to, guanaco conservation in southern Chile.
Methods
120
T
E
D
P
R O
Our study was conducted in XII Region of Magallanes (Magallanes, Ultima Esperanza, and Tierra del Fuego provinces), Chile. This region represented an ideal setting to investigate the livestock–guanaco conflict because the landscape contains large sheep estancias (ranches), national parks where guanacos exist without any sheep interactions, and areas where government programs have attempted to integrate guanaco conservation. The rancher community exists in a social landscape that is exposed to various degrees of guanaco conservation (i.e., traditional use of rangeland, preservationist approach, and sustainable use) allowing for a diverse breadth of perceptions. We developed a survey to collect basic demographic data of landowners (age, gender, education level, size of estancia, and years of ranching) and assess their perspectives about three general themes: rangeland management, ecosystem sustainability, and biological conservation. The survey was a two-part questionnaire that consisted of structured and open-ended questions. The structured portion of the survey consisted of 16 questions centered on the three themes and was designed to obtain specific information on the livestock–guanaco conflict. Response options included completely disagree, somewhat disagree, undecided, somewhat agree, and completely agree. The open response section of the survey consisted of 30 questions focused on the same three themes; however, questions were broader in scope (i.e., not designed to obtain information on a specific point of interest but rather general information on the socio-ecological system) and responses were open-ended, allowing survey participants the opportunity to fully expression their thoughts. The open questionnaire was based on grounded theory, 13 which uses a systematic set of procedures to collect data and arrive at a conceptual model of social processes. Its goal is not to test existing hypotheses but rather discover an emergent theory of social processes that arise from participant responses. 13 We used grounded theory as a guiding methodology because we did not have any preconceived mental models of the livestock–guanaco conflict, and our goal was to capture as accurately as possible the mental model of the ranching community. Past research indicates that it is critical to elicit local people’s view of their world as they experience it when exploring community perceptions. 11 Traditional hypothesis-testing research involving a preconceived theory therefore is not optimal in such settings; rather,
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
R
87
N C O
86
obstacle to guanaco conservation. Conservation agencies have promoted the sustainable harvest of guanaco products as a possible solution to the livestock–guanaco conflict. For example, guanacos possess valuable fiber that can be harvested via live shearing and sometimes sold at prices competitive with sheep wool. 4 Given this economic incentive, some ranchers are open to guanaco conservation, but social and ecological factors limit sustainable harvest of guanaco fiber as a conservation tool. 9 Sociologically, a negative perception remains of guanacos; ranchers generally view guanacos as competitors with sheep despite their economic value. Ecologically, concern exists regarding the potential negative effects of live shearing on guanaco survival, reproduction, and behavior. 8 Live shearing involves roundups of guanaco herds into corrals by people on horseback or motorcycle. It is unknown how the stress and risk of injury associated with the shearing process influence population viability of guanacos. Thus, sustainable use as a conservation tool for the species remains an undeveloped concept. Conservation policies traditionally have employed preservationist strategies, such as refuges and law enforcement, to conserve biodiversity. 9 However, preservationist strategies practically are limited because people need to use nature, and
U
85
R
E
C
Figure 1. A, The guanaco is a culturally and ecologically important species of South America. Guanacos played a vital role in the culture and economies of indigenous people and helped shape the vegetation of the continent. B, Unfortunately, the diet of sheep and guanacos overlap considerably and therefore a conflict exists with sheep ranching.
2
Rangelands
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162
176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Q4 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219
F
175
O
174
Figure 2. Landowner interviews were conducted in person and consisted of structured and open-ended questionnaires.
R O
173
conceptual, systems model 14 following the general protocol of grounded theory. To accomplish this, we read each interview transcript and recorded key words, phrases, and ideas expressed by landowners, noting occurrence of common concepts. We continued this iterative process until all transcripts had been processed, which resulted in a collective body of data consisting of key words, phrases, and ideas common among interviewees. We used these key words, phrases, and ideas to develop a systems model of the socio-ecological processes underlying the livestock–guanaco conflict.
P
172
D
171
E
170
T
169
C
168
E
167
R
166
R
165
a qualitative methodology that allows a general theory to emerge from the data is warranted. Collectively, the purpose of our survey was two-fold: 1) to obtain a quantitative measure of landowner perspectives on specific issues related to the livestock–guanaco conflict via a structured questionnaire, and 2) to develop a qualitative, conceptual model of landowner perspectives and the socio-ecological system via an open questionnaire. The two questionnaires (i.e., structured and open) were reviewed and refined by U.S. and Chilean colleagues (R. Rhoades, Texas A&M University-Kingsville; R. Lira, Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuaria; S. Radic, Universidad de Magallanes) prior to landowner interviews. Our U.S. colleague had extensive experience designing and implementing landowner surveys, and our Chilean colleagues had intimate knowledge of the ranching community, being locals themselves and engaging with ranchers as part of their agrarian profession. All three colleagues reviewed and refined the surveys from a scientific perspective and ease of interpretation (e.g., clarity of question, use of local terminology, etc.). We used membership of the Asociación de Ganaderos de Magallanes (ASOGAMA; Association of Livestock Producers of Magallanes)—a landowner-based organization dedicated to supporting all aspects of livestock production in the region—to identify interviewees. Most ranchers in the region belong to and are actively engaged in ASOGAMA, which serves as a venue to engage members in meetings and disseminate information to the ranching community. The organization consists of about 108 members whose landholdings represent about 95% of all rangeland area in the region (C. Ramírez, ASOGAMA, personal communication). Our goal was to interview as many ranchers as possible during the study. However, the remote, isolated, and expansive nature of Region XII placed logistical constraints on sample size. Region XII is a remote area of Chile (e.g., glaciers and fjords physically separate this region from the rest of the country) that is characterized by large, expansive rangelands, minimal roads, and low human density. These conditions limited the number of interviews that logistically could be conducted, and we established a goal of sampling approximately 20% of the rancher population as a beginning target. We randomly selected an initial sample of 20 members from ASOGAMA for personal interviews. Interviews were conducted by a two-person team (F. Hernández and D. Corcoran) during October 2014–January 2015 (Fig. 2). Prior to the interview, we provided information about the purpose of the study and general instructions. Landowners were asked to first complete the structured questionnaire. We then continued the interview with the open questionnaire. Responses to the latter were documented using an audio tape recorder for subsequent transcription. The total interview lasted about 1 hour (≈ 15 minutes for structured questionnaire and 45 minutes for open questionnaire). Responses to questions in the structured questionnaire were summarized using simple, descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, median, range, and percent). By contrast, responses from the open questionnaire were synthesized into a
N C O
164
U
163
2017
220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229
230
Results Demographics We obtained interviews from 19 ranchers, of whom 84% were male and 16% were female. The median rancher age was 65 years (mean: 59 years; range: 32–74 years). Most ranchers (84%) had a university degree and had been ranching for a median time period of 38 years (mean: 39 years; range: 10–60 years). Family tradition and/or the desire for a ranching lifestyle was the primary reason why they ranched (88%), followed by life circumstances (12%). Most ranchers (75%) expressed long-term, rangeland sustainability as their primary ranching philosophy, with less (19%) pursuing maximum production and less (6%) seeking ease of management. All ranchers employed some type of grazing scheme, which typically consisted of rotational grazing involving seasonal use (summer–winter) of areas. Median estancia size was 10,500 ha (mean: 19,651 ha; range: 2,500–110,000 ha). Two types of livestock were produced (sheep and cattle), with the majority of the estancias (88%) being dedicated primarily to sheep production with some lesser combination (5%–40% of total livestock numbers) of cattle. Meat and wool were the two commodities produced by landowners. Most ranchers (67%) emphasized primarily meat production, with fewer landowners (20%) emphasizing both meat and wool equally and only 13% emphasizing primarily wool.
3
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254
t1:1 t1:2
Table 1. Percent of ranchers (n = 19) who agree or disagree with statements relative to rangeland management, ecosystem services, and guanaco management based on in-person interviews conducted in southern Chile, Magallanes Province, October 2014January 2015
t1:3
Question
t1:4
Rangeland management
Disagree (%)
Mean agreement
SE
78.9
21.1
3.9
0.3
100.0
0.0
4.8
0.1
4.6
0.2
Stocking rate is the most critical factor impacting rangeland condition.
t1:6
Rangeland deterioration has occurred over much of the grazed Patagonian steppe.
t1:7
Soil degradation is a concern on grazed Patagonian steppe.
94.7
5.3
t1:8
Wildlife competes with livestock for forage and therefore limits livestock production.
78.9
10.5
t1:9 t1:10 t1:12
Rangelands provide important ecosystem services for humans beyond grazing.
t1:13
Environmental conservation is a civic duty.
t1:14 t1:15
0.3
100.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
94.7
5.3
4.7
0.2
P
Biodiversity is an important component of rangelands.
R O
Ecosystem services
t1:11
4.1
O
t1:5
F
Agree (%)
0.0
4.9
0.1
0.0
89.5
1.2
0.1
84.2
10.5
4.2
0.2
68.4
15.8
3.9
0.3
26.3
57.9
2.5
0.3
73.7
21.1
3.9
0.3
100.0
D
Guanaco management
Guanaco populations have been declining in the Magallanes region.
t1:17
Guanacos are a culturally important species.
t1:18
Guanacos are an ecologically important species.
t1:19
Guanacos are an economically important species.
t1:20
Guanaco wool is a commercially valuable product.
t1:21
I would be willing to conserve guanacos if their presence represented supplemental income to my estancia via wool sales.
57.9
31.6
3.3
0.4
t1:22
The hunting of guanacos is an activity with commercial value.
73.7
15.8
4.1
0.3
t1:23
I would be willing to conserve guanacos if their presence represented supplemental income to my estancia via commercial hunting.
52.6
31.6
3.3
0.3
R
R
E
C
T
E
t1:16
256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267
Rancher Perspectives Our questionnaires centered on three broad themes (rangeland management, ecosystem sustainability, and biological conservation). Regarding rangeland management, most interviewees (79%) agreed that stocking rate was the most important factor influencing rangelands (Table 1). In addition, they believed that rangeland deterioration (100% of respondents) and soil degradation (95% of respondents) had occurred on Patagonian rangelands (Table 1). Interviewees believed this deterioration had occurred during the past 5 to 50 years and cited poor management, invasive plants (specifically “pilosela,” Hieracium pilosella), and climate as contributing factors.
U
255
N C O
Note. Mean agreement is the mean score on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = t1:24 strongly agree). If the percent agree or disagree do not sum to 100%, then the remaining percent represents the undecided category. Q1 t1:25 SE, standard error.
4
There was overwhelming agreement among the interviewees regarding the importance of ecosystems and the services they provide. They unanimously agreed that biodiversity was an important component of rangelands and considered environmental conservation a civic duty. A large majority (95%) recognized that rangelands provided important ecosystem services beyond grazing (Table 1). Regarding guanacos, most interviewees (90%) did not believe that guanaco populations were declining in the region, and a large majority (84%) agreed that guanacos possessed cultural value (Table 1). By contrast, fewer interviewees (69%) agreed with the notion that guanacos are ecologically important and even less (26%) agreed with the idea that guanacos are Rangelands
268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316
• Management philosophy: rangeland sustainability; conserve rangelands for long-term use; maintain natural equilibrium; maximum production without overexploitation • Livestock-production constraints: low rainfall; invasive plants (pilosela); lack of fencing of areas of high grazing value (e.g., summer meadows) • Biodiversity: essential; part of the ecosystem; social value and benefit; coexistence with humans is possible, necessary, and appropriate • Guanacos: should be conserved but managed if overpopulated; when species increase, conflict ensues; population imbalance exists because of lack of primary predator (puma [Puma concolor]) and aboriginal hunters no longer exist • Sustainable use of guanacos: lack of market; no tradition for harvest of guanaco products; tradition of use is artisanal not commercial; high cost-to-benefit ratio; fiber difficult to harvest; meat value lessened by sarcosporidiosis • Challenges and opportunities: lack of ranching labor; need for rangeland research; need for determination of guanaco carrying capacity and minimum viable population
332
Discussion
333
The rancher community that we sampled could be characterized broadly as being educated and possessing a strong tradition of ranching, a management philosophy of rangeland
319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
334 335
U
318
N C O
331
We developed a conceptual model based on these key words, phrases, and concepts (Fig. 3). Three key relationships emerged from the conceptual model. First, landowner perception of guanaco overabundance was a key factor contributing to the negative aspects of the species and the general conflict. Second, the lack of a market and lack of a hunting tradition appeared to be contributing factors to the perceived risk of diversifying ranching enterprises to include sustainable use of guanacos. Difficulty in finding laborers for ranch work (i.e., diminishing ranch workforce) also contributed to this general resistance. Third, despite this negative perception toward guanacos, a high regard for the importance of biodiversity and a high cultural value of guanacos exerted a favorable influence on landowner views of the species and general biological diversity.
317
F
291
O
290
R O
289
P
288
D
287
2017
sustainability, and an appreciation of biodiversity. Despite this overall favorable view of nature, an unfavorable perception of guanaco overabundance existed and was a driving factor in the livestock–guanaco conflict. Below we discuss this perception of guanaco overabundance and the seemingly counterintuitive high value placed on guanacos and biodiversity by this ranching community. We also discuss the challenges of using sustainable use as a conservation tool for guanacos in this region and conclude with management implications and research needs. Most ranchers in our study did not believe that guanaco populations were declining in the region and identified overabundance as the cause of the livestock–guanaco conflict. Such perspective appears contradictory to the continental population decline and range contraction that historically has occurred with the species. 4 However, it is important to consider that the population decrease and range contraction of guanacos have occurred over a large spatial and temporal scale, that is, relative to their historic distribution on the continent and relative to historical numbers at the time of European arrival more than 150 years ago. Local areas exist at finer spatial and temporal scales where guanaco populations appear to be rebounding, such as Tierra del Fuego, Chile. The government agency, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG; Agricultural and Livestock Service), has been conducting roadside surveys of guanacos in Tierra del Fuego for the past 30 years. 15 Their data indicate that guanaco populations in the management unit Cameron of Tierra del Fuego have increased by about 300% during 1977 to 2016 (Fig. 4). This population increase possibly has resulted from the federal protection of the species and the virtual lack of guanaco predators on the island. Except for possibly the culpeo fox (Lycalopex culpaeus) and feral dogs, which may be capable of preying upon a young guanaco, 16 Tierra del Fuego is void of large carnivores posing any threat to guanaco survival. In addition, the Selk’nam—the aboriginal people of southern Chile who historically hunted guanacos and relied extensively on the species for food and clothing—were annihilated toward the end of the 19 th century. 17 In an attempt to manage the growing guanaco population and address the resulting livestock–guanaco conflict in Tierra del Fuego, SAG authorized legal, regulated harvest beginning in 2004. 15 The authorized harvest—implemented by two commercial livestock processing plants—appears to have stabilized guanaco populations (Fig. 4). However, it is unknown where the current population size lies relative to the cultural carrying capacity (i.e., population size tolerable to stakeholders), the ecological carrying capacity (i.e., population size sustainable by the environment), and minimum viable population (i.e., minimum population size for species persistence). This lack of meaningful biological and social reference points makes it difficult to assess the true success of the guanaco management plan, both from a conflict-resolution and biodiversity perspective, a point often raised by ranchers and conservationists alike. It is interesting that despite the livestock–guanaco conflict, ranchers in general still possessed an appreciation for biodiversity and guanacos. This is noteworthy because most human–wildlife conflicts, particularly those dealing with
E
286
T
285
C
284
E
283
economically important (Table 1). This lack of interest in the economic value of guanacos also was evident with respect to guanaco products. The majority of interviewees (74%) agreed that guanaco fiber was a commercially valuable product, but fewer (58%) were willing to supplement their income via the sale of guanaco fiber (Table 1). Similarly, most (74%) agreed that guanaco hunting had commercial value, but again fewer (53%) were willing to supplement their income via commercial harvest (Table 1). With respect to the open-ended questions, several common key words, phrases, and concepts emerged from the open questionnaire. These could be broadly grouped into six categories as follows:
R
282
R
281
5
336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392
F O R O P
400 401 402 403 404 405 406
70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0
Year
Figure 4. Estimated population size of guanacos on Cameron, Tierra del Fuego, Chile, 1977 to 2016. A regulated legal harvest was implemented in 2004 (indicated by red arrow). Data were obtained from Soto and Molina (2016). 15
6
a factor for the general lack of interest in the commercial value of guanacos. They noted that the tradition of using guanacos was more artisanal (i.e., use in crafts by townspeople) than commercial. An important management implication arising from this non-utilitarian perspective is that promotion of sustainable use of guanaco products may not be an effective conservation tool for guanacos in this region under current conditions because such approach inherently relies on the commercial value of a species. This scenario of a limited role of hunting in conservation is in sharp contrast to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation where hunting represents a long-standing cultural tradition and forms a founding tenet of wildlife conservation. 19 We do not know the basis for the ranchers’ more aesthetic and less utilitarian perspectives toward wildlife in our study, but it may be related to the fact that most ranchers in our sample possessed a higher education. Past research suggests that an aesthetic basis for biodiversity appears to be more pronounced in higher educated people. 20 For example, a recent study assessed the perspectives of upper, middle-class citizens of Santiago, Chile toward the reintroduction of guanacos into central Chile, which represented part of the species’ former range. 21 The study documented that the majority of respondents (67% of 198 respondents) considered guanaco reintroduction a moral responsibility, an agreement that increased for those with a higher education (74%). Similarly, the majority of respondents (60%) agreed that extinction should not be accepted as a natural process, a consensus that also increased for the higher education group (69%). In addition, a large majority of respondents (90%) rejected the idea that the important criterion to consider regarding guanaco reintroduction was its economic benefits rather than the species’ native status. In both our and the
E
T
C
E
399
R
398
R
397
N C O
396
U
395
human livelihood, often involve people who mostly possess negative perspectives about the “problem” species. 18 The intrinsic and aesthetic value of biodiversity appeared to be the primary factor influencing the favorable view of the native, local fauna in our study area. One rancher commented, “Wildlife form part of the ecosystem. They have to be present. Imagine a life without wildlife? This region, without its fauna, would be the most desolate in the world.” In addition to appreciating biodiversity, it also is intriguing that ranchers in our study valued guanacos primarily for their cultural value and not for their economic value. They cited lack of a market for guanaco products and a limited workforce as factors limiting the economic potential and use of guanacos. In addition, lack of a hunting tradition commonly was cited as
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
394
Guanaco Population
393
D
Figure 3. Conceptual model of the socio-ecological processes underlying a livestockguanaco conflict in southern Chile.
Rangelands
407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438
442
6.
7.
450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471
472
477
References
475
478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492
1. The intersection of ecosystem and biodiversity concerns in the management of rangelands. In: West NE, & Whitford WG, editors. Proceedings of the Symposium: Biodiversity on Rangelands; February 1993; Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. p. 72-79. 2. WEST, N.E. 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. Journal of Range Management 46:2-13. 3. ANGERMEIER, P.L. 2000. The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology 14:373-381. 4. FRANKLIN, W.L., F.M. BAS, C.F. BONACIC, C.P. CUNAZZA, AND V.N. SOTO. 1997. Striving to manage Patagonia guanacos for sustained use in the grazing agroecosystems of southern Chile. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:65-73. 5. FRANKLIN, W.L. 1982. Biology, ecology, and relationship to man of the South American camelids. In: Mares MA, & Genoways HH, editors. Mammalian biology in South America. Pymatun-
U
474
N C O
476
Acknowledgments U. P. Kreuter and R. Lira provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This manuscript is Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Publication Number 17–101.
473
9.
10.
11.
P
449
C
448
12.
13.
14. 15.
E
447
R
446
R
445
8.
D
The rancher community in our study 1) deemed biodiversity as important; 2) emphasized the cultural value of guanacos over economic values; and 3) identified population overabundance as the cause of the guanaco conflict. This greater importance of the cultural value of guanacos suggests that the promotion of the commercial value of guanaco products via sustainable use may not be an effective conservation approach for guanacos in this region under current conditions. In addition, given the perception of overabundance, identifying both the cultural and ecological carrying capacity, as well as the minimum viable population, will be critical for facilitating a conflict resolution among the multiple stakeholders (e.g., ranchers, conservation organizations, government agencies, and general public). The cultural carrying capacity should be determined for each stakeholder group to identify a range of acceptable population sizes that may satisfy most stakeholders. 22 Having knowledge of the three parameters (cultural carrying capacity, ecological carrying capacity, and minimum viable population) will 1) permit social and biological interpretations of the current guanaco population size; 2) improve evaluation of current guanaco management relative to ecological and conflict-resolution objectives; and 3) help guide future management decisions and conservation actions for the species. We emphasize that our study represents an initial investigation into rancher perspectives on the sheep–guanaco conflict. Our study assessed about 20% of the rancher population, and the findings therefore should be viewed in this context. Future research is needed to broaden the inference of this study and to address the research needs outlined above.
E
Management Implications
444
T
443
2017
ing Symposia in EcologyPittsburgh, PA, USA: University of Pittsburgh. p. 457-489. RAEDEKE, K.J. 1979. Population dynamics and socioecology of the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) of Magallanes, Chile. [dissertation]. Seattle, WA, USA: University of Washington, Seattle. BALDI, R., A. PELLIZA-SBRILLER, D.A. ELSTON, AND S.D. ALBON. 2004. High potential for competition between guanacos and sheep in Patagonia. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:924-938. BALDI, R., A. NOVARO, M. FUNES, S. WALKER, P. FERRANDO, M. FAILLA, AND P. CARMANCHAHI. 2010. Guanaco management in Patagonian rangelands: A conservation opportunity on the brink of collapse. In: du Toit JT, Kock R, & Deutsch JC, editors. Wild rangelands: Conserving wildlife while maintaining livestock in semiarid environments. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley Blackwell Publishing. p. 266-290. VON THÜNGEN, J., AND M.R. LANARI. 2010. Profitability of sheep farming and wildlife management in Patagonia. Pastoralism 1:274-290. ROBINSON, J.G., AND K.H. REDFORD. 1991. The use and conservation of wildlife. In: Redford KH, & Robinson JG, editors. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago, Illinois. p. 3-5. PRATT, D.G., D.C. MACMILLAN, AND I.J. GORDON. 2004. Local community attitudes to wildlife utilization in the changing economic and social context of Mongolia. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:591-613. PRIMBERT, M.P., AND J.N. PRETTY. 1995. Parks, people and professionals: Putting participation into protected area management. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Geneva, Switzerland: Discussion Paper No. 57. GLASER, B.G., AND A. STRAUSS. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine Transaction. RICHMOND, B. 2001. An introduction to systems thinking. Hanover, NH, USA: High Performance Systems, Inc. SOTO VOLKART, N., AND R. MOLINA URIARTE. 2016. Evaluación del manejo de la población de guanacos en el área agropecuaria de Tierra del Fuego. Informe Técnico. Punta Arenas, Chile: Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero. NOVARO, A.J., C.A. MORAGA, C. BRICEÑO, M.C. FUNES, AND A. MARINO. 2009. First records of culpeo (Lycalopex culpaeus) attacks and cooperative defense by guanacos (Lama guanicoe). Mammalia 73:148-150. CHAPMAN, A.W. 2008. End of a world, the Selknam of Tierra del Fuego. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Zagier and Urruty Publications. CONOVER, M.R. 2001. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage conflict. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press LLC. GEIST, V., S.P. MAHONEY, AND J.F. ORGAN. 2001. Why hunting has defined the North American model of wildlife conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 66. p. 175-185. GIFFORD, R., AND R. SUSSMAN. 2012. Environmental attitudes. In: & Clayton SD, editor. The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 65-80. LINDON, A., AND M. ROOT-BERNSTEIN. 2015. Phoenix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape. Ambio 44:458-471. MINNIS, D.L., AND R.B. PEYTON. 1995. Cultural carrying capacity: Modeling a notion. In: & McAninich JB, editor. Urban deer: A manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of The North Central Section. St. Louis, MO, USA: The Wildlife Society. p. 19-34.
F
441
guanaco-reintroduction studies, the intrinsic, aesthetic, and cultural values of guanacos and biodiversity appeared to be of greater importance to Chileans in these studies than the economic or utilitarian benefits.
O
440
R O
439
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
7
493 494 495 Q5 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 Q6 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 Q7 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557
558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565
Pheasants Forever, Inc, Scobey, Montana 59263, USA (Downey). This research was supported by the U.S. Fulbright Scholar Program via a teaching and research award to F. Herna´ndez. We thank the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville and the Instituto de la Patagonia de la Universidad de Magallanes for providing financial and logistical support during the Fulbright Award. F.H. was supported by the Alfred C. Glassell Jr. Endowed Professorship in Quail Research and the R. M. Kleberg, Jr. Center for Quail Research during this research.
Authors are Professor, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363, USA (Hernandez, "[email protected]); Scientific Coordinator, Ciencia Austral, Punta Arenas, Magallanes Province, Chile (Corcoran); Project Coordinator, Ciencia Austral, Punta Arenas, Magallanes Province, Chile (Graells); Director, Institute of Patagonia, University of Magallanes, Punta Arenas, Magallanes Province, Chile (Rios); and Biologist,
U
N C O
R
R
E
C
T
E
D
P
R O
O
F
574
8
Rangelands
566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573