Human–Wildlife Interactions 13(1):50–62, Spring 2019 • digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi Carnivore–livestock conflicts in Chile: evidence and methods for mitigation Valeska Rodriguez, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech, 310 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA Daniela A. Poo-Muñoz, Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Mayor, Campus Alemania Sede Temuco, Av. Alemania 0281, Temuco, Chile Luis E. Escobar, Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Tech, 310 West Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA [email protected] Francisca Astorga, Campus Huechuraba, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Mayor, 8580745, Santiago, Chile Gonzalo Medina-Vogel, Centro de Investigación para la Sustentabilidad, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile Abstract: Human population growth and habitat loss have exacerbated human–wildlife conflicts worldwide. We explored trends in human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) in Chile using scientific and official reports to identify areas and species with higher risk of conflicts and tools available for their prevention and mitigation. The puma (Puma concolor) was considered the most frequent predator; however, fox (Lycalopex spp.) and free-ranging or feral dog (Canis lupus familiaris) attacks were also common. Our results suggest that the magnitude of puma conflicts may be overestimated. Domestic sheep (Ovis spp.) and poultry (Galliformes) were the most common species predated. Livestock losses were widespread across Chile but were highest in San Jose de Maipo, located in central Chile, and Cochrane, La Unión, and Lago Verde in south Chile municipalities. Livestock guardian dogs and the livestock insurance, as a part of the Agriculture Insurance of Chile, were identified as the most promising tools to mitigate HWCs, short- and mid-term, respectively. However, longer-term strategies should focus on improving livestock management through extension (i.e., farmer education) programs for local communities. In Chile, HWCs negatively impact small farmers and wild carnivore populations. An interinstitutional and interdisciplinary strategy integrating input from government and nongovernmental organizations, farmers, and academia is needed to achieve effective carnivore conservation in the long-term. Key words: compensation, human–wildlife conflict, insurance, livestock, predation, puma, Puma concolor Conflicts between humans and wildlife are South America, jaguars (Panthera onca), pumas often due to increasing human populations and (Puma concolor; Michalski et al. 2006, Gallardo encroachment in natural habitats (Messmer et al. 2009), crab-eating foxes (Cerdocyon thous), 2000). Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) and pampas foxes (Lycalopex gymnocercus; Soler include crop damage, livestock predation, et al. 2008) are considered important livestock and transmission of diseases affecting humans predators. or domestic animals (Sillero-Zubiri et al. In Chile, most depredations occur when 2006, Messmer 2009). Examples of livestock livestock graze close to natural reserves depredation by wildlife occur worldwide (Bonacic et al. 2007). Increased depredations (Conover 2002). For instance, in Asia, livestock have also been associated with a reduction are killed by leopards (Panthera pardus), tigers in wild prey abundance due to hunting, free- (P. tigris), Asian black bears (Ursus thibetanus), roaming dogs (C. lupus familiaris), and habitat snow leopards (Uncia uncia), and other meso- loss (Gittleman et al. 2001). The increased predators (Madhusudan 2003, Mishra et al. frequency of livestock attacks has exacerbated 2003, Wang and Macdonald 2006). In Europe, HWCs and impeded the conservation of rare wolves (Canis lupus; Blanco 2003), grizzly bears species. In Chile, local authorities recognized (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx), and wolverines the potential for increased HWCs despite the (Gulo gulo; Linnell and Broseth 2003) have been limited data available documenting livestock implicated as major predators of livestock. In losses. Reports suggested that small farmers Carnivore–livestock conflicts • Rodriguez et al. 51 (2) potential legal and admini- strative tools for the prevention and mitigation of these conflicts; and (3) possible solutions to prevent wildlife-associated damage, which could be incorporated into a manual designed to better in- form livestock producers and managers. Study area Chile is located along the southwest of the Americas and has an estimated 17.37 million people, mostly living in urban areas (87%; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas [INE] 2017a). Chile’s national territory is divided into regions for the purpose of government administration; these in turn are divided into provinces and communes or municipalities Figure 1. Map of Chile denoting its regions. Region 0 denotes the (local authorities) (Oficina de area of conflict between Chile and Agentina. Estudios y Políticas Agrarias [ODEPA] 2017). Chile presents 4 are most affected (Amar 2008). Livestock losses marked seasons, which also differ according to on small farms represent a high impact to the latitude. The country has a long and narrow livelihood, considering that the depredation shape (4,200 km in length); the broadest area is of a single animal may result in considerable 375 km wide, and the narrowest area is 90 km income loss for a family (Gittleman et al. 2001, wide (Figure 1). The country is bordered on the Amar 2008). west by the Pacific Ocean, and its central valley The wildlife most commonly involved in is flanked by the Andes Mountain Range, which livestock losses in Chile include puma, foxes separates Chile from Argentina (ODEPA 2017). (Lycalopex griseus, L. culpaeus, and L. fulvipes; The country displays a singular biogeography: Silva-Rodríguez et al. 2009a), and the lesser the northern area (neighboring Bolivia and grison (Galictis cuja). However, few researchers Peru) presents mostly arid zones (<1 mm of have attempted to quantify and characterize rainfall per year) where the Atacama Desert is HWCs in Chile (Cattan et al. 2010). As such, located, the driest desert of the world (ODEPA there are information gaps for geographic areas 2017). The central area is mostly Mediterranean, and species. This information could be used to and the south is characterized by cold and rain, develop more effective management plans and humid forest, lakes, and rivers, ending in the to evaluate economic, social, and legal aspects Antarctic. This great diversity of climates and to reduce negative HWCs. landscapes provides the basis for the country’s To address this gap, in 2017 we conducted diversity (ODEPA 2017). a descriptive study of HWCs across Chile. Livestock are mostly concentrated in the We reviewed scientific and official reports to central and southern regions of the country. identify areas and species with higher risk as Farmlands, crops, livestock, and forestry well as the tools available for prevention and are located in the southern Regions 7, 8, and mitigation. The objectives of this study were to 9 (54%; Figure 1), and only 8.4% farms are assess: (1) the amount and location of reported located between in the extreme north of the livestock losses, involving both wild and domestic country and Region 4 (INE 2017b, ODEPA species and identify areas with highest risk; 2017). However, sheep (Ovis spp.) farms are 52 Human–Wildlife Interactions 13(1) Figure 2. Livestock (sheep [Ovis spp.], poultry [Galliformes], goats [Capra spp.], swine [Sus spp.], cattle [Bos spp.], horses [Equus spp.]) depredation across Chile between 2006 and 2012. Most reports (91%; 5,709), occurred in 18 municipalities (bars). Insert shows depredation by type of species affected. SJ Maipo = San José de Maipo; N. Imperial = Nueva Imperial. Bars include only municipalities with >50 reports (Bonacic et al. 2007; Amar 2008; Cattan et al. 2010; Arévalo et al. 2011; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas 2011; Iriarte et al. 2011; SAG 2011a, b; SAG 2012a, b; SAG-Tarapacá 2012; Soto 2012). concentrated (75.4%) in the Patagonian areas wildlife damage in Chile between 2006 and of Region 12 (Figure 1), the southernmost area 2012. For this period, the Chilean government from the country (INE 2017b). Small livestock developed a systematized data collection farms have relatively low income, poor regarding HWCs. We obtained official records management, and are vulnerable to attacks by from the Sub-Departamento de Vida Silvestre predators (Rojas 2012, Montecino-Latorre and of the SAG, División de Protección de los San Martín 2019). However, attacks are also Recursos Naturales. Additional records were reported in large livestock farms (Montecino- obtained from the scientific literature and Latorre and San Martín 2019). the Chilean census summarizing nationwide surveys of HWCs (INE 2011). Methods The inclusion criteria we used for the In 2017, we collected data from scientific collection of literature included scientific data literature (Amar 2008), official reports (Bonacic generated via empirical research (fieldwork), et al. 2007, Cattan et al. 2010, Arévalo et al. 2011, publications, research conducted in Chile Instituto Nacional de Estadística [INE] 2011, or collected by the Chilean government, Iriarte et al. 2011, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero- manuscript and reports of HWCs in any type Tarapacá [SAG-Tarapacá] 2012, Soto 2012), and of livestock (sheep, poultry [Galliformes], goats from government datasets (Servicio Agrícola [Capra spp.], swine [Sus spp.], cattle [Bos spp.], y Ganadero [SAG] 2011a, b; SAG 2012a, b) on horses [Equus