Search

The importance of Indigenous (and local) knowledge and governance systems for addressing social and ecological crises is increasingly recognized. Unfortunately, attempts to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into Western approaches, often without the full leadership, consent, and participation of the peoples holding those knowledges, can cause harm and can constitute extractive activities. However, there remains considerable potential in collaborations bringing together multiple perspectives and knowledges. We introduce the M̓ṇúxvʔit model, which centers Indigenous governance systems as the natural starting point for respectful, cross‐knowledge system collaborations. M̓ṇúxvʔit means "to become one" in Haíɫzaqvḷa, the language of the Haíɫzaqv Nation from which this model originates, in this case referring to outside knowledges being incorporated into Indigenous systems (not vice versa). In collaborations following this model, Indigenous communities and governments lead the overall direction, Indigenous knowledge systems are foundational, local protocols are followed, benefits flow at least as much to communities as to collaborators, and collaborations are authentic and transparent. M̓ṇúxvʔit can occur at scales including a single person, such as Q̓íx̌itasu (Elroy White) complementing his Haíɫzaqv knowledge with Western archeology; a project, such as the Xvíɫm̓ístaƛ Hákq̓áṃ Qṇtxv Bákvḷásu (our foods will return) multispecies restoration program led by the Haíɫzaqv Nation and supported by invited collaborators; and a community, exemplified by the Heiltsuk (Haíɫzaqv) Integrated Resource Management Department leading resource stewardship collaborations across Haíɫzaqv Territory. Collaborations following the model uphold Indigenous and local sovereignty while avoiding superficial or tokenistic approaches. We share this model as a successful, locally born approach that we hope provides inspiration elsewhere and as a contribution to the conversation about how Western actors can work with local and Indigenous systems such that their collaborations constructively add to, not harmfully extract from, those systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human‐carnivore conflicts pose significant challenges in the management and conservation of carnivores across the globe. Abundant research has led to generalizable insights into the causes of such conflicts. For example, conflicts predictably occur when carnivores have access to human food resources, particularly when their natural foods are scarce. However, similar insights into the effectiveness of interventions aimed at coexistence remains comparatively scarce. We hypothesized that this disparity might be reflected in a bias toward research focused on causes of conflict rather than interventions to address it. To test our hypothesis, we evaluated the content of studies on human–carnivore conflicts and coexistence in Canada and the United States from 2010 to 2021. We found that studies disproportionately focused on causes of conflict, with that discrepancy increasing through our study period. We also found a disproportionate focus on black bears and wolves and western jurisdictions, and a disproportionate use of observational (vs. experimental) approaches. Studies on conflict interventions were primarily directed at the carnivores themselves (e.g., lethal approaches) versus human elements (e.g., attractant management, policies), despite evidence that the latter are more effective. We expect that a shift in focus toward solutions‐oriented research, integrating insights across geographies, taxa, social contexts, and disciplines, would facilitate effective interventions and foster coexistence, improving outcomes for people and carnivores alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rigorous scientific practice relies on the tenet of transparency. However, despite regular transparency in areas such as data availability and methodological practice, the influence of personal and professional values in research design and dissemination is often not disclosed or discussed in conservation science. Conservation scientists are increasingly driven to work in collaboration with communities where their work takes place, which raises important questions about the research process, especially as the field remains largely represented by a Western scientific worldview. The process of reflexivity, and the creation of positionality statements as one form of a reflexive practice, is an important component of transparency, rigor, and best practice in contemporary conservation science. In our own professional practices, however, we have found that guidance on how to produce positionality statements and maintain reflexivity throughout the lifecycle of research is too often lacking. In response, we build on existing literature and our own experience to offer a primer as a starting point to the practice of reflexivity. Rather than being prescriptive, we seek to demonstrate flexible approaches that researchers may consider when communicating reflexive practice to enhance research transparency. We explore the challenges and potential pitfalls in a reflexive practice and offer considerations and advice based on our collective professional experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humans are perceived as predators by many species and may generate landscapes of fear, influencing spatiotemporal activity of wildlife. Additionally, wildlife might seek out human activity when faced with predation risks (human shield hypothesis). We used the anthropause, a decrease in human activity resulting from the COVID‐19 pandemic, to test ecology of fear and human shield hypotheses and quantify the effects of bear‐viewing ecotourism on grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) activity. We deployed camera traps in the Khutze watershed in Kitasoo Xai'xais Territory in the absence of humans in 2020 and with experimental treatments of variable human activity when ecotourism resumed in 2021. Daily bear detection rates decreased with more people present and increased with days since people were present. Human activity was also associated with more bear detections at forested sheltered sites and less at exposed sites, likely due to the influence of habitat on bear perception of safety. The number of people negatively influenced adult male detection rates, but we found no influence on female with young detections, providing no evidence that females responded behaviorally to a human shield effect from reduced male activity. We also observed apparent trade‐offs of risk avoidance and foraging. When salmon levels were moderate to high, detected bears were more likely to be females with young than adult males on days with more people present. Should managers want to minimize human impacts on bear activity and maintain baseline age–sex class composition at ecotourism sites, multiday closures and daily occupancy limits may be effective. More broadly, this work revealed that antipredator responses can vary with intensity of risk cues, habitat structure, and forage trade‐offs and manifest as altered age–sex class composition of individuals using human‐influenced areas, highlighting that wildlife avoid people across multiple spatiotemporal scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]