Coexistence Praxis: The Role of Resource Managers in Wolf-Livestock Interactions on Federal Lands

Abstract

In resource management, new terms are frequently introduced, reflecting ongoing evolution in the theory and practice of ecology and governance. Yet understandings of what new concepts mean, for whom, and what they imply for management on the ground can vary widely. Coexistence—a prominent concept within the literature and practices around human-wildlife conflict and predator management—is one such term: widely invoked and yet poorly defined. While for some coexistence is the latest paradigm in improving human-wildlife relations, the concept remains debated and indeed even hotly contested by others—particularly on the multiple-use public lands of the American West, where gray wolf conservation, livestock production, and the claims of diverse stakeholders share space.The multiple meanings of coexistence present serious challenges for conservation practice, as what the concept implies or requires can be contested by those most central to its implementation. In this study we examine wolf-livestock management—a classic case of human-wildlife conflict—by focusing on the experiences and perspectives of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) managers. We reviewed coexistence's multivalence in the literature, complementing semi-structured interviews conducted with USFS employees on case study forests from across the western states. Through this, we highlight the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the concept, and the unique yet under-explored perspective that resource managers bring to these debates.This work draws on insights from political ecology to emphasize the situatedness of manager practice—taking place within a broader set of relations and contextual pressures—while extending political ecologists' traditional focus on the resource user to a concern with the resource manager as a key actor in environmental conflicts. Through our engagement with the experiences and perceptions of USFS managers, who must balance conservation aims with long-established land uses like livestock grazing, we hope to clarify the various dimensions of coexistence. Our hope is that this work thus increases the possibility for empathy and collaboration among managers and stakeholders engaged in this complex socio-ecological challenge.

Political ecology III: Praxis - doing, undoing, and being in radical political ecology research

“…This includes anarchist political ecology that interrogates humanity’s place in the biosphere (Springer et al, 2021). At the same time, it is also a critical inquiry about what constitutes co-existence with other species, which clarifies not only the relationships of trust and mutuality that are forged processually but also shifting locations within wider struggles (Martin et al, 2021). Debates in political ecologies of conservation have further expanded on connections to managerialism, white supremacy, colonialism, and community praxis (Collins et al, 2021).…”

“…For instance, Dale (2021) looks at not just reconceptualizing what food sovereignty means but a broader understanding of food governance, as it would allow for more meaningful state-level changes and designs with broader policy goals in mind. Similar work on water, climate, energy, and biodiversity has animated political ecologists who aspire to policy changes, articulating various policy interventions whereby water governance, climate justice, just energy transition, ecotourism, and conservation policies have been informed by praxis-reflexive research (Bersaglio and Margulies, 2022; Eriksen et al, 2021; Fletcher, 2019; Gonzalez, 2022; Hammelman et al, 2022; Martin et al, 2021; Sovacool, 2021; Sultana, 2022a; Tozzi et al, 2022). These scholarships are worth engaging with closely and building upon.…”

“…Policy intervention may be at local, state, and international scales. For instance, Dale (2021) Eriksen et al, 2021;Fletcher, 2019;Gonzalez, 2022;Hammelman et al, 2022;Martin et al, 2021;Sovacool, 2021;Sultana, 2022a;Tozzi et al, 2022). These scholarships are worth engaging with closely and building upon.…”

The socioecology of fear: A critical geographical consideration of human‐wolf‐livestock conflict

“…The much‐touted concept of “coexistence” offers an optimistic vision of people, livestock, and wolves sharing the same landscape while minimizing impacts on one another (Carter and Linnell 2016; Lute and Carter 2020; Martin et al 2021). Since reintroduction, and particularly in the wake of the 2011 species delisting across the US Northern Rocky Mountain region, efforts to reduce conflict often rely on targeted killing (“lethal removal”) of “problem wolves” that attack livestock (Bangs et al 2006).…”

“…Efforts to reduce wolf‐livestock conflicts, and thereby ease the social tensions that accompany them, are widespread across the growing range of the species in North America (Mech 2017; Martin 2021b). However, while many agree on the goal of promoting “coexistence” between people and wolves, there is little agreement about exactly what this means (Peterson et al 2010; Lute et al 2020; Martin et al 2021; Pooley et al 2021), and conflict mitigation approaches can vary widely across jurisdictions. This paper focuses on one such ongoing effort in the state of Washington in the United States (US) to demonstrate how wildlife policy and practices reflect complex and co‐produced social and ecological relations.…”