Land abandonment together with the development of stronger conservation policies have favored the expansion of some wildlife species across Europe. This has led to increasing human-wildlife interactions, which are often conflictive, potentially harming both people livelihood and wildlife conservation. A paradigmatic example of conflicts over increasing wildlife species occurs when carnivores are involved. Assessing the human dimension of carnivore expansion is challenging if coexistence between human and carnivore species is sought. To date most studies on this topic have focused on large carnivores, whereas the expansion of mesocarnivores has received much less attention in the literature. Here, we explored the case of the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumnon) in central Spain, its north-eastern range edge. This is the only mongoose species naturally occurring in Europe; in particular, it is distributed throughout most Portugal and south-western Spain, and their populations are expanding to the north-east of Spain. The mongoose preys on small-game species, which often leads to complaints from hunters about its presence. We assessed hunters and non-hunters views on the expansion of the Egyptian mongoose through online questionnaires. Our aims included: 1) assessing participants’ attitudes towards the natural expansion of the species; 2) analyzing their perception on the potential benefits and negative impacts of the occurrence of the mongoose; 3) evaluating potential conflicts between hunters and non-hunters regarding mongoose perceived impacts; 4) studying participants’ preferences over different potential management scenarios of mongoose expansion; 5) assessing attitudes towards different management tools to either favor mongoose expansion, or to halt it or, at least, to slow it down. Our results revealed that nearly all (>90%) hunters were against mongoose expansion. When we asked them about different potential management actions to stop mongoose expansion, most hunters selected options that involve mongoose culling by themselves or by game managers; the most selected option was including the mongoose in the game species list. The opinions of non-hunters regarding mongoose expansion were more neutral. Nevertheless, their most frequently selected option was laissez-faire. This is in agreement with results of the choice experiment, which showed that non-hunters preferred the laissez-faire management strategy over other management programs. In fact, we found a loss of well-being when other actions were considered over mongoose expansion. Variations between hunters and non-hunters in their view on mongoose expansion could be due to the fact that the former were more in agreement with potential detrimental impacts of the species, namely for the ecosystems and rural economy (e.g., impact on game), whereas the latter often agreed with the potential benefits associated with the mongoose. Consensus among hunters about the lack of potential benefits of Egyptian mongoose occurrence was generally higher than about the detrimental impact of this species. Consensus among non-hunters as regards benefits of mongoose occurrence was variable, but mostly high. Differences between hunters and non-hunters in their perceptions on mongoose impact suggest a potential conflict over the expansion of this species. More broadly, our study stresses the relevance of assessing the social setting of the expansion of wildlife species as opposition by one or more parties may compromise wildlife restoration.

Resumen del trabajo presentado a: Interdisciplinary Workshop Rewilding species, landscapes, society: Dialogues across the Humanities, the Social and the Natural Sciences, Cologne, Germany, 5-6 February 2024.

No