Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conflicts between Cattlemen and the Florida Panther: Insights and Policy Recommendations from Interviews with Florida Cattlemen

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recovery of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) depends on habitat conservation on private rangelands. However, cattlemen-panther conflicts and lack of trust in wildlife agencies is undermining panther conservation efforts. Based on semi-structured interviews and group meetings with Florida cattlemen, we examine how cattlemen’s land stewardship practices support panther conservation, and causes of conflicts with the panther and wildlife agencies. Given the heterogeneous attitudes of cattlemen and their varying economic conditions, a complementary suite of programs is needed to achieve efficient conservation of the panther and panther habitat. Current and proposed government incentive programs are unlikely to attain the level of habitat conservation required to recover the Florida panther. We suggest that efforts should be made to build social capital and trust by engaging influential cattlemen in panther conservation actions, thereby lending credibility to conservation initiatives and improving the rate of uptake and levels of commitment by other cattlemen. Moreover, providing cattlemen with payments that are contingent on keeping lands as unimproved pasture or wildlife habitat without mandating particular land management practices may be an effective policy alternative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwala, M., Kumar, S., Treves, A., and Naughton-Treves, L. (2010). Paying for Wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: Comparing Compensation Rules and Practice to Understand the Goals and Politics of Wolf Conservation. Biological Conservation 143: 2945–2955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R., and Flint, J. (2001). Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Snowball Research Strategies. Social Research Update 33(1): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangs, E. E., Fontaine, J. A., Jimenez, M. D., Meier, T. J., Bradley, E. H., Niemeyer, C. C., Smith, D. W., Mack, C. M., Asher, V., and Oakleaf, J. K. (2005). Managing wolf-human conflict in the northwestern United States. In Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (eds.), People and Wildlife: Coexistence or Conflict? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 340–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier, P. (1991). Cougar Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(4): 403–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belden, R. C., Frankenberger, W. B., McBride, R. T., and Schwikert, S. T. (1988). Panther Habitat Use in Southern Florida. The Journal of Wildlife Management 52(4): 660–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. F., Hostetler, J. A., Onorato, D. P., Johnson, W. E., Roelke, M. E., O’Brien, S. J., Jansen, D., and Oli, M. K. (2011). Intentional Genetic Introgression Influences Survival of Adults and Subadults in a Small, Inbred Felid Population. Journal of Animal Ecology 80: 958–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, K. M. (2006). Carnivore-Livestock Conflicts: Effects of Subsidized Predator Control and Economic Correlates on the Sheep Industry. Conservation Biology 20(3): 751–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S. C. (2002). A Portfolio of Threats to American Agriculture. Contemporary Economic Policy 20(4): 381–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breck, S. W., Kluever, B. M., Panasci, M., Oakleaf, J., Johnson, T., Ballard, W., Howery, L., and Bergman, D. L. (2011). Domestic Calf Mortality and Producer Detection Rates in the Mexican Wolf Recovery Area: Implications for Livestock Management and Carnivore Compensation Schemes. Biological Conservation 144: 930–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. G., Johnson, K. M., Loveland, T. R., and Theobald, D. M. (2005). Rural Land-Use Trends in the Conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological Applications 15(6): 1851–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, C., Phillips, M. K., and Shumaker, N. H. (2003). Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Restoration Success: Planning a Reintroduction Program Based on Static and Dynamic Spatial Models. Conservation Biology 17(2): 536–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. J., Maehr, D. S., and Larkin, J. L. (2006). Florida Panther Habitat Use: New Approach to an Old Problem. The Journal of Wildlife Management 70(6): 1778–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, C. S., Clark, J. D., and Van Manen, F. T. (2001). Florida Panther Habitat Use in Response to Prescribed Fire. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1): 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiTomaso, J. M. (2000). Invasive Weeds in Rangelands: Species, Impacts, and Management. Weed Science 48(2): 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P. J., and Kiss, A. (2002). Direct Payments to Conserve Biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2014). Annual Report on the Research and Management of Florida Panthers: 2013–2014. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute & Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Naples.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team. (2014). Balancing Panther Conservation and Working Lands in the Florida Panther Focus Area. A Concept Paper by the Florida Panther Recovery Implementation Team. 20 pp.

  • Fuhlendorf, S. D., and Engle, D. M. (2001). Restoring Heterogeneity on Rangelands: Ecosystem Management Based on Evolutionary Grazing Patterns. BioScience 51(8): 625–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosnell, H., and Travis, W. R. (2005). Ranchland Ownership Dynamics in the Rocky Mountain West. Rangeland Ecology & Management 58(2): 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, A. J., Rasker, R., Maxwell, B., Rotella, J. J., Johnson, J. D., Wright Parmenter, A., Langner, U., Cohen, W. B., Lawrence, R. L., and Kraska, M. P. V. (2002). Ecological Causes and Consequences of Demographic Change in the New West. BioScience 52(2): 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H., and Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karanth, K. U., and Chellam, R. (2009). Carnivore Conservation at the Crossroads. Oryx 43: 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautz, R., Kawula, R., Hoctor, T., Comiskey, J., Jansen, D., Jennings, D., Kasbohm, J., Mazzotti, F., McBride, R., Richardson, L., and Root, K. (2006). How Much is Enough? Landscape-Scale Conservation for the Florida Panther. Biological Conservation 130: 118–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Difford, M., and Campbell, B. M. (2010). Mapping Human and Social Dimensions of Conservation Opportunity for the Scheduling of Conservation Action on Private Land. Conservation Biology 24(5): 1348–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., and Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content Analysis: Review of Methods and Their Applications in Nutrition Education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34(4): 224–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. A. (2009). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage.

  • Land, E. D., Shindle, D. B., Kawula, R. J., Benson, J. F., Lotz, M. A., and Onorato, D. P. (2008). Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF Telemetry Data. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(3): 633–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, M., and Stoker, L. (2000). Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 475–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maehr, D. S., Belden, R. C., Land, E. D., and Wilkins, L. (1990). Food Habits of Panthers in Southwest Florida. The Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 420–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maehr, D. S., Land, E. D., and Roof, J. C. (1991). Social Ecology of Florida Panthers. National Geographic Research and Exploration 7(4): 414–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maestas, J. D., Knight, R. L., and Gilgert, W. C. (2003). Biodiversity Across a Rural Land-use Gradient. Conservation Biology 17(5): 1425–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main, M. B., and Jacobs, C. E. (2014). Calf Depredation by the Florida Panther in Southwest Florida. Final Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. University of Florida IFAS, Gainesville. 46 pp.

  • Main, M. B., and Richardson, L. W. (2002). Response of Wildlife to Prescribed Fire in Southwest Florida Pine Flatwoods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1): 213–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKee, D. (2003). Cougar Attacks on Humans: A Case Report. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 14(3): 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, F., Boulhosa, R., Faria, A., and Peres, C. (2006). Human-Wildlife Conflicts in a Fragmented Amazonian Forest Landscape: Determinants of Large Felid Depredation on Livestock. Animal Conservation 9: 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montag, J., and Patterson, M. E. (2001). Predator Compensation Programs: A State of Knowledge Report. Project Report Submitted to USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 77 pp.

  • Muhly, T. B., and Musiani, M. (2009). Livestock Depredation by Wolves and the Ranching Economy in the Northwestern U.S. Ecological Economics 68: 2439–2450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., and Treves, A. (2003). Paying for Tolerance: Rural citizens’ Attitudes Toward Wolves. Conservation Biology 17: 1500–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, F. (2009). Developing Payments for Ecosystem Services Approaches to Carnivore Conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife – An International Journal 14: 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. A. (2001). The Sociopolitical Dimensions of Wolf Management and Restoration in the United States. Human Ecology Review 8(1): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. (2003). Drivers of Natural Resource-Based Political Conflict. Policy Sciences 36(3–4): 307–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odell, E. A., and Knight, R. L. (2001). Songbird and Medium-Sized Mammal Communities Associated with Exurban Development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15(4): 1143–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onorato, D. P., Criffield, M., Lotz, M., Cunningham, M., McBride, R., Leone, E. H., Bass Jr., O. L., and Hellgren, E. C. (2011). Habitat Selection by Critically Endangered Florida Panthers Across the Diel Period: Implications for Land Management and Conservation. Animal Conservation 14: 196–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, S. J., and Decker, D. J. (2000). Risk Perception as a Factor in Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity for Cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 5(3): 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Betsha, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagan, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., Schmitz, O. J., Smith, D. W., Wallach, A. D., and Wirsing, A. J. (2014). Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores. Science 343(6167): 1241484 doi:10.1126/science.1241484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosas-Rosas, O. C., Bender, L. C., and Valdez, R. (2008). Jaguar and Puma Depredation on Cattle Calves in Northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61: 554–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, B. A., and Riley, S. J. (2014). Factors Affecting Hunters’ Trust and Cooperation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 19(5): 469–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, G. W., and Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods 15(1): 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S., and Osgood, D. E. (2003). The Value of Remoteness: A Hedonic Estimation of Ranchette Prices. Ecological Economics 44: 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorice, M. G., Haider, W., Conner, J. R., and Ditton, R. B. (2011). Incentive Structure of and Private Landowner Participation in an Endangered Species Conservation Program. Conservation Biology 25(3): 587–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srikrishnan, M. (2014). Panther comeback in Florida means lost cattle for ranchers, study finds. LA Times July 31, 2014, available at: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-florida-panther-study-20140731-story.html.

  • Staats, E. (2012). UF study in Immokalee shows panther kills of calves not as common as feared. Naples Daily News June 9, 2012, available at: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/environment/uf-calf-killing-study-florida-panther-immokalee.

  • Stein, L. (2014). Cash incentive mulled to give endangered Florida panther room to prowl. Reuters July 5, 2014, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/05/us-usa-florida-panther-idUSKBN0FA0DC20140705.

  • Teel, T. L., Krannich, R. S., and Schmidt, R. H. (2002). Utah Stakeholders’ Attitudes Toward Selected Cougar and Black Bear Management Practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1): 2–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, C. A., van Manen, F. T., and Clark, J. D. (2009). A Habitat Assessment for Florida Panther Population Expansion into Central Florida. Journal of Mammology 90(4): 918–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theobald, D. M. (2001). Land-Use Dynamics Beyond the American Urban Fringe. Geographical Review 91(3): 544–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, C., and Quinn, M. S. (2009). Coexisting with Cougars: Public Perceptions, Attitudes, and Awareness of Cougars on the Urban–Rural Fringe of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3(2): 282–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35(2): 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008). Florida Panther Recovery Plan (Puma concolor coryi), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta. 217 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove, D. S., and Lee, J. (2004). Using Economic and Regulatory Incentives to Restore Endangered Species: Lessons Learned from Three New Programs. Conservation Biology 18(3): 639–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wissel, S., and Wätzold, F. (2010). A Conceptual Analysis of the Application of Tradable Permits to Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology 24(2): 404–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported using Endangered Species Conservation Recovery Implementation Funds (Federal Award No. F11AP00635). Research protocols were approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (U-453-2013, U-128-2014).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Elizabeth Frances Pienaar, Melissa M. Kreye & Caitlin Jacobs

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Frances Pienaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa M. Kreye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caitlin Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Frances Pienaar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pienaar, E.F., Kreye, M.M. & Jacobs, C. Conflicts between Cattlemen and the Florida Panther: Insights and Policy Recommendations from Interviews with Florida Cattlemen. Hum Ecol 43, 577–588 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9765-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9765-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation