Demography, prey abundance, and management affect number of cougar mortalities associated with livestock conflicts

Hunters, rangers, cougars, and jaguars: human and nonhuman territories at the Argentine-Brazilian border, 1960s-1990s

This article aims to understand the role of territorial practices in the interaction between human and nonhuman animals. It focuses on the Iguazú and Iguaçu national parks, established by Argentina and Brazil in the 1930s as nature reserves bisected by an international boundary. In a setting where human-made boundaries overlay natural boundaries, qualitatively different spatial practices clash in the territorial encounters between cougars, jaguars, and humans. The article demonstrates how changes in the border practices of park officials, hunters, and big cats reshuffled the terms of these encounters. The article assesses when, where, and how these encounters between rangers, poachers, and big cats took place, showing how felids challenged the spatial placement and taxonomical categories attributed to them by humans.

Characterization of puma-livestock conflicts in rangelands of central Argentina

Livestock predation is one of the major causes of conflicts between humans and pumas (Puma concolor). Using data from interviews with ranchers and kill-site inspections, we characterized puma-livestock conflicts in Villarino and Patagones counties of central Argentinean rangelands. Depredation was considered the major cause of livestock losses, and puma attacks were reported in 46.6% and 35.4% of ranches in Villarino and Patagones, respectively. The majority of ranches underwent losses smaller than 1000 USD. The proportion of livestock lost to predation (0.1-10.4%) and financial losses (5.3-1560.4 USD) per ranch/year varied across ranches, and small sheep ranches in Villarino were affected the most. Depredation was recorded only at night and preferentially in grassland with shrubs and cropland habitats. Although nocturnal enclosures appeared to decrease sheep losses, puma hunting was considered the most effective form of reducing depredation and was implemented by most ranchers. Mortality rates were 3.7 and 1.1-1.56 individuals/year × 100 km² for sheep and pumas, respectively. Nocturnal fencing, shepherding and spatial separation from predators may efficiently reduce sheep losses. However, the poor association between the intensity of puma persecution and puma-related livestock losses suggests that conflict mitigation in central Argentina is not only about reducing damage but also about increasing tolerance.

Attitudes toward jaguars and pumas and the acceptability of killing big cats in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: An application of the Potential for Conflict Index2

We explored the overall acceptability of killing jaguars and pumas in different scenarios of people-big cat interactions, the influence of attitudes toward big cats on acceptability, and the level of consensus on the responses. Data were obtained from 326 self-administered questionnaires in areas adjacent to Intervales State Park and Alto Ribeira State Park. Overall, people held slightly positive attitudes toward jaguars and pumas and viewed the killing of big cats as unacceptable. However, individuals that held negative attitudes were more accepting of killing. As the severity of people-big cat interactions increased, the level of consensus decreased. Knowing whether killing a big cat is acceptable or unacceptable in specific situations allows managers to anticipate conflict and avoid illegal killing of big cats.

Ecology of Problem Individuals and the Efficacy of Selective Wildlife Management

As a result of ecological and social drivers, the management of problems caused by wildlife is becoming more selective, often targeting specific animals. Narrowing the sights of management relies upon the ecology of certain 'problem individuals' and their disproportionate contribution to impacts upon human interests. We assess the ecological evidence for problem individuals and confirm that some individuals or classes can be both disproportionately responsible and more likely to reoffend. The benefits of management can sometimes be short-lived, and selective management can affect tolerance of wildlife for better or worse, but, when effectively targeted, selective management can bring benefits by mitigating impact and conflict, often in a more socially acceptable way.