Conserving Wolves by Transforming Them? The Transformative Effects of Technologies of Government in Biodiversity Conservation

Stokland, Håkon B.

doi:10.1163/15685306-00001407

Cited by 15 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Braverman (2015) writes, the practices of biodiversity conservation are premised on a "foundational goal of affirmatively saving life," making them emblematic of the imperative to care for and improve, not merely discipline and dominate, processes of life and death (p. 227). A growing body of literature in critical geography and animal studies treats wildlife management as a biopolitical endeavor that amounts to fostering or "making live" desirable animal populations and killing and/or "letting die" those that threaten them (e.g., Biermann and Mansfield, 2014;Chrulew and Wadiwel, 2016;Srinivasan, 2017;Stokland, 2020). Conservation requires the management of circulations and reproductions of animal life via intertwined practices of harm and care that often include killing some animals to make others live (Srinivasan, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Killing for the common good? The (bio)politics of wolf management in Washington State

Anderson

2021

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Washington State has been rocked by conflict over wolves, whose return to rural landscapes after their extirpation a century ago has brought them into new, often violent relations with human society. I interpret this emblematic instance of human–wildlife conflict as fundamentally a human–human conflict and a manifestation of different deep-seated sociocultural norms and values toward wolves. This social conflict hinges on two competing, underacknowledged forms of commoning—wildlife as a public trust and grazing access to public lands—that already intertwine the economy of the rural Western United States. Amid these tensions, wildlife managers seek to reduce conflict through the targeted killing (“lethal removal”) of wolves that repeatedly prey on livestock. I draw on ethnographic research examining the ongoing debate over lethal removal policy in Washington’s “Wolf Advisory Group,” an advisory committee aimed at transforming Washington’s wolf conflict through collaborative governance. Drawing together the theoretical frameworks of commoning and conservation environmentality, I frame these debates as an effort to produce shared social norms regarding wolf life and death. In this context, lethal removal of wolves functions as a biopolitical intervention targeted to affect social values, producing “social tolerance” for wolves in Washington’s rural landscapes. The paradox of wolf conservation governance is that achieving the social tolerance necessary for long-term recovery requires that the state kill wolves in the name of shared common interest and responsibility.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Killing for the common good? The (bio)politics of wolf management in Washington State

Anderson

2021

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Warranty for a better world? The politics of environmental knowledge in bioeconomic sustainability certificates

Stokland

Aspøy

Krange

et al. 2023

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability certificates are increasingly used as tools for shaping bioeconomic production processes and trade. However, their specific effects are subjected to debate. A multitude of certificate schemes and standards are currently in use, defining and measuring sustainability in the bioeconomy in highly varying ways. Different representations of environmental effects, resulting from the use of different standards or scientific methods in certification, can have very real implications for how, where and to which degree bioeconomic production can be conducted and the environment will be conserved. Further, the implications for bioeconomic production practices and management embedded in the environmental knowledge employed in bioeconomic sustainability certificates will produce different winners and losers, and privilege some societal or individual concerns at the expense of others. In this way, sustainability certificates share some characteristics with other standards and policy tools that embody political contingencies, but are presented and often understood as objective and neutral. The paper argues that the politics of environmental knowledge involved in these processes warrant more awareness, scrutiny and explicit consideration from decision makers, policy developers and researchers.

show abstract

Leben mit Wölfen

Gieser¹

2022

Human-Animal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Wölfe kehren zurück nach Deutschland - und mit ihnen auch die Konflikte zwischen Mensch und Wolf. Eine zentrale Rolle spielen dabei die Affekte, Atmosphären, Gefühle und Stimmungen, die ihre Rückkehr auslöst. Mit ethnografischen Mitteln untersucht Thorsten Gieser die komplexe Verflechtung von Natur und Gesellschaft im Anthropozän. Seine These: Die Wölfe bewegen und berühren uns in einer gemeinsamen Lebenswelt und stoßen damit einen Prozess an, uns als mehr-als-menschliche Gesellschaft neu zu denken. Er zeigt Wege zu einem konstruktiven Umgang mit Affekten auf, schlägt ein komplexes Verständnis von Wölfen als affektive Akteure vor und begreift somit das Mensch-Wolf-Verhältnis radikal neu.

show abstract

Conserving Wolves by Transforming Them? The Transformative Effects of Technologies of Government in Biodiversity Conservation

Cited by 15 publications

References 35 publications

Killing for the common good? The (bio)politics of wolf management in Washington State

Killing for the common good? The (bio)politics of wolf management in Washington State

Warranty for a better world? The politics of environmental knowledge in bioeconomic sustainability certificates

Leben mit Wölfen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About