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.

Highlights

  • “I don’t believe in coexistence.”. These were the words of a U.S Forest Service (USFS) range specialist as they hiked with a member of our author team through a small ridgetop meadow in a densely forested grazing allotment of the Colville National Forest in Washington state

  • From there we explore coexistence’s various definitions and applications in the human-wildlife conflict (HWC) literature, before turning to the attitudes and practices of Forest Service managers across the western U.S We elaborate on these findings by identifying emerging lessons around the inseparability of wolf questions from broader regional issues, and the structural obstacles faced by managers contending with these complex challenges

  • We focus here on lands governed by the USFS according to multiple-use principles as key geographies of wolf-livestock interaction and conflict, as well as potential sites of coexistence interventions

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

“I don’t believe in coexistence.” These were the words of a U.S Forest Service (USFS) range specialist as they hiked with a member of our author team through a small ridgetop meadow in a densely forested grazing allotment of the Colville National Forest in Washington state. Conflict is often framed as a question of competing wildlife value orientations: the utilitarian (emphasizing human land use for livestock production), in opposition to the mutualist (emphasizing conservation and care toward wildlife) (Nie, 2002; Manfredo et al, 2003, 2009, 2017; Teel et al, 2007) While this scholarship suggests that the wolf question serves as a reflection of social orientation, other research argues that conflicts over wolves stand in for and even amplify broader regional anxieties (Hamilton et al, 2020; Martin, 2020)—especially in polarized political contexts in which value orientations are closely aligned with both rural-urban divisions and political affiliation (van Eeden et al, 2017, 2021). The managing agencies and regulations governing wolves have shifted significantly over the past several decades, the USFS has had a relatively consistent role as management authority over national forest lands, which serve as both wolf habitat and part of long-standing livestock grazing programs in the region (Figure 1)

METHODS
Research Methods
CONCLUSION
Findings
ETHICS STATEMENT
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call