Search

Conserving biodiversity requires productive management of conflict. Currently, wildlife are often portrayed as conscious human antagonists, which must be fought. We suggest using the 'comic corrective' to experiment with ways to reframe human-human conflicts over wildlife management and wildlife damage. This requires a deep commitment to change, often made more palatable through humour. This effort to fight the use of the term human-wildlife conflict should not be interpreted as a call to reject human-human conflict as a useful conservation tool. Conservationists, who value wildlife, often misleadingly suggest that conservation can sidestep irreducible value differences and political processes that see proponents of different views as antagonists. Because democracies cannot function without dissent, we suggest that conservation biologists should embrace stakeholder conflicts over wildlife conservation as a way to improve decision making. In particular, we should challenge the view that wildlife are willfully antagonistic to people while recognizing conflict among humans over how biodiversity conservation should occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human–wildlife conflict has emerged as the central vocabulary for cases requiring balance between resource demands of humans and wildlife. This phrase is problematic because, given traditional definitions of conflict, it positions wildlife as conscious human antagonists. We used content analysis of wildlife conservation publications and professional meeting presentations to explore the use of the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, and compared competing models explaining its usage. Of the 422 publications and presentations using human–wildlife conflict, only 1 reflected a traditional definition of conflict, >95% referred to reports of animal damage to entities human care about, and <4% referred to human–human conflict. Usage of human–wildlife conflict was related to species type (herbivores with human food, carnivores with human safety, meso-mammals with property), development level of the nation where the study occurred (less developed nations with human food and more developed nations with human safety and property damage), and whether the study occurred on private lands or protected areas (protected areas with human–human conflict and other areas with property damage). We argue that the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, is detrimental to coexistence between humans and wildlife, and suggest comic reframing to facilitate a more productive interpretation of human–wildlife relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]