Human-wildlife conflicts have been increasing at alarming rates over the last few decades. Wildlife management practices deal with preventing and disentangling these conflicts. However, which approach should be taken is widely disputed in research, policy, in-the-field-wildlife management and local communities. One key aspect in deciding which approach should be employed concerns the drawing of boundaries, between human and wild animal, between territorial spaces, in the use of certain categorizations and in the implementation of policy regulations. Coexistence between humans and wild animals is propagated worldwide even as human-wildlife conflicts increase. To achieve coexistence, wildlife management practices need to adopt corresponding management strategies. In this chapter it is argued that, in aiming for coexistence, wildlife management practices employ apparently obvious boundaries, which may, however, be adjusted to prevent and disentangle human-wildlife conflicts. Subsequently, it is argued that coexistence between humans and wild animals can only be attained by adopting an integrated approach to human-wildlife-interactions, merging knowledge from the natural and social sciences, and wildlife management practices. This argument is illustrated by exploring the dynamics of boundary drawing in the practice of wild boar management at the Veluwe, the Netherlands and black bear management on the Colorado Front Range, USA. These wildlife management practices display respectively both strategies of confinement and strategies of alignment . In conclusion, wildlife management practices aiming for coexistence require both strategies. Strategies of alignment, however, are prerequisite to opening boundaries between humans and wildlife in order to manage their conflicts as relational endeavours.
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.