Content uploaded by Aaron M Lien
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aaron M Lien on Aug 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,
research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Jaguar Critical Habitat Designation Causes Concern for Southwestern
Ranchers
Author(s): By Colleen M. Svancara, Aaron M. Lien, Wendy T. Vanasco, Laura López-Hoffman, Scott
A. Bonar and George B. Ruyle
Source: Rangelands, 37(4):144-151.
Published By: Society for Range Management
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.rala.2015.05.003
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,
and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books
published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
Jaguar Critical Habitat
Designation Causes Concern for
Southwestern Ranchers
By Colleen M. Svancara, Aaron M. Lien, Wendy T. Vanasco, Laura Lo´pez-Hoffman,
Scott A. Bonar, and George B. Ruyle
On the Ground
•
The designation of jaguar critical habitat in April
2014 in southern Arizona and southwestern New
Mexico created concern for livestock ranchers in
the region.
•
We interviewed ranchers to understand their con-
cerns with the jaguar critical habitat designation and
their attitudes toward jaguars, wildlife conservation,
andresourcemanagementingeneral.
•
Ranchers we interviewed were concerned about
direct impacts of designated critical habitat on
ranching, as well as possible alternative agendas of
critical habitat advocates and issues specific to the
borderlands region.
•
The ranchers were less concerned about the
presence of jaguars but were more concerned
about possible limiting effects of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), distrust of government entities,
and litigious environmental groups.
•
To maximize effectiveness, government agencies
should work to foster trust in the ranching community,
be cognizant ofsensitive issues specific to the region
that may challenge endangered species conserva-
tion goals, recognize the opportunity to work with
ranchers for endangered species management, and
provide outreach about implications of the ESA.
Keywords: attitudes, concerns, Endangered Species
Act, endangered species management, human
dimensions, jaguar critical habitat, key informant
interview, southwest, wildlife conservation.
Rangelands 37(4):144—151
doi: 10.1016/j.rala.2015.05.003
©2015 The Society for Range Management
ow does the implementation of federal endan-
gered species policy affect ranchers’attitudes
toward, or willingness to conserve, habitat for
wildlife? How do ranchers’concerns about the
consequences of new regulations relate to their opinions more
generally of endangered species or conservation policy? To
begin to answer these questions, we interviewed nine key leaders
in the southeastern Arizona ranching community to learn about
their perceptions and opinions with regard to critical habitat
designation—per the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA)
1
—and about its effects on livestock grazing.
Critical habitats comprise areas designated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) containing preferred landscape
features (i.e., food, water, cover or shelter, distance from
humans) for threatened and endangered species. In our study,
we interviewed selected ranchers about their views of the recent
critical habitat designation for the jaguar (Panthera onca).
Although we did not directly investigate the factors that might
influence ranchers’attitudes, we found that ranchers’attitudes
toward the endangered species policy do not necessarily reflect
their attitudes toward wildlife conservation in general or
toward jaguars specifically.
The ESA is the primary federal law protecting threatened
and endangered species in the United States. Many private
landowners are apprehensive of endangered species inhabiting
their land because of possible government oversight or
additional regulations that might arise from enforcement of
the ESA.
2
Ranching permit holders in the Southwest—those
who hold federal permits to graze livestock on designated
areas of public land—generally believe that the ESA has
negative effects on ranching operations.
3
However, although
ranchers might feel burdened by the ESA, many of them care
about the fate of threatened and endangered species.
3
Because most ranches in the Southwest encompass vast,
open landscapes with interconnected and diverse habitats,
ranchers have the capacity to play a significant role in
H
Rangelands
144
providing habitat for wildlife and protecting species—ampli-
fying the role of ranchers and rangelands in conservation
across the region. Our study shows that resource managers
and other individuals or groups concerned with promoting
wildlife conservation—government agencies, nongovernmen-
tal organizations, or private foundations—need to understand
ranchers’perspectives and concerns about endangered species,
as their views are more complex than is often presumed.
Resource managers can use this knowledge to build trust,
connections, and partnerships. This study is a first step in
understanding and bolstering communication with ranchers
in southwestern United States.
In that regard, our study is the first to document how the
designation of jaguar critical habitat affects ranchers’attitudes
about jaguars and concerns about endangered species
policy—and the reasons underlying those concerns.
Implications of the ESA for Ranching in the
Southwest
Under the ESA, it is illegal to “take”a species listed as
threatened or endangered. To “take”is defined as “harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect,”and includes “significant damage to species habitat, or
to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
1
The USFWS is
tasked with enforcing the ESA. The USFWS can designate
critical habitat to protect species’habitat from degradation or
extreme alteration, such as development. As mentioned above,
critical habitat is a formally designated area containing
physical or biologic elements that are essential to a threatened
or endangered species’conservation.
1
Under the ESA, any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies
that would hinder continued existence of threatened and
endangered species or adversely affect or modify habitat is
prohibited within critical habitat.
1
Grazing in western United States occurs on a combination
of federal, state, and private lands. Private land is subject to the
ESA, primarily prohibiting “taking”of an endangered or
threatened species. Ranchers with federal grazing permits or
state leases are subject to myriad regulations, including
additional ones related to the ESA. Because grazing permits
are federally issued, if an endangered species is discovered on
public grazing lands, there may be additional regulation for the
related ranching operations because of the ESA. For example,
the USFWS has restricted livestock from certain public areas
in southeastern Arizona that are deemed essential for such
endangered species as the Gila chub (Gila intermedia).
4
In addition to prohibiting take on private land, additional
regulations may apply to private land, such as when federal
funding has been used to complete a ranch improvement
project. In legal terminology, this is referred to as a “federal
nexus.”When a federal nexus is present, private landowners
must consult with the USFWS before undertaking range
management plans or construction projects.
Since ranchers must manage public allotments—and in
some cases their private land—to meet state and federal
requirements, any additional regulation or oversight due to the
ESA can be controversial.
Jaguar Critical Habitat
Historically, jaguars existed in Arizona, California, New
Mexico, Texas, and possibly Louisiana.
5
As recently as 1963,
jaguars in Arizona were sighted as far north as the Grand
Canyon.
5
Since then, all sightings in Arizona have been of
males concentrated in the southern part of the state.
5
Five,
possibly six, male jaguars were seen in the region between
1996 and 2011.
5
Jaguars in the United States are thought to
be part of a larger population located in Mexico.
5
Jaguars were listed as endangered in the United States in
1997. The USFWS designated critical habitat for jaguars in
April 2014. The designated area ranges from the Baboquivari
Mountains in southern Arizona to the San Luis Mountains in
southwestern New Mexico (Fig. 1). The designation could
affect the activities of numerous entities and individuals,
including federal agencies, recreationists, hunters, developers,
ranchers, and landowners.
Because over three-quarters of endangered species rely on
habitat found on private land, private landowners, whether
they intend to or not, play an essential role in endangered
species conservation.
6
Therefore, understanding ranchers’
opinions regarding wildlife and the policies created to protect
wildlife is important for federal agencies and policymakers
seeking to implement comprehensive and effective endan-
gered species conservation. Our study aims to contribute to
improving this understanding.
Interviewing Ranchers
We used the key informant interview method
7,8
to obtain
detailed information from leaders in the ranching community
in southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. This
approach is commonly used in ethnographic anthropologic
studies, whereby key individuals (i.e., community leaders) are
purposely selected to derive in-depth information about an
issue of special concern.
7,8
Key informant interviews can
consist of small numbers of participants (sometimes with
sample sizes as small as 1)
9
because of time and budget
constraints, or the intensity of the method. Even constrained
by this limitation, these types of interviews have provided
valuable information for anthropologic
7
and environmental
policy studies.
10
However, they have not been used as
frequently in studying the human dimensions of wildlife
conservation. Our study shows how the key informant
interview might be applied in a contentious management
setting for endangered species conservation.
Interview Design
We conducted interviews with nine key informants—
leaders in the ranching community—to understand their
attitudes, concerns, and perspectives about jaguars and critical
2015 145
habitats. We used a focused approach of key informant
interviewing,
7
in which we only queried about a specific area of
interest: wildlife conservation broadly, including jaguar and other
endangered species conservation, and government involvement in
natural resource management. For our study, we defined “leaders
in the ranching community”as being prominent ranchers in the
region or members or directors of a collaborative ranching group
with existing knowledge of the jaguar critical habitat designation.
The ranchers we identified and interviewed were not told that
they had been selected on the basis of their role as community
leaders. Thus, we believe their responses reflect their own
opinions and not the opinions of their constituents.
We conducted key informant interviews between Decem-
ber 2013 and February 2014. The interviews were semi-
structured and used open-ended questions framed under three
general topics: attitudes toward jaguars, concerns related to
designation of jaguar critical habitat, and attitudes toward
wildlife habitat conservation in general. The semistructuring
of interviews allowed for conversations to arise beyond
predefined topics and for a deeper understanding of the
individuals we interviewed.
11
We developed an interview guide to ensure that the
predetermined topics were covered in each interview but
allowed the interviewee to expand on certain topics as they
wished. We conducted the interviews—which lasted anywhere
from 40 minutes to 1 hour—in the participant’s home or place
of business. We obtained the consent of the participants in
accordance with procedures of the University of Arizona’s
Human Subjects Protection Program; prior to each interview,
we informed the respective interviewee about the purpose of
the study and that their identity and responses would be
anonymous. In addition to the interviewer, a note taker was
present at all interviews to transcribe the conversation.
A University of Arizona rangeland extension specialist and a
jaguar habitat researcher—based on their personal knowledge of
the Southwestern ranching community—selected 11 key
informants for interviews. The informants represented nine
individual ranching operations and, to our understanding,
communicated their own views and opinions. The persons
selected for interview were involved and interested in collabora-
tive management of rangelands; many had experiences partnering
with agencies for management and conservation. Interviewees
were between the ages 35 and 81 years, with all being
third-generation to sixth-generation ranchers. We interviewed
two women, five men, and two married couples (counting each
couple as “one”key informant) that comanage their operations.
Interview Analysis
We analyzed written notes taken during interviews for
common themes using qualitative data analysis software, QSR
Figure 1. Map of U.S. jaguar critical habitat designation (courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Rangelands
146
NVivo 10.
12
The software allowed us to group the interview
responses into the thematic categories that we had created. We
grouped responses initially within one of the three broad topics
covered in the interviews. Then we created more specific
subcategories based on the range of interview responses.
For example, after we grouped all of the interviewees’
concerns about designation of jaguar critical habitats, we then
identified three distinct subcategories: (1) concerns about
direct impacts on land management, (2) concerns that critical
habitats were being designated for ulterior motives, and (3)
concerns related to border security. Two research staff
separately analyzed the interview responses and individually
identified these emerging themes.
We report below the ranchers’personal attitudes about
jaguars and the designation of jaguar critical habitats (within
the three areas of concern), and about wildlife conservation
and resource management in general.
Themes from the Interviews
Attitudes about Jaguars and Designated Critical Habitat
Many of the ranchers we interviewed regarded jaguars with
respect, as they did other wildlife, despite concerns about
livestock depredation. Even though four interviewees had
depredation concerns, most of the ranchers we interviewed
said they would be excited and in awe if they ever saw a wild
jaguar. One rancher stated, “My initial reaction would be
delight and amazement. …[My] next reaction would be one
of great concern.”
However, despite positive intentions toward wildlife, all
nine interviewees did not support designating critical habitats
for jaguars in the United States. Five informants did not
believe habitats in southern Arizona and southwestern New
Mexico could support a population of jaguars. They
questioned the necessity for critical habitats because they did
not think enough water or prey exists for another large
predator. Many of the ranchers’conclusions were based on a
previous analysis by a researcher on large felines, who had
concluded that southwestern United States lacks typical
elements of jaguar habitat.
13
Interviewees also feared the regulations that come with an
endangered species. One rancher said, “As soon as one more
[animal] gets named [as endangered], it seems like there are
many more restrictions and hoops we have to jump through.”
Another individual recognized that working with endangered
species is just part of ranching, “but from a bureaucratic
standpoint, it’s a nightmare.”
Concerns about Direct Impacts
The primary concern expressed by all nine key informants
was maintaining their ranching operation in the face of critical
habitat designations (Fig. 2). Many of the ranchers we
interviewed had state leases or federal grazing allotments.
These ranchers were concerned that designations of jaguar
critical habitats would result in curtailment or elimination of
public land grazing. Seven out of nine interviewees were
concerned that the designations could mean restricted land
use within the critical habitat boundary (see Fig. 2).
One rancher mentioned that critical habitat could limit
other wealth-generating practices, such as mining and natural
gas extraction, as well as ranching. Others believed that jaguar
critical habitat designations could broadly limit activities
within the area’s boundary. Six out of nine interviewees were
concerned that critical habitat designations would bring
increased government regulation of their ranching operations
(see Fig. 2).
The jaguar is the most wide-ranging animal, thus far, for
which critical habitats have been designated in southern
Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. This has sparked
much concern about possible additional restrictions, such as
prohibition of prescribed burns or limiting the number of
livestock within the boundaries of critical habitats.
Figure 2. Frequency of interviewee responses in each category of concerns about direct impacts of jaguar critical habitat designation.
2015 147
Five of the nine ranchers we interviewed were concerned
that jaguar critical habitats and the ESA could be used to ban
or alter hunting within the boundary (see Fig. 2). Most
concerns were specific to hunting mountain lions
(Puma concolor) because most ranchers pursue and kill lions
that have depredated their livestock. Mountain lions are
usually hunted with dogs and ultimately treed and killed. The
ranchers we talked to thought lion hunting would become
prohibited since hunting dogs might tree a jaguar, as they do
with mountain lions, which could be considered harassment
of an endangered species and prohibited by the ESA. Despite
concerns about restrictions on hunting as a means to protect
livestock, two interviewees believed more restrictions were
needed on recreational hunting as a way to prevent
overhunting. One rancher recommended resting and rotating
the availability of geographic units designated for hunting
deer, similar to the way farmers rotate their crops or
fallow pastures.
Although most of the ranchers we interviewed perceived
negative consequences from jaguar critical habitat designa-
tions, two of the ranchers showed little apprehension,
believing that the designation would have no significant
impacts on ranching (see Fig. 2). Those ranchers mentioned
that the most drastic limitations to ranchers would have
occurred already when the jaguar was newly listed under the
ESA in 1997 and felt that the designation would not
introduce many additional restrictions or regulations on
livestock grazing.
Concerns About Ulterior Motives
A concern that resonated with five interviewees was that the
proponents of jaguar critical habitats were not supporting the
designation merely to conserve jaguars but, rather, as a means
to achieving possible alternative agendas (Fig. 3). Although the
ESA itself does not directly limit livestock grazing or pipeline
construction, some ranchers fear that environmental groups
will pursue lawsuits to obtain such restrictions.
In addition to believing that the designations were driven
by ulterior motives, two interviewees thought that designating
critical habitats for jaguars was done to appease the public (see
Fig. 3). In particular, they presumed that it resulted from
urbanites and environmentalists pushing to protect jaguars.
Most interviewees did not believe that critical habitats would
actually support jaguar conservation, and two felt that ranchers
would have to bear the consequences of the designations,
while other persons and groups would benefit from the
decision (see Fig. 3).
Concerns Related to the Border
Potential changes to U.S.–Mexico border security were
mentioned as a concern by two of the interviewees. Because of
the close proximity to the Mexican border, these ranchers
were concerned that environmentalists could use critical
habitat designations to restrict border patrol operations.
Specifically, they worried that infrastructure, such as new
lighting, roads, or walls, could be argued as “destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat”
1
by environmentalists.
Attitudes Toward Wildlife Conservation and Resource
Management
All of the ranchers we interviewed said that ranching
directly benefits wildlife through the fundamentals of the
practice. Ranching maintains vast, contiguous swaths of land
and provides habitat connectivity. Water developments (such
as ponds and tanks) for livestock also benefit wildlife. In a
drought-stricken environment, such as southwestern United
States, the practice of ranching provides valuable water
resources that might not otherwise be available to wildlife.
Besides general range management, four of the key
informants used wildlife-specific structures on their ranches,
such as wildlife-friendly fencing or escape ramps in water
tanks, which directly benefit wildlife. In fact, two of the
ranchers we interviewed felt that the presence of rare and
unique species on a ranch indicates the success of ranching for
wildlife conservation, something for which ranchers in the
area should be commended.
All interviewees expressed some need for improved
relations and communication when partnering with govern-
ment agencies for resource management; some informants felt
this need more strongly than others. Most interviewees had
previous experience working with state or federal programs for
range management. Five interviewees reported that working
with the government was a slow, demanding process for
ranchers. “The government nature of the beast is trying to get
things done—one step forward, three steps back,”one rancher
claimed. Furthermore, interviewees said the results of
collaboration with government agencies often are more
punitive for stewards than they are rewarding.
Figure 3. Frequency of interviewee responses in each category of
concerns relating to ulterior motives driving the designation of jaguar
critical habitat.
Rangelands
148
Although most of the ranchers we interviewed recognized
that government must have a role in resource management,
ranchers tend to be apprehensive about more possible
regulations placed on grazing or land improvement projects,
which increases their trepidation about working with
government programs.
Discussion
As with similar studies using the key informant technique,
our study was limited by the constraints of small sample size.
However, even though we were only able to interview a small
number of ranching leaders, we found strong similarities in
opinion among the group. Below we discuss three points that
synthesize and summarize the results of the interviews.
Although we cannot generalize our results to describe the
entire regional ranching community, our results provide a
good starting point for dialogue between ranchers and federal
officials who are responsible for habitat management of
endangered species. Further dialogue can hopefully lead to
informing all sides of the issue so that prudent land
management decisions can be made to support healthy and
viable ranching communities and healthy and viable endan-
gered species populations.
Concerns About ESA Effects Trump Concerns About the Jaguar
Because ranching can preserve vast tracts of natural
landscapes, ranchers, as owners and managers of these lands,
are critical to supporting habitat conservation. This means
that understanding ranchers’perspectives and concerns would
help establish a common lexicon to bolster cooperation and
communication with natural resource managers. The nine
ranchers we interviewed saw themselves as stewards of the
land—managing resources, maintaining natural landscapes,
and supporting wildlife.
Interviewed ranchers were very concerned about the real
and perceived restrictions that the ESA and critical habitat
designation could have on grazing; but they were less
concerned about the presence of jaguars on their ranches.
The ranchers we interviewed had concerns that designated
jaguar critical habitats would result in direct negative impacts
on ranching operations. These concerns have a basis in reality
because similar issues elsewhere have led to controversy and
contention between resource users and the USFWS.
For example, during the 2001 drought in northwestern
United States, farmers in the region suffered a $200 million
loss because the USFWS argued for the need to retain water in
the Klamath River for endangered fishes rather than divert
water for agricultural use.
14
The following year, after the
farmers’protests, water was diverted for irrigation, but against
the USFWS’s recommendations, which resulted in one of the
worst fish kills in the region’s history.
14
This particular
conflict over water allocation has fueled scientific research for
the endangered species in the Klamath Basin, and farmers
have formed alliances and coalitions to protect themselves.
14
Recently, multiple users in the basin have been crafting
agreements based on better science and recently have signed a
longstanding agreement to provide water for agriculture while
meeting the needs of endangered species.
15
For some ranchers in southwestern United States, stories of
such conflicts confirmed their apprehension of the presence of
endangered species on their land or validated their concerns
about how jaguar critical habitats could interfere with their
ranching operations. The ranchers we interviewed who had
had previous experience operating ranches with an endangered
species present on their land likely derived their concerns and
assumptions from first-hand accounts. However, the ranchers
whom we interviewed who had not directly dealt with the ESA
could have been influenced by various publicized anecdotes
that tend to be negative and controversial. Similarly, grazing
permittees in the Coronado National Forest believe that the
ESA is being used to eliminate grazing from public lands and
that federal regulations mean a loss of freedom.
3
Ranchers’Opinions About Endangered Species Conservation
Are Complex
Our study shows that opinions about endangered species
conservation policy are more complex and nuanced than they
first appear to be and move beyond basic concerns about
jaguar depredation. Most of our study’s interviewees believed
that proponents of jaguar critical habitats had ulterior motives
in pushing for critical habitat designations, suggesting distrust
of federal institutions or environmental groups. Distrust of
government entities is one of the largest barriers to effective
natural resource management.
16
Davenport et al.
17
demonstrate that federal agents who
build interpersonal relations with the local community are the
most trusted. Resource managers would be wise to focus on
building trust with ranchers to obtain support for large
landscape conservation efforts. We suggest fostering trust
through frequent, informal, positive interactions with mem-
bers of the borderlands ranching communities.
17
Some of the
concerns about jaguar critical habitats were reflections of other
overriding issues unique to southern Arizona.
Border Security is a Pressing Issue for Many Who Reside on
the U.S.–Mexican Border
Some of the interviewees strongly opposed designations of
jaguar critical habitats because they felt that the government
should be prioritizing border security instead of protecting the
habitat of an occasional wandering jaguar. We heard ranchers’
sincere concerns that critical habitat designation and the ESA
could be used to detract from border security operations, even
though in the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, Division B),
the Department of Homeland Security has a provisioned waiver
of the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969.
18
Section 102 empowers the Attorney
General to bypass these laws, where necessary, to construct or
strengthen barriers at United States’borders. The ranchers we
interviewed did not discuss the REAL ID Act, leaving us
uncertain about their understanding of how the REAL ID Act
can be used to supersede the authority of the ESA.
2015 149
Future Research and Management Implications
Our study demonstrates that while resource users might
disagree with some aspects of how endangered species are
managed, they agree, in general, with conserving wildlife and
preserving resources. Most of the ranchers we interviewed did
not object to the presence of occasional jaguars or to wildlife
conservation. This indicates that there are opportunities to
work with some ranchers more closely on endangered species
management and to educate ranchers and other landowners
about the ESA and USFWS’s final rulings.
To apply the information generated from our study, we
recommend that resource agents make it a priority to build
transparency and trust with local communities and offer
workshops that detail what the ESA or species listing could
mean to landowners and land managers. Some agency
personnel in Arizona have already done this by participating
in or presenting to collaborative ranching groups, such as the
Altar Valley Conservation Alliance and the Malpai Border-
lands Group.
Future studies might incorporate larger numbers of
ranchers with less intensive interviewing to complement the
highly detailed information we obtained from our small
number of ranching leaders. The larger sample size will help
capture the demographics of the population that is less
involved in collaborative management of rangelands. This
study will assist in designing and analyzing future research,
entailing a qualitative and quantitative census, and extension
workshops for the ranching community regarding jaguar
critical habitat designation and large landscape conservation.
We suggest continued and expanded integration of
personnel with the ranching community, especially with
regard to controversial topics. Government entities must also
be cognizant of sensitive issues specific to the region that may
challenge endangered species conservation goals.
Conclusion
In summary, ranching leaders in southern Arizona and
southwestern New Mexico have concerns about the recent
jaguar critical habitat designations by the USFWS. Many of the
ranchers we interviewed said they were wary of the direct (and in
their view, negative) effects designations could have on resource
and range management and that they believed some advocates
of jaguar critical habitat designation have additional, or
alternative, goals, such as curtailing of grazing on public lands.
Most of the interviewees, however, support wildlife
conservation, and some said that they have tried to show
that ranching can coexist with the endangered species on the
landscape. In general, ranchers in our study disliked the
restrictions associated with jaguar conservation, rather than
the species itself.
Based on our interviews, we found that ranchers’opinions
of endangered species conservation are more complex and
nuanced than simply having concerns about protecting an
animal that threatens livestock. We believe, therefore, that
conservation agencies and organizations would be wise to
focus their efforts on trust building and education as a way to
alleviate some of the concerns of ranchers, other landowners,
and the public in general about jaguar habitat protection in
southwestern United States.
We recommend that future work include a comprehensive
study of the population regarding this issue with a larger
sample size to better delineate the opinions of the overall
ranching community in southwestern United States.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the anonymous ranchers for
taking the time to participate in our study; the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, especially Erin Fernandez, Marit
Alanen, Mary Anderson, and Jean Calhoun, for providing
funding and advice to the University of Arizona for this
project; Lisa Haynes from the University of Arizona for
recommending interviewees and providing support; Robert
Merideth, Ruscena Wiederholt, and Larry Howery from the
University of Arizona for editing and analysis support; and the
United States Geological Survey Arizona Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit for additional funding and
in-kind services; the two anonymous reviewers and the
Rangelands editor for providing valued comments. This
work was conducted under Human Subjects Protection
Program number 13-0761.
References
1. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2003. Endangered Species
Act of 1973: as amended through the 108th Congress. 116 USC
§ 1531–1544 [Washington DC, USA].
2. MIR, D.F., AND K. DICK. 2012. Conservation approaches to
protecting critical habitats and species on private property.
Natural Areas Journal 32:190-198.
3. CONLEY, J.L., M.E. FERNANDEZ-GIMENEZ, G.B. RUYLE,AND
M. BRUNSON. 2007. Forest service grazing permittee perceptions
of the Endangered Species Act in southeastern Arizona.
Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:136-145.
4. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH,,AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE. 2005. Designation of critical habitat for the Gila chub
environmental assessment. Phoenix, AZ: U.S. Government
Printing Office29.
5. THE TECHNICAL SUBGROUP OF THE JAGUAR RECOVERY TEAM IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION SUBGROUP OF THE
JAGUAR RECOVERY TEAM AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE, 2012. Recovery outline for the jaguar (Panthera onca)1-59.
6. RODRIGUEZ, S.L., M.N. PETERSON, F.W. CUBBAGE, E.O. SILLS,
AND H.D. BONDELL. 2012. Private landowner interest in market-
based incentive programs for endangered species habitat
conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:469-476.
7. TREMBLAY, M.-A. 1957. The key informant technique:
a nonethnographic application. American Anthropologist
59:688-701.
8. JOHNSON, J.C. 2004. Key Informant. In: Lewis-Beck Michael S,
Bryman Alan, & Liao Tim F, editors. The encyclopedia of social
science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
9. OSGOOD, C. 1940. Ingalik material culture. New Haven, CT
USA: Yale University Press500.
Rangelands
150
10. PETURSDOTTIR,T.,O.ARNALDS,S.BAKER,L.MONTANARELLA,
AND Á.L. ARADÓTTIR. 2013. A social-ecological system
approach to analyze stakeholders’interactions within a large-
scale rangeland restoration program. Ecology and Society
18(2):29.
11. DUNN, K. 2005. Interviewing. In: & Hay I, editor. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press. p. 79-105.
12. NVIVO QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE [COMPUTER
PROGRAM], 2012. Version 10 for Windows and Macintosh.
USA: QSR International Pty Ltd.
13. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: designation of
critical habitat for jaguar: final Rule. 79 Federal Register 12571,
Issue 4312623.
14. LEVY, S. 2003. Turbulence in the Klamath River Basin.
Bioscience 53:213-218.
15. AMERICAN RIVERS, . Historic river agreement reached on the
Upper Klamath Basin water. , http://www.americanrivers.org/
blog/historic-water-agreement-upper-klamath-basin-water/
[Accessed October 1 2014].
16. HENDEE, J.C. 1984. Public opinion and what foresters
should do about it. Journal of Forestry 82(6):340-344.
17. DAVENPORT, M.A., J.E. LEAHY, D.H. ANDERSON,AND P.J.
JAKES. 2007. Building trust in natural resource management
within local communities: A case study of the Midewin National
Tallgrass Prairie. Environmental Management 39:353-368.
18. GARCIA, M.J., M.M. LEE,AND T. TATELMAN. 2005. Immigration:
Analysis of the major provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005.
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL32754.
Authors are Graduate Research Assistant, School of Natural
Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona, 85721 (Svancara, svancarc@email.arizona.edu);
Senior Researcher, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
and PhD Student, Arid Lands Resource Sciences, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721 (Lien); Research Technician,
School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721 (Vanasco); Assistant Research
Professor of Environmental Policy, School of Natural Resources
and the Environment and Udall Center for Public Policy,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721 (Lo
´pez-Hoffman);
Professor of Natural Resources and Leader for U.S. Geological
Survey Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona, 85721 (Bonar); Extension Specialist, School of Natural
Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona, 85721 (Ruyle). Research was funded by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
2015 151
