State of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the wildlife management profession
Abstract
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), described as the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the ecosystem, has always been part of Indigenous communities and their daily lives; however, TEK has progressively been incorporated into the academic and professional field of North American wildlife management and ecology despite its historical domination by Western scientific attitudes, knowledge, and methods. The objective of this note is to provide an overview of such progression from the standpoint of the first author, an Indigenous professional trained in a Western scientific paradigm. More specifically, the paper categorizes the history and the current state of TEK in the wildlife management profession while providing insights for the future of the field.
“… 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 2018:8).
Broadly, TEK generally describes the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the ecosystem of a particular geographic or culturally defined place. More specifically, TEK is a way-of-being, with cultural, spiritual, and societal ties all together reflecting an active involvement with the ecosystem and its management (McGregor 2004, Whyte 2013, Ramos 2018).
Indigenous peoples have commonly used the terms knowledge and science interchangeably (Cajete 1999, Ramos 2018). For Indigenous peoples, Indigenous science therefore encompasses all Indigenous knowledge, including TEK (Cajete 1999, Fortmann and Ballard 2011, Ramos 2018). This is because Indigenous science follows a process of observation, theory, experimentation, replication, and problem-solving (Baker 1996, Kawagley et al. 1998, Ramos 2018). Nonetheless, Indigenous science and Western science are not treated the same. The predominant idea of science and research that most people have grown accustomed to today is generally Western science, which is recognized as legitimate because of its process referred to as the scientific method (Kawagley et al. 1998). As it pertains to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Western science has dominated the field (and all other North American scientific fields). As such, Western science has been determined as the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy (Organ et al. 2012).
The value of TEK, however, does not come from aspects that overlap with Western scientific principles but in its distinctive differences; TEK is holistic, communal, inclusive, spiritual, diachronic, and reciprocal (Berkes 1993). Traditional Ecological Knowledge is valid because of the profound human-ecological integration that is incumbent upon Western science to ignore; TEK embraces spiritual, cultural, social, and relational connections between humans and nature (many of which are not material), whereas Western science focuses on quantifiable relationships. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is an applicable method for Indigenous citizens, researchers, and scientists to use in decision-making, policy, and applied management within the confines of contemporary wildlife and fisheries research and management.
Recognition of the unique value of TEK is growing and leading to its acknowledgement as a way for wildlife managers, including academics and practitioners, to identify new (from a Western scientific view) avenues to reach field-desired goals including conservation of biodiversity, populations of rare species, and ecological processes (Mazzocchi 2008, Bird et al. 2012, Ramos 2022). This recognition and relatively recent adoption by Western academics and practitioners, however, has not been straightforward or easy. Traditional Ecological Knowledge has undergone various stages of adoption by wildlife management professionals (Huntington and the communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay, and Shaktoolik 1999), governmental agencies (White House Council on Environmental Quality and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 2022), and academia (Jessen et al. 2022, Souther et al. 2023).
In this note, we offer a categorization of our perceived stages of adoption of North American TEK within wildlife management. Our goal is to shed light on the advancements and setbacks that have occurred during the different periods of TEK's adoption within Western scientific institutions. To best outline the transitional state periods, we organized the categories chronologically, but note that each period is not static and there is constant fluctuation and ebb and flow between periods. We caution, however, this paper is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the literature, nor a complete description of TEK, as those publications already exist (Inglis 1993, Kimmerer 2002, Ramos 2018, Wildcat 2022, Hoagland and Albert 2023). The content of this note has been developed primarily by the perspectives of the first author, an early career Indigenous professional, with the support and guidance of the second and third authors.
He (Werdel) was born on the Lake Traverse Reservation in present-day South Dakota, USA, where many of his maternal relatives still reside. His mother is a citizen of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, and his grandfather is a citizen of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. His academic and professional experience (currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife, and Fisheries Management at Texas A&M University) in wildlife management has been developed through the lens of Western science, specifically within land-grant universities, while his understanding of TEK has been his lived experiences and kindred relationships.
STATE OF TEK WITHIN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
We categorized the status of TEK into 5 periods including elitism, recognition, preservation, implementation, exploitation, and equity (Figure 1). Within each subsection, we provide a brief history, relevant literature, and our own perceptions on when and how transitions to subsequent states occurred.
Elitism
“It is, of course, absurd to assume that the Indians fired the forests with any idea of forest conservation in mind” (Leopold 1920:12).
Unfortunately, this was the result of the historical dogma of European colonization of North America under the application of the international legal principle (articulated through multiple Papal Bulls; Dunbar-Ortiz 2023), known as the Doctrine of Discovery, and elements within it, such as terra nulius (i.e., land or earth that is null, void, or empty; Miller 2011), which separated Indigenous peoples from a connection to the land according to law. United States Federal Indian Law further dispossessed many Indigenous peoples of their lands and natural resources, forcibly acquiring lands and often removing Indigenous inhabitants to completely different North American regions (Cronin and Ostergren 2007). Compounding their removal from traditional homelands, Indigenous peoples of the United States suffered increased land loss and land-holding fragmentation on reservations during the Allotment Era because of the abuse and manipulation of land sales (Carlson 1981, Banner 2005, Otis 2014). Predictably, these colonial philosophies towards Indigenous peoples underlaid the foundation and management applications for many disciplines, including wildlife management (Yarbrough 2015).
Such historical ideologies still play a large part in contemporary wildlife management in North America, with many Western scientists continuing to embrace the historical views of Aldo Leopold, widely considered the father (Bury 2006), or even prophet (Frese 2003), of wildlife conservation and management in the United States. His seminal work of the discipline, Game management (Leopold 1933), ushered in a new era of western paradigms of wildlife management (which notably failed to recognize contributions of Indigenous peoples to wildlife management), and his magnum opus, A Sand County Almanac (Leopold 1949), is a stalwart in ecology and management courses to this day. Nonetheless, Leopold is just one of a handful of early conservationists, including John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Thoreau, whose philosophies established the basis for much of the land and wildlife management ideals of the last century. These leaders' thinking and writing (e.g., nature existing independently from human activity) reflected the philosophies that diminished Indigenous groups and their ways of life, including their TEK. These management approaches generally pertained to wilderness and the need to conserve wild places, without much reverence given to pre-existing Indigenous rights and sovereignty (Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851, Treaty of Medicine Creek in 1854, Treaty of Point Elliott in 1855, Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868, among others; Kappler 1904) or scientific evidence (Bennett et al. 2021) of land and wildlife management practiced by Indigenous peoples of North America since time immemorial. Furthermore, a tactic of some governmental agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest Service) was to actively suppress TEK by creating a narrative to discredit (savage narrative), downplay (vanishing Indian narrative), and erase (terra nulius narrative) TEK in North America (Vinyeta 2022).
This ingrained philosophy led many scientists practicing in the wildlife management field to predominantly view wildlife as subjects of ecological systems in which humans are not members (Bhattacharyya and Slocombe 2017), at least not as beneficial participants. As a result, TEK was not considered legitimately valuable for the management of land or wildlife and was actively suppressed or disregarded from the time of European contact until the relatively recent period of recognition.
Recognition
Recognition of TEK (Figure 1) by Western scientists has been in a state of constant evolution since the era of self-determination (1961-present; Getches et al. 2011), characterized by an outburst in civil rights activism concerned with tribal sovereignty. Subsequent Indigenous legal victories concerning self-governance in wildlife and fisheries management (Menominee Tribe v. United States 391 U.S. 404 [1968], New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe 462 U.S. 324 1983 [1983]; Czech 1995) inspired Western scientific wildlife management plans and literature to value and include TEK in the form of Indigenous wildlife management collaborations (Huntington 2000). This has led to a near consensus understanding that, although unacknowledged by the founders of the North American conservation ethic, from time immemorial, Indigenous peoples have actively managed the natural world and nature did not exist independently from human activity in North America prior to European exploration (Lake and Christianson 2019, Hessami et al. 2022).
The above circumstances led to recent changes in the ways people thought and valued TEK. The discipline, as a result, experienced a substantial shift in the recognition of Indigenized research studies, which present mutual forms of dialogue, research, theory, and action (Kovach 2016, Ramos 2022). It took nearly 40 years of transition (~1960−2000) for TEK to become fully recognized within the peer-reviewed literature, but a plethora of works have been published on Indigenous wildlife management and TEK over the last 2 decades (Gilchrist et al. 2005, Dowsley 2009, Polfus et al. 2014, Peacock et al. 2020, Schley et al. 2022). This is a testament to the adoption of TEK, with recent publications indicating a statistically significant increase in TEK literature over the same time period (Jessen et al. 2022, Souther et al. 2023). Additionally, Indigenous research methodologies (Chalmers 2017, Smith 2021) have gained traction as a potential course of action (Ramos 2018) in which TEK and research in wildlife management is more appropriately conducted with, rather than on, Indigenous communities (Lavallée 2009).
Reflecting such recognition, examples of Indigenous-managed ecosystems and Indigenous techniques are now impossible for Western scientists to ignore. For instance, Indigenous peoples traditionally applied direct population management of fish and wildlife, whether to create sustainable fisheries (Brown 2006), reduce competition with predators (e.g., wolves [Canis lupus], McIlwraith 2012, Simons 2014; otters [Enhydra lutris], Slade et al. 2022), or harvest game sustainably (LaRiviere and Crawford 2013). It is also now known how fire was extensively used by Indigenous peoples as a management tool to influence the structure of ecological communities (Huffman 2013) and improve the quantity, quality, and functionality of valued resources (Stewart 2002, Lake et al. 2017). The regular application of prescribed fire by Indigenous groups was even used for the persistence of some traditional and culturally significant plants, such as beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax; Peter and Shebitz 2006) and camas (Camassia quamash; Wray and Anderson 2003). Furthermore, Indigenous peoples used fire to manipulate habitat and habitat use by bison (Bison bison; Roos et al. 2018).
Preservation
Currently, and after the establishment of the importance and subsequent recognition of TEK by Western scientists, much of the focus has shifted to the preservation of such sacred ancestral knowledge by both Western scientists and Indigenous communities (Figure 1). As TEK has been largely passed down through generations via Indigenous oral traditions (e.g., stories, songs, ceremony; Kimmerer 2002), preservation has been particularly challenging given the rate of loss of Indigenous languages and fluent elders. Such loss threatens to erase eons of ecosystem knowledge (related to wildlife management, not to discount cultural practices; Saynes-Vásquez et al. 2013).
Language loss has been particularly acute in North America, primarily due to the settler colonial practices and genocide (Hinton et al. 2014) imposed on the continent's Indigenous populations (Crawford 1995). Among some of such colonial practices, boarding schools were notably impactful for Indigenous children in the United States and Canada, as these institutions were predominantly English-speaking only, and the use of traditional Indigenous languages and cultural practices by students was punished severely (e.g., whippings, head shaving [L. Pettie, citizen of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa and Indian Boarding School survivor, personal communication]; Reyhner 2018). These methods of assimilation and cultural erasure were effective, as the approximately 300 (or greater) native languages spoken in North America circa 1492 had been reduced to around 190 by 1992 (Reyhner and Tennant 1995).
It became therefore (and remains) important for Indigenous peoples to retain TEK that has not yet been lost, reinforce the Indigenous knowledge base, and transfer TEK to subsequent generations (Hoagland 2017). Although the practice of publishing within Western science avenues that emerged in the previous period (i.e., recognition) has strengthened and encouraged the preservation of TEK, Indigenous-led initiatives are more desirable because of cultural, place-based ties to the knowledge. With that goal in mind, and based on the challenges noted above, the first step in the preservation of TEK has been to sustain Indigenous languages. This has been done through a variety of ways, with examples including the instruction of Indigenous languages in Indigenous communities' education systems (e.g., elementary schools, Tribal Colleges and Universities), use of Indigenous language in Tribal governance, and development of Indigenous language early childhood programs (Reyhner and Tennant 1995). Nonetheless, the existential threat of language loss is never ending (exacerbated as Tribal Elders are lost) and retention of Indigenous languages should be considered an ongoing ambition. For those knowledge holders who decide it is appropriate to participate in knowledge transfer outside of Indigenous communities, academic works and collaboration are additional ways to document and disseminate TEK.
Implementation
Through the process of recognition and preservation, implementation of TEK (e.g., Indigenized research studies, collaboration with Western scientists) became possible (Figure 1). This period is characterized by an increase in the production of academic literature authored by Indigenous peoples, Indigenous-led research, and Indigenous and Western scientific collaborative research, all of which have provided the Western world with knowledge that has been applied by Western scientists and practitioners. That is, beyond recognition within academia, TEK is being applied within research designs, management programs, and as a field technique. Furthermore, TEK has been incorporated into many governmental management plans and assessments, and stands as a reaffirmation of Indigenous management authority (Huntington et al. 2002).
Indigenous researchers have made efforts to reclaim TEK by determining its use and how it is or is not appropriately merged and incorporated within Western scientific frameworks. Mason et al. (2012) summarizes the fundamental differences between TEK and Western science, but a principal similarity between the 2 knowledge bases is the intention to improve our understanding of the natural world via repeated observations (Hoagland 2017). Incorporating both methods in a complementary approach is an advantageous way to identify solutions to many of the significant environmental issues confronting contemporary scientists (Menzies 2006, Lertzman 2010). Academics and researchers in wildlife management have found unique ways to blend TEK and Western science, with Huntington (2000) recommending using multidisciplinary approaches, such as semi-directive interviews, field-based experiences, collaborations, and workshops (Hoagland 2017).
Although there are benefits to the appropriate merging of TEK and Western science, it is important to clarify that TEK does not need a Western scientific framework to provide significant value to the wildlife management field (Ramos 2018, 2022). Indigenous peoples have survived throughout millennia in North America, and the presence of Indigenous peoples today is confirmation that sustainability is at the core of TEK—no peer-review required. Journals within the field are working to become more flexible and inclusive of TEK submissions, as evidenced by The Journal of Wildlife Management's special section on Indigenous Wildlife Management and the multiple working groups and sections within professional societies focused on TEK (Newman 2021). It is noticeable within the published literature, however, that TEK-focused works are often selected for opinion (Ramos 2018), commentary (Lertzman 2010), or review (Cheveau et al. 2008) articles unless accompanied by a Western scientific collaborator or framework (Polfus et al. 2014). For this reason, a specific Indigenized journal framework, regarding alternative reviewing (tribal and Indigenous-literate peer-reviewers), formatting, data management, and authorship rules, may be warranted within high profile wildlife-specific journals. Traditional Ecological Knowledge practitioners do not need to endeavor to constrain themselves to the limits of Western scientific frameworks. The resolution of complex problems of ecology and wildlife management can only benefit from a diversity of intellectual approaches, and the inclusion of TEK into the field may validate and encourage underrepresented Indigenous students entering the discipline.
Exploitation
The negative consequence of placing value on TEK by Western scientists is the opportunity for the exploitation of Indigenous peoples and their knowledge (Figure 1). In To you we shall return, Marshall (2010) recalls a Lakota story of a giant who came from the East, had an insatiable hunger, and caused ecological devastation wherever it traveled. It is an obvious allegory to the colonial mindset that has even permeated our field, one that has a focus on ecological conservation and management. Along with the positive recognition and implementation of TEK, it is now in vogue and ripe for exploitation as an academic and funding commodity. A common approach for researchers is to engage Indigenous communities, purely to gather data related to TEK, then integrate the data into management structures that benefit and conform to Western science (Nadasdy 1999, Roth 2004, Dowsley and Wenzel 2008, Ramos 2022).
Traditional Ecological Knowledge should not be treated as a resource or tool simply waiting to be extracted by Western scientists but should require cooperative relationships and an understanding of the cohesive, internally consistent worldview to which it belongs (Kimmerer 2002, Menzies 2006). In terms of TEK as data, it is important that Western scientists respect Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance, in which Indigenous communities have the agency to decide who speaks for the community, who should be able to use local TEK, and how the data may be shared, and that it is the right of Indigenous peoples to hold complete international ownership over their data in any form (Rainie et al. 2017, Ramos 2018, Carroll et al. 2019, Jennings et al. 2023). The lack of respect for these data rights is exploitation of TEK by Western scientists and is an act of Western science elitism, as it removes self-determination from Indigenous peoples (Wenzel 1999). The history of research abuse and exploitation of Indigenous peoples in North America is extensive and has justly resulted in severe distrust of Western scientific researchers (Hodge 2012). Western scientists have historically been uncommitted to equal partnerships with Indigenous communities, purely seeking access to TEK for their own purposes (Gordon Iñupiaq et al. 2023). A review of climate research expressed that 87% of research using TEK was exploitative and Indigenous communities were not equal partners within the research process (David-Chavez and Gavin 2018). Exploitation reinforces a Western science colonial power dynamic and reverses any equitable progress within the discipline.
The use of TEK is subject to the same rules that apply to other data collaborations (e.g., citations, authorship) and necessitates the utmost degree of ethical treatment (Wenzel 1999). To provide an additional protection from exploitation, management and research goals should be discussed and agreed upon by all collaborators (e.g., knowledge holders and Western scientists; Ramos 2018) prior to soliciting funding or undertaking any fieldwork. Indigenous collaborators are much more likely to participate and be appreciative if they have influence on research parameters, methods, and outcomes (Spoon and Arnold 2012). Importantly, TEK should not be forced into projects that researchers believe validate TEK, as this implies that TEK is only intended to complement Western science (Menzies 2006). Unfortunately for researchers looking for a definitive method of collaboration (i.e., trying their best to not be exploitative), there is no universally appropriate technique because Indigenous peoples are not uniform across the World. For this reason, authentic relationship building is the most appropriate first step in forming true collaborative partnerships between TEK and Western scientists. Building these relationships requires additional time and effort from both parties, but is the only way to ethically collaborate (Nelson 2023).
Equity
Equity among TEK and Western science is not yet realized within the field of wildlife management, but many professionals are endeavoring to create an equitable environment (Newman 2021). Contemporary academics have been calling for inclusivity of TEK into Western science research activities (Molnár and Babai 2021, Harris et al. 2023), but that is not a true form of equity within the discipline. Equity will be achieved only when TEK and Indigenous research methodologies (Chalmers 2017) are respected comparatively with Western science frameworks. Peer review is an institutional gatekeeper for evaluation of scientific research and is linked to professional success and impact (Siler et al. 2015). Thus, it is imperative that TEK with Indigenous research methodologies are granted access. This may begin with flexibility in journal submissions, such as TEK-specific article formats. Ultimately, the discipline needs the creation of a new type of peer-review system, with the objective of advancing TEK using appropriate methods for gathering and sharing TEK (which may or may not include Western science), and a peer-review process that includes TEK practitioners (who may or may not have Western scientific training). True equity will occur when professionals within the discipline move away from the Euro-centric idea of intellectual supremacy of Western science over other ways of knowing (e.g., intuition, spiritual insight, testimony).
As outlined in previous sections, TEK and Western science have aspects of compatibility and methodological overlap. We have intentionally avoided identifying TEK as science because of the association of science within a Western scientific framework. Others may find an approach of integration into Western science a more appropriate path towards equity, with multiple Indigenous and Western scholars (Cajete 1999, Cobern and Loving 2001, Snively and Corsiglia 2001, Fortmann and Ballard 2011) contending that TEK is science and should be treated as such. In this type of integrative approach, TEK would be incorporated into the Western science framework, with considerable overlap in research methodologies, essentially assimilating TEK into Western science (Figure 2A).
Yet, in our opinion, TEK is much more than science, as it is a distinct, transcendent way of understanding human-ecosystem connections, free from the rigid, systematic approach of Western ideology. It allows a unique perspective that may not always fit into the Western scientific paradigm, but if identified as uniquely separate from Western science (Figure 2B), it may provide the greatest benefit to contemporary understanding of ecosystem functions. In this case, from our perspective, collaboration may occur when management and research goals align, but TEK management and research can also operate completely independently, with equitable contribution to the wildlife management discipline. This approach may be comparable to the idea of ethical space, in which the philosophical space between 2 distinct cultures is where cooperation can be pursued that inevitably creates innovative opportunities to collaborate (Ermine 2007).
Perceived credibility of professionals within the discipline will likely align with occupation-related social markers, such as historical professional titles and education levels (Fortmann and Ballard 2011, Ramos 2018). If early career Indigenous professionals are to continue to provide a diverse worldview to the profession, they may need to do so in conventional academic or professional roles, and if these conventional opportunities are not afforded, then the entire progression of the discipline related to TEK has likely been insincere. There has been an observed uptick in opportunities for Indigenous scientists and for those who have expertise in TEK, and universities and associated wildlife management agencies must treat TEK as an essential component of any wildlife management curriculum or plan. This should foster professional opportunities for TEK specialists (e.g., professionals with expertise in TEK and experience interacting with Indigenous communities, researchers, and policymakers) and promote engagement of university and agency personnel with TEK specialists, whether or not those TEK specialists are on the same staff. Wildlife management curriculums are incomplete without TEK instruction and literacy, and wildlife management plans lacking historical context of TEK in defined management areas are insufficient in providing holistic management recommendations. Additionally, with an increase of TEK faculty within university systems, it may make sense to create degree programs focused solely on TEK. This will allow Indigenous scholars to keep and display their intellectual traditions instead of conforming them to Western science.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The authors declare that this opinion/perspective article adheres to the highest ethical standards. All information presented is based on verifiable sources, and any opinions expressed are grounded in scholarly research and professional experience. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any affiliated institutions or organizations. No conflicts of interest exist that could influence the content or conclusions presented in this article.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
REFERENCES
-
Associate Editor: Jonathan Gilbert.
