Search

Coexistence has seen an explosive rise within conservation social science scholarship. While this represents an exciting shift in the field, many academics are still skeptical. Some scholars have expressed concerns around the omission of "conflict", naïveté, and impracticality associated with coexistence literature. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate that critiques of coexistence often stem from reductionism and decontextualization, process inefficiencies and/or inequities, failure to address and prioritize human well-being as a goal, and a lack of tools to foster open, collaborative dialogue. We draw on a case study of human-wolf interactions in the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Region, British Columbia, Canada, to illustrate how coexistence efforts can, and should, prioritize "conflict", be attentive to the real challenges of sharing spaces with wildlife, and encourage collaborative, inclusive processes that work toward tangible, actionable outcomes. We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with residents from diverse backgrounds and levels of experience with wolves in the region. From these interviews, we articulated novel, co-developed, contextual definitions of human-wolf conflict and coexistence in the region. We then developed a collaborative tool for visualizing behavioral and cognitive elements of human-wildlife interactions through open and inclusive dialogue, using real examples from these research interviews. The research findings highlight three main principles: (1) that conflict and coexistence are contextual and should be understood as such, (2) that coexistence requires collaborative processes that pay attention to equity and inclusivity, and (3) that there are frameworks or tools that can help facilitate discussions toward practical outcomes of coexistence projects. We believe that this paper helps to disambiguate coexistence and reinforce that coexistence requires focused attention to the well-being of people as much as wildlife. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human‐carnivore conflicts present an array of conservation challenges, especially in complex and cross‐cultural settings. Described here is a facilitated, multi‐method, collaborative process in the Nuu‐chah‐nulth First Nations' Traditional Territory, British Columbia, Canada, aimed at building a project to address human‐wolf conflicts following the species' natural re‐colonization of a national park reserve. Participants reported that this project prompted dialogue and engagement that will help bridge the gap between First Nations and non‐Indigenous people in the Territory. Although the project remains ongoing, pragmatic lessons about its process can already be identified: (1) an early, and ongoing collaboration was crucial in setting the project's priorities; (2) adopting a co‐learning approach set a respectful tone for the project; and (3) reframing human‐wolf conflicts using a tolerance‐oriented lens bridged diverse perspectives and worldviews. The preliminary outcomes of these efforts to date are constitutively different from conventional collaborative efforts because the process has already changed relationships in ways that many such previous efforts have not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A multistate capture-recapture model was developed to estimate movements of brown trout (Salmo trutta) between a main stem and its headwater tributary and their survival and recapture probabilities in each stream. As all individuals entering or leaving the tributary were captured by trapping, the studied ecological system was fully controlled. The performance of multistate models combining two sources of data (trapping and electrofishing) available for 6 years was first evaluated. Realistic estimates were obtained to infer the average spawning behaviour of trout: (i) 58% returned to their original site after spawning, (ii) 9% returned to their natal site for reproduction, (iii) 55% of the ascending individuals performed natal homing. Because less informative systems are pervading, we eventually assessed the sensitivity of multistate models to the level of trapping data integration. A lack of such data led to an underestimation of movement probabilities, and we found that this effect could be compensated by electrofishing samplings. Un modele statistique multistats de capture-recapture a ete developpe pour estimer les mouvements de truites (Salmo trutta) entre le bras principal et l'affluent de tete d'un cours d'eau, ainsi que leurs probabilites de survie et de recapture dans chaque cours d'eau. Le systeme etudie est entierement controle car tout individu entrant ou sortant de l'affluent est capture par piegeage. En premier lieu, la performance de modeles multietats combinant deux sources de donnees (piegeage et peche electrique) provenant d'une etude menee sur 6 ans a ete evaluee. Les estimations realistes obtenues ont ensuite ete utilisees pour inferer le comportement reproducteur moyen des truites, a savoir que (i) 58 % des individus sont retournes a leur territoire d'origine apres leur reproduction dans le ruisseau, (ii) 9 % sont retournes a leur lieu de naissance pour frayer, (iii) 55 % des truites en montaison ont presente un comportement de philopatrie natale. Comme les systemes moins informatifs sont nombreux, nous avons egalement teste la sensibilite des modeles multietats au niveau d'integration des donnees de piegeage. Un manque de ce type de donnees a occasionne une sous-estimation des probabilites de mouvement, mais cette derniere a pu etre compensee en considerant des donnees supplementaires de peche electrique. [Traduit par la Redaction], Introduction Migration is a demographic process with a strong impact on population dynamics (Lebreton 1996; Dingle 1996). Indeed, immigration and emigration are two of four factors responsible for changes in [...]

The focus on human–wildlife conflict has often been a constraint to wildlife conservation, as practitioners have centered their attention on reducing negative interactions, rather than on increasing positive relations between humans and wildlife. To work toward solutions that maximize conservation success, it is necessary to include positive interactions, coexistence, and attitudes of tolerance toward wildlife. In this article, clarification and definition of the terms conflict, coexistence, and tolerance are offered and human–wildlife interactions are explored along a continuum that ranges from negative to positive attitudes. Such an approach allows highlighting the multiple dimensions influencing human–wildlife relationships, thus drawing attention to other possible pathways to address wildlife issues. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]