No abstract

No abstract

Culture, livelihoods and political-economic status all influence people's perception of introduced and invasive species, shaping perspectives on what sort of management of them, if any, is warranted. Indigenous voices and values are under-represented in scholarly discourse about introduced and invasive species. This paper examines the relationship between the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation (one of six Tsilhqot'in communities) and wild or free-roaming horses in British Columbia, Canada. We outline how Xeni Gwet'in people value horses and experience management actions, contextualising the controversy over wild horses amidst power imbalances in the expression of environmental values. We suggest that Indigenous voices are vital to include when evaluating impacts of controversial species and developing management strategies.

Use of the terms "wild" and "feral" characterizes ongoing debate over management of free-ranging horses. However, the focus on terminology tends to obscure complex differences in meanings and cultural perception. Examining a case study in the Chilcotin region of British Columbia, we explore how the terms "wild" and "feral" distract from the underlying issues at stake in management of horses and the landscape: different ways of valuing, understanding, and relating to land and animals. To be effective in the long term, and to avoid an unwitting continuation of outdated culturally biased land management practices, future decisions regarding management of lands and free-roaming horses in the Chilcotin would benefit from an integrated process informed by both ecological and socio-cultural information.

Article impact statement: Research concerning controversial species highlights a need to adopt formal reflexivity methods in conservation biology.

Citation: Bhattacharyya, J., and S. Slocombe. 2017. Animal agency: wildlife management from a kincentric perspective.Ecosphere 8(10):e01978. 10. 1002/ecs2.1978 Abstract. Co-management of wildlife and landscapes often requires managers to work with Indigenous and conventional Western worldviews. Many cultures recognize animals as non-human persons with decision-making agency. Such perspectives, termed "kincentric ecology," suggest a relational approach to management that differs from convention in North America. We argue that kincentric perspectives are highly relevant to current approaches and issues in wildlife management, including the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge. Using empirical research with the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation in British Columbia, Canada, we discuss four dimensions of kincentricity key to collaborative management, with notable parallels in emergent systems science: (1) shift in emphasis from human rights to responsibilities; (2) focus on social-ecological systems; (3) acknowledgment of uncertainty and rapid change; and (4) emphasis on locally relevant, empirical knowledge. Wildlife and land management influenced by bioculturally diverse knowledge implies a more systemic approach; adaptive processes; changed goals and values; and shifting responsibilities among stakeholders.

Both birds and plants are major components of the world's biocultural diversity. Salient species of both are recognized and named in virtually every language and both feature in countless ways in people's systems of knowledge, practice, and belief, as sources of food, materials, and medicines, and as ceremonial and religious symbols. However, these two major biological groups are also linked together, and their ecological associations are likewise reflected in cultural knowledge systems. In northwestern North America, there are many examples of the intersection of botanical and ornithological knowledge, reflected in people's vocabulary, narratives, belief systems, and management practices. Here we provide diverse illustrations of this intersection in cultural knowledge of plant-bird associations. These examples link together observations of bird habits and habitats with particular plant species and show how this complex integrated knowledge and experience has helped promote cultural richness and well-being for First Peoples of the region. Bird species from swans (Cygnus spp.) to hummingbirds (Trochilidae) and plants from edible root vegetables to nectar-producing flowers are exemplified as major representatives of ethnoecological connections. These relationships remind us of the importance of interspecies ties to environmental and cultural integrity—a key to sustainable living into the future.

Extractive capitalism has long been the driving force of settler colonialism in Canada, and continues to threaten the sovereignty, lands and waters of Indigenous nations across the country. While ostensibly counterposed to extractivism, state-led conservation has similarly served to alienate Indigenous peoples from their territories, often for capitalist gain. Recognizing the inadequacy of the colonial-capitalist conservation paradigm to redress the biodiversity crisis, scholars in political ecology increasingly call for radical, convivial alternatives rooted in equity and justice. Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) are one such alternative, representing a paradigm shift from colonial to Indigenous-led conservation that reinvigorates Indigenous knowledge and governance systems. Since the Indigenous Circle of Experts finalized a report in 2018 on how IPCAs could contribute to Canada's conservation targets and reconciliation efforts, an increasing number of Indigenous stewardship initiatives across the country have been declared as IPCAs. These initiatives are assertions of Indigenous sovereignty, inherent rights, and responsibilities to their territories, as well as movements to rejuvenate biocultural conservation. Although Canada is supporting IPCAs through certain initiatives, the country's extractivist development model along with jurisdictional inconsistencies are undermining the establishment and long-term viability of many IPCAs. This paper explores two instances where Indigenous governments have established, or are establishing, IPCAs as novel strategies for land and water protection within long histories of resistance to colonial-capitalist exploitation. We argue that there is a paradoxical tension in Canadian conservation whereby Indigenous-led conservation is promoted in theory, while being undermined in practice. IPCAs offer glimpses of productive, alternative sustainabilities that move away from the colonial-capitalist paradigm, but are being challenged by governments and industries that still fail to respect Indigenous jurisdiction.