Suchergebnisse

The cohabitation between men and wolves arouses passions but also scientific questions. Recent ecological studies show that human activities have an unquestionable influence on wolves' behavior. In the same way, if one refers to various ethnological works, it is undeniable that human populations are sensitive to this neighbor whose presence is marked both materially and symbolically. However, in spite of the apparent reciprocity of the relationship between these two species, they were studied up to now only in a unilateral way by ecology, ethology and ethnology. Now, the analysis of data resulting from my fieldwork in Kyrgyzstan shows a more complex reality to the relationship, which compels us to reconsider the way of treating it. The cohabitation between wolves and men, as experienced by Kyrgyz for centuries, is indeed assimilated to a real inter-relationship made up of reciprocal influences. Kyrgyz and wolves seem thus to be involved in an interactive and dynamic relational system. The latter imposes for its study a new approach, one that is more global and dialectical, concerned with the interspecific character of the relationship. However, such an approach inevitably raises methodological if not epistemological problems this article wishes to highlight.

International audience ; Few empirical studies have described social-ecological systems (SESs) in transition. Some studies focused on external drivers that impact the SES and communities' responses to adapt to changes, including economic, land and conservation policies. Others have considered the effect of social and cultural changes on communities' capacity to sustain their activities. While sociocultural changes are increasingly common through globalization and world-wide economic development, there is an urgent need to better understand and document how these changes affect individual and community agency to adapt or transform a system that is facing a combination of powerful internal and external forces. The human–Asian elephant relationship appears particularly illustrative of a complex SES because of the dual status of the elephant being wild or under human care, and the entanglement of ecological, cultural, social and economic dimensions. The ongoing and rapid political, socio-economic and environmental changes occurring in Laos for the last decades have strongly affected this relationship.

International audience ; Few empirical studies have described social-ecological systems (SESs) in transition. Some studies focused on external drivers that impact the SES and communities' responses to adapt to changes, including economic, land and conservation policies. Others have considered the effect of social and cultural changes on communities' capacity to sustain their activities. While sociocultural changes are increasingly common through globalization and world-wide economic development, there is an urgent need to better understand and document how these changes affect individual and community agency to adapt or transform a system that is facing a combination of powerful internal and external forces. The human–Asian elephant relationship appears particularly illustrative of a complex SES because of the dual status of the elephant being wild or under human care, and the entanglement of ecological, cultural, social and economic dimensions. The ongoing and rapid political, socio-economic and environmental changes occurring in Laos for the last decades have strongly affected this relationship.

International audience ; Few empirical studies have described social-ecological systems (SESs) in transition. Some studies focused on external drivers that impact the SES and communities' responses to adapt to changes, including economic, land and conservation policies. Others have considered the effect of social and cultural changes on communities' capacity to sustain their activities. While sociocultural changes are increasingly common through globalization and world-wide economic development, there is an urgent need to better understand and document how these changes affect individual and community agency to adapt or transform a system that is facing a combination of powerful internal and external forces. The human–Asian elephant relationship appears particularly illustrative of a complex SES because of the dual status of the elephant being wild or under human care, and the entanglement of ecological, cultural, social and economic dimensions. The ongoing and rapid political, socio-economic and environmental changes occurring in Laos for the last decades have strongly affected this relationship.

International audience ; Few empirical studies have described social-ecological systems (SESs) in transition. Some studies focused on external drivers that impact the SES and communities' responses to adapt to changes, including economic, land and conservation policies. Others have considered the effect of social and cultural changes on communities' capacity to sustain their activities. While sociocultural changes are increasingly common through globalization and world-wide economic development, there is an urgent need to better understand and document how these changes affect individual and community agency to adapt or transform a system that is facing a combination of powerful internal and external forces. The human–Asian elephant relationship appears particularly illustrative of a complex SES because of the dual status of the elephant being wild or under human care, and the entanglement of ecological, cultural, social and economic dimensions. The ongoing and rapid political, socio-economic and environmental changes occurring in Laos for the last decades have strongly affected this relationship.

International audience ; Few empirical studies have described social-ecological systems (SESs) in transition. Some studies focused on external drivers that impact the SES and communities' responses to adapt to changes, including economic, land and conservation policies. Others have considered the effect of social and cultural changes on communities' capacity to sustain their activities. While sociocultural changes are increasingly common through globalization and world-wide economic development, there is an urgent need to better understand and document how these changes affect individual and community agency to adapt or transform a system that is facing a combination of powerful internal and external forces. The human–Asian elephant relationship appears particularly illustrative of a complex SES because of the dual status of the elephant being wild or under human care, and the entanglement of ecological, cultural, social and economic dimensions. The ongoing and rapid political, socio-economic and environmental changes occurring in Laos for the last decades have strongly affected this relationship.

A key controversy in conservation is the framing of the relationship between people and nature. The extent to which the realms of nature and human culture are viewed as separate (dualistic view) or integrated is often discussed in the social sciences. To explore how this relationship is represented in the practice of conservation in Europe, we considered examples of cultural landscapes, wildlife (red deer, reindeer, horses), and protected area management. We found little support, for a dualistic worldview, where people and nature are regarded as separate in the traditional practice of conservation in Europe. The borders between nature and culture, wild and domestic, public land and private land, and between protected areas and the wider landscape were blurred and dynamic. The institutionalized (in practice and legislation) view is of an interactive mutualistic system in which humans and nature share the whole landscape. However, more dualistic ideals, such as wilderness and rewilding that are challenging established practices are expanding. In the context of modern day Europe, wilderness conservation and rewilding are not valid for the whole landscape, although it is possible to integrate some areas of low-intervention management into a wider matrix. A precondition for success is to recognize and plan for a plurality of values concerning the most valid approaches to conservation and to plan for this plurality at the landscape scale.

International audience ; Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ,580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over onethird of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12 451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced human presence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In addition to non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolf attacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and everevolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.

International audience ; Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ,580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over onethird of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12 451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced human presence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In addition to non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolf attacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and everevolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.

International audience ; Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ,580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over onethird of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12 451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced human presence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In addition to non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolf attacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and everevolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.

International audience ; Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ,580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over onethird of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12 451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced humanpresence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In additionto non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolfattacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and everevolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.

International audience ; Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ,580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over onethird of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12 451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced human presence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In addition to non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolf attacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and everevolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.

International audience ; Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ,580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over onethird of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12 451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced human presence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In addition to non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolf attacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and everevolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.