Water Quality and Endangered Impalas: Case Study for Kenya Wildlife Service

Jovanelly, Tamie J.

doi:10.1130/abs/2017am-305510

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During Kenya's ‘poaching crisis’ of the 1980s and 1990s, The state created the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and appointed the famous Dr Richard Leakey as its first chairman. (Hall, 1995). Under Leakey's guidance and from his ability to raise unprecedented sums from donors, the KWS became a formidable force consisting of well-armed poaching units and a blanket shoot-to-kill policy (Doyle, 1994; Peluso and Watts, 2001).…”

Section: Droit De Glaive (The Sovereign's Right To Kill)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation violence: Paradoxes of “making live” and “letting die” in anti-poaching practices

Jong

Butt

2023

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife poaching has been and continues to be of significant concern to environmental sustainability. While descriptions of poaching often include vivid details about the animal victims and the heroics of those fighting to conserve biodiversity, ambiguity still surrounds ‘the poacher.’ Clarifying the identity of a poacher is necessary to expose a societal tendency to enforce stereotypes on others that perpetuate violence and inequality. Without knowing the identity of a poacher, it becomes easy for society to impose unsubstantiated beliefs upon them that legitimize unjust and violent policies. This research examines how (1) the media and (2) conservation actors construct the identity and context of the poacher to understand how and why violent protected area policies like shoot-to-kill have become accepted conservation strategies. Through a systematic analysis of news articles and primary interviews with conservation actors, we demonstrate how poachers are anonymized, dehumanized, and placed in a space of exception to become legitimate and justifiable targets of violence. We conclude by examining a central paradox that emerges from the state's biopolitical use of violent anti-poaching policies: how does a form of authority that is fundamentally justified in its claims to protect life condone the use of deadly force on its own subjects?

show abstract

Section: Droit De Glaive (The Sovereign's Right To Kill)mentioning

confidence: 99%