CONSIDERING THE LIVES OF HUMANS (HOMO SAPIENS), JAGUARS (PANTHERA ONCA), AND PUMAS (PUMA CONCOLOR) IN THE NATION OF NATURE: MEASURING THE CAPACITY FOR COEXISTENCE WITH LARGE PREDATORS IN THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR By Jennifer Rebecca Kelly A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of SociologyŠDoctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT CONSIDERING THE LIVES OF HUMANS (HOMO SAPIENS), JAGUARS (PANTHERA ONCA), AND PUMAS (PUMA CONCOLOR) IN THE NATION OF NATURE: MEASURING THE CAPACITY FOR COEXISTENCE WITH LARGE PREDATORS IN THE MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR By Jennifer Rebecca Kelly One of the greatest threats to jaguars (Panthera onca), the largest predator in Latin America, is hunting. In an effort to unders tand conflict between humans and jaguars some conservation biologists, who lack training in the social sc iences, have assessed human perceptions and attitudes of jaguars. Conclusions have resulted in a call for sociocultural and social psychological research. My dissertation is a response to this plea. To investigate the capacity for humans to coexist with jaguars and pumas ( Puma concolor) I assessed sociocultural meanings embedded in conflict, explored the ab ility of a rancher outreach program to reduce conflict, and synthesized environmental and wi ldlife discourses on cognitive constructs in understanding human behavior toward wild animals. Results from over one year of participant observation and 131 interviews of Ticos and Cabécar indige nous in the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) of Costa Rica reveal both direct encounters and traditions embedded in culture have an impact on human conflict with large fe lines. Furthermore, programs aiming to reduce conflict between humans and large felines need to consider that coexistence is both culturally sensitive and based on geographical proximity. Ultimately, this study offers insight into how indigenous peoples interweave both traditional a nd modernized meanings of large predatorsŠ perspectives that have important implications fo r conservation and coexistence. Despite positive initiatives toward coexistence in this part of the MBC, they are still in their infancy and face tensions against a prominent hunting culture. My findings offer recommendations for future research surrounding human conflict and coexiste nce with large predators that will inform practical solutions and outreach interventions. Gi ven this study is one of the first conducted by a social scientist on human jaguar relations it is important for both feline conservation efforts and for understanding human predator coexistence within biological corridors globally. iv I dedicate this dissertation study to all wild an imals because they deserve to live, but have no voice. I dedicate this to felines especially becau se of the profound prejudice that plagues them. I dedicate this to my feline companions for teach ing me how to understand and love them. And I dedicate this to my husband Steve who believed in me and this work. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to recognize Dr. Linda Kalof and Dr. To m Dietz for their commitment and guidance to my scholarly goals throughout my graduate career at Michigan State University. I want to thank Dr. Linda Kalof, Dr. Tom Dietz, Dr. Laurie Medina, and Dr. Aaron McCright for their support and encouragement throughout this project. I wa nt to thank Dr. David Wiley for his valuable feedback and commitment during my grantwriting process. I want show appreciation to the Department of Sociology including John and Ruth Useem and Jay Artis Endowments, the Animals Studies Program, the Environmental Sc ience and Policy Program, the Center for Gender, Justice and Environmental Change, the Mildred B. Erickson Endowment, the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, and Cult ure and Animals Foundation for the financial support I needed to complete this study. I want to acknowledge Ph.D. Candidate Stacy Rule and Dr. Sara Tanis, my dear friends and colleagues for their support throughout my entire graduate career at MSU. I deeply a ppreciate my animal familyŠSerey, Pingy, Orvy, Mittys, Ebby, Gandolf and RueŠfor providing the nonhuman love I needed to make it through this dissertation and Ph.D. program. And finally I want express my sincerest gratitude to my beloved husband and best friend for always being by my side, I love you Steven Michael Kelly. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction–––––––––––––––––––––––––––.... 1 Dissertation Outline–––––––––––––––––––––– 4 Chapter 1: The Conflict and Killi ng of Predators: A Socio-Cultural Perspective on the Capacity for Coexistence between Humans, Jaguars and Pu mas in Part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor of Costa Rica–––––––––––––––––––––––... 6 Abstract––––––––––––––––––––––––––... 6 Introduction––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7 Methods––––––––––––––––––––––––––.. 10 Results/Discussion––––––––––––––––––––––.. 14 Hunting culture:––––––––––––––––––––. 14 Felines as competitors: –––––––––––––––––.. 23 Felines as man-eaters: –––––––––––––––––– 26 Felines as food: ––––––––––––––––––––.. 29 Felines real and imagined: ––––––––––––––––. 30 Western versus Indigenous Meanings–––––––––––––––. 33 Conflict and Killing of Jaguars and Pumas in the SBBD–––––––... 35 Faced with Challenges Coexistence Efforts are Underway––––––– 37 Chapter 2: Fostering Co-existence with Jaguars and Pumas through a Rancher Outreach Program in Costa Rica–––––––––––––––––––– 40 Abstract––––––––––––––––––––––––––.. 40 Introduction––––––––––––––––––––––––– 42 The Research Site––––––––––––––––––––––.. 45 Methods––––––––––––––––––––––––––. 45 Panthera™s Rancher Outreach Program––––––––––––––. 48 Results/Discussion––––––––––––––––––––––. 51 Jaguar and puma attacks on livestock:–––––––––––. 52 Willingness to coexist:–––––––––––––––––.. 53 Relocation is coexistence at a further proximity:–––––––. 54 Impact of Panthera: ––––––––––––––––––.. 58 Conclusion––––––––––––––––––––––––.– 63 Chapter 3: Understanding Cognition be hind Behavior toward Wildlife––––– 68 Abstract––––––––––––––––––––––––––. 68 Introduction––––––––––––––––––––––––– 69 Integrating Discourses of Cognition–––––––––––––––.. 70 Values:–––––––––––––––––––––––– 71 Beliefs and Value Orientations:––––––––––––––. 75 Norms:–––––––––––––––––––––––– 79 Ascription of Responsibility:–––––––––––––––.. 80 Perceived Behavioral Control:––––––––––––––.. 82 Behavioral Intentions and Perceived Behavioral Control:–––– 83 vii Behavioral Intentions:––––––––––––––––––.. 83 Behaviors:––––––––––––––––––––––– 84 Conclusion–––––––––––––––––––––––––– 86 Conclusion––––––––––––––––––––––––––––.. 87 APPENDICES––––––––––––––––––––––––––.... 92 APPENDIX A: Interview Questions–––––––––––––––.. 93 APPENDIX B: Interview Questions for Future Research–––––––.. 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY–––––––––––––––––––––––––.. 96 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Demographic Characteristics––––––––––––––––––––––12 Table 2: Sociocultural Themes–––––––––––––––––––––––––14 1 Introduction Jaguars are a keystone predator and vital for maintaining ecosyst em balance (Terborgh 1992). To date protected areas (PAs) have been a commonly used strategy for conservation, but are not enough to conserve jaguars given these felines move beyond PAs for food, space and to breed. Scholars are endorsing biological or wildlife corridors (Donaldson & Kymlicka 2011; Sillero-Zubiri, Sukumar & Treves 2007; W oodroffe, Simon & Rabinowitz 2005) and its enhanced counterpart rewilding (Fraser 2009), including not only corridors, but also core protected areas and the carnivores within these ecosystems (F raser 2009; Solzenburg 2008). NGO™s, such as Panthera are working to link jaguar populations from northern Argentina up to Mexico across both private and public land (www.panthera.org). Hunting poses a problem for biological corridors and is one of the greatest threats to jaguars and pumas throughout thei r range. Hunting of jaguars occurs as a matter of social tradition (Adams 2012; Marchini & Macdonald 2012) , because of the marketability of their paws, teeth, and other derivates from their bodi es (Caso, Lopez-Gonzalez, Payan, Eizirik, de Oliveira, Leite-Pitman, Kelly, & Valderrama 2008), and for traditional uses (González-Maya, Zarrate-Charry, Hernández-Arévalo, Cepeda, Balaguera-Reina, Castaño-Uribe, & Ange 2010). Motivations also include negative human per ceptions rooted in competition (Carvalho and Pezzuti 2010; Saunders 1998), fear (Campbell and Alva rado 2011), feelings of jaguars as a threat to livelihoods (Zimmermann, Walpole, and Leader-Williams 2005) and human life (Zimmermann et al. 2005; Marchini & Macdona ld 2012; Adams 2012; Saunders 1998). A lack of knowledge of jaguars, pumas and their role in the ecosystem also motivates hunting and killing (Conforti and Azevedo 2003) because people do not think large felines have a purpose. 2 Clearly the hunting and killing of jaguars and pumas has motivations ranging from cultural to economic. These motivations demand solutions to reduce conflict and create human coexistence with large felines to be multifaceted. Structural changes fostering education, sustainable development, and tourism (In skip and Zimmermann 2009, 26) are vital for minimizing conflict and promoting large feline c onservation and coexistence, but take time to implement. Directly a plethora of management strategies are used to reduce human-feline conflict, but few peer-reviewed studies of jagua rs and pumas actually report on programs that use these approaches. In one study conducted in a biological corridor of Sonora, Mexico researchers reported the benefits of a program where hunters participated in deer trophy expeditions generating funds to compensate livestock predation by jaguars. While the study described the program it failed to highlight any barriers or su ggest any improvements (Rosas- Rosas and Valdez 2010). In Costa Rica, only one study investigated conflict reduction strategies and found 32% of ranchers had implemented preventa tive measures (such as electric fences and livestock guarding) to avoid predation on livestock, but again these researchers did not list or present assessments of successes an d failures of such methods (Amit, Rojas, Alfaro, and Carrillo 2009). Not only is there a lack of research on programs aiming to reduce jaguar and puma livestock predation in Costa Ri caŠone of the primary motivations for hunting and killing large felines, but very few studies investigate sociocultural, cognitive and behavioral understandings of humans toward large felines. Of the few st udies targeting human dime nsions in Costa Rica, beliefs, attitudes and hunting behaviors toward jaguars and pumas have been examined. In one peer reviewed study regarding jaguar and puma attacks in the northern part of Costa Rica researchers found ranchers overestimated thei r livestock loss from feline predation. The 3 researchers stated this misconception among ra nchers fiprobablyfl resulted in negative perceptions toward large felines (Amit, Gordillo-Chávez, and Bone 2013). In the grey literature a study was done by Corrales-Gutiérrez, Carazo-Slazar and Salom-Pérez ( 2011) in the San Juan-La Selva biological corridor in Costa Rica. The research team found just over half their sample held a positive attitude toward jaguars, but negative attitudes toward conservation efforts.1 However, the researchers questioned the validity of the fipositive attitudesfl claiming it may have been the residents telling the interviewers what they wanted to hear. Finally, in the SBBD of Costa Rica, SINAC (Costa Rica™s governmental unit that oversees the country™s system of protected areas), conducted a study and reported that hunting was the primary threat to wildlife. Furthermore, their interviews revealed some residents admitted that they have killed or intended to kill jaguars and pumas after suffering the lo ss of a domestic animal. SINAC acknowledged the serious threat this has on the success of the bi ological corridor and the survival of jaguars and pumas traveling within the SBBD. As illustrated above, to the best of my know ledge, only one peer reviewed study has been conducted on feline predation of livestock in Costa Rica. The paucity of knowledge surrounding not only jaguar and puma attacks on livestock, but human relations w ith large carnivores in Latin America positions Costa Rica as an appealing co untry to conduct research regarding human predator conflict and coexistence for two interconn ected reasons. Tourism is the second largest industry in Costa Rica and is touted as one of the top destinations for ecotourism, symbolic of an economy that values wildlife including large pr edators. Moreover this economic position situates the country with the potential to reduce conflict and foster coexistence with large bodied felines. Finally, Costa Rica is al so unique in that it has the most advanced wildlife policies on the continent. For example, in 2012 they passed a law that bans sport hunting. 1 Motivated by misconceptions from el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Mixto Maquenque 4 Dissertation Outline In this dissertation I examine human relati ons between jaguars and pumas in Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD), part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) of Costa Rica. This is done through three article-length chapters designed for publication in scholarly journals. Chapters one and two use data from 131 interviews with Costa Rican and Cabécar indigenous and participant observation at ecotourism establishments, private reserves, regular attendance at two mont hly corridor meetings, and of Panthera™s rancher outreach program. The first chapter, fiThe Conflict and Killing of Predators: A Socio-Cultural Perspective on the Capacity for Coexistence between Hu mans, Jaguars and Pumas in Part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor of Costa Ri ca,fl provides a foundation for how jaguars and pumas have been constructed in the SBBD. As discussed above, there is a paucity of social science research assessing human conflict with jaguars and pumas making this a ripe area for exploration. I build on the work of Adams (2012) and Saunders (1998), two scholars who have documented historical representations of felines, to explore current sociocultural constructions of conflict with jaguars and puma s. In this chapter I ask, what are the socio-cultural meanings and constructs of conflict with jaguars and pumas in Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD), part of the Mesoamerican Biol ogical Corridor (MBC) of Costa Rica? In order for humans to coexist with jaguars and pumas in biologi cal corridors programs aiming to minimize conflict are necessary. Bearin g in mind that a program™s existence does not alone reduce conflict chapter two, fiFostering Co-existence with Jaguars and Pumas through a Rancher Outreach Program in Costa Rica,fl describes not only the rancher program and its barriers, but also the conflict situation in the SBBD. Moreover, I explored Panthera™s rancher 5 outreach program™s ability to reduce conflict and foster coexistence between ranchers, jaguars and pumas in the Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD) of Costa Rica. I describe the functionality of this program and its impact on its participants, including barriers that exist. Within this aim I explore and describe percei ved predation attacks and willingness of SBBD residents to coexist with jaguars and pumas. Only one other peer-reviewed study exploring a rancher program in Mexico exists (Rosas-Ros as and Valdez 2010), but the program™s barriers and the conflict situation were not described. Solving conflict and creating successful c onservation programs between humans and carnivores requires an understanding of human c ognition (Zimmerman et al. 2010). Because the cognitive discourse surrounding human behavior s toward wildlife lacks in: cross-citation, reconciliation of definitions of concepts, and efforts to build and test integrated models with the cognitive discourse on environmental behaviors chapter three, fiUnderstanding Cognition behind Behavior toward Wildlife,fl is an effort to br idge these discourses. Moreover, I synthesize the body of knowledge on the cognition behind behavior toward wildlife as a first step prior to designing a study to understand human cognition toward large predators such as jaguars. The key questions are: How does the cognitive literature from environmental sociology and environmental and conservation psychology parallel and diverge from the cognitive constructs discussed in the literature on human dimensions of wildlife? And what other cognitive variables are used to understand human behavior toward wildlife? I draw on data from chapters one and two in order to illustrate how ascription of responsibility and behavioral intentions toward jaguars and pumas in the SBBD are used in wildli fe studies while highlighting the importance of these variables in informing practical solutions and outreach interventions. 6 Chapter 1: The Conflict and Killing of Predators: A Socio-Cultural Perspective on the Capacity for Coexistence between Humans, Jaguars and Pumas in Part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor of Costa Rica Abstract The sociocultural meaning embedded in human predator conflict is not well understood nor generally discussed in the litera ture on human conflict with jagua rs and pumas. This chapter presents data regarding the cultural construction of jaguars and pumas in Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD) part of the Meso american Biological Corr idor (MBC) of Costa Rica. Based on results from participant observation and 131 interviews of men and women living or owning property in part of the MBC, I analyze the multiple meanings of conflict with large cryptic carnivores. My findings reveal Ticos have a higher level of coexistence with large felines in comparison to Cabécar indigenous, but th is could be the result of felines as imaginary to most Ticos. Moreover, my findings suggest there is a potential for an increase in conflict among Ticos when jaguars, pumas and their prey repopulate. Although variations exist for both the indigenous Cabécar population and Ticos, jaguars and pumas are at once man-eaters and competitors who threaten human food sources. In comparison to Ticos, Cabécar construct felines as food and have more conflict with large felines. This is most likely due to the fact that Cabécar live off the land and have more frequent encounters with felines than Ticos. Inclusion of indigenous peoples in remo te regions, questions surrounding their diet, and utilizing indigenous traditions are vital to future conservation studies of large predators. Ultimately, this study offers insight into how indigenous relationships reflect both traditional and modernized meanings of large predators, perspectives that have important implicati ons for conservation and coexistence. While efforts toward coexistence ar e underway in the SBBD, they are still in their infancy and still embedded in a hunting culture. 7 Introduction Humans have a unique relations hip with large predators. Large carnivores have been constructed as attractions for wildlife viewing, emblems of c onservation, objects of sporting activities, and as competitors for prey animals and livestock (Dunlap, 1988; Sillero-Zubiri, Sukumar, & Treves, 2007; An Smets & van de n Abeelein, 2007; Hughes, 2007; Saunders, 1998). And yet, such animals can decenter humanity. As Shepard (1996, p. 330) contends, living with filarge dangerous animals remind[s] us that we are small in the order of things.fl These sociocultural meanings are diverse and challenge efforts toward conser vation and coexistence. Felines are present in most human-inhabited re gions in the world, and historically they have both competed with (e.g. all jaguars hunt animals which are potential human prey) and preyed upon humans (Saunders, 1998). In hi s study of feline symbolism of Amerindian societies, anthropologist Nicholas Saunders has identified jaguars as agents, human competitors, and human threats. As agents, he writes, jaguars ficonstitute that part of the environment which is in constant flux and which possesses activity-generating relationships of predation, avoidance, or symbiosis with each other– These relationships are seen through the lens of culturefl (my emphasis added). This means, as Saunders claims, that jaguar symbolism can be distinguished from real jaguars who produce fiautonomous movement–which, in turn, begets distinctive reactions by humansfl (Saunders 1998, p. 13). A view of jaguars as competitors and equally as threats is based on their predatory behavior. Saunders (1998:22) specifies, The jaguar™s distinctive predatory qualities ar e shared, in part, by humans, who also have no consistent animal predators, and who hunt, kill, and eat all manner of other animals, including, on occasion, each other. The cluste r of behavioral traits which jaguars and humans share, and which, to a degree, make them co-equivalent competitors, presents itself as one possible reason why adult human males (that is, hunters/warriors), are regarded as equivalent to adult jaguars. 8 Evidence that Amerindians saw jaguars as near equals is reflected in images of jaguar like creatures and humans with jaguar attributes and adornments (Benson, 1998, p. 17). Pointing to further interspecies connections, Shepard (1996, p. 11) notes humans participated fiby eating and being eaten by them, suffering them as parasites, wearing their feathers and skins, making tools of their bones and antlers, and communicating their significance by dancing, sculpting, performing, imaging, narrat ing, and thinking them.fl As these cultural practices and artifacts make clear, human culture has been shaped by wild animals. Similar to Shepard (1996) and Maso n (2007) who acknowledge human thought developed alongside wild animals, Saunders (1998) professes felines challenged our abilities. He explains, fiThe origins and development of hominid cognitive processes may have been influenced by their inescapable interaction with predators which, by comparison, were stronger, faster, more agile, and equipped w ith deadly natural weaponryfl (p. 1). This development bears on situations of killing today, as historical meanings blend with current knowledge and understandings. I explored the sociocultural mean ings of conflict with jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in the geographical space of a biological corridor in Costa Rica. The Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD) in Costa Rica is made up of 37,589 hectares of land and is critical for the connectivity of the larger Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) between Nicaragua to the north and Panama to the south. The SBBD is inhabited by 8,000 people who live in 26 small settlements (Roj as & Chavarría 2005). The primary livelihood activities are livestock and agriculture (González & Poltronieri 2002). Other land uses include: Barbilla National Park (part of La Amista d Biosphere Reserve recognized by UNESCO); tourism; conservation and reforestation by m eans of Payment for Environmental Services 9 (PSAs); and the Pacuare, Reventazón and Siquirres rivers, which hold importance as water sources, tourist activities, and production of hydroelectric power. The corridor is also home to the Cabécar, who live in Nairi Awari, Chirripó, and Bajo Chirripó indigenous reservations. These indige nous communities have a strong dependency on government subsidies (Rojas and Chavarría 2005) a nd are relatively isolated with little access to the outside market and little or no access to basic services such as telephones, electricity, water and public transport (Gonzalez and Poltronieri 2002). Living on subsistence agriculture, many families breed cows, pigs, horses and chickens (Gonzalez and Poltronieri 2002). While the majority of the land in these reserves is unde r PSA program (Rojas & Chavarría 2005), Costa Rica™s System of Protected Areas (SINAC) identified the following threats: illegal cutting of trees, hunting, and extensive agriculture on the reserves. In fact, within the SBBD, SINAC reported hunting as the main threat to wildlife, both sport hunting with dogs and subsistence hunting. SINAC reported that some people in their 83 interviews admitted that they have killed or intended to kill jaguars and pumas after suffering the loss of an animal. SINAC acknowledges this po ses a serious threat to the success of the biological corridor and the survival of jaguars and pumas traveling with in the corridor. Costa Rica is touted as one of the top destinations for ecotourism, an industry that values wildlife. In addition to Costa Rica™s appeal as a site for a sociocultural study on large predators, there is a lack of social science research on jaguars and pumas, the two largest felines of the Americas. To date most work on jaguars has be en done by conservation biologists with little or no social science training. Adams (2012) exam ines the narratives of nineteenth- and early- twentieth- century naturalists and hunters to document how th e jaguar was encountered and represented, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no publis hed study exploring the current 10 sociocultural constructions of conflict with jaguars and pumas throughout their range. To address this research gap, I ask, what are the socio-cultural me anings and constructs of conflict with jaguars and pumas in Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD), part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) of Costa Rica? Methods I used participant observation and open-ended interviews in the Barbilla-Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD), a rural region and a vital sub corridor in connecting the larger Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) to expl ore my research question. Beginning August, 2013 I lived in Guayacan to access the east side of the sub corridor for five months and then Turrialba to access the west side of the corridor for nine months. Using my eight years of Spanish language skills I translated the interviews and corresponded with the people living and working in this sub corridor. I separated my sample based on cultural distinctions between Ticos 2 and Cabécar indigenous. One male and one female local Tico and Tica research assistant conducted 86 interviews throughout the SBBD and one male local Cabécar research assistant traveled throughout the remote indigenous reserves to in terview 37 Cabécar. I interviewed three North Americans, four Ticos 3 and my Cabécar research assistant .4 My sample consists of 131 people, most of whom reside in, but some of whom own property or a tourism establishment in the SBBD, 38 Cabécar, 90 Ticos, and three North Amer icans (two Americans and one Canadian). 2 Both Ticos and Cabécar are Costa Rican citizens therefore to distinguish betw een these groups I use the term Tico which is informal for a Costa Rican ŠhoweverŠCabécar are not referred to as TicosŠthey are referred to as indigenous. Therefore this informal use of Tico fits well to create this cultural dichotomy. Throughout the chapter I use Ticos referring to the whole culture, Tico referring to males, and Tica referring to females in this culture. 3 One in order to personally test my inte rview instrument and three who I knew well. 4 Prior to him starting the work. 11 Interviews were conducted in 23 towns5 and in 12 communities6 within the Nairi Awari, Chirripó, and Bajo Chirripó indigenous reservations. Of my North American sample, both Ameri cans and the Canadian were male. Of my Tico sample, 28 were women and 62 were men. Female representation decreased in my Cabécar sample, where three participants were women an d 35 were men. As part of Cabécar culture, felines are some of the wild animals about whic h Cabécar women are not able to speak about in public. Women are also not able to draw three ca ts (jaguars, pumas, and ocelots). This may be related to the Cabécar story where a jaguar is a lover of a young woman (see Stone 1961, pg. 129). However, Cabécar women over 75 years old are able, if they wish, to speak in public about these felines and therefore can participate in interviews. Of the three Cabécar women in my sample, two were over 75 years old: one wa s 90 and the other 86. The third was a 41 year old woman who did not follow the traditions or respect the cultural ta boo of not discussing jaguars and pumas in public. For 72% (94/131) of my sample, livelihoods pr imarily consisted of livestock and other agricultural production (e.g. cilantro). Other livelihoods included the following: three participants owned or administered a tour ism establishment, one man owned a small convenience store but was previously a rancher, and one woman was an English teacher in the San Jose area. Fifty-eight percent (22/38) of my Cabécar sample did not have a livelihood outside of cultivating their own food (for some th is included livestock animals), six were retired, and others worked in tourism, for the govern ment, or as teachers and park rangers. 5 Including, but not limited to, Ojo de agua, Las Lomas, Gu ayacan, El Coco, Bajo del Tigre, Linda Vista, and Santa Marta. 6 Including, but not limited to, Jameikari, Xi nikicha, Muluibiri, Brisa, and Barbilla. 12 Table 1: Demographic Characteristics Sample Size Male Female Average Age Ranchers/Agriculturalists Ticos 90 62 28 45 72 North Americans 3 3 0 52 0 Cabécar 38 35 3 46 22 Total 131 100 31 94 Interview questions are listed in appendix A. The interviews lasted on average between 20 and 40 minutes. Interviews started in Valle Escondido, Bajo del Tigre and Las Lomas, the home towns of the research assistants. From there the researchers conducted a snowball sample asking interviewees to recommend other ranchers a nd/or agriculturalists who would be willing to participate in the interviews. Participants voluntarily participated in the study without incentives. Most respondents were interviewed individually. I also collected a sample of ranchers (14) from Panthera™s rancher outreach program.7 IRB approval was obtained on October 31, 2013 #x13-1039e when the study was considered exempt. I di d not keep record of the people who declined to be interviewed. My participant observation consisted of multiple visits to seven ecotourism establishments and four private reserves in the SBBD; regular attendance at two monthly corridor meetings: one for the SBBD 8 group and the other for the larger corridor CBVCT9 group 7 Since the program™s inception they responded to 24 rancher attacks on livestock. I used this list of contacts for my 14 interviews. Of the 10 not interviewed, one was deceased, some dec lined, some directions to the ranchers™ property were unclear and others were in remote areas not easily accessible. 8 Subcorredor Biológico Barbilla-Destierro Paso del Jaguar 9 Corredor Biológico Volcánica Central-Talamanca Consejo Local 13 (of which the SBBD is part of); and I accompan ied Panthera in five of their seven rancher outreach program visits which lasted on average three days each time. 10 Jaguars (Panthera onca) are the third largest feline in the world next to the Asiatic tiger and the African lion and the larges t terrestrial carnivore of Latin American. The jaguar is spotted black or dark brown and yellow. There is also a melanistic form of jaguars which from afar may make them appear black, but in actua lity these animals are spotted. Pumas ( Puma concolor) are smaller than the jaguar and lean er in body mass. They are ficaféfl in color (Marchini, Luciano, & Hoogesteijn 2010). In Costa Rica jaguars are also known as tigre or pantera and pumas as león. Jaguars are the largest and pumas the second largest feline in Costa Rica. I measured human relations 11 with jaguars because they are a keystone species and, therefore, of critical importance for ecosystem balance. However, I documented and evaluated data related to pumas as well as jaguars for th ree reasons: 1) Research suggests people do not always know how to differentiate between felines; 2) My preliminary research suggested participants had encounters with pumas, and the perceptions a nd behaviors toward pumas were similar to those toward jaguars; 3) Panthera™s rancher outreach program includes the protection of both jaguars and pumas; and 4) Jaguars and pumas are the only large predators in Costa Rica able to take down a calf. Conflict categories reflected th e responses from the interview participants and themes that emerged during participant observation. Th ese constructions of large felines represented the various meanings and motivations for killing that respondents attached to jaguars and pumas. 10 Between November 2013 and September 2014 I knew of two outreach visits that Panthera attended to without advising meŠdespite my repeated requests (two recorded and various verbal requests) to be included in all of the rancher relations for a one-year time period. 11 Inclusive of coexistence and conflict 14 Results and Discussion Results from 131 interviews of men and wome n living the Barbilla-D estierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD) and over one year of participant observation at corridor meetings, visits to livestock ranches, ecotourism establishments a nd private reserves in the SBBD allowed the following themes of conflict a nd killing to emerge: felines surrounded by a hunting culture, felines as man-eaters, felines as competitors, fe lines as food, and felines as real and imagined. Table 2: Sociocultural Themes Theme Ticos (n=90) Cabécar (n=38) Hunting Culture 56% 12 84% Man-eaters 37% 13% Competitors 14% 55% Food 1% 21% Real and Imagined 33% 84% Hunting culture: Eighty-four percent (32/38) of Cabécar respondents discussed hunting in some regard. This included hunting prey animals such as paca and peccary as well as jaguars, pumas, ocelots and other small felines. This high percentage among the indigenous is most likely a result of their subsistence way of life, as mentioned a bove livelihoods of just over half of my Cabécar sample consisted of cultivating th eir own food. Of the 16% (6/38) who did not discuss hunting in some capacity four were from Jameikari. Of these one a retired and one an active park ranger, another worked for the mini stry of environment and energy (MINAE), and yet another worked for Pro-Panthera Barbilla. The fifth was from Brisa and he works with the 12 I included North Americans (n=3) here to equal n=93 b ecause they were able to co mment on their experiences with the Costa Rican hunting culture. 15 biological corridor and the sixth is a tour guide from Barbilla Tsiobata. The common thread among these six is their economic connection with conservation efforts. Jameikari was the only Cabécar community th at didn™t appear to have a strong hunting culture. There were seven respondents from Jameik ari and as indicated above four of them work or worked in conservation. I included three respondents from Jameikari in the hunting culture not because they revealed that they hunted, but they revealed there were still remnants of a hunting culture in Jameikari. Two respondents from Jameikari said, almost no one kills in their community/area and one 61 year old man from Jameikari said the young men kill felines. When asked if his neighbors kill them he didn™t have any accounts he remembered, but he said it would be normal. The competition category (see below) was included within the Cabécar hunting culture where participants had killed, would kill or kne w someone who had killed a jaguar or puma themselves if he or she were preying on livestock or pets. In contrast to Ticos these were not stories or rumors,13 but recent accounts. Of those participants who were able to provide an estimated date of the kill, the ra nge was from three months to f our years ago. Others disclosed that they killed these felines with frequency. One said, he kills a puma every six months, an elderly woman said she eats jaguar two times pe r year and they seek out the meat, although she doesn™t do the killing. Yet another man said he kills a jaguar three time s per year, but hasn™t killed a puma for five years. Of my Costa Rican (90) and North Amer ican (3) sample 56% (52/93) mentioned characteristics of a culture of hunting. This was measured through various hunting related questions (see questions two, three, seven, eight, nine and ten in appendix I). It included the data 13 Rumors are defined as statements of having heard a puma or jaguar was killed in the area, but having no further information regarding the event. They were vague. 16 from the competition category where participants had killed, would kill or knew someone who had killed a jaguar or puma themselves if prey ing on livestock or pets. It also contained 2% (2/93) of respondents who said if jaguars and pumas were in the area they should be moved to a location without humans because of the likeliho od someone would kill him or her. Seventeen percent (15/90) of respondents reported old stories14 of hunting and killing jaguars and pumas. Some stories were vague, incl uding comments such as fibefore when I was young, yes there were many [jaguars and pumas killed here].fl Other st ories were vividly reme mbered, as the following account told by one 63 year old rancher shows: Many years ago here in my ranch they killed a jaguar because Pa thought it would eat the livestock. It came to the neighbor™s calves during the night after passing through our ranch. My Pa and the neighbor shot and killed it. That was like the year 1965 I was still young. I remember that my mother was scared because we always left lunch for the ranch hands™ almost in the exact same place wh ere they killed the jaguar. Now that area is pasture but back when they killed the jaguar it was forest. Of the 15 stories of hunting jaguars or pumas in the SBBD, only two of these participants also had recent accounts of killing or knowing someone who killed a jaguar or puma. In other words, of those who told stories of past jaguar and puma killings, most no longer participated in the hunting culture. When a 28 year old female from Bajo del Tigre was asked if her neighbors kill jaguars and pumas she says, fiPerha ps the older men of the town yes, but now I don't believe they do because it is difficult to fi nd those animals.fl A 68 year old ra ncher from Lomas explained he knows a jaguar was killed around 40 years ago in Lomas. The animal was killed because the people thought he or she was dangerous for the locals, although he didn™t remember who killed the jaguar. Hunting for sport is illegal in Costa Rica. In 1992, the government passed a law criminalizing killing wild animals in danger of extinction, while in 2013 a hunting ban set a 14 Stories are defined as accounts that were more than 10 years old and included someone other than the respondent who had done the killing. 17 $3,000 fine for sport hunters. Such policies have deterred hunting. According to 39 year old American researcher, hunting ha s slowed down during his 11 year residency in the SBBD. The last time hunters were on his property, he reca lls, he approached them with two Ticos and explained hunting is not permitted on his land. He says, fiSee we have signs that say hunting is prohibited.fl The enjoyment of and love for the hunt was a common theme expressed by non-hunters who explained this tradition. Two park rangers said, hunters kill whatever they seeŠthey do not hunt anything special. There are many hunters here and fithey hunt very very little for food.fl One of the park rangers kept repeating, fiIt™s a lie that they say they are hunting for foodŠit is for sport and tradition.fl Another owner of a tourist establishment claims, fiIt is not an economic issue it is an educational issue they don't need better jobs, they are killing animals because they love to do it.fl According to one employee of tourism, who is al so a rancher, his neighbor is a hunter and has hunting dogs and this hunter thinks it is an art, a tradition to hunt, having collected 260 skulls of peccary, jaguar prey, over the years. fiHunters in the area do it for fun, for tradition,fl this employee/rancher says. My fi ndings reveal tradition motivated the culture of hunting. Discussions of hunting as well as the traditions and enjoyment experienced in this culture emerged during corridor meetings as well. On e corridor member explai ned that hunting now is done for sport and to uphold tradition and culture. Another member agreed, claiming, fiThe mentality is my grandfather and father did it back then because they needed money and meat, but now we do it to keep tradition. Such a reasoning in this ecological sub corridor where ranching and agriculture are the primary livelihoods is re flected in Brazil where fijaguar hunting has been passed from generation to generation as an elemen t of that culture...linked to the economic and 18 cultural cattle ranching of the region" (Marchini and Macdonald 2012, 219). This cultural tradition stays within a person for life as one co rridor member from Guayacan expressed concern and disgust with the generational hunting tradition in her family. She explained that her cousin and uncle hunt and says, fiMy uncle is nasty. He is almost 70 y ears old and still hunting.fl Some regions, Tres Equis (a town right outside the sub corridor) and Guayacan, were repeatedly depicted as embracing a hunting culture. However, such a culture was not restricted to the SBBD. For example, during one corridor meeting the topic of hunting emerged and many members agreed that hunters come from Siquirre s, Turrialba and Cartago (nearby big cities) and with the help of locals hunt within the biological sub corridor. Yet another corridor member echoed this infiltration of city hunters when he said many hunters are entering the indigenous reserves with local friends in order to hunt. They find ingress through private ranches on the east side of the SBBD borders. This phenomenon is not unique to the SBBD, as one corridor member explained, there are many hunters that come in from Turri alba to Barre Pacuare on the Caribbean coast (in the Tortugero Biological Corri dor) to hunt jaguars. Another allure of Barre Pacuare for hunters is that there are many jagua rs on this coast and therefore easy targets. 15 Furthermore, the local people assist these hunters because they are concerned about the children. One Turrialbanian member of the larger CBVCT corridor explained some people are traditional, using the forest (the wood, the timb er, the wild game). Within some of these traditional people there is still muchisimo, where the men go out into nature for the entire weekend, live off the land, all to prove their masculinity. She says fithey hunt and kill whatever they see.fl In fact she explaine d that her husband came from such a family in Tres Equis (one of 15 It is common to see jaguars on the beaches of the Northern Caribbean coast right now. There is a current phenomenon where jaguars are eating sea turtles on the northern coast, two protected species in Costa Rica (Veríssimo, Jones, Chaverri and Meyer 2012). 19 the communities known for embracing hunting) and when he was young they didn™t want him to be feminine so his dad and his older brothe rs would take him out hunting on these primitive survival sojourns. She explained that her in -laws make jokes about her because she is a conservationist. Such a derogatory remark illustrate an ideological oppositionŠhunter versus conservationist in the Tico culture. Montainers was commonly used in the interviews to describe these hunters and their traditions and is similar to Adams (2012) depicti on of a campfire culture, where it is man against nature. Adams says jaguars were seen as competition to humans and especially men. This intersection of masculinity and rivalry was perpetuated in a hunting culture, These jaguar hunting expeditions were not simply naked expressions of masculine bloodlust. They were also an opportunity for a team of men to ‚tak e on™ the wilderness. Camaraderie and brotherhood are shared in th e difficulties and dangers of the trek, the mastery of the kill, and remembrances afte r the hunt has ended. Around the campfire, stories are woven and rewoven growing into legend. This was an opportunity for men to claim and enact rituals of the mythic frontier identity so cherished in America (p. 92-93). Similarly, Marchini and Macdonald (2012: 219) found evidence of this hunting culture in their sample of ranchers in Brazil. Ranchers and cowboys in the region often refer, with apparent pride, to the ‚Pantaneiro culture™–.Stories of jaguar hunting spr ead quickly among the community, are told repeatedly, and are often remembered vividl y as a consequences–A vicious circle may exist in which hunts are readily remember ed and repeated, often reaching other landowners, and creating the perception that jaguar killing is common and acceptable, which in turn causes more jaguars to be killed. Brotherhood, connection with the primal self, domi nation of nature, stories of the trek are all embedded in this hunting culture and override legal regulations about hunting. Similar to Brazil, in Venezuela sport hunting of jaguars is a common hobby despite the fact that jaguars have been a protected species under Venezuelan law since 1996. Although hunting is usually performed by specialized hunters almost any hunter who spots a jaguar will shoot it which is known as 20 opportunistic killing. Most sport hunting of jaguars is performed with dogs, which is seen as the most efficient method used (Jedrzejewski et al. 2011). Unlike the Pantaneiro culture in Brazil and the jaguar hunting culture in Venezuela, the montainer hunting culture in Costa Rica is not focused solely on jaguars, it is a fisurvive off the land as our ancestors havefl tradition. Embedded in that, they hunt whatever they see. In that regard it is different from the Brazilian or Venezuelan jaguar hunting culture which clearly has a focus on this apex predator. The lack of feline focus in this montainer hunting culture is corroborated by the relatively small percentage of my Costa Rican sample who admitted to killing or knowing someone who killed a jaguar or puma. Cultural tradition is not the only motivation for hunting. Masculine identity was connected to killing, owning and selling the skin of felines. One rancher told the story of how he and a friend had killed a puma more th an 15 years ago. The friend is called the man of the forest. The rancher said he kept the skin and his friend kept the bones and ate the liver. Eventually years later the rancher hired someone to make his furniture for his house in exchange for the puma skin, highlighting not only masculinity, but al so the economic use of these skins in recent times. Yet another 56 year old rancher from a well-known family of hunters in Guayacan says, "Look girl you know that I am a hunter and that I live half the time in the mountain and I am sure that no one has killed a tigre. About 5 years ago I killed a sma ll ocelot.fl The interviewer says, fiWhy did you kill it?fl The rancher/hunt er says, "They pay a lot for the skin and my family needs the money. Also I feel powerful when I kill an animal like that I don't know how to explain it." He sold the skin for 1.000.000 colones ($2,000 US). This feeling of power signifies the masculinity embedded in this hunting culture when one choses to take the life of a feline. Interestingly the price of this ocelet (third largest cat in Costa Rica) sold for a high value. 21 Interlaced with masculinity, th ere is a plethora of evidence that suggests killing jaguars was a sign of social status. For example, the husband of one female inte rviewee is an accountant in San Jose and bought a jaguar skin from a Cab écar. There was also a corridor member who has a friend who is an accountant living in San Jose. 16 The corridor member explained of his friend, he has a lot of money and a room fu ll of natural artifacts. It is lik e a museum he said. And off of that room is a secret room that has illegal natura l artifacts including jaguar skins, a jaguar head as well as remnants of other wild cats found in Co sta Rica. This modern day display of dead jaguars symbolizes masculinity and status (by wealthy men in San Jose) which is rooted in historical contexts. Saunders (1998) explains, fiImbued with great strength, ‚courage™, ‚ferocity™, and ‚nobility™, the jaguar was regarded as the self-evident choice for symbolic associations with Pre-Columbian elites, and an obvious emblem for hierarchical, sophisticated, and perhaps imperialistic Pre-Columbian civili zationfl (p. 4). The symbolic e xhibition of dead felines today does not exist in the SBBD, a rural low income region. Moreover my interview assistants and I did not see a jaguar, puma or other wild cat sk in in any of the homes within the biological corridor during all the interviews and all my participant observation visits. 17 In a study conducted on jaguars in Sinaloa, Mexico researchers found it to be common for jaguar skin to be sold to people in larger cities, such as M azatlán, Concordia, Culiacán, and Escuinapa (Navarro- Serment, López-González and Gallo-Reynoso 2005). My findings shed light on this rural versus urban divide which is perpetuated by social status and affluence. Moreover, such evidence suggests the exposition of dead felines continues to be entangled deeply in masculine identity and social prestigeŠconcentr ated in larger cities. 16 It appears as though both the interviewee™s husband and the corridor member™s friend may be the same person. 17 There was talk of one jaguar or puma skin in a home in El Sauce , just outside the corridor boundaries on the southwest side, but this was never reconciled. 22 My data reveals a large varia tion in the sale of jaguar skin which may be a reflection of culture (Cabécar), economic conditions of the seller, location of sale (urban versus rural), and a lack of professional jaguar hunters in Costa Rica. For example, in a discussion with six Cabécar, ages ranging from 19-91, they agreed that the general value of skin, teeth and nails is 150.000 mil colones (about $300). Usually these items are sold to fipeople from outsidefl (Ticos) who use the skin for rugs, wallets and luxury shoes. Another Cabécar sold a jaguar skin for $50 to a Tico, an accountant, who lives in San Jose, the capital city, but has a second home in the mountains of the SBBD. This is similar to another account in Puerto Viejo, on the Caribbean coast, which reported that some Italians who own a bakery /restaurant bought a jaguar skin for $50 from indigenous peoples to then sell it on the black market for $3,000-$5,000. The plan was to sell it to friends/family in Italy or somewhere in Europe. According to two informants, the indigenous sell skins for whatever price because they usually need money. The drastic ranges in the value of jaguar skin is a reflection of the cultural, economic and geogra phical (removal from society and therefore knowledge of market cost s of skin) situation of Cabécar. Value of feline skins also fluctuated with Ticos. An elderly rancher from Guayacan explained many years ago a jaguar skin sold for just under 300.000 colones (about $600). A Tico hunter who has an uncle living outside of the SBBD (southern Talamanca mountains part of the La Amistad Region) has killed many jaguars. This hunter explained that the skin of jaguars and pumas is valued between $1,500 and $5,000 and is largely attached to the drug market, although he knew of a skin that sold in 2014 for much less, 225.000 colones (about $500). He also explained that the price depends on the se llers and how quickly they need money. The information on how much a jaguar skin costs in the SBBD, although not readily available, was not hidden. For example, when I asked five informants who I knew well what the 23 cost of a jaguar skin was, while only one person knew the price off of the top of their head the other four knew of a close contact who they c ould then ask for the information. The corridor member who had a tremendous amount of informa tion on the sale of feline skin explained in 2014 a jaguar skin sold in Turrialba for 775.000 colones (about $1,500) and is the price for a good quality skinŠa young rather than old jaguar has better skin and is worth more. It also depends on the finish from the hide smith. He explained that in Costa Rica someone who makes clothing from cows and pigs would also use crocodiles and jaguars. Feline skins are sold as rugs, tapestries, and boots while their heads are then mounted as a trophy. A skin of a puma sells for less than a jaguar. Place is al so a determinant of price. For example, a jaguar skin is worth more in San Jose, the capital city, versus Turrialba. Similar to the sale of feline skin among the Cabécar economic and geographical situations are at play within the Tico culture. Research suggests selling jaguar skin is not unique to Costa Rica. In Belize Rabinowitz (2000, p. 92) found one Maya man who wanted to se ll him a jaguar skin said, fiI can sell to American for maybe hundred dollar.fl In a study conducted on jaguars in Sinaloa Mexico researchers found it to be common for jaguar skin to be sold for a range of $150 to $300 (Navarro-Serment, López-González and Gallo -Reynoso 2005). In Venezuela jaguars are commonly hunted by professional hunters for commercial sale of jaguar skin which are then sold for between $400 and $600 (Jedrzejewski et al. 2011). In my study I found no evidence of professional jaguar and/or puma hunte rs, but the value of the jaguar skin is much higher in Costa Rica in relation to Belize, Mexico, and Venezuela which may be a product of inflation (2014 versus 2000, 2005, and 2011) and/or stricter Costa Rican laws and less abundant large felines. Felines as competitors: Twenty-six percent (34/131) of the entire sample, 55% (21/38) Cabécar and 14% (13/90) Ticos, constructed jagu ars and/or pumas as competitors for livestock 24 and/or pets. If respondents had killed, knew someone who had killed and/or would kill (if they had a problem of predation on livestock and/or pets) one of these felines they constructed jaguars and pumas as competitors. Eight percent (10/128) of the entire sample, 18 2% (2/90) of Ticos and 21% (8/38) of Cabécar, said they would kill one of these felines if they had a predation problem. Of those ten 60% (6/10)19 stated the only option would be to kill the jaguar and puma. Of these six, two were ranchers and four were Cabécar. Seven percent (6/90) of Ticos and 47% (18/38) of Cabécar said either themselves, a relative, or neighbor had killed a jaguar or puma. Among Ticos, jaguars and pumas were constructed as competitors for two concrete reasons, first, because they attacked livestock and impinged on the livelihoods of ranchers. One administrator of a tourism lodge stated, th at in August or September 2014 the neighboring rancher had two puma attacks within one month. The rancher then allowed hunters to come on his property to hunt and kill the puma. This is not uncommon as Ronit Amit from the Department of Environment Organization Guanacas te Fellowship notes, fiThe cat is taking away the farmer™s money. The farmer doesn™t have much money. The easiest solution is to kill the catfl (Fendt 2014). In chapter three some ranchers st ate their concern of the economic factor (without being probed) of a change in husbandry practices validating Amit™s comment. For example, one 56 year old rancher from Guayacan chose the option to kill the jaguar or puma when asked what solutions they would employ if they had a predation issue with jaguars or pumas. He followed up by saying, fiI don't believe I would change th e way I work because it takes money and I don't have the money. Sincerely it is ju st easier to kill the animal.fl He ended with a final justification in saying these felines are also dangerous for people. Another 32 year old rancher from Guayacan, who happened to be the nephew of the previous rancher, echoed the above rancher 18 Excluding North Americans (n=3). 19 Categories were not mutually exclusive meaning participants could choose more than one option. 25 that changing requires money, he also says, fi–we are used to working in a certain way and it is very difficult to change.fl As illustrated here SBBD residents construct jaguars and pumas as competition to a livelihood that is hard to transform. Others reported retaliation intentions not connected to workload or economic difficulties. One 43 year old rancher from San Isidro de Pasc ua says he fiWould buy a gun to kill the feline.fl He says, fiI don™t care about the law.fl Killing the feline is the only thing he would do given he knows that no one in the community would say or do anything about it.20 One 28 year old woman from Pascua Abajo responded to the ques tion do your neighbors kill jaguars and pumas, fiNo, and if they do it is because the jaguar or puma is causing problems in the area it would be normal to kill an animal for that reason.fl Although these statements were not common, they reinforce the construction of jaguars as competito rs. Daniel Corrales, who is in charge of Panthera™s21 Rancher Outreach Program in the SBBD, sums it up well, fiTime has passed, things have changed, but the rancher has always seen the tiger, or the jaguar, as an enemyfl (Fendt 2014). I found only occasional accounts that jaguars an d pumas were constructed as competition for prey animals. This is the result of two main factors. First, sport hunting is illegal in Costa Rica so hunting of these prey animals is restri cted to indigenous populations. Second many of the interviewees were ranchers and live in deforest ed areas where prey habitat has been depleted. Of the interviewees that did conceptualize jaguars or pumas as competition the stories were old. For example, one 92 year old woman said that th e last time she saw a jaguar was when she was 60 years old, she says, fimy husband and I were hunting a agoutifl when suddenly they saw a jaguar who hunted and ate the agouti. 20 See below where communities will need to develop a fin o tolerancefl for hunting and killing if humans are to coexist with jaguars and pumas in the SBBD. 21 Panthera is the world™s leading group in conserving wild cats. 26 Jaguars have been constructed as human competitors throughout history (Saunders, 1998). Marchini, Luciano, and Hoogesteijn (2010: 8) echo Saunders depiction of human-jaguar similarities, as described in the introduction, when they state: fiJaguars and humans are approximately the same size; we both eat meat, and, therefore, we contend for the same prey species, wild or domestic. The most common argume nt for not wanting to coexist with jaguars is the fact that they feed on what should be exclusively people™s food: domestic cattle.fl My findings suggest much less than half of the Tico s construct jaguars and pumas as competition and if they do view them as competition only a very sm all percentage is willing to kill these large felines as a result of their predatory nature. These results corroborate previous research reporting jaguars and pumas are a threat to livelihoods (Rabinowitz, 2000; Rabinowitz, 2005), but suggest that killing the jaguar or puma is not the first response to predation problems among Costa Rican ranchers in the SBBD (see chapter three). In regards to my Cabécar sample, just over ha lf constructed the jaguars and/or pumas as competitors. Future studies need to evaluate ancient traditions conn ected to the symbolic importance of jaguars in order to better unde rstand how customs may encourage or discourage the killing of large felines today. This requires ethnographic research in indigenous communities. Felines as man-eaters: Thirty seven percent (33/90)22 of Ticos thought jaguars and/or pumas would attack hu mans, of these three had heard of a story where a jaguar or puma actually attacked a human, although none of the respond ents actually knew a person who had been 22 Two respondents had heard news coverage of human att acks. One was a 26 year old educated Tica who is a tourism administrator and the other was a 38 year old edu cated American researcher wh o lives in the sub corridor. The tourism administrator explained jaguars don™t attack humans. When they sme ll humans they leave making it very difficult to see a jaguar. She had heard of a puma who attacked an investigator doing a study on the Tapir. Apparently the investigator smelled of a Tapir, prey for a jaguar. The researcher discussed a zookeeper who was killed by a jaguar when she was on her cell phone. He had heard it in the news. 27 attacked. Reasons participants thought felines would attack were: to protect their family, if they are hungry, if they feel intimidat ed or scared, or because they are innately aggressive and dangerous. One 47 year old rancher from Bajo del Tigr e explained whether jaguars attack depends on many situations like for example if it is hungry and if someone is bothering it. He says fiAbout 3 years ago an Indian told me that a jaguar had attacked a man there in Pacuarito [a town on the main road to Limon about 5km from Si quirres].fl They only found the clothes of the manŠhe was hunting with his dog. The man was very well known in the area. He was an amateur in the mountain. The participant says, fiPoor guyŠthat the end was so awful to die as the food of one of those animals.fl In this same region, Bajo del Tigre, there was a recent rumor going around with a similar storyline where a Ca bécar was killed by a jaguar near the Pacuare River and only parts of his body were found. Both instances demonstrat e how the construction of man-eating jaguars penetr ates human relations with large felines in the SBBD. These detachments between actual behavior and perceptions of jaguar behavior are present in Leopold™s narration in A Sand County Almanac (1949), fiIn these narratives, the jaguar is not present, and yet the idea of the fierce man-eater remains a provocative image that ‚pervades™ the landscapefl (Adams 2012, p. 92). Jaguars as man- eaters are but representations, according to Rabinowtiz (2005:2780), since there have been fino verified records of man-eating jaguars, and relatively few accounts of jaguars killing people.fl There is evidence of three cases in Brazil where jaguars attacked humans. While the authors explain in one case the jaguar was provoked (Neto, Neto and Haddad 2011), a Brazilian jaguar expert speculated the other two incidents had been triggered by humans as well (personal communication May 2014 with Rafael Hoogesteijn). My data reveals what is imagined a nd what is real fails to bare resemblance to one 28 another. In other words, the stories illustrate that the construc tion of jaguars and pumas as man- eaters still persists in this biological sub corridor. As compared to Ticos fewer indigenous, onl y 13% (5/38), thought jaguars and/or pumas would attack humans. Of these, two believed felin es would attack out of fear, one said it was only when the feline has small offspring, the othe r two provided mythical reasons. In Cabécar tradition jaguars regulate social norms. For example, one elderly Cabécar woman said jaguars only eat people of incest. This statement reflects Bribri 23 myths that felines punished people who had transgressed social norms, such as incest (Bozzoli 1979, pg. 182). In order to co-exist with large felines, the indigenous followed these myths which justified ja guar attacks on humans engaging in incest. Such traditions also warned Cabécar not to walk with cats, cubs or small children in the mountain. For example, one Cabé car stated it was prohibited to carry domestic cats in the mountain reflecting this cultural nor m. Such a norm was not respected in one situation where another particip ant knew of. He explained a jaguar attacked a man in the mountain road because the man was carrying a sma ll domestic cat in his backpack. The jaguar thought it was one of her cubs and attacked the man. Apparently, the man™s life was spared because he lived close to where the attack took place. Such stories resemble a Cabécar origin myth that describes a brave mother jaguar that protected her child with great care (Stone 1961, pg. 121-122). Another Cabécar says, fiI haven't h eard of a jaguar attacki ng a human for a little while, but history says that jaguars and pumas eat people therefore we believe that they are able to attack.fl In fact, one Cabécar story entitled, Birök wa sä katälä (Small Tigers that Eat the Cabécares) sends a warning message: Cabécar are able to lose their life to the tigers that live in the peaks of Telire, Chirripo, and Tayni mountains (Morales 2013). 23 Bribri and Cabécar indigeno us peoples show a geographic, temporal, an d cultural continuity in the areas they currently inhabit that go back to pre-Columbian times (Barrantes 1993). 29 Felines as Food: Eating the meat of felines was uncommon among Ticos, where only one man had eaten the liver of a puma. Another 42 year old rancher from Bajo del Tigre responded to the question, fiHave you ever killed a jaguar or puma?fl He says, fiNo neverfl and explains that he does not go to the mountain to hunt because he does not eat the meat of cats. Occasionally he goes fishing, he said, noting that fishing does not damage nature because he uses the meat of the fish. It is interesting that this rancher even brought up eating cats if this isn™t something that had been done even on rare occasions. The community of Bajo del Tigre is very close to the Cabécar reserve and this may be the reason this rancher has heard of eating felines. In stark contrast, 21% (8/38) of the Cabécar sample mentioned felines as food in the interviews (four of the Cabécar were 60 years old or older 90, 80, 85 while one was mid-late 20™s, 31, 33, and 42). One of the eight explained he had heard stories about eating feline meat while the other seven had regularly or at one point ate the meat of a feline. The 90 year old Cabécar woman said she gives her permission to kill jaguars in exchange for meat. She explained they seek out the meat because she doesn™t eat rice, only mountain meat which is healthier. Jaguars are killed two times per year be cause it is hard to find them. It is normal to kill Nama24 because it is a tradition to eat spirt of the mountain. This description suggests that jaguars would be killed more frequently if abundant. Such indigenous ways of living illustrate their persistence in eating jaguars despite the redu ction in population of large felines. An 85 year old man revealed the cultural myth that humans kill and eat jaguars and this is why jaguars don't 24 For indigenous in Costa Rica fi Namú generically refers to all felinesfl (Esquivel, Gutiérrez-Espeleta, and Jiménez 2012, p.94), but was spelled Nama by my Cabécar research assistant. Specifically Dínamú refers to a puma and Dulëkolo refers to the jaguar (Esquivel, Gutiérrez-Espeleta, and Jiménez 2012, p.97). My Cabécar research assistant said Nainamei refers to the jaguar and Duenamei to the puma. These differences most likely speak to different indigenous tribes in Costa Rica and even within one tribe such as the Cabécar it may be the result of differences in geographic location. 30 come close to people. Another 80 year old man said he killed a jaguar a long time ago in order to eat. Eating felines was not only restricted to elderly indigenous upholding ancient traditions. One of the younger participants explained three years ago he was visiting another Cabécar reserve in the mountains and they served him Nama . While another 33 year old male says, fiI kill some to eat and leave the rest.fl Not only are Cabécar killing and eating felines sometimes fioutsidersfl (defined by Cabécar as Ticos) kill. For example, one 60 year old man says, fiA jaguar was killed by three outsiders. They took the skin and teeth and gifted us the meat to eat.fl Another Cabecar who was 42 years old admitted ea ting wild animals, but says, fiFelines I don™t eatfl illustrating a separation of himself from Cabécar who do eat felines. My findings corroborate previous research that found jaguars and pumas are also consumed in Colombia (Gonzalez-Maya el al 201 0: 67) and by the Maya in Belize (Rabinowitz, 2000). In Colombia the consumption of puma m eat within a small comm unity was considered a big event for the town (Gonzalez-Maya el al 2010: 67). My data does not reveal any traditions associated with the eating of jaguars or pumas, except fo r the one elderly woman who commented that it was tradition to eat the spirt of the mountain. Ethnographic research needs to be conducted in indigenous areas to understand how cultural traditions, such as eating felines, impacts conservation of jaguars and pumas. Felines real and imagined: My findings show 33% (30/90) of Ticos have seen, killed or neighbor/relative had killed a jaguar or puma. Further, of these 30, 73% (22/30) remembered an approximate date where 68% ( 15/22) provided dates ranging from three to 40 years ago. Memories of large felines as dated as some of these demonstrate the kind of lasting impression of the siting and/or killing experience. The fact that the majority of the sitings/killings are older 31 also reveals the lack of large fe lines in the region, which is also reflected in th e 14% (13/90) of respondents who said jaguars and pumas do not exist in their area. Take for example one rancher/hunter who says, fiI would love to see a puma. It is my favorite animal, but they are very difficult to see. I have been going to the mount ain since I was a child, and I have never seen one.fl This demonstrates that even avid hunters ra rely encounter jaguars and pumas in the SBBD. These results indicate felines are imagined to most Ticos. One American living in the SBBD reports, fiTo tell you the truth I am glad the large cats aren't close to my house because I have two sma ll kids and my dogs.fl This theme was reflected in the corridor meetings where one SINAC repr esentative says fiwe [the people in Costa Rica] are not used to living next to wild animals.fl As a representative of SINAC, she receives calls when people see jaguars or crocodiles and other dangerous animals near their home. Local people want them removed, but she says that fiwe need to respect their space.fl These calls are excellent because it means fithe forest is coming back,fl she explains. fiWe are seeing more living wild animals now, but we are not accustomed to it.fl Jaguars and pumas were constructed as da ngerous animals, although my data did not reveal any evidence of threating feline behavior toward humans. Adams (2012) claims of jaguars, this is common in the Western world, fi Through the process of representation, jaguars are removed from their own animality, or jaguar-selves, and enter cultural discourse as objectsfl (p. 82). Moreover, Adams contends scientific reports, photographs, videos, and discourse are confused or conflated with jaguars themselves , misunderstanding their actual behavior. In reality, jaguars are hard to identify, as Adams (2012, p. 86) acknowledges, fiEncounters with jaguars are typically fleeting (unless an animal is killed as a result).fl Adams finds disconnects between jaguar behavior and representation in John James Audubon, an ornithologist, naturalist, 32 and hunter. He writes of jaguars in his scientific text as fiferocious beastsfl leading people to be more terrified of the predator than the animal warrants (Adams, 2012, p. 90). Adams (2012, p. 94) maintains, fiThe jaguar frequently figures into these narratives not as an animal, but imagined as a cunning villain or worthy foe.fl Fabricated accounts contribute to misundersta ndings of feline attacks. For example, Esther Pomareda, a biologist from Las Pumas Re scue Center in Costa Rica says, fiMost people kill jaguars because they are misinformed–People think that if it attacks cows, it will attack them or their childrenfl (Fendt 2014). This st atement was reflected in one of my respondents where a 43 year old rancher from San Isidro de Pascua directly expressed his fear in relation with killing of jaguars, when he says , fiI would be amazed if I saw a jaguar or a puma, but I would probably kill it.fl He explained that he has a child and cows and he does not want felines so close to the house. He expressed that killing the animals is the only solution to the problem. Studies have found negative perceptions (Pet racca et al. 2013) and killing (Jedrzejewski et al. 2011) to be the result of fear. With just over half of my sa mple fearful of large felines and one fourth of my sample who would kill, had killed or knew someone who has killed a large feline, it will be important to educate the SBBD population of jaguar and puma behavior to avoid further harm to large felines out of fear, when imagined turns into real. These results speak to the potential for conflict as jaguars and pumas repopulate the sub corridor. 25 In contrast to Ticos large felines were real to my indigenous sample where 84% (32/38) discussed seeing and/or killing a jaguar or puma. Fifty-five per cent (21/38) saw a jaguar and/or 25 Take for example the comeback of otters in Missouri which led to conflict with anglers and ponds owners who saw the otter as a competitor for fish. Otter protection activists on the other ha nd considered the otter™s valuable ecological role in the aqu atic system. The activists purported nonlethal methods, relocation and better pond management practices be used in cases of conflic t while the anglers and pond owners all percei ved the otter as a nuisance animal that s hould be harvested and its pelt sold on th e market (Goedeke 2005). Similar conflict s and tensions among various interest groups exist ev en when specie population numbers are not stable, such as both Scarce (2005) and Campion-Vincent (2005) have highlighted of wolf reintroductions. 33 puma (this does not include those who saw tracks of a large feline) and of the those 52% (11/21) saw one of the felines in the past 6 months or less, revealing the close proximity these people live to large felines. Thirty-four percent (13/38) e xpressed fear of large felines. Words such as bad, scared, afraid, nervous, and worried were commonly used by both Ticos and Cabécar. Of those participants who provided details on the timeframe in which the felines were killed, Cabécar had not only the most frequent, but also the most recent killings (see ranges in hunting culture above). These results suggest jaguars and pumas are real to most Cabécar, while the ghosts of large felines live in stories, they are only but imagined to most Ticos living in the SBBD. Western versus Indigenous Meanings Saunders (1998) presents an important cav eat to scholars who blend indigenous and Western knowledge. In his discussion of feline symbolism he examines the old world view of felines and explains Christianity and Cartesian philosophies developed views of animals which conflicted with those of Amerindians. Coloni st views of felines did blend, but lost the indigenous meaning which led to fithe construction of misleading western attitudesfl (Saunders, 1998, p. 3). Saunders claims the meanings given to jaguars differ among western and indigenous frames. My data suggests indigenous meanings are the produ cts of both a traditional and modernized relationship with ja guars and pumas. Moreover, while some evidence did reveal a traditional or a native relationship between Cabé car and jaguars and pumas, findings also reveal Cabécar not only kill jaguars and pumas, but sell the skins to Ticos sugge sting a sign of Western influence on indigenous cultureŠone lacking in respect for jaguars and pumas. Undeniably these realities are tied to the political and economic situation that need to be further unraveled through ethnographic research. 34 Indigenous dramatically differe d from Ticos in constructing felines as food, validating the work of Gonzalez-Maya and colleagues (2010) who first argued for the inclusion of studying traditional use of felines in order to gain a hol istic understanding of feline conservation in Latin America. My findings reveal 21% of Cabécar have consumed or consume felines. With population estimates of large felines in Costa Rica as low as 300 jaguars and 1,000 pumas, a small sample of Cabécar, and only a small percen tage of geographical space in Costa Rica these are troubling findings for conservation of large ma jestic felines. These results illuminate how cultural traditions have an impact on the surviv al of jaguars and pumas in remote regions. Furthermore, my findings do not include the Cabécar in my sample who did not reveal that they had eaten jaguar or puma meat. Two obstacles stood in the way of this information: 1) some Cabécar may not want to disclose that they have eaten felines due to Costa Rican wildlife laws; and 2) my interview instrument did not spec ifically ask this question. My findings suggest Cabécar may include all animals, even predator s, as food. I recommend future researchers include questions of: 1) traditions associated with feline consumption, 2) frequency of jaguar and/or puma consumption, and 3) how many ne ighbors, relatives, friends consume large predators (see appendix B). Few studies investigate and ac knowledge the importance of indigenous cultures and their interactions with large felines. Given jaguars and pumas live in similar geographic spaces to indigenous populationsŠusually remote places largely untouched by civilizationŠsuch indigenous-feline and indige nous-predator research more broadly will be important for conservation efforts. In addition to investigating the capacity for Ticos to coexist with large felines, efforts toward fostering Cabécar coexistence are urgent and need immediate attention. Cabécar encounters and killings exceed those of Ticos living in the biol ogical corridor by 60% and 22% 35 respectively. Multiple methods toward encouraging coexistence need to be utilized. One avenue would be to use Cabécar cultural traditions to sa ve the jaguar. For example, one 40 year old Cabécar who had killed a feline four years ago rev ealed an interesting myth. He explained that he only killed a feline one time because God isn't cont ent if one kills felines. This is similar to findings from a study in Venezuela where a myth against killing jaguars existed because it may result in something bad happening to them or their family (Jedrzejew ski et al. 2011). A second possibility in fostering coexistence is related to the 16% (6/38) of Cabécar who did not discuss hunting in some capacity. Four were from Jameikari, a community where educational outreach efforts have been employed. Furthermore, all six respondents were in a profession that was related to conservation (e.g. park ranger, MINAE, and a tour guide). Such findings suggest coexistence initiatives that include cultural traditions benefiting both feline conservation and economic livelihoods are necessary if we are to save jaguars and pumas. My findings speak to the importance of cultural understandings which are vital for coexistence and essential for conservation efforts toward felin es, including the jaguar corridor initiative and human-predator co existence overall. Conflict and Killing of Jaguars and Pumas in the SBBD Conflict between humans and large felines in the SBBD is still a prominent theme where Ticos and Cabécar reveal a culture of hunti ng, 56% and 84% respectively. For Cabécar traditional subsistence is a way of life embedded in a hunting culture to survive off the land. Additionally, their remote living allows real en counters with large felines leading to a higher level of conflict motivated by competition and the use of felines as food. The result is more killings. 36 I found Ticos have a higher capacity of coexistence in comparison to Cabécar. For example, a small portion of Ticos constructe d jaguars and pumas as competitors, 14% respectively, and of those even fewer responded to predation problems by killing or wanting to kill the feline. Despite this positive finding, feli nes are imaginary to most Ticos. Moreover, my findings reveal fewer Ticos encounter large felines. At the same time hunting in the SBBD has slowed down but occurs simultaneous ly to the decrease of prey animals killed and consumed by both hunters and large felines. Moreover hunting has decreased as a result of less prey to hunt.26 This suggests potential for competition and conflict when jaguars, pumas and their prey repopulate. In other words, when the population of jaguars and pumas increases will this capacity of coexistence among Ticos toward large felines change, remain the same or decrease? To measure the conflict and kil ling of jaguars and pumas more accurately, future research needs to address the marketability of jaguar and puma derivatives. Such research would ask, for example: Are there professional jaguar and puma hunters in the area? Is there a market for selling jaguar and/or puma skins? If so, what is the value of a jaguar/puma skin, who is the buyer, and where are the buyers from (see appendix B)? The fact that there is a higher price attached to good quality skins from young jaguars and my research exposes high values of feline skins in comparison to previous re search raises a red flag for conservation efforts in this region. My interview instrument did not ask specifically about selling sk ins of jaguars and pumas and therefore did not produce significant numbers from my sample. However it remains interesting that when I asked about selling jaguar and puma skins people knew of the price or knew someone who would know the value of these skins. This suggests selling and purchasing feline skin may be a common practice in the SBBD. 26 Hunting has also most likely decreased as a result of stricter Costa Rican wild life laws although I do not evaluate that here. 37 Felines were constructed as man-eaters, a nd competitors embedded in a hunting culture among both an indigenous and Ti co population, however, most Ticos have not or do not intend to kill or hunt jaguars and/or pumas. This re inforces Bergman™s (1996:16 ) contention that it is a cultural construction or phenomenon rather than na tural which leads men to kill wild animals. Men are not born hunters rather it is an identity they assume. As described below, conversion is possible and has been possible in this remote biological sub corridor. Faced with Challenges Coexistence Efforts are Underway Although I found the conflict and killing of jaguars and pumas embedded in traditional hunting culture, other opportunities exist for hunters. For example, my data reveal three Ticos who were previous hunters now work in tourism. This suggests livelihoods have the potential for conversion. One corridor member validated the need for these previous hunters: fiThere are two types of hunters, one that really knows everything about the animals, behaviors, and habitat. This hunter is very important for conservation.fl Such encouraging comments in my data show informed hunters have a lot to offer in a count ry where tourism is the second largest industry. The corridor groups provide promise for coexis tence as well. The jaguar stands as the symbol of the biological corrido r, of conservation goals. Both felines, although the jaguar more prominently, were discussed regularly in the SBBD corridor group and to a less extent the larger CBVCT corridor group. This has an impact on co rridor members. For example, one corridor member told a story at one of the meetings. He had attended a meeting in Lomas about water issues. The meeting was nice, he said, but when he got up to talk about protecting the jaguar, people asked, fiWhy protect the jaguar?fl He ex plained people kept asking the same question, fiWhy protect the jaguar?fl People are concerned about the children when they know there is a jaguar around–so they are scared. The corridor member continued explaining the problem in 38 Lomas is farmers let hunters enter through their farms to hunt the land. The corridor member acknowledged the prey is then depleted and as a result jaguars attack cows. He explained the ranchers wonder why they attack, they don™t make this conn ection. After explaining his frustrations with his hometown he says fiThe SBBD represents the passage for the jaguar and Panthera taught us [the corridor members] that the jaguar is an umbre lla species and without jaguars there would be nothing, no diversity, nothing.fl Such a story signifies that education is disseminated to communities th rough corridor members. The corridor members and tourism establishm ents are concerned with hunters, but the reality is everyone seems to know a hunter and that makes it difficult to file a complaint with the police against someone. One corridor member wa nted to reward the local people, around $100, to report someone. A member of another corridor group in San Juan responded with a word of caution in that their corridor group had two cases where reports were filed. The corridor member of the San Juan group explained that the process is very slow. A precedent of no-tolerance must be set and that will depend on the ability for some community members to turn against others in defense of jaguars, pumas and nature. My research speaks to the work of Zimmerman and colleagues (2010: 138) who argue interventions will have little impact on conservation without understanding the social and cultural lives of people living among large felines. As I highlight above coexistence is emerging in the SBBD, but still in its infancy. So while there is potential for coexistence between humans and large felines in Costa Rica, my study provides evidence that present cultural constructions of jaguars and pumas tend to encourage conflict a nd killing. Given this, qualitative research methods are needed to understand more deep ly these existing mean ings and investigate possibilities for human coexistence with jagua rs and pumas. Through my findings I have 39 developed research questions to assist in deeper considerations of sociocultural constructions of conflictŠthese are vital to our understanding of how humans co exist with large felines. What remains is the grandest challenge of all: learning to coexist with jaguars and pumas. For Ticos, this means allowing large felines back into ecolo gical space people have claimed for themselves. For Cabécar, it requires that their frequent encounte rs with large felines do not end in the killing of these apex predators. 40 Chapter 2: Fostering Co-existence with Jaguars and Pumas through a Rancher Outreach Program in Costa Rica Abstract In recent years shrinking habitat and depleted prey source have increased the conflict between humans and jaguars in Latin America. A ra ncher outreach program exists in part the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) to reduce conflict and foster coexistence with jaguars and pumas in Costa Rica. Based on particip ant observation and open ended interviews I explored the program™s ability to reduce conflic t between humans and large felines. Findings reveal half of participants are willing to coexist with large felines through a change in husbandry practices (enclosures, electric fences, use of large Eurasian dog breeds); just under half are willing to coexist with felines through predator relocation; and one third think their livestock have been attacked by large felines, but are not connected to the rancher program. Results suggest coexistence is multidimensionalŠbased on geographical proximity to large felinesŠand strategies of coexistence are culturally sensitiveŠCabécar i ndigenous have the highest conflict with large felines, but were not included in the rancher program. I conclude with six recommendations for rancher programs: 1) peer-r eviewed research on feline relocation needs to be conducted in order to analyze if it is a viable option for coexistence; 2) prior to implementation residents of a program™s region need to be questioned to determine the level of conflict and evaluate strategies that fit into the pre-existing way of life; 3) data collection needs to be conducted analyzing ranchers who have had feline attacks, but are not added to the rancher programŠthis data will determine how best to foster coexistence with these ranchers and situations; 4) citizen science is one method that could foster education and social investment while alleviating program resource limitations; 5) rancher programs need to have various venues of marketing to create awaren ess among residents who may have future livestock attacks; 6) 41 communication is important to the success and continuation of a rancher program and thus careful attention needs to be deployed at every step of the process. 42 Introduction In recent years shrinking habitat and depleted prey source has increased the conflict between humans and jaguars in Latin America (Hoogesteijn and Hoogesteijn 2011). Studies often measure tolerance of jaguars and pumas without asse ssing what strategies people are willing to employ for coexistence. For exam ple, Zimmerman and colleagues (2005) found 64% of cattle ranchers™ in the Pantanal of Brazil agre ed they cannot tolerate jaguars taking cattle and Campbell and Alvarado (2011) found 23% of people in El Salvador would not tolerate jaguars, pumas and coyotes. In addition to measuring toleration in El Salvador, they also found 73% of participants supported trapping and removing th ese animals. Relocation is an important strategy to measure, but other st rategies exist and were not measured in either study. The threatened status of jaguars and their conflict with humans is pressing re search to examine what direct strategies are available to create an environment of human-jaguar co-existence. Structural changes that foster education, sustainable development, and tourism (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009, 26) are vital for minimi zing conflict and promoting large feline conservation, but take time to implement. Dir ect management strategies are used to improve tolerance while these long term strategies ta ke hold. Some management methods include: financial compensation for cattle loss by predation (Vaughan and Temple 2002), livestock husbandry and management improvements (Craws haw and Quigley 2002), use of water buffalo (Hoogesteijn 2003),27 livestock guarding (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009, 26), relocation of (Vaughan and Temple 2002) and trophy hunting of problem jaguars (Swank and Teer 1992), and wildlife tourism (Conforti and Azevedo 2003). 27 The social and defensive behavior of adult water buffalo in protection of their calves makes depredation filess or non-existent in comparison to bovine calvesfl (p. 26) 43 To the best of my knowledge one peer reviewed study exists regarding a rancher program to protect jaguars. In Sonora, Mexico (located within The Jaguar Corridor Initiative) the benefits of a landowner-based jaguar conservation program was described. U.S. hunters participated in deer trophy expeditions that generated funds to use as compensation for livestock predation by jaguars. The program not only comp ensated for cattle loss, but produced profits to participating ranchers (Rosas-Rosas and Vald ez 2010). However, while this study highlighted benefits of their rancher program, it failed to desc ribe any barriers or improvements to be made. In Costa Rica, only one peer-reviewed study targeting rancher jaguar conflict exists. Findings suggest 32% of ranchers had implemented preventa tive measures (such as electric fences and livestock guarding) to avoid jaguar predation on livestock (Amit, Rojas, Alfaro, and Carrillo 2009). However, this study did not evaluate the successes and failures of such methods. As demonstrated here there is a plethora of incentives and strategies available, but very few studies have actually reported on a program™s ability to re duce conflict between humans and large felines. In one systematic study asse ssing relocation as a management strategy, Isasi- Catalá (2010) reported surprise that very few concrete studies existed on jaguar relocation as it is a widely proposed solution to conservation. In fact such a research gap extends beyond jaguars. For example, Woodroffe, Thirgood and Rabinowitz (2005:395) emphasized the lack of fiwell-designed studiesfl evaluating the efficienci es and barriers of programs related to human- wildlife conflict. Although not an evaluation of a program, my st udy reports on the barriers of a rancher outreach program in fostering human coexistence with jaguars and pumas in Costa Rica. I chose to conduct this research in a biological corridor. Encompassing large areas of private and public land biological corridors are important units of analysis to evaluate co-existence between 44 large predators and humans.28 In the Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD) sport and subsistence hunting were found to be the main threats to wildlife, where residents have killed or intend to kill jaguars and pumas after suffering the loss of an animal (SINAC). This situation of conflict as described in chapter tw o emphasizes the serious threat hunting has on the success of the biological corridor and the surviv al of jaguars and puma s traveling within the corridor (SINAC). To the best of my knowledge aside from Rosas-Rosas and Valdez (2010) no other study has investigated a rancher program or any program that directly promotes co-existence between humans and jaguars ( Panthera onca) and pumas ( Puma concolor) within a biological corridor. I explored Panthera™s rancher outreach program™s ability to reduce conflict and foster co-existence between ranchers, jaguars and pumas in the Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD) of Costa Rica. I de scribe the functionality of this program and its impact on its participants, including barriers that exist. I also explored and described perceived predation attacks and willingness of SBBD resi dents to coexist with jaguars and pumas. Unlike Rosas-Rosas and Valdez (2010) my study invest igates the barriers to a rancher outreach programŠimportant for future growth and im plementation in other parts of the globe. 28 Programs of co-existence are even more pressing toda y when jaguars are permitted to cross private lands through biological or wildlife corridors (Donaldson & Kymlicka 2011; Sillero-Zubiri, Sukumar & Treves 2007; Woodroffe, Simon & Rabinowitz 2005) and scholarship is promoting rewilding (Fraser 2009), including not only corridors, but also cores and carnivores (Fraser 2009; Solzenburg 2008; Terborgh 1992) as an urgent conservation tool. NGO™s, such as Panthera are working to link core jaguar populations from northern Argentina up to Mexico across both private and public land through a Jaguar Corridor Initiative . In Costa Rica, the Jaguar Corridor Initiative was integrated into to the largest biological corridor system in the world, The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) in 2006 (SINAC). 45 The Research Site The Barbilla Destierro Biological Sub Corridor (SBBD) is critical for the connectivity of the larger Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) between Nicaragua to the north and Panama to the south. Made up of 37,589 hectar es of land it is inhabited by 8,000 people who live in 26 small settlements (Rojas & Chavarrí a 2005) whose primary livelihood activities are livestock and agriculture (Gon zález & Poltronieri 2002). Cabécar , who live in Nairi Awari, Chirripó, and Bajo Chirripó indigenous reservations also inhabit the SBBD. They are relatively isolated with little access to the outside market and few public services (Gonzalez and Poltronieri 2002). They live on subsistence agriculture (Gonzalez and Poltr onieri 2002) and are largely dependent on government subsidie s (Rojas and Chavarría 2005). Methods Through participant observation and 131 open-ended interviews in the SBBD I explored and described barriers facing a rancher outreach program, ranchers perceived predation attacks by large felines, their willingness to co-exist in the SBBD, and the program™s impact on ranchers. Interview participants consisted of people whom reside, own prope rty or a tourism establishment in the SBBD, 38 Cabécar, 90 Ticos, and three North Americans: two Americans and one Canadian. Two local research assistants, one female and one male who were from the SBBD, conducted 86 interviews throughout the sub corridor and one local ma le Cabécar research assistant interviewed 37 Cabécar. Interviews st arted in Valle Escondido, Bajo del Tigre and Las Lomas, the home towns of the research assistants. Research assistants were between the ages of 25-35 years old. I interviewed three North Amer icans, four Ticos and my Cabécar research 46 assistant prior to him starting the work . Interviews were conducted in 23 towns 29 and in 12 communities 30 within the Nairi Awari, Chirripó, and Bajo Chirripó indigenous reservations. Livelihoods primarily consisted of livesto ck and agriculture (e.g. cilantro) in 72% (94/131) of my sample. Other li velihoods included: three participants owned or administered a tourism establishment, one man owned a small c onvenience store but was previously a rancher, and one woman was an English teacher in the San Jose area. Fifty-eight percent (22/38) of my Cabécar sample did not have a livelihood outside of cultivating their own food (for some this included livestock animals), six were retired, and others worked in tourism, for the government, as teachers, and as park rangers. Twenty eight women and 62 men made up my Tico sample, three men made up my North American sample, and there were three women and 35 men in my Cabécar sample. The large decrease in female representation from Ticos to Cabécar is because felines are some of the wild animals about which Cabécar women under the age of 75 are not able to speak about in public. This tradition may be related to the Ca bécar story where a jaguar is a lover of a young woman (see Stone 1961, pg. 129). Of the three Cabécar women in my sample, two were over 75 years old: one was 90 and the other 86. The third was a 41 year-old woman who did not follow traditions or respect the cultural taboo of not discussing jaguars and pumas in public. A snowball sample design was used asking in terviewees to recommend other ranchers and/or agriculturalists who would be willing to vo luntarily participate in the interviews without incentive. Included in the 131 sample were 14 ranchers where Panthera had responded to a predation attack (some of whom were participants in Panthera™s rancher program). With these 29 Including, but not limited to: Ojo de agua, Las Lomas, Gu ayacan, El Coco, Bajo del Tigre, Linda Vista, and Santa Marta. 30 Including, but not limited to: Jameikari, Xi nikicha, Muluibiri, Brisa, and Barbilla. 47 ranchers I did not use a snowball sample rather they were targeted usi ng Panthera™s list of 24 ranchers. The list of ranche rs dates back to the program™s inception in 2010. Panthera responded to these ranchers in regards to a feline attack. I did not keep track of the people who declined to be interviewed. IRB approval was obtained on October 31, 2013 #x13-1039e when the study was considered exempt. The interviews lasted on average between 20 and 40 minutes. I chose not to audio record my data because it would have excluded so many participants. With that said, quotations are only in places where my research assistan ts or I was able to capture the direct quote in interviews or I was with my participant observations. Most respondents were interviewed individually. In addition to jaguars I documented data re lated to pumas because Panthera™s rancher outreach program includes both jaguars and pumas given they are the only large predators in Costa Rica able to take down a calf. Following are the interview questions included in this chapter. The first was a survey of how many pe ople in the SBBD have experienced livestock loss from feline predation. Two questions were asked: Have you experienced livestock loss due to jaguar or puma predation? Have any of your neighbors experienced livestock loss due to jaguar or puma predation (Conf orti & Azevedo, 2003)? The second question asked if jaguars or pumas were close to their home/ranch and attacki ng livestock and/or pets what would they do to solve the problem (Confor ti & Azevedo, 2003). The third and fourth questions explored how the participant felt about Panthera. Without provoking a positive or negative evaluation (which is not useful toward understanding effective programs) the questions asked: have conservation efforts (Panthera, government, national park, priv ate reserves, etc.) to protect nature impacted you in anyway and are you associated with Panthera? 48 I accompanied Panthera in five of their se ven rancher outreach program visits which lasted on average three days each. 31 My first rancher visit for November 2013 was rescheduled and took place in January 2014. My rancher outr each visits came to an end in September 2014 when the coordinator emailed to cancel our visi t because Panthera only had one rancher in the SBBD in their program. The coordinator informed me that any future visits to that rancher would be scheduled when they had other activities or meetings in the area. We both agreed he would advise me if they conducted the visit in October 2014. My last rancher visit was August 2014. In addition to the rancher program my par ticipant observation consisted of multiple visits to seven ecotourism establishments and four priv ate reserves in the SBBD as well as regular attendance at two monthly corri dor meetings: one for the SBBD 32 and the CBVCT33 (the SBBD is part of this larger biological corridor)Šsome meetings took place in remote areas that required overnight stays. Panthera™s Rancher Outreach Program I explored Panthera™s rancher-outreach program, entitled, Wild Cat-Cattle Coexistence. Panthera is the largest wild cat c onservation organization in the world (www.panthera.org). In 2007 Panthera had a workshop surrounding issues of human conflict with large felinesŠrecognizing it as one of the main reasons felines are killed in Costa Rica. Born from this workshop, the rancher program developed in 2010. The regional Panthera office is located in San Jose which is approximately a two and a half hour mountain drive to the SBBD. The program functions as a response to jaguar or puma attacks on livestock. Each rancher is in Panthera™s program for ten months. When a rancher has an attack on their livestock 31 Between November 2013 and September 2014 I knew of two outreach visits that Panthera attended to without advising meŠdespite my repeated requests (two recorded and various verbal) to be included in all of the rancher relations for a one-year time period. 32 Subcorredor Biológico Barbilla-Destierro Paso del Jaguar 33 Corredor Biológico Volcánica Central-Talamanca Consejo Local 49 they may contact Panthera who then responds by sending a representative to the ranch to investigate if a jaguar or a puma had attack ed. The investigation includes a 74 question interview with the rancher. Since the inception of their program in 2010 they attended 12 ranchers who were not added to the program and 12 ranchers who were part of the program. The reasons ranchers are not added to the program include: a rancher does not demonstrate interest or commitment, 34 the ranch is more than 300 hectors with more than 100 animals, there is not sufficient evidence that the attack was done by a feline. Again, 14 of the 24 ranchers Panthera attended to during their four year program were part of my 131 sample. After the initial interview ranchers are added to the program if they fit the characteristics stated above. During the initial visit, Panthera analyzes the situation at the ranch and prescribes the most appropriate solution including: electric fences, enclosures, and bells for the cows (the sound scares off large felines).35 Ranchers sign a contract and Panthera™s field assistant returns to the ranch to place four cameras 36 in areas where the jaguar or pu ma would travel. In the past Panthera bought and provided the ranchers with labor and materials for enclosures. That has changed recently where material and labor are pa id for by Panthera, but the labor is conducted by the rancher. The coordinator of the program said such efforts fipromote much more participation with the ranchers.fl This is different for electri c fences where electrical skills are necessary. In this case Panthera provides the materials and labor. 37 34 For example, during the February 2014 rancher visits, th e field assistant told me th ere was a puma who attacked a calf in fiLa Fuentefl 15 days ago. Th e field assistant explained that he re sponded to the call with the program coordinator and while the rancher showed interested in the program, he never followed up by calling PantheraŠ signifying a disinterest in the program and Panthera™s help. The field assistant indicated one reason may be that the rancher already had a corral for the cows. 35 In all my visits enclosures and electric fences was the most common strategy used. I never once saw bells on the cows used although one rancher did state in his interview that he was waiting for Panthera to bring him bells. 36 There were many instances during my visits where a ranc h had less than four cameras due to a lack of resources. 37 With the last ranch in the program Panthera had placed an electric fence which was solar powered. 50 Although rancher visits are supposed to be conducted monthly, during my time communicating with the coordinator for these visits (November 2013 through September 2014) there were only seven. The field assistant does not always phone the ranchers ahead of time to let them know he is coming because he wants to s ee if they are using the enclosures and electric fences that have been supplied.38 During July 2014 I noticed they were distributing fiPantherafl yard signs for the ranchers to place on their prop erty in order to adve rtise that they were participants of the rancher outreach program. During the last month of the program Panthera gathers their cameras from the ranch. Alt hough I only accompanied Pant hera on three rancher visits where it was the participants™ last month in the pr ogramŠduring all three occasions cameras were collected and we left the pr operty without speaking to the rancher. In addition to the SBBD Panthera works in Tortugero (the location of Barre PacuareŠsee relocation below) and San Juan-La Selva as they are the most important biological corridors to PantheraŠwith more people and more ranchers. Despite the geographic range of Panthera, they still have limited resources. Th e coordinator of the rancher outreach program said, fiThe hardest part of my job is to turn down a farmer who n eeds help–The only way this problem will ever be solved is if the government gets involvedfl (Fendt 2014). In September 2013 SINAC 39 designated 14 of its officials as members of Un ited Attention to the Conflict with Felines (UACfel), a feline conflict response unit. It is Costa Rica™s first government-funded large feline- livestock program. The program is not limited in geographical range as is Panthera. fiUACfel 38 Although during one rancher visit I observed that the field assistant did not check if the cows were in the enclosure. As we were leaving I asked if he knew if the rancher was using the enclosure and he said, fiIt doesn™t look like it, maybe they will do it later.fl It was already by then 5:20pm and the climate was cold and rainy. In my experience from living and working in the SBBD cows regularly roamed freely and rarely did I see a peon out past 5pm. Just then the field assistant backed up to see the enclosure more closely and indeed the cows were in the enclosure. 39 MINAE and SINAC are the government agencies in Costa Rica responsible for wildlife. SINAC (Costa Rica™s national system for conservation areas) is under the auspices of MINAE which is the Ministry of Environment and Energy in Costa Rica. 51 responds to all conflict situations all over the country in order to help ranchers protect their livestock though preventative measuresfl (Fendt 2014). The coordinator of Panthera™s rancher outreach program explained in September 2014 his role is also the external coordinator for Panthera y UACFel programs which include a larg er geographical range. The program is fully funded through Panthera and in 2015 MINAE is expected to include UACFel program in its budget. Panthera™s program is different from Yagua rá, another jaguar and puma conflict program in Costa Rica, which offers compensation to repl ace the value of the livestock animal killed. Yaguará is a regional organization located in the Osa Peninsula, the South Pacific, where Panthera is a global organization with headquarters in New York and is more centrally located in Costa Rica attending to a wider geographic range of conflict situations. To the best of my knowledge Yaguará is currently not active.40 Results/Discussion Findings from exploring Panthera™s rancher outreach program and measuring ranchers™ ability to coexist with jaguars and pumas in th e SBBD of Costa Rica suggest one fourth of the sample reported having or their neighbors having had an attack by a large feline.41 Cultural differences exist. For example, more Ticos ar e willing to coexist at a closer proximity than Cabécar although only Ticos chose relocation of la rge felines as an option of coexistence. Further, more Cabécar are willing to use dogs to scare away jaguars and pumas where more Ticos are willing to use electric fences, enclosures and keeping livestock away from the forest as preventative methods. Barriers to Panthera™s program include: lack of inclusion (and an understanding of cultural differences) of Cabécar in the rancher program; failure to collect 40 There website is inactive. 41 This data is largely unreliableŠsee discussion on jaguar and puma attacks on livestock below. 52 rancher specific data on why ranchers who have had feline attacks are not added to the program; lack of awareness among ranchers in the SBBD regarding the rancher program; and a deficiency in communication with participants of their program. Below are the details of these results. Jaguar and puma attacks on livestock: Thirteen percent of participants (17/131) and 19% (25/131) of participant™s neighbors had experienced a loss of livestock from predation of jaguars or pumas. Although these reports are unreliable (without evaluation by an expert) I draw on this data to illustrate three important points. First, whether jaguars or pumas are actually attacking livestock may not be as important as the fact that people believe that large feline predation is to blame. For example, retaliation efforts towa rd these predators could be based on false knowledge of attacks. Secondly, future research should not only ask these questions, but also follow-up questions such as: how do you know it was a jaguar or puma and how long ago did this happen in order to record reliable data.42 Future research needs to contrast the reliable with the unreliable data to answer the question of how many people have knowledge of these large felines. With such juxtaposition one could also compare beliefs or misconceptions with actions and behaviors toward large predators. For example, a rancher who falsely accused a jaguar of attacking a calf could retaliateŠresulting in a la rge feline death from a misinformed rancher. This would demonstrate the importance of felin e knowledge among ranchers. Finally, livestock attacks in the SBBD may go unre ported. Moreover, my data reve als 42 unreliable reports of people in the SBBD (participant s and their neighbors) who have experienced a livestock lossŠpotentially from large feline predation. In co mparison Panthera was called by 24 ranchers who experienced an attack since the program™s inception in 2010. This leaves at minimum 18 42In operationalizing fireliablefl and fiunreliablefl data I sugges t reliable data is evidence of a jaguar attack provided by an expert. Unreliable data is someone indicating there was an attack with no expertise. 53 ranchers43 who thought they experienced an attack, but did not call Panthera (which would have resulted in verification of a feline attack). This leaves a tremendous amo unt of room for program growth and suggests Panthera is not contacted regarding many a ttacks that take place in the SBBD. Regionally, the attacks took place located on the we st side of the corridor in communities such as: Torito, San Antonio, and San Isidro de Pascua where 69% (29/42) of participants claimed to have had or thought th eir neighbor had an attack. This region is also where most of the program™s misconceptions and concerns are (s ee below). Thus, the geographical location of attacks has important implications for misconceptions related to livestock attacks. Willingness to coexist: included two dimensions of coexis tence: 1) willingness to change husbandry practices (e.g. predator proof-enclosures, electric fences, keep herds away from the forest, and/or buy a dog); and 2) jaguar or puma relocation. I separated these dimensions based on geographical proximity with the predators. In other words, participants who chose option one were willing to coexist in close proximity wh ereas those who chose option two were willing to co-exist, but at a distance. Participants who chose killing the jaguar or puma as an option were not willing to coexist, but instead socially constructed their relationships as one of conflict as found in chapter one. Options were not mutua lly exclusive and some respondents chose more than one option. Sixty-three percent (57/90) of Ticos and 18% (7/38) of Cabécar were willing to change husbandry practices (dimension 1 above) to prev ent feline predation. My findings were much lower than another study conducted in Costa Rica that found 93% of ranchers were willing to implement preventative methods in the future (Gordillo-Chávez 2010). Of those who were 43 This statement is for discussion purposes only and to point out that many attacks go unrecorded. This data does not take into account that some interviewees may have refe rred to the same neighbor and that the 42 people were only a representative sample from the SBBD. 54 willing to change husbandry practices 11% (6/57) of Ticos and 29% (2/7) of Cabécar brought up the concern of financing the physical change and/or extra workload. For example, one 45 year old rancher from Las Lomas said fiI would ch ange and enclose my animals only if it was necessary because enclosed animals are double the work.fl Two percent (2/90) of Ticos and 37% (14/38) of Cabécar chose to buy a dog to scare the large feline (included in dimension one above). Relocation is coexistence at a further proximity: While for the Cabécar relocation of jaguars or pumas to another area was not an opt ion, 12% (11/90) of Ticos chose to relocate the problem feline if they had a problem. Thirty-four percent (31/90) of Ticos indicated they would contact Panthera, MINAE, park rangers or another expert if they had a problem of predation with jaguars or pumas assuming it would result in the removal of the fe line. Together that makes 45% of Ticos who chose to relocate the feline and/or contact Panthera, MINAE, etc. I merged these choices together based on several comments from participants who made this connection. For example, one 45 year old rancher from Las Loma s chose the option to relocate the large feline and followed by saying that he would call MINAE to see what they are able to do. He thought perhaps MINAE would relocate the feline. Another 67 year old rancher from Santa Marta chose relocation and said, fiI would call MINAE to do some thing, they are the only ones that are able to take these animals, for others it isn™t permitted. It would be better to place the puma or tigre in a safe place like a park.fl Another 47 year old female rancher/agriculturalist (cilantro) from a near town, Linda Vista, made a similar comment afte r choosing relocation. She said, fiIf it were a jaguar or puma I would talk with MINAE in orde r to take it to a national park–to change the place of the animal is easier than the people.fl This statement suggests she is not willing to co- exist in close proximity with large felines. 55 Relocation poses a concern on multiple levels. First and foremost jaguars have a low rate of survival (Isasi-Catalá 2010).44 Secondly and perhaps as a result, relocation as a policy and practice does not exist in Costa Rica. Accordi ng to Panthera™s Costa Rican Director, fiThe government is supposed to respond for cases wher e wildlife affects people, but this is not done45 or very rare. The government can remove an animal if they prove it has caused a damage (again very rare, I only know of one case).fl This statement was verified when I traveled outside of the SBBD in July of 2014 to Tortugero Corridor (one of the three priority corridors for Panthera) with Panthera™s rancher outreach program in order to attend to a jaguar conflict situation. 46 One MINAE official accompanied us as the point of the visit was to transition this ranch on the Caribbean coast from Panthera™s program into the hands of MINAE officials. The rancher was 41 years old and had lived in Barre Pacuare his whole life. He said about 20 years ago there were two jaguars in the area, but they were killed. As we trekked through the marshy terrain, the Panthera field a ssistant took down the three cameras explaining one of the cameras had captured a jaguar thr ee times in one monthŠwhich was practically unheard of in his experience in this program. He commented that all three photos were of the same female jaguar presumably living there. The rancher as well as others in the area had seen her. He said she had been living there for a bout one year, but until recently she had not killed anything. The rancher said she killed three of his small dogs and one calf. This ranch had been in Panthera™s program for two months. 44According to the only systematic study that evaluated the outcomes of jaguar relocation programs over the feline™s entire geographical range findingsŠalthough not conclusive due to small sample size, n=3. 45 Prior to contacting Panthera, the 46 year old rancher from Torito said, fiWhen the puma killed some of my animals I called MINAE and they said they can't do anything about it.fl This sentiment that MINAE does not respond to issues of livestock attacks by felines was illu strated again in a relocation case discussed below. 46 During my study period the rancher outreach program in the SBBD did not have any jaguar attacks so in order to gather data on a conflict situation with a jaguar I traveled outside of the SBBD. 56 We stopped at the coast guard station before heading out. The MINAE official went in to talk to the coast guard about the jaguar situation. He reported that the coast guard says, fiThey see her pass often and she passes close to the school. Many people in the area are concerned.fl The MINAE official claimed the problem is that she is on the beach, close to the children, too closeŠthe community is worried. The coast guard specified that people wa nt to kill her if she isn™t removed soon. The rancher made a simila r statement, fiMany peopl e in this community want to kill this jaguar in retaliation for loss of their domestic animals.fl According to the rancher on the other side of the reserve there is a subdivision that is owned by a Spaniard and the jaguar has killed some of the dogs. When I asked the MINAE representative if they had received many complaints he said, fiYes many.fl The ra ncher said fiIf you don™t take her soon, they will kill her.fl The rancher felt differently than many of his neighbors, being a part of Panthera™s program had provided evidence of that, but also he had mentioned multiple times that he wanted to buy a dog that would keep jaguars awayŠevidence that he was exploring many options of co- existence where the community did not accept coexistence at a close proximity. As we were leaving the MINAE official said he was meeting with his supervisors to discuss what to do, but he thought it would mostly likely involv e trapping her and bringing her up to the Talamanca Mountains. He was going to contact two or three scientists who study jaguars and live in Turrialba, he gave me his contact information and invited me to join them for the relocation of this jaguar. However, the attacks continued and nothing was done to remedy the situation. During one week in September 2014 the community of Barre Pacuare experienced four jaguar attacks on livestock and dogs accord ing to one Barre Pacuare resident and SBBD corridor member. 57 Although reports from this beach community that a female jaguar and three cubs live in the Barre Pacuare vicinity, when I questioned the Costa Rican Director of Panthera he says, fiWe only have evidence of a female jaguar and a cub who is six months.fl The Panthera biologist said when a female has cubs they usually stay in the area for one year. To the biologist™s recollection these attacks had been going on for roughly one year and more frequently the past six months because of her cub. Unfortunately, the Amistad Caribe region of MINAE/SINAC is not very cooperative and collaborative he explained. He was concerned, but emphas ized that Panthera did not have any solutions given this rancher was now in the hands of MINAE. Furthermore, most of the attacks are on dogs and the rancher outreach program includes only cows and pigs. fiWe don™t have a program for dogs,fl he says. Th ey also don™t have anyone in the country who has expertise to relocate jaguars and pumas despite wh at the MINAE official indicated back in July. Additionally he identified the further challenge with this situationŠthe pr oblem of moving the mother and her cub. He was scheduled to give a talk on the conflict situation in Barre Pacuare during the latter part of September but it was cancelled because the community was busy fishing for shrimp. He thought it woul d probably happen after shrimp season. After observing this Barre Pacuare relocation case and speaking with the jaguar experts at Panthera it appears as though the expertise for relocation does not exist in Costa Rica. This is problematic for those ranchers and individuals who think this is a potential solution to a predation problem. Furthermore, although I obser ved SINAC officials participating in training to deal with conflict situations in May 2014 at the International Symposium: Wild Cats Conservation in the Americas in Sarapiquí, it appears as though (some regions) may not be prepared to pursue the intensity of these conflicts when it becomes a community problem rather than only a rancher issue. Although Panthera™s plan is to have MINAE/SINAC in charge of 58 many of these conflict situations more work will need to be done toward this end. It doesn™t appear that they have the same level of commitment as Panthera to these conflict issues with large felines. Impact of Panthera: Of the 14 ranchers interviewed, 29% (4/14) expressed discontent and/or concerns with the program. These concer ns were: Panthera had brought wild cats to the area; Panthera microchips/radio collars (locatable via GPS) felines for monitoring; Panthera does not financially reimburse for losing a cow to felin e predation; Panthera places cameras on their property, but program participants never see the resulting pictures; and Panthera does not provide any kind of information at the end of the program. Misconceptions of Panthera emerged from my data. A lthough only 5% (6/131) of respondents thought Panthera had brought wild felines to the area, they were all from the west side of the corridor (San Isidro de Pascua, four and Torito, two) where most of my sample reported having an attack. This may be a co mmon misconception as it was found in one other study in south Brazil where 68% of respondents believed that jaguars had been brought in from other regions and released into the Iguaçu National Park (Conforti & Azevedo 2003). However, in this study they specifically as ked the question: fiWhat is the orig in of the jaguars living in this region? a) Native, b) Brought from other places ; c) Some are Native, some are brought; d) Don™t knowfl (Conforti & Azevedo 2003: 217), whereas in my study these questions were not asked but emerged from my data. Below is one program part icipant who describes some of these concerns and misconceptions. A 46 year old rancher from Torito who also ha s ranches in Bonilla Arriba was part of the program. Of the four he was the most direct with his expression of dissatisfaction with Panthera. He says, fiI heard that they brought wild cats to the area. Growing up in Torito I never saw a 59 puma, jaguar or ocelot and now I see all of thes e different animals in the area.fl His frustration was exacerbated through his feelings of economi c loss when he emphasized that he suffered more attacks than anyone else in the areaŠhe lost 15 animalsŠalthough he acknowledged it was fidifficult to keep an eye on all the animals.fl For this rancher it may have been easier to express his discontent with Panthera given the attack s and program activities took place at one of his Bonilla Arriba ranchers managed by his two sons . As a matter of fact, during all my rancher outreach visits to this farm I never met this Torito rancher even once. At this same ranch Panthera™s field assistant was concerned because they did not have the Panthera sign up. That could be a result of this rancher™s discontent and the general regional tone of dissatisfaction with Panthera. During the interview, he indicated that he is waiting for Panthera to bring bells to place on the cows. At the time of the interview, his time in the 10 month program had ended and he had not yet seen bells on the cows. Such frustrations are evidence of a lack in communication between Panthera and ranchers. This case also signifies the importance of speaking directly with the owner of the ranch and could be accomplished by coordinating periodic visits so that the owner is available during Panthera™s visit. The sentiment expressed by this 46 year old ranc her in that Panthera brings wild cats to the area reflected a question from the neighbor 47 of another rancher in the program. He asks Panthera™s field assistant if they had been fihunting and trapping jaguars?fl The field assistant explained to me that this was a common misconception of rural pe ople. In general they think Panthera hunts the large felines, traps them, to then release them into other areasŠassuming the cameras are traps (they are called camera traps) that cage felines for transport to another region. Such misconceptions are correlat ed with research methods used by biologists when they use 47 Although this neighbor and the rancher were from Bajo del Volcan, the rancher™s brother is from Torito, a town where this belief exists. 60 traps to collar large felines. From a social ps ychological standpoint these misconceptions are dangerous as they have the potential to reaffirm that hunting and tr apping felines is acceptable. Although it is difficult for any organization to avoid misconceptions efforts toward clearly identifying the mission of Panthera and its ranche r program need to be re vealed both publically and privately at every opportunity possible. Otherwise, such a misconception is sure to have an impact on the program. A 51 year old woman from San Isidro de Pa scua owns a ranch with her husband. She discussed their concerns with Panthera and also a related misc onception. She says, fiThey put up an enclosure and placed cameras on the property, but we were never offered a reimbursement for the loss of our calf.fl She said, fiOne milk calf about two mont hs old is worth 180 mil colones [about $360]. The program lasted 10 months and when they finished they left without giving us any information. We are upset and will not call Panthera in the future.fl She expressed her feelings that Panthera should help with more than monitoring the fe lines. She also explained that she knew some of the felines have a microchip so they can be tracked via GPS. Such examples further illustrate communication barriers that result in misconceptions of large felines and Panthera™s program. This rancher had a lack of understanding of what Panthera offers in their program as Panthera does not offer compensati on because they believe it is not a sustainable solution to problems of predation. This example also highlights communicati on problems between Panthera and program participants. One 48 year old rancher who lives below Volcano Turri alba never expressed discontent with Panthera, but he had an issue with his plastic enclosureŠit was completely torn. He brought this up to Panthera™s field assistant in month nine of the ten month program. The assistant was concerned and didn™t know what exactly to do to remedy the situation during that 61 visit. The field assistant expr essed to me that it was his fi rst time purchasing plastic for an enclosure and admitted to a bit of ignorance in this area where he entrusted the hardware store to provide him with the correct material. When I asked him about other ranches where the plastic seems to be holding up he said, fiThose ranchers bought the plastic on their own.fl In the tenth and last month, August 2014, I accompanied the field assistant to this ranch. He collected all of the cameras on the property. The rancher was not pr esent that day so we left. Then in October 2014 I received a phone call from the brother of this rancher who lives in Torito. He asked if I could help repair the plastic for his brother given the rancher was unable to get in touch with Panthera™s field assistant. I said I would talk to Panthera fo r him. I tried to speak with Panthera™s field assistant several times about th e rancher™s problem with the plastic and finally went to Panthera™s Costa Rican director at the end of October 2014. I spoke to the director about the situation and he said he would look into it. In December 2014 I spoke with the rancher to see if Panthera had contacted him regarding the pr oblem with his plastic he said, fiNo one from Panthera contacted me.fl This situation began in July (when the issue was first brought up) and during the last contact I had with the rancher, February 2015, nothing had been done yet to repair the plastic. During my conversation with the rancher in December 2014 he was concerned because a puma was seen in the area. He told me, fiI am concerned about that puma attacking one of my calves.fl This ra ncher has nine dogs and no problems with coyotes who are abundant in the area and are known for killing and eating chickens. Interestingly, back in July this rancher had requested another Panthera sign for his ranch as he wanted to place a deterrent in an area where hunters usually enter his property. One rancher had not finished the enclosure for livestock after funds were already dispersed. I had accompanied Panthera on four sepa rate visits to this ranch and never once met 62 the rancher. Panthera™s coordinator felt that the rancher wasn™t committed because he was never at the ranch during their visits (even when called ahead of time). During my first visit to this ranch the coordinator says, fiI spoke to him eight times and he always says ‚yes next week it will be done™ I am thinking of dropping him from the programfl which he indicated he had never done in the three years the program ha s been operating. According to this rancher he disagreed with Panthera™s requirements for how the enclosure was supposed to be constructed. Although this rancher failed to elaborate during his interview, he noted that Pa nthera wanted him to do other things that he wasn™t able to do. One barrier other participants discussed that this rancher may be eluding to is Panthera™s program can only assist in so many ways. For example, it is up to the rancher to place the livestock in the enclosure in the evenings. So me ranchers expressed this challenge in the interviews where 3% (4/131) emphasized the ex tra workload a change in husbandry practices brings. Such changes necessitate new habits. Habits do not form easily as illustrated in one rancher visit when a calf had been attacked a we ek prior to our visit. The field assistant explained to the rancher™s son that Panthera wanted to help, but there was nothing they could do about the attack if the calves were outside of the enclosure. The rancher was already in the program and the son who was in charge of the ranc h did not appear upset about the attack. As a matter of fact he was anxious to see the photos the field assistant retrieved from the camera traps.48 As part of the program Panthera informed ra nchers that they needed to keep livestock in the enclosures/fences and had a check in place for it, in that they didn™t always advise ranchers of their visit in order to see if the rancher was using the fence, enclosure, etc. 48 This was the only occasion in all my rancher visits that I saw the field assistant shar e photo information from the camera traps with a rancher. 63 Conclusion My findings suggest coexistence is multid imensionalŠbased on geographical proximity to large felines. Half of my sample is willing to coexist with large felines through a change husbandry practices (enclosures, electric fences, use of dogs, etc.) that allow jaguars and pumas to coexist in close proximity. Just under half of my sample is willing to coexist through relocationŠsignifying one is willing to live with large felines, but at a distance. Future research needs to analyze these as distinct from one another. The challenge for the rancher program in Costa Rica is currently relocation is not an option but a substantial portion of SBBD residents consider it a solution to the problem of predat ion. Therefore, my first recommendation is that peer-reviewed research on feline relocation needs to be conducted in order to analyze if it is a viable option for coexistence (Isasi-Catalá. 2010) in Costa Rica. My findings illustrate Panthera™s rancher outreach program is able to be impactful with at least the portion of the SBBD residents who are willing to change husbandry practices. Such evidence is hopeful in promoting coexistence. My findings suggest solutions to conflict and co-existence need to be addressed based on cultural meanings and understand ings as discussed in chapter one. For recommendation two, determining the level of conflict and measuring wh at strategies of coexistence are possible in a given region/culture are necessary prior to program implementation. Moreover what are people in a given ecological space already willing to do to solve prob lems of predation? For example when asked about how they would handle situations of predation the most common response among Cabécar was not to choose any preventative method. This could be the result of not agreeing or not understanding the concept(s) of th e proposed solutions in my Cabécar sample. An acceptable strategy that resonates with Cabécar culture is the use of dogs to scare off jaguars 64 and pumas, where Ticos preferred electric fences, enclosures, and keeping herds away from the forest. In sum, prior to implementing a program that fosters coexistence, the residents in the program™s region need to be questioned to determ ine what strategies fit into their existing way of lifeŠand these will be different based on culture. Not only does the program not address cult ural differencesŠand probably as a resultŠnone of the ranchers (including program particip ants) who contacted Panthera in regards to feline attacks were Cabécar. This speaks to the gap in program attention to the indigenous population of the SBBD, a culture and area in the SBBD where conflict exists as described in chapter one. Moreover the rancher program excludes the indigenous populationŠholding the most encounters and killings of large felines as reported in chapter one. In sum, strategies of coexistence are culturally sensit iveŠCabécar indigenous have the highest conflict with large felines as found in chapter one, but were not included in the rancher program. Further I found one third of SBBD residents think their livestock have been attacked by large felines, but are not connected to the rancher program. Such evidence speaks to the need for program improvements. Moreover, ranche r programs need to have various venues of marketing to create awareness among residents w ho may have future livestock attacksŠthis is my third recommendation. A response by Panthera or MINAE to all reported attacks would also educate ranchers and eventually displace misconceptions that all livestock attacks are caused by felines. According to Panthera™s program coordinator, it is common for some people in the area to take livestock and leave the head. These people sell the meat on the market. These attacks are blamed on jaguars. 65 Recommendation four speaks to the eleven 49 ranchers who had attacks, Panthera responded, but the ranchers were not added to the program. How did these ranchers handle their predation problem? Did the attacks contin ue? Given Panthera re sponded to 24 attacks since 2010, but only added half of these ranchers to their program, recommendation four is to gather data on each and every rancher who cont acts Panthera regarding an attack (including ranchers not added to the program). Moreove r, reliable fisystematic records of causes of [livestock] mortalityfl (Amit et al. 2013) are importan t for efforts of rancher coexistence with large felines. Such data over time will enable futu re research to target program gaps and enable a better understanding of how to remedy preda tion problems. For example, did Panthera respond to these 12 ranchers and the ranchers fail ed to show interest in the program because livestock compensation or feline reloca tion were not options offered? The fifth recommendation is to improve comm unication with participants. All of the concerns expressed by the participants could be addressed with a targeted communication strategy. For example, I recommend Panthera de scribe their program in more detail upfront including: what they offer and what they do not offer (e.g. compensation for livestock loss), why Panthera no longer provides assistance after terminati on of the program, and the importance of having the Panthera sign placed on the property. Such enhancements would clarify Panthera™s work and open communication channels between Panthera and program participants. When possible these discussions should include the ranch hands and the wives of the ranchers so there is clear communication for all involved. My final recommendation aims to improve communication, educate ranchers, increase social investment and create coexistence among ranchers. I recommend ranchers accompany 49 One rancher had deceased. 66 Panthera in checking the camera traps. 50 Following these revisions Panthera could upload the photos onto a laptop to show the participants: how the camera trap functions (unlike a jaguar or puma trap that will relocate the feline) and th e identification of specific wild animals including large felines on their property. This would be the perfect opportunity to clarify, in layman™s terms, that jaguars and pumas were not brought to the region, but rather it will be common to see them more often now as compared to past years because they are beginning to repopulate. This process would help clarify some misconcep tions as well as educate ranchers. This educational activity with camera traps c ould also be used as a model for training ranchers toward a citizen science framework. C itizen science fiis a met hod of integrating public outreach and scientific data collectionfl (Cooper, Dickinson, Phillips, and Bonney, 2007: 11). Rocky Mountain Cat Conservancy (RMCC) founded a citizen science project where fiMountain lion biologists taught students about mountain lion ecology, identifying wildlife signs, and using camerasfl (Barbara 2012). If implemented teaching ranchers of jaguar and puma prey will be an important component as well. Such a strategy would lighten the burden on Panthera and MINAE and allow SBBD residents to soci ally invest in the monitoring and management of jaguars and pumas in their community. This structure m oves beyond educational efforts toward something much more tangible and engaging. As indicated above, cultural distinctions should be made with every management, outreach and educational effort employed. Any program designed to foster coexistence between large predators is sure to have barriers in its infancy. It is easy to blame a program for not functioning properly, but much harder to recognize the challenges that any program of fosteri ng human coexistence with large predators faces. The rancher outreach program in the SBBD has been a valuable tool leaving many Costa Rican ranchers content and their livestock protected. It exists as the only direct 50 This did occur in some of the visits. 67 solution to problems of conflict in the SBBD. De spite its positive intentions and impacts, my results demonstrate that there are many challenge s facing this program. In this chapter I have made recommendations on how to improve Pant hera™s program, these should be directed toward MINAE as they take an active role in human feline conflict situat ions. My findings and recommendations also speak to global effort s toward implementing programs of coexistence between ranchers and large predators. 68 Chapter 3: Understanding Cognition behind Behavior toward Wildlife Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to merge disc ourses on the cognition behind behavior toward wildlife. The key question driving this chapter is: How do cognitive constructs in discussions of behavior toward wildlife and environment parallel and diverge? Moreover I describe cognitive discourses surrounding human behavior toward environment and wildli fe in order to arrive at a consensus of labeling, defining and measuring con cepts of cognition for purposes of consistency, clarity, and progress. This chap ter contributes to future rese arch on human behavior toward wildlife (including jaguars and pumas) in five dimensions: 1) attitudes do not sufficiently measure behavior; 2) values, beliefs and norms are necessary measur es to understand human behavior toward wildlife; 3) research on wildlife conservation would benefit by employing Theory of Planned Behavior and Value Belief Norm Theory, two widely used theories, in future research; 4) The a scription of responsibility (AR) cognitive variable from Value Belief Norm Theory and perceived behavioral control (PBC) cognitive variable from Theory of Planned Behavior are closely related constructs that are vital to future research on the cognition of behavior toward wildlife; 5) jaguar and puma data and measurements related to AR and behavioral intentions emphasize the importance of these variables in informing practical solutions and outreach interventions, such as a rancher program. 69 Introduction Human dimensions research often assumes th at measuring attitudes is sufficient to understand and change behavior. This has been referred to as the cognitive fix, which assumes: (a) fiattitudes must change in order to change be haviorfl; (b) fiattitudes have a direct influence on what people actually do, not what they say they might do or would like to dofl; (c) fiinformation can change attitudes and the resu lting attitude change leads to an increase in pro-environmental behaviorfl (Heberlein 2012, 11-12). The lines between attitudes and behaviors, however, are often blurred. fiSeveral studies have collected data on attitudes towards a protected area or species and concluded that respondents hold positive attitudes, yet either do not engage in pro-conservation behaviours, or continue to perform behaviours that have negative consequences to conservation goals. These findings are largely a result of a mismatch in the information collected on attitude and behaviorfl (St John, Edwards-Jones, and Jones 2010, 661). Due to the critiques of using attitudes alone to predict behavior I turn to existing cognitive theories which highlight the importance of other variables. Fishbein and Azjen (2010), for example, reflect on the theory of planned be havior and highlight the need to include more variables and feedback loops to better understand the relations between cognition and behavior. Stern (2000, 415) identifies contextual and behavioral factors, in addition to attitudinal (including not only attitude, but also norms, values and beliefs am ong others), which all interact to produce proenvironmental behaviors. 51 Discussions of cognition behind behaviors toward environment and wildlife have developed complementary concepts and at times have also drawn from some of the same authors (e.g. Shalom Schwartz). But because of a lack of cross-citation, reconcili ation of definitions of 51 Although contextual and structural variables influence behavior (Heberlein 2012; Stern 2000) these variables are outside of the scope of this chapter. 70 concepts, and efforts to build and test integrated models, the benefits of sharing understandings across fields has not been accomplished. 52 This chapter is a first attempt to bridge these discourses. I synthesize the body of knowledge on the cognition behind behavior toward wildlife and environment. The key question is: How do cognitive constructs in discussions of behavior toward wildlife and environment parallel and diverge? I draw on three key literatures: environmental sociology, environmental and c onservation psychology, and human dimensions of wildlife (HDW). I focus Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN) 53 and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), while also drawing on norm activation theory and new eco logical paradigm. I utilize previous studies in order to compare and contrast cognitive variables including: values; beliefs, value orientations; norms; ascr iption of responsibility and perceived behavioral control behaviors; behaviors and behavioral intentions and their relationships to one another.54 Integrating Discourses of Cognition VBN theory is grounded in: a) ecofeminism™s fiethic of care,fl b) values (e.g., Milton Rokeach, Shalom Schwartz), commons/collectiv e action theory (Elinor Ostrom) and c) norm activation (Shalom Schwartz) literatures. The VBN posits a causal chain of variables that lead to environmental supportŠdefined as: environmen tal activism, environmental citizenship, willingness to sacrifice, and consumer behavi or (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, and Kalof 1999, 95-96). VBN theory has been labeled as one of the most comprehensive sociological contributions to understanding attitudes and pro- environmental behavior (Dunlap and Marshall 2007) although to the best of my knowledge it has only been used in one peer-reviewed wildlife study. Similar to how VBN is viewed in relati on to pro-environmental behavior, TRA (later 52 Henry and Dietz (2012) undertook a similar task with regard to studies of environmental policy systems (ACF) and VBN theory. My chapter, in part, is undertaking a similar task with VBN and TPB. 53 This theory is also considered to be a part of Environmental Social Psychology, but Dunlap and Marshall in 2007 also place it under fienvironmental awareness and co ncernfl within Environmental Sociology. 54 This is not an exhaustive list of the cognitive variables, but a focus on the most common and well-researched. 71 evolved into TPB with the addition of perceived behavioral control) has been fiOne of the most influential approaches to attitude over the past 35 yearsfl (Manfredo 2008, 85).55 And is the most frequented used theory to predict attitudes56 toward wildlife (Manfredo 2008; Vaske and Whittaker 2004; see also Daigle, Hrubes, a nd Ajzen 2002; Marchini and Macdonald 2012). However, it isn™t without flaws. Manfredo (2008, 120-121) provides a review of TPB measurement and conceptual limitations. VBN has been compared to theory of pla nned behavior (TPB; Ajzen 1991; rooted in Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). Kaiser and colleagues compared the TPB to the VBN Theory and found TPB was able to identify behavior and behavioral intention more fully than VBN. Oreg and Katz-Gerro (2006) on the other hand used some variables from TPB and VBN theory and rather than using VBN values, they included values of harmony and postmaterialism. They found harmony and postmaterialism to have a dir ect influence on pro-environmental behaviors (e.g. recycling, refraining from drivi ng, and environmental citizenship). In his chapter on values, Dietz (in press) concludes both TPB and VBN are useful theories and differ in their approach to behavior change. Where the TPB narrows in on very specific behavioral actions, VBN approaches the behavior change indirectly through a change in values. Changing values has the potential to have long term impacts and perhaps influence many decisions regarding wildlife. Values: Stern and colleagues position values as core moving through beliefs (general beliefs/new ecological paradigm flowing to spec ific beliefs/awareness of consequences) then 55 Using a theory of behavior to explain attitudes may be problematic. Attitudes and behaviors, while related, are distinct logically and are less than perf ectly correlated. For convenience in language, in this chapter the term attitude is used to cover a diverse set of constructs. I acknowledge the point that ultimately we need precise consensus on definitions of attitudes, behaviors and related constructs to integrate across fields (personal communication with Thomas Dietz September 2014). 56 Manfredo (2008, 77) validates the use of attitudes within human dimensions of wildlife by citing Allport™s (1954, 45) statement that fithe attitude unit has been the primary building stone in the edifice of social psychology.fl 72 through norms (ascription of responsibility and personal norms), which influence behavior. HDW scholars (Manfredo 2008; Vaske 2008;57 Vaske and Manfredo 2012) have also situated cognitive variables within a hierarchy labeled as the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy (VAB). Manfredo (2008, 151) maintains the fiVAB proposes that values affect mid-range attitudes and that mid-range attitudes influence behaviors. fl Given the VAB model offered by Manfredo and Vaske includes only three cognitive variables (values, attitudes and behaviors) where VBN contains six cognitive variables I contend wildlife research on cognition would benefit by integrating the VAB and VBN models for future assessments. Although Stern and colleagues as well as Vaske and Manfredo use values as the base of the cognitive hierarchy there is some confusion in both literatures as to whether beliefs or values are the foundation of the hierarchy. Allport™s (1961, 454) definition of a value is fi–a belief upon which a man acts by preference.fl Scholars w ithin the HDW have drawn on Allport. For example, Manfredo, Teel, and Zinn (2009, 36) claim, fiBeliefs and affect are the building blocks of many key concepts in psychology, including att itudes, norms, and valuesfl. While scholars such as Allport make statements about the relationships of beliefs and values, others suggest the relationship is ambiguous. Dietz and colleague s (2005) claim many studies have verified a strong association between values and other cognitiv e concepts and this has led to a fitheoretical consensusfl regarding the assumption fithat values are causally prior to beliefs, norms, and other social psychological variables included in models .fl However, Dietz concludes that we simply do not have sufficient studies that allow us to assess the causal relationship among values, beliefs of various sorts, attitudes, etc. (personal communication w ith Tom Dietz September 2014). Whether beliefs or values are the foundation of the cognitive hierarchy is outside of the scope of 57 Vaske (2008) is citing Vaske and Donnelly (1999). 73 this chapter, the point is that more research wi ll need to include and measure these variables in order to understand their relationship in the cognitive hierarchy In addition to clarity between values and be liefs within the cogn itive hierarchy, beliefs and values are often used interchangeably in the literature. VBN Theory found values and beliefs to be separate constructs. Specifically, values were found to have both a direct and indirect impact (i.e., values fl owing through beliefs) on behavioral intentions (Stern, Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano 1995, 1630). Research has found value differences between environmentalists and non- environmentalists (Dunlap, Grieneeks, and Rok each 1983). Using Rokeach™s work on values, as derived from Maslow, they found environmentalis ts emphasized higher order values such as aesthetics and an exciting life and deemphasize values such as secur ity. Such value constructs fit rather loosely58 into Schwartz™s openness to change (i.e. environmentalists via aesthetics, an exciting life) versus conservation dimensions (i.e. non-enviro nmentalists vi a security). In the HDW literature, Da igle and colleagues (2002)59 use Schwartz™s (2001) two bipolar dimensions: openness to change versus conser vation and self-transcendence versus self enhancement. Hunters hold conservation values (labeled as traditi onal by Stern and colleagues) that include security, conformity and tr adition (via Schwartz 2001) as well as self-enhancement values that include achievement and power and these relate to utilitarian and domination views 60 of wildlife. This is further validated by Manfredo, Teel and Henry (2009, 419) who found 58 In order to compare the wo rk by Dunlap and colleagues accurately to the work of Schwartz one would need to include the relevant citations by Milton Rokeach in the analysis. 59 Manfredo (2008, 150) also discusses the work of Daig le and colleagues to compare it with Schwartz™s work in values. 60 At times the HDW literature considers the label fivie wsfl and at other times they are conceptualized as fiorientationsfl. I suggest future research come to a consensus on what these concepts should be labeled. 74 hunting participation to be positively associated with domination. 61 In contrast to their hunting sample, Daigle and colleagues f ound wildlife viewers and recreationists to be more concerned with equality and global world views of self-transcendence values associated with aesthetic and mutualistic perspectives of wildlife. While these HDW studies have used value orientations, to the best of my knowledge they have not cited the well-established VBN res earch on values and beliefs. Manfredo (2008, 150) takes important first steps in integrating the HD W research on these cognitive variables with the VBN work. In his synthesis of the research he suggests two correlations: those who have strong values of openness to change and self-transcendence tend to hold strong aesthetic and mutualistic views toward wildlife, and those who have conservation (often labeled as traditional in the environmental value literature) and self-enhancement values also tend to have strong utilitarian and domination views toward wildlife. Recent advances demonstrate that altruism has a humanistic and a biospheric component (Cieciuch and Schwartz 2012; Dietz in press; Steg, Bolderdijk, Keizer, and Perlaviciute 2014). Steg and colleagues (2014, 106) emphasize human altruism and biospheric altruism values are two kinds of self-transcendence values where hedonic and egoistic are two types of self- enhancement values. Steg, Perlaviciute, Van Der Werff, and Lurvink (2014) argue future research on environmental cogniti on should include these four values: hedonic and egoistic (part of self-enhancement) and altruis tic and biospheric (part of self-transcendence). Dietz (in press) expands on this and suggests environmental deci sion-making is based on six values rather than four: (a) biospheric, (b) altruism (Schwartz™s labe ls these as self-transcendence), (c) self-interest 61 Manfredo, Teel and Zinn™s (2009) work also supports HDW™s utilitarian value orientation (which is later in their work labeled mastery or domination) as aligning with Schwartz™s self-enhancement typology and the mutualistic value orientation with Schwartz™s self-transcendence typology. 75 (self-enhancement according to Schwartz), (d) tr aditional values (Schwartz™s conservation), (e) openness to change, and (f) hedonism. There appears to be some confusion on value terminology within the HDW literature. To begin, utilitarian and domination orientations are discussed interchangeably in various places appearing as the same construct. Further, the HDW literature uses the concept mutualism which is used interchangeably with egalitarian. Both egalitarian and mastery in the HDW literature appear to be drawn from Schwartz™s work on cultural values making them consistent terms for cross-referencing. However, labels such as utilitarian, domination, and aesthetic are also used in the HDW literature and coincide with the earlier work done by Kellert 62 (Manfredo 2008). Mastery is a cultural value used by Schwartz and also used in the HDW literature and could replace domination63 and utilitarian orientations.64 Using labels created by Schwartz will draw on his well-established value literature, reduce confusion where various labels have the same meaning, and provide clarity on concepts for future research. Beliefs and Value Orientations: In the HDW literature, value orientations 65 fireflect the influence of ideology on an individual™s valuesfl (Manfredo, Teel and Zinn 2009, 38).66 While value orientations are part of HDW cognitive di scussions, beliefs are not, which may be an indication these concepts are similar (Vaske & Manfredo 2012) . Value orientations in HDW 62 Kellert claimed to be defining value typologies, but actually measured attitudes. 63 For example, Manfredo and Teel (2008) use domination and mastery to present a value orientation. Throughout the article they drop the mastery and keep the domination label. It would be better to do the reverse. In other words, drop the domination label connected to Kellert™s work and keep the mastery label connected to Schwartz™s work. 64 Measures of these concepts would need to be compar ed in order to come to a consensus on terminology. 65 That being said, value orientations may not have clear boundaries, as Manfredo (2008, 156) asserts, fiThe values literature uses the concept of orientations somewhat lo oselyfl. Such constructs may not only have ambiguous parameters, but they have been defined using multiple labels including not only values orientations (e.g. domination and mutualism; Manfredo, Teel, and Zinn 2009), but also cultural ideologies (e.g. domination and egalitarianism; Vaske and Manfredo 2012), and cultural value orientations (e.g. mastery and egalitarianism; Schwartz 2006). To complicate matters further, Schwartz (2006) brands these orientations or ideologies mastery (rather than domination) and egalitarianism (rather than mutualism), while Manfredo, Teel and Zinn (2009) use both mastery and domination and egalitarianism and mutualism. 66 Manfredo et al. draw on the work of Clyde Kluckholn to define value orientations toward wildlife. 76 may be similar to what VBN labels as gene ral beliefs or worldviews (e.g. new ecological paradigm, NEP). fiThe NEP scale primarily meas ures broad beliefs about the biosphere and the effects of human action on it–The NEP is a worldvi ew that predisposes an individual to accept more narrowly focused AC [awareness of conse quences] beliefsfl (Stern et al. 1999, 85). Manfredo and Teel (2008) find two primary valu e orientations toward wildlife exist in their research on public attitudes: egalitaria n or mutualism and domination or mastery. A mutualism wildlife value orientation fiviews wildlife as capable of living in relationships of trust with humans, as life-forms having rights like those of humans, as part of an extended family, ...as deserving of caring and compassion–more likely to engage in welfare-enhancing behaviors for individual wildlifefl (Manfredo 2008, 198-199), and ar e filess likely to support actions resulting in death or harm to wildlifefl (Manfredo et al. 2009, 39). The NEP, in a broad sense, may be similar to those with a mutualism orientation to ward wildlife. For example one measure from the NEP scale suggests agreement with the st atement, fiHumans are severely abusing the environmentfl (Stern et al. 1999, 95). The dominant social paradigm (DSP) from environmental sociology and VBN literature may be a parallel concept to mastery and domina tion in the HDW literature then. For example, a domination wildlife value orientation can be defined as fihuman mastery over wildlife–the stronger one™s domination orientation, the more li kely he or she will be to prioritize human well- being over wildlife, accept actions that result in death or other intrusive control of wildlife, and evaluate treatment of wildlife in utilitarian termsfl (Manfredo, et al. 2009, 38-39). Likewise, the DSP suggests agreement with the statement, fiThe balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industr ial nationsfl (Stern et al. 1999). 77 Domination/mastery and mutualism/egalitar ianism in HDW may be connected to Schwartz™s cultural values work. This cultural research is se parate from his work on basic individual human values, which Schwartz (2006) cal ls his fiindividual-levelfl work. He has also conducted ficultural-level theoriesfl67 which include seven cultural value orientations: intellectual and affective autonomy/embeddedness; hierarch y/egalitarianism; mastery/harmony (Schwartz 2011). Future research will need to disent angle whether HDW value orientations of domination/mastery and mutualism/egalitarianism are cultural values (Schwartz), general beliefs/worldviews as I suggest similarities above (NEP/DSP) or specific beliefs (e.g. awareness of consequences). TPB differs from the above theoretical discussi ons in that it attaches the three primary pre-behavioral antecedent variables: attitudes (referring to an individual™s positive or negative evaluations of the behavior), subjective norms (s ocial networks that may or may not approve of the behavior) and perceived behavioral control (the individual™s perception of their ability to perform the behavior) to beliefs (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010, 223). Ajzen claim these three variables are founded in readily accessible beliefs (Ajzen 2012, 18). In Ajzen™s (2012) assessment of the study done by Hrubes, Ajzen a nd Daigle (2001, 21) who defined behavioral beliefs in relation to wildlife Ajzen said: In pilot work, the investigators identified a se t of twelve accessible behavioral beliefs, Including the beliefs that this behavior can l ead to familiarity with nature and a sense of competence, to viewing scenery and enjoyi ng nature, to observing and learning about wildlife, and to developing or maintaining significant relationships with family and friends. Additional behavioral beliefs had to do with the perception that hunting is relaxing and relieves stress and that it affords solitude and time to think. 67 Schwartz (2011) acknowledges his work in both the individual and cultural dimensions of values may be confusing and has produced a chapter to cl arify how these theories work together. 78 However, in the study done by Hrubes and colleagues (2001) they define these variables as wildlife value orientations. 68 For example, Hrubes and colleagues found enjoyment of wildlife was a value orientation where Ajzen referred to enjoying nature from that study as a behavioral belief. This example demonstrates beliefs (Ajzen 2012) and value orientations (Hrubes et al. 2001) have been used interchangeable in the literature which comes as no surprise, as I have suggested above, these concepts are very closely related if not the same. In comparing values and beliefs or value orientations across VBN and VAB there are similarities with VBN and VAB in that they both use values at the base of the cognitive model, as suggested above. VBN and VAB contrast in that value orientations in the VAB model follow values, whereas in VBN NEP (i.e. general beliefs) follow values. Following NEP in the VBN theory is awareness of consequences (AC) or specific beliefs (as opposed to general beliefs such as NEP) where VAB does not use a measure for speci fic beliefs. This is yet another indicator that value orientations used in VAB and the HDW literature in general appear to be closely related to general beliefs (NEP) in VBN. Finally, reflecting on TPB and VB N, one commonality regarding beliefs exists in that both models position beliefs to precede norms in the cognitive hierarchy. Further both VBN and TPB use a measure of specific beliefs. Unlike VBN these beliefs in TPB underlie specific variables: attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. Overall the literature has been imprecise and not sufficiently self-referential in defining and operationalizing ideologies,69 beliefs/worldviews, and value orientations across studies. 68 Wildlife value orientations and fundament al life values (Schwartz) were both measured in this study in addition to TPB variables. 69 Manfredo, Teel and Zinn (2009, 37) consider ideology fia broader and more inclusive concept than valuesfl and further fiManfredo and Teel (c hapter 8) proposed that integrating ideology into the VAB model is critical in understanding the meaning people assign to values and will enhance the use for VAB in intergroup and cross- cultural studyfl (Manfredo 2008, 156). Further, ideology has been equated with the notion of worldview (Manfredo 2008, 155 citing De St. Aubin, 1996) which would position it alongside of NEP. Manfredo and Teel (2008) cite 79 While research in this directi on is underway (Kelly et al. forthcoming) future research on cognition behind behavior toward wildlife must e ngage in these discussions in order to bring about a consensus on the use of terminology, as we ll as articulating empiri cal distinctions in order to disentangle these cognitive constructs from one another. Norms: are usually discussed in two ways: social and personal. Social norms are defined as fistandards shared by the members of a so cial groupfl (Vaske and Manfredo 2012, 47). There are two types of social norms: Descriptive norm are what people should or ought to do (Vaske and Manfredo 2012, 47), which are similar to behavioral regularities (Heberlein 2012, 92); and injunctive norm are what people say they should do, even if people don™t always do it (Heberlein 2012, 92). Personal norms are defined as an individual™s own expectations, learned from experience, and modified through interaction (V aske and Manfredo 2012, 47) where fifeelings of personal obligation that are linked to one™s self expectationsfl (Schwartz 1977) can go against social norms (Heberlein 2012, 93). Another research agenda for norms has been in how norms are perceived or in the perceptions of social norms (Heber lein 2012, 93). TPB labels this as subjective norm/perceived social pressure (i.e., what you think others would want you to do) (Vaske and Whittaker 2004, 284). Critiques of the subjective norm as being too narrow reflecting only the injunctive component of social norms and leaving out the descriptive norm70 have been made (Manfredo 2008, 122). Such analyses are supported by empirica l evidence. For example, in Marchini and Macdonald (2012) study of ranchers™ jaguar-killing behavior subjective norms were not found to influence ranchers™ intention to kill jaguars, 71 while descriptive norms were found to be an Schwartz™s (2006) three biopolar dimensions as ideolo gies (embeddedness/autonomy; hierarchy/egalitarianism; harmony/mastery), where Schwartz (2006) labels these cultural value orientations. 70 Descriptive norm was included in TRA (Ajzen 2012). 71 This could be a matter of conclusions that fail to differentiate between direct and indirect effects. 80 influence. Unlike Marchini and Macdonald (2012) other HDW researchers found subjective norms to be important in predicting behavioral intent (Hrubes et al. 2001; Martin and McCurdy 2009; Willcox, Giuliano, and Monroe 2012). Not only does TBP fail to address descriptive norms, but it does not include personal norms (Vaske and Whittaker 2004, 290) which is pr oblematic because fipersonal norms are far more influential and enduring than social norms in the moral choice contextfl (Manfredo 2008, 119 citing Schwartz). Further VBN work by Stern and colleagues suggests a personal norm is fithe main basis for individuals™ general predis positions to proenvironmental actionfl (Stern 2000, 413). VBN findings suggest proenvironmental pe rsonal norms are predi cators of all three dimensions of non-activist environmental suppor t (behavioral intentions and self-reported behaviors) in the form of policy support, private-sphere behaviors, and environmental citizenship 72 (Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano 1998; Stern, et al. 1999). The differences could be the result of the stronger association between ascription of responsibility (AR) and personal norms, where subjective norms are not as predictive of moral choice decisions (Manfredo 2008). In contrast to TPB, VBN attends to this personal norm element in connect ion with moral choice, but fails to include social norms in the model. Future research should consider including measurements for both social (descriptive and injunctive) and personal norms. Ascription of Responsibility: contains a total of three belief dimensions: personal moral obligations, obligations of government, and obligations of busin ess and industry (Stern, Dietz and Black 1999).73 Drawing on these distinctions, chapter two findings reveal some participants 72 This is another area where the literatu re could be more coherent and less ad hoc. For example, what decisions and behaviors matter and how should they be categorized. The trichotomy offered by Stern and colleagues might be a starting point to be later modified. 73Stern, Dietz and Black (1999, p. 96) used a personal normative beliefs scale in measuring ascription of responsibility in three dimensions: fiI feel a personal ob ligation to do whatever I can to prevent climate change;fl fiThe government should take strong action to reduce emissions and prevent climat e change;fl fiBusiness and industry should reduce their emissions to help prevent climate change.fl 81 ascribed personal responsibility to solve the pr oblem of feline predation where others ascribed responsibility to government or Panthera, an or ganization. As reported in chapter two, 63% of Ticos and 18%74 of Cabécar were willing to change husbandry practices and 34% 75 of respondents believed it was the obligation of Panthera, MINAE, park rangers or another expert if they had a problem of predation with jaguars or pumas. In a study conducted in Brazil researchers measured ascription of responsibility, labeling the question as part of an attitude scale. It reads: fiWho should so lve the problem of jaguar and pu ma predation.fl They found 80% of their participants thought local authorities should address th e problem of predation, whereas 44% thought each ranch should solve the problem of predation on its own (Zimmerman et al. 2005). In Costa Rica less people think it is the responsibility of local authorities (government/organizations) than in Brazil. The differences between the Tico sample and the Brazilian sample could have resulted from the way the data was gathered. Moreover, in the Brazilian study the above question was part of their interview instrument whereas in the Costa Rican study, the data emerged. Ascription of responsibility is an important indicator in understanding human behavior toward wildlife and large predators in that it in forms conservationists what regional beliefs exist regarding who is responsible for solving problems of predation. This has important implications for programs of coexistence, such as the ranc her outreach program discussed in chapter two. Moreover, if ranchers who have predation problems think local authorities should solve the predation problem and the problem is not solved this could result in negative consequences for large predators. 74 I cannot conclude with certainty that the 63% of Ticos and 18% of Cabécar considered it a personal obligation to change husbandry practices without asking them directly as done in the Zimmerman et al. 2005 study. 75 This figure could be as high as 45% as I discuss in chapter two given 12% of Ticos chose relocation which is commonly understood as a responsibility and practice conducted by experts. 82 Perceived Behavioral Control: Ascription of responsibility (AR) from VBN and perceived behavioral control (PBC) from TPB may be closely rela ted constructs (Dietz in press) in the sense that they may be highly correlate d. For example, one ma y avoid placing AR on themselves if they do not perceive behavioral control over the desired action. As explained above, AR is an obligation one places on self fifor the undesirable consequences to others, that is, the belief or denial that one™s own actions have contributed to or could alleviate those consequencesfl (Schwartz 1977), whereas, perceived behavior control (PBC) draws from control beliefs in TPB, meaning, fibeliefs about the pres ence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior and the perceive d power of these factors (Ajzen 2012, 18). For example, Marchini and Macdonald (2012) used subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, components of the TPB,76 to understand motivations of ranchers™ jaguar-killing behavior. Although variation existed between their Pantanal and Amazonia sample, they found that while jaguar impact on livestock influenced ranchers™ intention to kill jaguars, it was not the only motivation. Perceived beha vior control both motivated and deterred ranchers™ jaguar-killing behavior. Ranchers who owned large properties had a stronger sense of control over killing jaguars, while lack of skills and equipmen t as well as illegality prevented some ranchers from killing jaguars. Unlike TPB, in VBN theory it is assumed that AR captures PBC. In chapter one I found the majority of ra nchers did not kill jaguars and pumas. Undeniably a PBC measurement would have been us eful. For example, the majority of ranchers may not kill large felines because of illegality i ssues. If these questions would have been asked, it would have demonstrated the impact of polic y on whether jaguars and pumas are killed in Costa Rica, for example. If ranc hers do not perceive behavioral control due to issue of national law against killing jaguars and pumas, then ra nchers may ascribe responsibility to the 76 The Ajzen (1985) version 83 government to solve the problem of predation. This has important implications for feline conservation efforts. I suggest future studies incorporate questions of PBC and AR. Behavioral Intentions and Perceived Behavioral Control: The link between PBC and behavioral intentions is weak. One study found PBC to influence behavioral intentions (Marchini and Macdonald 2012) where other studies measuring behavioral intentions (Martin and McCurdy 2009; Wilcox et al. 2012) and self-re ported behaviors (Hrubes, et al. 2001) did not find PBC to influence behavioral intentions. Ajzen (2012, 20) summarized the research claiming the intention-behavior relationship has been correlated in only a few studies using perceived control as a moderator. More research is needed to understand the relationship between these two cognitive variables. Behavioral Intentions: are often measured due to the challenges of measuring actual behaviors. While collecting data on human behaviors can be done through observations, self-reports are usually common. In two of VBN™s three behavioral categories environmental citizenship and consumer behavior they use self-reported behaviors, whereas the third category willingness to sacrifice is a behavioral intention. Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) clarify these measurement constructs where willingness, beha vioral expectations and intentions are all considered fireadiness to engage in a behaviorfl (p. 43). In the HDW literature the willingness variab le most commonly used is willingness to change husbandry practices and is closely related to willingness to sacrifice. For example, in the literature on human feline relations Conforti and Azevedo (2003) found 71% of Brazilian ranchers were willing to change husbandry practices especially if they could get financial support. I suspect the financial support element may differentiate willingness to sacrifice from willingness to change husbandry practices. For example, if a rancher is willing to change 84 husbandry practices without financial assistance from an external source this would be considered a more intense sacrifice than a ranc her who would change only if the transformation was paid for by another institution or government agency. In comparison to Brazil, less Costa Rican participants were willing to change. Moreover 50% (64/128) of a Costa Rican sample were willing to change husbandry practices to prevent feline predation, 63% (57/90) of Ticos and 18% (7/38) of Cabécar indigenous respectively (see chapter two). The actual behavioral intention construct is not commonly used in the HDW literature. In one study measuring behavioral intentions of Brazilian ranchers to kill jaguars, 46% of the Pantanal sample and 15% of the Amazonia sample in tended to kill the next jaguars that appeared on their property (Marchini & Macdonald 2012). In Costa Rica findings reveal 8% (10/128) of residents in a biological sub corridor would k ill felines if they had a predation problem, 2% (2/90) of Ticos and 21% (8/38) of Cabécar indigenous respective ly (see chapter one). Including levels of willingness to sacrifice w ill be crucial in future wildlife studies. For example, whether a rancher is willing to change husbandry practices only with the assistance of an outside source is essential data that will inform outreach interv entions and practical solutions regarding human conflict with large predators. Behaviors: Stern and colleagues approach to the be havior element in the VBN theory was through individual behaviors that support the environmen tal movement. In addition to activism behaviors, Stern and colleagues (1999, 82) deline ate non-activist behaviors into three categories: 1) low commitment active citizenship involves: fipo litical activities that are less public or present less risk than engaged activism. These include writing letters to political officials, joining and contributing funds to movement organizations, and reading movement literature; 2) support and acceptance of public policies: fimay require material sacrifice in order to achieve the movement™s 85 goals–For example, environmental and wildlife policies often require individuals to pay higher prices or higher taxes or to submit to regula tion of their behavior (e.g., hunting bans)fl; 3) changes in behavior in the personal or private sphere: ficonsumer behaviors such as reductions in energy use and purchases of environmentally benign productsfl. Through a much different lens than VBN, Fishbein and Ajzen (2010, 29) describe four characteristics that make up individual behavior, fithe action performed, the target at which the action is directed, the context in which it is performed, and the time at which it is performedfl. All four of these components can be general or specific. Comparing these four behavioral components with the three non-ac tivist forms of behavior from the VBN work of Stern and colleagues (1999) it appears as though VBN uses action, target, context, and time. I illustrate here how VBN uses these characte ristics of behavior as explained by Fishbein and Ajzen in one wildlife study measuring pro-co nservation behaviors after a zoo visit (Skibins and Powell 2013). The study dichotomized species or iented and biodiversity oriented behaviors where actions included: charitable contributions, volunteering, membership of an organization, newsletter sign up, endorsing public policy, electing officials, and purchasing wildlife friendly products. These are action elements within environmental citi zenship, willingness to sacrifice, and consumer behavior of VBN. The target in these questions is to reduce the harm and increase the protection through various levels of support to wildlife. The context is within personal sphere domains. While the time element was not included in the above study, measurements in VBN ask fihow oftenfl on a scale of not at all, to actions taken in the previous twelve months. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (2010, 34) time has three elements: dichotomous criterion, magnitude criterion, and frequency criterion. Consumer behavior in VBN for example uses two of these 86 three: 1) dichotomous criterion can be measured by whether a person did or did not donate within a given time period; 2) frequency criterion of how many times a year, for example, these donations were made; 3) magnitude criterion is the amount of money donated within a given period of time. Future research using VBN will need to develop action elements oriented around wildlife. Conclusion Scholarship on cognition should be engaged in a cross-disciplinary dialogue to build on foundational work accomplished throughout the last fe w decades. This chapter helps to bridge that gap examining similarities and contrasts with different theoretical approaches to understanding behaviors toward environment and w ildlife. In synthesizing cognitive variables associated with well-known theories, specifica lly VBN and TPB, this chapter offers future research ideas embedded in these theoretical constructs. Without a doubt, future research will need to arrive at a consensus of labeling, de fining and measuring concepts of cognition for purposes of consistency, clarity, and progress. As demonstrated in this chapter, values, beliefs and norms have many points of integration. As these two areas engage in a dialogue with one another, the foci of application in human dimensions of wildlife as well as theory in environmental sociology and environmental a nd conservation psychology are sure to be complementary providing fruitful ideas for st udies and methodological approaches to build upon the existing knowledge and predictions of behaviors toward wildlife. 87 Conclusion Human conflict and coexisten ce with jaguars and pumas ca nnot be understood without a theoretical and methodologi cal foundation in the social sciences. Thomas Heberlein explains in Conservation Biology in 2012, fiBefore conservation biologists and others plunge into the social sciences they need trainingfl (584). He continues to describe the concern that many conservation biologists are conducting research on the human dimensions of wildlife, but lack theoretical grounding in the social sciences. Such research, he proclaims, leads to false understandings of how attitudes and behaviors play into large predator conservation (Heberlein 2012, 585). Heberlein™s point is relevant to research on human dimensions of jaguars where to date most work has been done by conservation biologists with little or no social science training. My dissertation study then was designed to understand the human dimensions of jaguar and puma conflict and coexistence from a social science perspective. Moreover, my study has produced a foundation for social science research regarding sociocultural meanings, social barriers inhibiting programs of co existence, and cognitive constructs behind human behavior toward jaguars and pumas. These diverse research areas are building block to understand human behavior toward jaguars and pumas. As Dickman, Marchini and Manfredo (2013) highlight the direct economic costs posed by larg e carnivores (e.g. livestock predation) does not alone predict attitudes toward predators, ra ther attitudes are driv en by interconnected components of an individual, societ y and culture. In an effort to draw together these units of analysis surrounding jaguars, where only a paucity of research exists, I argue these chapters provide a baseline of knowledge toward the overarching goal of coexistence with jaguars and pumas in a biological corridor Šan ecological space untraversed by many humans and therefore an exceedingly difficult geographical place to cohabit with large dangerous animals. 88 In chapter one I identify the situation of conflict through the existing sociocultural meanings ascribed to large felines in the SBBD . Moreover, I present data on the multiplicity of meanings and cultural differences embedded in human conflict with jaguars and pumas. Findings suggest indigenous peoples encounter and kill jaguars and pumas more than Ticos. Cabécar indigenous have more conflict with large felines and have constructed felines as food, as opposed to Ticos. The more freque nt conflict is most likely a result of the fact that Cabécar have real encounters with felines while there are fewer among the Tico s. Although variation exists, for both Cabécar and Ticos jaguars and pumas we re constructed as man-eaters and competitors embedded in a hunting culture. In chapter two I describe the functionality and barriers of a rancher outreach program designed to reduce conflict with jaguars and pumas. My findings reveal half of the SBBD sample is willing to coexist with large felines through a change in husbandry practices (enclosures, electric fences, use of large Eurasian dog breeds), while just under half of my sample is willing to coexist with large felines, but at a much further proximity, through pred ator relocation. These findings suggest coexistence is multidimensi onalŠbased on geographical proximity to large felinesŠand strategies of coexistence are cu lturally sensitiveŠCabécar indigenous have the highest conflict with large felines , but were not included in the rancher program. Furthermore, coexistence efforts are impinged by misconceptions among SBBD residents. Moreover, a much larger portion of SBBD residents reported livestock predation by large felines than the rancher program responded to. I close with an integrative chapter on cognitive discourses surrounding human behavior toward wildlife in order to arrive at a consensus of labeling, defining and measuring concepts of cognition for purposes of consistency, clarity, and progress. This chapter contributes to future 89 research on human behavior towa rd wildlife (including jaguars and pumas) in five dimensions: 1) attitudes do not sufficiently measure behavior ; 2) values, beliefs and norms are necessary measures to understand human behavior toward wildlife; 3) research on wildlife conservation would benefit by employing Theory of Planned Be havior and Value Belief Norm Theory, two widely used theories, in future research; 4) The a scription of responsibility (AR) cognitive variable from Value Belief Norm Theory and perceived behavioral control (PBC) cognitive variable from Theory of Planned Behavior are closely related constructs that are vital to future research on the cognition of behavior toward wildlife; 5) jaguar and puma data and measurements related to AR and behavioral intentions emphasize the importance of these variables in informing practical solutions and outr each interventions, such as a rancher program. My study not only offers a theoretical foundation for social science research on sociocultural and individual behaviors toward jaguars and pumas in chapters one and three, but in chapter two practical recommendations for im plementation in rancher outreach programs are described. First, peer-reviewed research on predator relocation needs to be conducted in order to analyze if it is a viable option for coexistence in a proposed region. Second, prior to program implementation residents of the proposed region need to be questioned to determine the level of conflict that exists. In turn, these results would th en be evaluated to find strategies that fit into the pre-existing way of life. Next, data collection needs to be conducted with each rancher who has had or who think they have had a feline attack on their livestock. This includes also ranchers who have experienced livestock predation, but are not added to the rancher program. Such data will determine how best to foster coexistence wi th various ranchers and situations. Fourth, citizen science is one mechanism to simultaneously foster education and social investment while at the same time alleviating program resource li mitations. Fifth, rancher programs need to have 90 various venues of marketing to create awar eness among residents who may have livestock attacks, but not be aware of what solutions may exist. This includes a tight connection between the coexistence program and the government minist ry managing human-wildlife conflicts. Sixth and finally communication between the program and the ranchers is important to the success and continuation of the program and thus careful atten tion needs to be deployed at every step of the process. In addition to pragmatic suggestions for progr ams of coexistence, I offer an array of measurement questions to be used in future res earch designs targeting conflict with humans and large bodied predators. These include questions of predator market use such as: are there professional jaguar and puma hunter s in the area? Is there a mark et for selling jaguar and/or puma skins? If so, what is the value of a jagua r/puma skin, who is the buyer, and where are the buyers from? Questions of predat or consumption and use by indige nous peoples are also vital to understanding the conflict situation. These include: traditions associated with feline consumption, frequency of jaguar and/or puma c onsumption, and how many neighbors, relatives, friends consume large predators. Measurement que stions targeting perceived behavioral control, ascription of responsibility, and levels of willingne ss to sacrifice are will be useful for practical solutions to human conflict with large felines. Finally, in both chapter one and two I identify culture as a key determinant in conflict reduction efforts as well as coexistence endeavors. In chapter one I argue indigenous meanings capture both a traditional and modernized relationship with large predators. While this creates ambiguities in the conflict situ ation with jaguars and pumas it is imperative to avoid romanticizing of a kinship between indigenous people and large predators that is based solely on respect. For example, while Amerindians may have kept the skin of a dead jaguar in the past as 91 a symbol of bravery (Roe 1998) today the skins are sold by Cabécar indigenous to outsiders for profit in the SBBD of Costa Rica. This illustrates that current day economic and political interactions blend with ancient traditions to create new relationships and meanings. Furthermore, cultural differences are present in co existence efforts. For example, large Eurasian breed dogs were chosen over enclosures and electric fences for predation reduction among Cabécar. This is evidence of a cultural sensitivity in programs aiming to reduce conflict. These findings emphasize the complexities and intricacies in the human relationship with large cryptic carnivores as well as the implications for conservation and co-existence. Sociocultural meanings inherent in huma n predator conflict, programs to minimize rancher conflict with large predators, and the cognitive constructs that motivate behavior toward wild animals are all vital rese arch avenues toward understanding human coexiste nce with large bodied carnivores in the ecological space of biological corridors. These chapters have created a multidimensional foundation for soci al science research on jaguars and pumas. My study is the first social science research aimed at understa nding the capacity for human coexistence with jaguars and pumas in a biological corridor within the largest corridor system in the world, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. This resear ch is important for jaguar and puma conservation efforts, for understanding coexistence within biological corridors, and for human coexistence with large bodied predators globally. 92 APPENDICES 93 APPENDIX A: Interview Questions 1. Do you think jaguars would attack humans without being provoked? If so, do you know of any such incidents (retrieve as many details as possible)? 2. Are you aware of any big cats killed close to your house or in the area (retrieve as many details as possible)? 3. How many of your neighbors do you think kill jaguars and pumas? 4. When was the last time you saw a jaguar or a si gn of jaguars (tracks, etc.) and/or pumas and what was the location? What happene d when you saw the jaguar or puma? And how did that make you feel? If you were to see a jaguar how would you feel? If you were to see a puma how would you feel? 5. *If participant has livestock: Would you be willing to change in your husbandry practices in order to minimize predati on on your livestock? If yes–what would you suggest for solving the problem? (Let th em respond w/o probing. If they don™t understand the question or have no response, then you can give them the below choice): I have 6 suggestions, which one(s) do you prefer? a. Using preventative methods in the prope rty (use predator proof-enclosures during night, use electric fences to surround pastures and/or enclosures, keep herds away from the forest, etc.). b. Purchase a dog to scare jaguars and pumas away. c. Killing the problem jaguar/puma. d. Financial compensation for livesto ck losses by jaguars or pumas. e. Relocating the problem jaguar/puma. f. Removing/eradicating all jagua rs/pumas from the area. g. Restructuring the food chain (reintroduction of native species extinct locally). 6. *Participant without livestock: If you had a jaguar or puma close to your house what would you do? What would you suggest for solving the problem? (Let them respond w/o probing. If they don™t understand the question or have no response, then you can give them the below choice): I have 6 suggestions, which one(s) do you prefer? h. Using preventative methods in the prope rty (use predator proof-enclosures during night for pets; electric fences to keep predators from entering your yard). i. Purchase a dog to scare jaguars and pumas away. j. Killing the problem jaguar/puma. k. Financial compensation for livesto ck losses by jaguars or pumas. l. Relocating the problem jaguar/puma. m. Removing/eradicating all jagua rs/pumas from the area. n. Restructuring the food chain (reintroduction of native species extinct locally). 7. Have you hunted jaguars and/or a pumas ever? Do you hunt jaguars and/or pumas regularly (Retrieve as many details as possible)? 8. Have you ever killed a jaguar and/or puma? Do you kill them regularly (Retrieve as many details as possible)? 9. Do people poach wildlife on your land? If so which animals (Retrieve as many details as possible)? 94 10. Has anyone ever poached a jaguar or puma on your land (Retrieve as many details as possible)? *Data related to fikilling the problem jaguar/pumafl is describe d in this chapter. Other findings related to this question can be found in chapter three. 95 APPENDIX B: Interview Questions for Future Research 1. Who should solve the problem of jaguar and puma predation? 2. What has prevented you from killing jaguars and pumas? a. lack of skills b. lack of equipment c. it is illegal d. they are rare e. it is immoral 3. Which animals do you consume that have spir it of the mountain? (use local animal names) a. Jaguars b. Pumas c. Other local predators and common prey species Jaguars 4. If choose a or b above: How often do you consume jaguar? 5. If choose a or b above: What parts of the jaguar do you consume? 6. How many neighbors, relatives, an d friends consume jaguars? 7. What parts of the jaguar generate money? What is the value of each? a. Skin b. Teeth c. Bones d. Other? 8. Are there professional jaguar hunters in the area? 9. Is there a market for selling jaguars skins? 10. What type of person purchases the jaguar skin (e.g. wealthy)? 11. Where does the buyer live (e.g. nearest big city)? Pumas 12. If choose a or b above: How often do you consume puma? 13. If choose a or b above: What parts of the jaguar do you consume? 14. How many neighbors, relatives, an d friends consume pumas? 15. What parts of the puma generate money? a. Skin b. Teeth c. Bones d. Other? 16. Are there professional puma hunters in the area? 17. Is there a market for selling puma skins? 18. What type of person purchases the puma skin (e.g. wealthy)? 19. Where does the buyer live (e.g. nearest big city)? 96 BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, S.W. (2012). Hunting the jaguar. In L. Kalof & G. Montgomery (Eds.), Making animal meaning (pp. 81-98). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 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. Heredia, Costa Rica. Amit, R., Gordillo-Chávez, E.J., & Bone, R. (2013). Jaguar and puma attacks on livestock in Costa Rica. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 7, 77-84. An Smets & Baudouin van den Abeelein. (2007) . Medieval hunting. In B. Resl (Ed.), A cultural history of animals in the medieval age (pp. 59-80). Oxford and New York: Berg. Barbara, P. (2012). Communities, cameras, and conservation: A citizen science project in Colorado collects data on mountain lions. The Science Teacher, 79(9), 40. Barrantes, R. (1993). Evolución en el trópico: Los amerindios de Costa Rica y Panamá. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Barrow, M.V. Jr. (2010). The alligator™s allure: Changing perceptions of a charismatic carnivore. In D. Brantz (Ed.), Beastly natures: Animals, humans, and the study of history (pp. 127-154). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Benson, E.P. (1998). The lord, the ruler: Jaguar symbolism in the Americas. In N.J. Saunders (Ed.), Icons of power: Feline symbolism in the Americas (pp. 53-76). Routledge: London. Bergman, C. (1996). Orion™s legacy: A cultural history of man the hunter. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd. Bozzoli, M.E. (1979). El nacimiento y muerte entre los Bribris. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Bustamante, A., Moreno, R., Artavia, A., & Boldero, C. (2011). En busca de soluciones para la sobrevivencia del jaguar en la Penísula de Osa, Costa Rica. Mesoamericana, 15, 342. 98 Campbell, M.O., & Alvarado, M.E. (2011) . Public perceptions of jaguars Panthera onca, pumas Puma concolor and coyotes Canis latrans in El Salvador. Area, 43, 250-256. Campion-Vincent, V. (2005). The restoration of wo lves in France: Story, conflicts, and uses or rumor. In A. Herda-Rapp & T.L. Goedeke. (Eds.), Mad about wildlife (pp. 99-122). Koninklijke Brill NV: Brill Academic Publishers. Carvalho Jr., E.A.R., & Morato, R.G. (2013). Factors affecting big cat hunting in Brazilian protected areas. Tropical Conservation Science, 6, 303-310. Carvalho, E.A.R., & Pezzuti, J.C.B. (2010). Hunting of jaguars and pumas in the TapajósŒ Arapiuns Extractive Reserve, Brazilian Amazonia. Oryx, 44, 610-612. Caso, A., Lopez-Gonzalez, C., Payan, E., Eizirik, E., de Oliveira, T., Leite-Pitman, R., Kelly, M., & Valderrama, C. (2008). Panthera onca. In IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Cieciuch, J., & Schwartz, S. H., (2012). The number of distinct basic values and their structure assessed by PVQŒ40. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 321-328. Conforti, V.A., & Azevedo. C.C. (2003). Local perceptions of jaguars (Panthera onca ) and pumas ( Puma concolor) in the Iguacu National Park area, south Brazil. Biological Conservation, 111, 215-221. Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., & Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12, 11. Corrales-Gutiérrez, D., Carazo-Salazar, J., & Salom-Pérez, R. (2011). Validación de campo del Corredor Biológico San Juan-La Selva: Evaluación de la presencia del jaguar y sus principales presas. Costa Rica: Panthera. http://pantheracostarica. org/sections/biblioteca- paused/Informe-Final-Validacion-CBSS.pdf Crawshaw, P.G. Jr., & Quigley, H.B. (2002). Hábitos alimentarios del jaguar y el puma en el Pantanal, Brasil, con implicaciones para su manejo y conservación. In R.A. Medellin, C. Equihua, C.L.B. Chetkiewickz, et al. (Eds.), El Jaguar en el nuevo milenio (pp. 223-236). San Diego, USA. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Daigle, J. J., Hrubes, D., & Ajzen, I. (2002). A comparative study of beliefs, attitudes and values among hunters, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor recreationists. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7, 1-19. Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B., & Bonter, D. N. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challe nges and benefits. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 41, 149-172. Dickman, A., Marchini, S., & Manfredo, M. (2013) . The human dimension in addressing conflict with large carnivores. Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 2, 110-126. 99 Dietz, T. (in press). Environmental valu es. In T. Brosch & D. Sander (Eds.), Oxford handbook of values. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resources, 30, 335-72. Dietz, T., Stern, P., & Guagnano, G. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 450-471. Donaldson, S. & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Dunlap, R.E. & Marshall, B.K. (2007). Environmen tal sociology. In C.D. Bryant & D.L. Peck (Eds.), 21st century sociology: A reference handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 329-340). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dunlap, T. (1988). Saving America™s wildlife: Ecology and the American mind 1850-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ericsson, G. & Heberlein, T.A. (2003). Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in Sweden now that wolves are back. Biological Conservation, 111(2), 149-159. Esquivel, Gutiérrez-Espeleta, & Jiménez (2012). Felinos en la Arqueología de Costa Rica pasado y presente. Fundación Museos Banco Central de Costa Rica. Fendt, L. (2014). To save a predator: A history of human-jaguar c onflict in Costa Rica. Tico Times. January 16, 2014. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Fulton, D.C., Manfredo, M.J., & Lipscomb, J. (19 96). Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1 (2), 24-47. Franklin, A. (1999). Chapter 6 naturalizing sports: Hunting and angling in modernity. In Animals and modern cultures. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fraser, C. (2009). Rewilding the world: Dispatches from the conservation revolution. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books and Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Goedeke, T.L. (2005). Devils, angels or animals: The social construction of otters in conflict over management. In A. Herda-Rapp & T.L. Goedeke (Eds.), Mad about wildlife (pp. 25-50). Brill Academic Publishers. González, V., & Poltronieri, F. (2002). Di agnóstico socioeconómico y cultural: Análisis Multicriterio de los Proy ectos Hidroeléctricos, en la s cuencas de los Ríos 100 Reventazón y Pacuare. Tesis de Licenciat ura. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica. Gordillo-Chávez, E.J. (2010). Depredación de ganado por jaguares y pumas en el noroeste de Costa Rican y la percepción de los finqueros hacia el problema. Thesis, Heredia, Costa Rica: Universidad Nacional. Gonzalez -Maya J. F., Zarrate-Charry, D., & Hernandez-Arevalo, A. (2010). Traditional uses of wild felids in the Caribbean region of Colombia: New threats for Conservation? Revista Latinoamericana de Conservación, 1, 64-69. Heberlein, T. A. (2012a). Navigating environmental attitudes. Conservation Biology, 26, 583-585. Heberlein, T.A. (2012b). Navigating environmental attitudes. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henry, A. D., & Dietz, T. (2012). U nderstanding environmental cognition. Organization & Environment, 25(3), 238-258. Herda-Rapp, A. & Goedeke, T.L. (2005). Mad about wildlife. Brill Academic Publishers. Hoogesteijn, R. (2003). Manual on the Problem of Depredation Caused by Jaguars and Pumas on Cattle Ranches. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society. Hoogesteijn R., & A. Hoogesteijn. 2011. Estrategias anti-depredación para fincas ganaderas en Lationamérica: una guía. Campo Grande, Brazil: Panthera. Hrubes, D, Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 23(3), 165Œ78. Hughes, D. (2007). Hunting in the ancient Mediterranean world. In L. Kalof (Ed.), A cultural history of animals in antiquity (pp. 47-70). Oxford and New York: Berg. Illueca, J. (1997). The Paseo Pantera Agenda fo r Regional Conservation. In A.G. Coates (Ed.), Central America: A Natural and Cultural History (pp. 241-257). Yale University Press. Inskip C., & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human-felid c onflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx, 43, 18-34. Isasi-Catalá. (2010). Is translocation of problematic jaguars ( Panthera onca) an effective strategy to resolves human- predator conflicts? CEE Review 08-018 (SR55), Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: www.enviromentalevidence.org/SR55.html . 101 Jedrzejewski, W., Abarca, M., Viloria, A., Cerda, H., Lew, D., Takiff, H., Abadia, E., Velozo, P., & Schmidt, K. (2011). Jaguar conservation in Venezuela against the backdrop of current knowledge on its biology and evolution. Interciencia, 36, 954-966. Kaiser, F.G., Hubner, G., & Bogner, F.X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2150-2170. Kellert, S.R. (1985). Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation, 31(2), 167-189. Kellert, S.R., Black, M., Rush, C.R., & Bath, A.J. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North American. Conservation Biology, 10 (4), 977-990. Kelly, J.R., Holt, J., Patel, R., & Nolet, V. (In press). Environmental beliefs and values: In search of models and methods. In C. Shealy (Ed.), Making Sense of Beliefs and Values: Understanding the Global Implications of Human Nature. Springer Publishing. Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there. London, Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press. Linnell, J. D., Odden, J., & Mertens, A. (2012). M itigation methods for conflicts associated with carnivore depredation on livestock. In L. Boitni & R.A. Powell (Eds.), Carnivore ecology and conservation: A handbook of techniques (pp. 314-332). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Manfredo, M. (2008). Who cares about wildlife: Social science concepts for understanding human-wildlife relationships and other conservation issues. New York: Springer Press. Manfredo, M., & Teel, T.L. (2008). Integrating concepts: Demonstration of a multilevel model for exploring the rise of mutualism value or ientations in post-industrial society. In M. Manfredo (Ed.), Who Cares about wildlife: Social science concepts for understanding human-wildlife relationships and other conservation issues (pp. 191-217). New York: Springer Press. Manfredo, M., Teel, T.L., & Henry, K.L. (2009) . Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 408-427. Manfredo, M., Teel, T.L., & Zinn, H.C. (2009). Understanding global values toward wildlife. In M. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, P.J. Brown, D.J. Decker, & E.A. Duke (Eds.), Wildlife and society: The science of human dimensions (pp. 31-43). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Mason, J. (2007). Animals: From souls and the sacr ed in prehistoric times to symbols and slaves in antiquity. In L. Kalof (Ed.), A cultural history of animals in antiquity (pp. 17-46). Oxford and New York: Berg. 102 Marchini, S., Luciano, R., & Hoogesteijn, R. (2010). People and jaguars: A guide for coexistence. Amazonarium Press. Marchini, S. & Macdonald, D.W. (2012). Predicti ng ranchers™ intention to kill jaguars: Case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biological Conservation, 147, 213-221. Martin, S.R., & MacCurdy, K. (2009). Wilderness f ood storage in Yosemite: Using the theory of planned behavior to understand backpacker canister use. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(3), 206-218. Morales, J.N. (2013). Ditsä Siwa: Histories of the Cabécar of Tayni. Limón, Costa Rica: Regional Office of Culture. Munro, L. (2004). Animals, ‚nature™ and human interest. In R.White (Ed.), Controversies in environmental sociology (pp. 61-76). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Navarro-Serment, C.J., López-González, C.A ., & Gallo-Reynoso, J.P. (2005). Occurrence of jaguar (Panthera onca) in Sinaloa, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist, 50, 102-106. Neto, M.F.C., Neto, D.G., & Haddad, V. (2011). Attacks by jaguars (Panthera onca) on humans in Central Brazil: Report of three cases, with observation of a death. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 22, 130-135. Oreg, S. & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462-483. Petracca, L.S., Ramirez-Bravo, O.E., & Hernand ez-Santin, L. (2013). Occupancy estimation of jaguar (Panthera onca) to assess the value of east-central Mexico as a jaguar corridor. Oryx, 48, 133-140. Rabinowitz, A. (1986; 2000). Jaguar: One man's battle to establish the world's first jaguar preserve. 1st ed. New York: Anchor Books. Rabinowitz, A. (2005). Jaguars and livestock: Living with the world™s third largest cat. In R. Woodroffe, S.J. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz (Eds.), People and wildlife: Conflict or co- existence (pp. 278-285)? Cambridge: Cambri dge University Press. Roe, P.G. (1998). Paragon or peril? The Jaguar in Amazonian Indian Society. In N.J. Saunders (Ed.), Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas. Routledge, London. Rojas, L., & Chavarría, M.I. (2005). Corredores biológicos de Costa Rica. Report. Sistema Nacional De Áreas De Conservación, Corredor Biológicos Mesoamericano, & Ministerio Del Ambiente y Energia. 103 Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Rosas-Rosas O.C., & Valdez, R. (2010). The role of landowners in jaguar conservation in Sonora, Mexico. Conservation Biology, 24, 366-371. SINAC. Barbilla Biological Corridor. http://www.sinac.go.cr/corredoresbiologicos/documentacion/aclac/cb_barbilla.pdf Saunders N.J. (1998). Icons of power: Feline symbolism in the Americas. Routledge, London. Scarce, R. (2005). More than mere wolves at the door: Reconstructing community amidst a wildlife controversy. In A. Herda-Rapp & T.L. Goedeke (Eds.), Mad about wildlife (pp. 123-146). Brill Academic Publishers. Schwartz, S.H. (1977). Normative influen ces on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 221-279). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S.H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 136-82. Schwartz, S.H. (2011). Studying values: Personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 307-319. Schwartz, S.H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Bu rgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theo ry of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 , 519-542. Shepard, P. (1997). The others: How animals made us human . 1st ed. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Sillero-Zubiri, C., Sukumar, R., & Treves, A. (2007) . Living with wildlife. In D. Macdonald & K. Service (Eds.), Key topics in conservation biology (pp. 255-272). Wiley-Blackwell. Skibins, J.C. & Powell, R.B. (2013). Conservation caring: Measuring the influence of zoo visitors™ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology, 32(5), 528-540. St John, F.A.V., Edwards-Jones, G., & Jones, P.G. (2010). Conservation and human behavior: Lessons from social psychology. Wildlife Research, 37, 658-667. Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J.W., Keizer, K., & Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behavior: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115. 104 Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van Der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46, 163Œ192. Stolzenburg, W. (2008). Where the wild things were: Life, death, and ecological wreckage in a land of vanishing predators. 1st ed. New York N.Y.: Bloomsbury. Stern, P.C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65-84. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Black, J.S. (1986). Support for environmental prot ection: The role of moral norms. Population and Environment, 8, 204-222. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G.A. (1995). The new environmental paradigm in social psychological perspective. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-745. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(3), 322-348. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (2005). Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. In L. Kalof & T. Satterfield (Eds.), The earthscan reader in environmental values (pp. 188-206). London and Ster ling VA: Earthscan. Stone, D. (1961). Las tribus Talamanqueñas de Costa Rica. Museo Nacional de Costa Rica. Swank, W., & Teer, J. (1992). Fund ación para desarollo de las ciencias fisicas, matemáticas y naturales [FUDECI]: A proposed program for su stained jaguar populations. In Clemente R., (Ed.), Felinos de Ven ezuela (pp. 95-107). Caracas. Teel, T.L., Manfredo, M.J., & Stinchfield, H.M. (2007). The need and theoretical basis for exploring wildlife value orientations cross-culturally. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 297-305. Terborgh, J. (1992). Maintenance of diversity in tropical forests. Biotropica, 24, 283-292. Thirgood, S.J., Woodroffe, R., & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). The impact of human-wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods. In R. Woodrof fe, S.J. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz (Eds.), People and wildlife: Conflict or co-existence (pp. 13-26)? Cambridge University Press. Vaske, J. J. (2008). Wildlife value orientati ons in rural America. In G. Goreham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rural America (2nd Edition, pp. 1103-1107). Mill erton, New York: Gray House Publishing, Inc. 105 Vaske, J.J., & Manfredo, M.J. (2012). Social psychological considerations in wildlife management. In D.J. Decker, S.J. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management (pp. 43-57). Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Vaske, J. J., & Whittaker, D. (2004). Normative approaches to natural resources. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, & P. Brown (Eds.), Society and natural resources: A summary of knowledge (pp. 283-294). Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. Vaughan, C., & Temple, S. (2002). Conservacion del ja guar en Centroamerica. In R.A. Medellin, C. Equihua, C.L.B. Chetkiewicz, (Eds.), El Jaguar en el nuevo milenio (pp. 355-366). Fondo de Cultura Económica USA, San Diego. Veríssimo, D., D.A. Jones, R. Chav erri, & S.R. Meyer (2012). Jaguar (Panthera onca) predation of marine turtles: Conflict between flagship spec ies in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Oryx, 46(3), 340-347. Willcox, A.S., Giuliano, W.M., & Monroe, M.C. (2012). Predicting cat tle rancher wildlife management activities: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17, 159-173. Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S.J., & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). People and wildlife: Conflict or co-existence? Cambridge University Press. Zimmermann, A, Baker, N., Inskip, C., Linnell, J.D.C., Marchini, S., Odden, J., Rasmussen, G., & Treves, A. (2010). Contemporary views of humanŒcarnivore conflicts on wild rangelands. In J.T. du Toit, R. Kock, & J.C. Deutsch (Eds.), Wild rangelands: Conserving wildlife while maintainin g livestock in semi-arid ecosystems (p. 129-151). Blackwell Publishing. Zimmermann, A., Walpole, M.J., & Leader-Williams , N. (2005). Cattle ranchers™ attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera Onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx, 39, 406-412.