Indigenizing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

The Public Trust Doctrine is a foundational principal of the NAM related to who owns wildlife and how wildlife management decisions are made (Geist and Organ 2004; Prukop and Regan 2005; Smith 2011). Under the Public Trust Doctrine, wildlife are managed for the common good, held in custodianship by trained professionals who serve as trustees (Brulle and Pellow 2006), and are made accountable by the beneficiaries—the public (Organ et al. 2012). Moreover, this tenet hinges on a philosophy of human dominion and custodianship over wildlife, which are viewed as a resource.

Unregulated market hunting and commercial demand for wild game and nongame species led to drastic and sometimes catastrophic declines of wildlife populations across North America in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries (Geist and Organ 2004). The elimination of such markets (i.e., restaurants selling wild game), was an essential step in halting rapid declines for wildlife species (Geist et al. 2001). However, market processes are still in place in some jurisdictions for furs, antlers, and bounties.

This tenet describes how wildlife is to be allocated amongst citizens via an equitable democratic process. Geist et al. (2001, pp. 177–178) stated that “surplus wildlife is allocated to the public for consumption by law, not by the market, land ownership, or special privileges”. The motivation for this tenet is that statutory-based hunting regulations, seasons, licenses, and draws form the governance structure that determines who and where a person can legally harvest an animal and what procedures they have to follow afterwards. These laws invoke safety, principles of “fair chase”, and ways to provide opportunity to engage in hunting (Posewitz 1994).

As outlined by Geist et al. (2001), to harvest an animal, the reasoning must be for legitimate purposes, in accordance with the law, and not for frivolous purpose. Access to wildlife for hunting must be allotted through legal mechanisms such as hunting seasons, bag limits, and license requirements. The origins of this tenet date back to the start of the 20th century, when the New York Sportsmen’s Club and the Boone and Crockett Club developed game laws and fair chase ethics to address imperiled wildlife populations in the wake of market hunting (Geist et al. 2001).

This tenet highlights the importance of collaboration and allyship between governments in the interest of wildlife conservation. Geist et al. (2001, pp. 18–19) emphasized that: “wildlife transcend boundaries, and one sovereign state’s interests can be affected by another’s management.” A notable success in international wildlife conservation is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1916, which triggered a unified science-based approach to increase the abundance of migratory waterfowl and protect their habitats in the interest of conservation and hunting opportunity (Organ et al. 2012). Today, collaboration on a broad suite of wildlife conservation issues across North America continues to be paramount to conserving wildlife.

The application of best-available science is key to guiding wildlife management and policy. Rooted in the writings of Aldo Leopold’s (1933) book, Game Management, Leopold called for decision-making to be based on evidence, scientific study, and expert opinion rather than the interests of capital, political gain, or unsubstantiated interest. Importantly, the definition of science-based decision-making is evolving, relevant to the best-available tools to discharge (i.e., operationalize) wildlife policy (Decker et al. 2009).

The seventh tenet revolves around the premise of fair and public deliberations for setting hunting regulations, conserving wildlife, as well as the opportunity to harvest wildlife. In essence, this tenet echo’s the first regarding a public trust, and is based on the principle that “the opportunity for citizens in good standing to hunt in Canada and the U.S. is a hallmark of our democracy” (Organ et al. 2012, p. 23).

The history of the Public Trust Doctrine, a foundational principle iterated throughout the NAM, is rooted in a colonial, settler legacy (Eichler and Baumeister 2018). The inception of the NAM and language surrounding public trust, democracy, and common good, were conceived in the wake of Indigenous persecution and, thus, circumvented any consultation, recognition, or inclusion of the unique perspectives and conservation practices Indigenous Peoples practiced on landscapes they lived on for thousands of years (Eichler and Baumeister 2018). Currently, the notion that the public holds the trustees (i.e., government) accountable for wildlife conservation (Organ et al. 2012) seemingly excludes Indigenous Peoples as belonging to the public because few jurisdictions in Canada or North America afford Indigenous governments equitable input in wildlife conservation decision-making (Eichler and Baumeister 2018; Artelle et al. 2019). As a result, the language and historical context of the public trust in the NAM is exclusive to colonial culture.

Despite the outdated language and historical exclusivity of the Public Trust Doctrine—many Indigenous worldviews share the core values implicated throughout the NAM’s first tenet. For example, many Indigenous worldviews prioritize safeguarding wildlife for future generations and uphold the notion that no individual owns wildlife (Asch 2014; Tran et al. 2020). However, Indigenous worldviews can have differing and more complex perspectives and priorities regarding by who or how the process of conserving wildlife is organized (Kimmerer 2013; Reid et al. 2021). For example, wildlife is referred to as a resource throughout the NAM’s first tenet (Organ et al. 2012), contradicting many Indigenous worldviews that instead define wildlife, and people, as an interdependent, connected, and related component of living systems (Aikenhead and Michell 2011; Kimmerer 2013). As denoted by Henry Lickers (2007), Biologist and member of the Turtle Clan of the Seneca Nation: “First Nations people view themselves not as custodians, stewards or having dominion over the Earth, but as an integrated part in the family of the Earth.”

In the interest of reconciliation, practitioners of the NAM must understand these gaps and linkages surrounding the public trust and work to equitably represent Indigenous governments into statutory and nonstatutory decision-making (Artelle et al. 2019). More inclusive language in this tenet can better acknowledge the coexistence of different worldviews (Fig. 1).

Many Indigenous Peoples of Canada inhabit remote areas that prevent convenient and affordable access to global supply chains of food, medicine, clothing, and modern amenities (Langton 2003; Snook et al. 2020). Thus, a small, yet significant, number of Indigenous communities across Canada depend on wildlife as a critical part of their food security and sovereignty (Lambden et al. 2007). At times, wildlife harvest is not restricted to direct consumption. For example, Inuit have hunted and traded seals (Pinniped species) for over 3000 years (Jírová 2019). While the commercial sale of seal pelts is a culturally important practice providing much needed economic support, misplaced actions by animal rights activists have interrupted this commodity (Farquhar 2020). It is the explicit effort to achieve a sustainable harvest that links this second tenet of the NAM and ILC. Netukulimk, is a guiding principle used by the Mi’kmaq that works to ensure the use of wildlife or nature occurs without jeopardizing the integrity of the environment for future generations and ensures adequate standards of community nutrition and well-being (Prosper et al. 2011; McMillan and Prosper 2016).

It is important for non-Indigenous user groups to understand the scale of these Indigenous markets (i.e., marine mammals, fur, fisheries) and the impacts that harvest has on wildlife populations (Stephany 2015; Daigle 2019). Commercial fisheries and Indigenous Peoples rights to trade and sell wildlife species are excluded from discussions of the NAM. Yet practices of trade and reciprocity are foundational to social structures, community well-being, and situation of wealth within and between communities (Berkes et al. 1998; Salmón 2000). Disruption, or lacking recognition of such structures undermines the self-determination and traditional practices of Indigenous communities (Farquhar 2020). For instance, the 1975 (to present) hunt moratorium of the Mealy Mountain Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) herd in Nunatsiavut (Labrador) has had enduring implications to Inuit whose cultural identity and livelihood are centered around caribou (Snook et al. 2020). A holistic understanding and update to this tenet could commence change in how Canadian wildlife practitioners and policy makers shape and influence decision-making in the 21st century (Borrows 2019).

Social constructs (i.e., ethics, norms, laws) and regulations are foundational to the protection and effective management of wildlife species in Canada (Passelac-Ross 2006; McCance 2019). Under Section 35 of the (1982) Canadian Constitution Act, treaty and nontreaty Indigenous governments have jurisdiction over all wildlife on their reserves except where endangered species legislation may be applied (McNeil 1988; Organ et al. 2012). In addition, Indigenous Peoples are predominately limited to harvest wildlife in their respective Traditional Territory or Treaty Land, and often need permission from the Chief and Council of the host nation if they are to hunt off their land (Borrows 2019). Indigenous harvest laws may differ substantially from non-Indigenous laws and regulations. Throughout Canada, these differences in wildlife conservation laws have set the stage for significant cultural conflict, spread of misinformation, and hindrances to cooperative wildlife management and conservation (Nadasdy 2003; Whiteman 2009).

Absent from the NAM is the acknowledgment that many Indigenous communities across Canada did, and still do, practice laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife harvest (Sherry 1999; Nisga’a Lisims Government 2018; Popp et al. 2019). Indigenous laws and regulations differ from Western constructs by complexity and relationship to the land but can share similar values, such as safeguarding wildlife for future generations (McGregor 2018). As expressed by Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013, p. 190) “Living by the precepts of the Honorable Harvest—to take only what is given, to use it well, to be grateful for the gift, and to reciprocate the gift.” Honorable Harvest drives many Indigenous harvest practices across Canada. In the Yukon, Gwitchin First Nation caribou hunters would “let the leaders pass” to avoid shooting caribou leaders of the Porcupine herd to ensure continued migration fidelity (Sherry 1999). Similarly, the Gitanyow Nation of northwest British Columbia, who manage moose in accordance with their Indigenous laws, have set strict prohibitions on the harvest of cow moose. Gitanyow hunting is regulated through a system where people must ask permission from the Chiefs and indicate which specific areas they wish to hunt (Popp et al. 2019). With detailed communication between community members and Chiefs, the Gitanyow are able to set harvest quotas that close once harvest reaches a certain threshold (Koch 2016).

The Canadian Guardians program compliments this third tenet of the NAM by operationalizing conservation enforcement and monitoring for wildlife set forth by Indigenous communities (Reed et al. 2021). Important to non-Indigenous Peoples of Canada, the Guardians program strengthens wildlife conservation and monitoring by weaving ILC and self-determination to better understand, manage, and protect the wildlife and vast landscapes of Canada (Wells et al. 2020). The NAM must update its language to reflect the geographical, geopolitical, ecological, linguistic, and cultural differences that shape Indigenous laws and regulations surrounding the harvest of wildlife (Fig. 1) (BC Government 2020).

Defining human-animal relationships is at the heart of the fourth tenet and constitutes what legitimate take is (Geist et al. 2001; Nelson et al. 2011). Prevalent throughout the NAM is objectified language describing the relationship between humans and wildlife, almost entirely under a consumptive Western lens (Feldpausch-Parker et al. 2017). For example, words used to describe harvested wildlife, such as: sport, game, and trophy center a narrow and perhaps even ego-driven motivation to harvest wildlife (Darimont et al. 2017). These words and inherent motivations contradict many Indigenous interpretations of the relationship among wildlife, people, and the land. For example, the Indigenous value system known as “All My Relations,” described as: “…the web of kinship to animals, to the birds, to the fish, to the plants, to all the animate and inanimate forms that can be seen or imagined” (King 1990, p. 71) illustrates a multidimensional relationship with the natural world that the NAM does not relate to. Subsistence, culture, and ceremony are central to the purpose of harvesting wildlife for many Indigenous worldviews (Berkes 1998). Wildlife harvest is also associated with keeping traditions alive, intergenerational knowledge transfer, acquiring materials for utility and art, as well as building and maintaining social bonds (Garibaldi and Turner 2004).

The linkages in this tenet are obscured by the archaic, objectified language in the NAM used to justify the harvest of wildlife, which are absent from a majority of Indigenous worldviews (Eichler and Baumeister 2018). Moreover, 21st century Western linkages to ILC and Indigenous worldview surrounding legitimate take and harvest of wildlife are narrowing. The demographics and socio-political narrative of consumptive-user groups is evolving to a younger, more diverse group that are motivated by the health, ethical, and sustainability benefits of procuring wild organic food from the natural world (Den Hoed 2016; Mahoney and Geist 2019). The NAM must take into consideration more diverse perspectives of what legitimate take entails and alter stereotypes that putatively threaten the social license of hunting (Darimont et al. 2021).

The Indigenous concept “A Dish with One Spoon” developed by Indigenous People of the Great Lake’s region describes how land can be shared to the mutual benefit of all its inhabits (Mann and Fields 1997). Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments of Canada adhere closely to the understanding that wildlife transcend political boundaries and must be conserved cooperatively (Organ et al. 2012). For instance, Canada is a signatory on The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), and now has a legal obligation to share governance with Indigenous governments (Champagne 2013).

Cross-boundary collaboration is a central component of Indigenous governance and has been for millennia (Berkes 2012). Yet there is no mention of Indigenous partnerships or co-management efforts from the conventional NAM (Eichler and Baumeister 2018). Cooperative management, agreements, treaties, and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs) all align directly with the values of this tenet—to work together across boundaries, governments, and nations to maximize oversight of wildlife species (Zurba et al. 2019; Intergovernmental Partners 2020). For example, populations of Snow Geese (kanguit in Inuktut; Chen caerulescens) and Ross’s geese (kangunnait in Inuktut; Chen rossii), referred to as light geese, are a food source for Inuit communities in northern and eastern Canada. These migratory waterfowl are also important to non-Indigenous People of Canada and the USA, as they are commonly hunted for food and sport and generate revenue for conservation (Vrtiska et al. 2013; Sears et al. 2018; Buderman et al. 2020). As part of the Government of Canada and Tuungavik Federation of Nunavut Land Claim Agreement (1993), Inuit Peoples have shared decision-making regarding habitat and light geese management (Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020). In the pacific northwest, the Sagelands Heritage Program is an international (USA, Canada, Yakima, Colville) partnership initiative, spearheaded by Indigenous governments to enhance and restore shrub-steppe landscapes from the British Columbia Okanagan Valley to Washington state’s south–central desert, the Horse Heaven Hills (Conservation Northwest 2020). Included in this initiative is the re-introduction of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana). Lastly, in September of 2014, 13 Indigenous governments from the USA and Canada signed a cross-border ILC treaty to restore plains bison to 25 000 km² of land between both countries (Wilson 2014). The motivations of this treaty are rooted in the vision to restore bison, a large mammal that was the lifeblood of Indigenous Peoples across North America. These case studies are a small capture of Indigenous governments operationalizing the fifth tenet of the NAM across international political boundaries but do not encompass the many Indigenous government to government collaborations across Canada. The inclusion of Indigenous histories, case studies, and agreements on international collaboration must be included in subsequent publications of the NAM, as well as provincial and federal frameworks for managing wildlife (Fig. 1).

Indigenous Peoples have developed complex, deeply rooted systems of knowledge to inform place-based relationships between humans, animals, and plants (Salmón 2000; Reed et al. 2021). However, Indigenous knowledge is not formally recognized by the NAM, as the sixth principle states “science is the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy,” with an apparent focus on Western science paradigms (Organ et al. 2012, p. 21). Indigenous knowledge has been defined as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” (Berkes 2012, p. 8).

Both Indigenous knowledge and Western science produce detailed empirical information about processes in the natural world, but with differing approaches (Polfus et al. 2016). With detailed local information over greater time scales, Indigenous knowledge systems can provide an understanding of our changing environment in ways Western scientific methods alone cannot (Gagnon and Berteaux 2009; Polfus et al. 2016; Thompson et al. 2020; Reid et al. 2021), which in turn aids in the understanding of local adaptation to environmental change (Drew 2005; Smith and Sharp 2012). Western scientific methods, on the other hand, may be important for understanding specific mechanisms of change within ecosystems, determining fine-scale management units (i.e., population vital rates) within species, and for precise quantification when necessary (Riedlinger and Berkes 2001; Artelle et al. 2018b; Bowles et al. 2021). In the Koeye watershed of coastal British Columbia, the Traditional Territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation People, molecular demographic analysis from hair samples revealed a regionally significant population of salmon-feeding grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in a key conservation area. This effort was led by the Heiltsuk, as were the noninvasive Western scientific methods for identifying grizzly bears; importantly, all of this work respected Gvi’ilas’”, or customary law (Housty et al. 2014). These knowledge systems and worldviews are best operationalized when they coexist, cooperate, and weave strengths and weaknesses to work towards solutions (Popp et al. 2019; Reid et al. 2021).

Models exist for weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing (Levac et al. 2018), such as the Kaswentha or Two-Row Wampum (McGregor 2008, p. 150) and Etuaptmumk or Two-Eyed Seeing (Bartlett et al. 2012). The details of the aforementioned models vary in how knowledge systems are woven but retain the integrity of coexistence. Notions of one wildlife management system integrating or incorporating the other undermine the strengths of their unique identity. In Two-Eyed Seeing, Western science is seen through one eye while Indigenous knowledge systems are seen through the other; the knowledge from both systems then transforms the holder who is obliged to act (Bartlett et al. 2012). Two-Eyed Seeing is exemplified by “Learning Together” (Polfus et al. 2016), a project where the Dene Nation in the Northwest Territories worked collaboratively with Western scientists to examine the biocultural diversity of caribou. Many different models for coexistence of knowledge are already being applied in Canada and can provide a path to Plural Coexistence or “a model of cross-cultural relations that acknowledges and respects Indigenous ontologies, or ways of being, and at the same time is attentive to the historical and current dominance of Eurocentric thinking within natural resource management” (Reid et al. 2021, p. 246; Howitt and Suchet‐Pearson 2006; Zanotti and Palomino-Schalscha 2016).

Co-management of wildlife is an adaptive approach to governance, characterized by collaboration, negotiation, joint learning, and problem solving (Pinkerton 2003; Berkes 2009; Popp et al. 2019). The framework under which co-management operates includes shared power and responsibilities between governments (Berkes 2009), cooperative decision-making (Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020), and agreed upon visions for conservation, preservation, or management of wildlife (Houde 2007). Proposals to update the definitions or worldviews of science (Artelle et al. 2018a; Eichler and Baumeister 2018) within the NAM are importantly in deliberation and motion throughout Canada (Housty et al. 2014; Henri et al. 2020; Popp et al. 2020). For instance, the landmark partnership agreement (signed in 2013) between the West Moberly and Saulteau First Nations, the province of British Columbia, and the Government of Canada, sets forth a process by which Indigenous governments will lead efforts to recover the Klinse-Za mountain caribou herd (Intergovernmental Partners 2020). In the eight years since this partnership agreement, the Klinse-Za caribou population has more than doubled, habitat protection has been afforded, and cross-cultural relationships have been fostered. This case study should serve as a blueprint for multiple knowledge and governance systems working together to produce measurable outcomes for wildlife populations (Fig. 1).

The equitable opportunity for all citizens to hunt wildlife “… is a hallmark of our democracy” as stated by Organ et al. (2012). While democratic access and opportunity to hunt wildlife across Canada is not pluralistic between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, neither is the underlying process to conserve wildlife. The latter is perhaps the most important disjunct to address in Indigenizing the NAM because shared decision-making surrounding wildlife conservation has and will continue to play a key role in reconciliation (Henri et al. 2020; Popp et al. 2020).

The Government of British Columbia’s “Together for Wildlife Strategy” (T4W) seeks to democratize the process of conserving and harvesting wildlife between Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments by including significant input from Indigenous Peoples across the province (Morris 2015; Conroy 2016; BC Government 2020). Five core goals and actions are enshrined within T4W. The fifth goal of T4W speaks clearly to the need for reconciliation as a foundational approach to wildlife conservation: “Collaborative wildlife stewardship advances reconciliation with Indigenous governments” (BC Government 2020). Implementation of T4W is being supported though a wildlife advisory council comprised of Indigenous and non-Indigenous community leaders and experts, including the council chairs. T4W came to fruition as the Government of British Columbia formerly ratified UNDRIP (Bill 41) in November of 2019 (Little 2019)—the first government in Canada to do so. While implementation of T4W is still emerging, its governance structure holds promise for British Columbia and if successful could serve as a blueprint for other jurisdictions in Canada who are seeking to democratize and coexist with ILC.