Comparing narratives on carnivore management in a dryland ecosystem: a case study of state-backed lethal control

Lethal control of native carnivores as a principal management strategy can have unforseen ecological consequences and is often of questionable efficacy. Using as a case study a region where the lethal control of native puma and culpeo foxes has been incentivised via legislation for over 50 years, we examined how this policy has affected institutional narratives in the region. We conducted four key informant interviews with members of relevant institutions to establish their perspectives on carnivore management. We also examined the informational basis for the current legislative approach to predation, and identified topics for discussion surrounding legislation and its formation for decision-makers in the province. We identified a duality where two branches of gove rnment have contradictory policies regarding livestock production and carnivore management. All institutions involved in predation management in rural landscapes produced narratives supporting sustainable development, and suggested, in varying degrees, that alternatives to lethal control would be positive. Interviewees stated that modification of the existing laws require livestock producers to demand a change from policy-makers, who generally view carnivores poorly. Furthermore, there is evidence that discussions surrounding management strategies suffer from cultural bias, with rural inhabitants finding themselves marginalised from the decision-making process. We identified a need for empathy regarding the adverse situation of rural inhabitants facing the impacts of predation, and an appreciation of the role that carnivores play within their environments, so as to change the negative discourse surrounding human-carnivore interactions.

Automated summary

Lethal control of native carnivores as a management strategy can have unintended ecological consequences and questionable effectiveness. A case study in a region where this policy has been incentivized reveals conflicting institutional narratives and a need for alternative approaches to carnivore management. There is also a cultural bias in discussions surrounding management strategies, marginalizing rural inhabitants and necessitating empathy and appreciation for the role of carnivores in their environment to change the negative discourse surrounding human-carnivore interactions.