Post on 16-Jan-2023
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
1
The Need for Indigenous Voices in Discourse about Introduced Species: Insights from
Controversy over Wild Horses
JONAKI BHATTACHARYYA and BRENDON M.H. LARSON
Abstract
Culture, livelihoods, and political-economic status all influence people’s perception of
introduced and invasive species, shaping perspectives on what sort of management of them, if
any, is warranted. Indigenous voices and values are under-represented in scholarly discourse
about introduced and invasive species. This paper examines the relationship between the Xeni
Gwet’in First Nation (one of six Tsilhqot’in nations) and wild or free-roaming horses in
British Columbia, Canada. We outline how Xeni Gwet’in people value horses and experience
management actions, contextualizing the controversy over wild horses amidst power
imbalances in the expression of environmental values. We suggest that Indigenous voices are
vital to include when evaluating impacts of controversial species and developing management
strategies.
Keywords: First Nations; invasive species; free-roaming horses; management; power
relations
Introduction
Indigenous peoples may interact with introduced species differently from other cultures,
societies and communities (Pfeiffer and Voeks, 2008; Thistle, 2008/9; Warren, 2007), and
may be particularly affected by authoritarian management and control measures. This paper
elucidates the perspectives of one First Nation – the Xeni Gwet’in1 First Nation (one of six
Tsilhqot’in Nations in the Chilcotin region, British Columbia (B.C.), Canada)2 – towards free-
roaming horses. These horses are an integral part of Xeni Gwet’in culture, which has a
complex set of interrelationships with horses that involves utility within a localized and semi-
traditional economy, respectful co-existence, and cultural identity. The prevalence of horses
in Xeni Gwet’in traditional culture and ways of life, together with the explicit relationship
between free-roaming horses in the Chilcotin and controversies over land use and
1 Pronounced “Ha-nay Gwet-een” (INAC, 2009). 2 The majority of First Nation participants were Xeni Gwet’in, with several being from other Tsilhqot’in Nations. For the most part, we refer to our First Nation participants as Xeni Gwet’in, unless accuracy of a statement warrants specific reference to Tsilhqot’in people or nations more broadly.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
2
conservation, makes this case study a valuable source of insight to the discourse on cultural
perspectives and values around introduced species elsewhere (e.g., Beever and Brussard,
2000b).
Recent scholarly literature recognizes several ways in which discourse about introduced
species and proposed management of problematic “invasive” ones reflects social values
(McNeely, 2001; Rotherham and Lambert, 2011). First, social, political and economic values,
as well as cultural worldviews, affect how labels such as “invasive” are defined and applied to
flora and fauna in specific contexts (Chew and Hamilton, 2011; Kendle and Rose, 2000;
O’Brien, 2006; Warren, 2007). Second, there is often room for debate about the relative costs
and benefits of these species, and thus the appropriateness of management actions taken to
control or eradicate them (Caplat and Coutts, 2011; Marshall et al., 2011). Third, people
experience the social costs and benefits of such species in ways that often correspond to
political, economic, ethnic, or class divisions and associated inequalities of power (Foster and
Sandberg, 2004; Gobster, 2001; Hall, 2009). The ways that introduced and invasive species
are viewed and managed are inextricably linked with livelihood practices and the cultural
relationships people have with the natural world.
Yet there has been limited exploration of the knowledge, experiences, perceptions and
preferences of Indigenous peoples towards introduced and invasive species, particularly when
evaluating their relative costs and benefits. For example, Norgaard (2007) documents an issue
of environmental justice whereby members of the Karuk tribe in California are
disproportionally exposed to the herbicides used to control certain invasive species because of
their cultural practices (e.g., basket-weaving and collecting food plants). In Australia,
Robinson, Smyth and Whitehead (2005) document how the Jaowyn people who own and co-
manage Kakadu National Park evaluate species of feral animals differently than a variety of
stakeholders from settler cultures, distinguishing between “bush tucker” (water buffalo being
an important food source), “bush pets” (horses are affectionately accepted) and “bush pests”
(pigs are a threat to their lands). The small number of existing studies highlights the need for a
more substantial inclusion of Indigenous voices in scholarly discourse about introduced and
invasive species.
While this paper makes no claim that there is any sort of single, homogenous perspective on
horses among First Nations (FN) peoples, there are certain elements common to the
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
3
perspectives shared by Xeni Gwet’in participants in this study regarding free-roaming horses,
their social and ecological relationships, and culturally appropriate ways to manage them. The
goal of this exploration of a single case study is not to produce generalizable “findings” but
rather to generate a broadly relevant set of discussion points, consistent with emerging
Indigenous research methodologies (e.g., Wilson, 2008).
Based on qualitative research, this paper explores three key themes. First, we identify the role
of horses within the social-ecological system of Xeni Gwet’in and Tsilhqot’in FN local to the
study region. Second, we explore the power dynamics that underlie Tsilhqot’in experiences
of management efforts directed at free-roaming horse populations. Finally, we address the
implications of those insights, and of Xeni Gwet’in approaches to managing horses, for future
management and discourse around introduced and invasive species. In this paper, we do not
assume a particular position in the controversy over whether free-roaming horses in Xeni
Gwet’in and Tsilhqot’in territory are to be considered native, introduced or invasive wildlife.
In fact, we resist applying standard definitions and labels from ecological science to this case
study (Simberloff and Rejmánek, 2011), so that we may engage as fully as possible with the
diverse perspectives offered by study participants, which in many cases defied such categories
(cf. Paulson et al., 2012).
Background
Free-Roaming Horses in North America
The great variety of horses around the globe—wild, feral, tame, and domestic—are the same
species (Equus ferus caballus L.), though they represent diverse breeds. Evolutionary
ancestors of the modern horse and other equids existed in North America and throughout
Eurasia. Some scholars argue that the only truly wild horses in existence today are the takhi,
also known as Przewalski’s wild horse (Equus ferus przewalskii), a distinct subspecies of
horse that was extirpated from its native habitat in Mongolia in the 1960s until its
reintroduction in the 1990s from a captive-bred population (King, 2002).
Early North American equine species apparently became extinct during the Pleistocene period
between 10,000 and 7,500 years ago (Clutton-Brock, 1994; Kavar and Dovc, 2008). Horses
continued to range throughout Eurasia, undergoing morphological changes in response to
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
4
localized environmental conditions (Berger, 1986) and later selective breeding by humans.
While it is generally acknowledged that horses were brought to the Americas by Spanish
explorers during the sixteenth century (Wagner, 1983), there is debate over whether this
action represented the introduction of a non-native species into North America or the re-
introduction of a long absent native species (Beever and Brussard, 2000a; Kirkpatrick and
Fazio, 2010). Their status as wild animals in North America contrasts with those parts of
Europe and Asia where equids are native species. However, the reality is nuanced and the
boundaries between wild animals and tame ones are blurry in many cases, such as when wild
horses are caught and held for adoption in the United States, when domestic horses are
released as surrogates for extinct native wild equids as part of re-wilding initiatives in the
Netherlands (Reed, 2008; Schwartz, 2005), and when Przewalski’s horses re-introduced from
captive breeding programs lack experience responding to predatory threats (Robert et al,
2005).
The debate over whether free-ranging horses are considered native, introduced, formerly
native (Warren, 2007), or something else, and whether they are deemed an invasive species,
has implications for management activities. In the United States, for example, controversy
arises because wild horses are protected by law as part of the “natural” landscape (Reed,
2012), though the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) actively and intensively manages free-
roaming horse populations (Wagner, 1983; Reed, 2008).
Case Study
The Chilcotin region of B.C. lies leeward (northeast) of the Coast Mountain range and west of
the Fraser River canyon. The Chilcotin contains the home territory of the Xeni Gwet’in First
Nation, including the Nemiah Valley, a relatively open landscape of bunchgrass fields and
hillsides, interspersed with aspen, poplar and pine forests rising to rocky scree slopes on the
mountains around it. Immediately to the north is a network of pine-spruce forest and grass-
sedge meadows known as the Brittany Triangle. Beyond that, the surrounding region has
many drier, semi-arid bunchgrass meadows mixed with pine forests (GCC, 2010). The region
provides habitat for a diverse suite of terrestrial wildlife, freshwater fish and salmon
(McCrory, 2002).
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
5
The Nemiah Valley and surrounding area are home to a dispersed community of
approximately 415 people including Xeni Gwet’in, other Tsilhqot’in people, and a minority of
other residents of settler cultures and ancestry. Livelihoods and economic activities include
homesteading, small-scale ranching, guiding, interpretive ecotourism, and guest lodge
operation, as well as employment in local government, schooling and health services. Local
livelihoods actively engage traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, and harvesting
seasonal food plants (Lutz, 2008; IN033). The Xeni Gwet’in, together with a few other
residents, maintained a relatively isolated and self-reliant existence until the current road to
Nemiah was built in the 1970s (Setah, 2010). Since then, the community has experienced
rapid changes—both internal and external—through cultural influences and economic
pressures (e.g., logging and mining).
Horses arrived in Tsilhqot’in territory and were established as wild populations on the
landscape prior to the first documented European contact (McCrory, 2002; Storrar et al.,
1977). First Nations peoples in B.C. were already “mounted” and actively using horses by the
mid-1700s (Salter and Hudson, 1978; Goddard and Smitten, 2002). While there is little
published scholarly work on how horses first arrived in Tsilhqot’in territory (events that pre-
date written records for the region), some researchers speculate that they were traded
northwards from the United States and that wild populations may also have spread naturally
(McCrory 2002; Cowdrey et al 2011). An in-depth, comprehensive study of oral histories
among FN in B.C. on this subject has not been published. A genetic study of DNA from wild
horses in the Brittany Triangle is currently underway, with the goal of searching for markers
that could link wild horse populations in the area to Spanish Colonial or other historic and
distinct types (Cothran & McCrory, 2013).
Horses were easily integrated into Tsilhqot’in lifestyles, as they facilitated traditional
economies and livelihood practices (Lutz, 2008). Nonetheless, free-roaming, wild or feral
horses (terms change depending on who is naming them, see below) have been surrounded by
considerable controversy in the Chilcotin region for over 120 years (Thistle, 2008/09). Much
of the controversy pertains to the presence of free-ranging horses on open range lands that are
also grazed by cattle from nearby ranches (Collins, 1995). In recent times, some
conservationists and wildlife biologists have expressed concern about free-roaming horses,
3 In keeping with the assurance of anonymity required for University ethics approval, all participants are cited according to numerical codes in this paper (e.g., ‘IN03 refers to ‘interviewee 3’).
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
6
which they consider to be an introduced species that competes with other wildlife and
threatens the integrity of wildlife habitat (IN14).
The focal points of controversy over free-roaming horses have changed over the last century
in parallel with social values and attitudes to nature. From the 1930s through the 1960s a
provincial government bounty system encouraged people to shoot wild horses and paid
dividends measured by the number of ears or testicles that were produced as evidence of the
slaughter (IN01; IN03; IN05; IN09; IN11). As public opinions began to shift from primarily
utilitarian to more conservationist during the latter part of the twentieth century, scrutiny of
such practices increased and the bounty system ended. However, a government permitting and
payment system4 continued to encourage local residents to round up wild horses and ship
them for auction and/or slaughter though the 1980s (Permit Files, Ministry of Forests and
Range e.g. Stokes, Permit File 052130, 1975). In B.C., there is still no provincial legislation
articulating the status of wild horses.
Over the past two decades, debate over free-roaming horses has focused on whether they are
legitimate “wild” animals or introduced “feral” animals as a means to assess their impacts on
the ranching industry and the wilderness value of the Chilcotin. However, this dichotomy
oversimplifies the diverse perceptions and biology of horses in the Chilcotin (Bhattacharyya
et al., 2011). “Wild” is a term usually reserved for native species, and “feral” connotes the
status of introduced, escaped domestic animals. But in the Chilcotin region, this contrast is
problematic because there are various sub-populations of free-roaming horses that represent a
continuum from domestic to wild: from free-roaming domestic horses, to escaped or released
livestock, to wild horses that have descended from many generations of wild horses.
Similarly, the physical conformation and “type” of wild horses varies by micro-region across
the Chilcotin, and purely visual analysis remains inconclusive regarding breeding influences.
Methodology
4 Records made available from the Ministry of Forests and Range field office in Alexis Creek, B.C. show permits issued by the provincial Forest Service dating back to 1965 under the Grazing Act (RSBC, 1960), Chapter 168, and later under the Range Act, Section 45, for rounding up and/or shooting feral and free-ranging horses. By the 1970s, permits were more frequently for round-up and sale, with shooting being named as a secondary option when horses were inaccessible for round-up or when rounding up individual animals would have been inhumane (Stokes, Permit File 052130, 1975).
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
7
The focus of the research for this paper was to develop a deeper understanding of the roles
and relationships of free-roaming horses ecologically and for people from a variety of
cultures. The larger purpose of the research was for its findings to inform conservation and
land use planning. The approach was thus transdisciplinary (sensu Balsiger, 2004; Fazey et
al., 2006; Steiner and Posch, 2006) and required extensive interaction with local peoples.
Accordingly, the first author visited the field region eight times over six years (2006-2011),
spending a total of approximately 33 weeks in the region. This paper presents the findings
from the qualitative subset of the study.
Qualitative research included participant observation, systematic field notation, and semi-
structured key informant interviews. Participant observation, following Scott Jones and Watt
(2010), included time spent with community members in and around Nemiah Valley, as well
as extensive field observation of remote bands of free-roaming horses. Key informant
interviews included 23 participants from a variety of groups, from both First Nation and
settler cultures. Additionally, discussions and informal interviews with other participants were
documented with field notes. Data from qualitative inquiry were coded to identify patterns
and emergent themes (Emersen et al., 1995; Miles and Huberman, 1994). All research was
conducted under a signed Protocol between the primary researcher and the Xeni Gwet’in First
Nation. Results and interpretations of aggregate data were discussed with the Xeni Gwet’in
First Nation Chief and Council.
In this paper we discuss two emergent themes from the qualitative analysis, “valuing wild
horses” and “power dynamics”, to derive insights for the management of introduced and
invasive species. Management decisions about free-roaming horses tend to be explained in
terms of economics and wilderness values, while being influenced by implicit cultural and
environmental values. This research sought to bring to light some of the more implicit
environmental values in the interest of more effective and inclusive decision-making.
Valuing Wild Horses
Wild horses in the Chilcotin region were useful and had functional value to both Indigenous
peoples and Euro-Canadian settlers. However, Tsilhqot’in people and those from settler
cultures tended to differ in their experiences and perceptions of the values of wild horses. This
is not meant to imply a strict dichotomy between the perspectives of Indigenous and non-
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
8
Indigenous people. However, in modern times it is often FN who give voice to the cultural
and environmental values that distinguish traditional systems of resource and wildlife
management from agri-business.
While Xeni Gwet’in perceive great utility to wild horses, they also recognize their inherent
value and the need to respect animals as fellow non-human persons, similar to many other
Indigenous cultures (see Clarke and Slocombe, 2008, Ingold, 2000). Xeni Gwet’in
participants not only evaluated the benefits and costs of free-roaming horses differently from
many non-FN people, they also framed issues differently in the first place. Xeni Gwet’in
participants did not engage in discourse concerning whether horses ought to be on the land.
Rather, they discussed how various individual animals, family groups and herds dwelled upon
and interacted with the landscape and with people (IN03, IN13, IN01; Swart, 2005). The Xeni
Gwet’in way of speaking about and relating to wild horses on their land recognizes the agency
and kinship among the horses as one part of a constantly changing social-ecological system:
“The wild horses are like us. They’ve got routes they go to. They have plans (IN03).”
In contrast, non-FN participants in this study consistently framed disagreements about free-
roaming horses and management/control actions as being about whether the horses belong or
ought to be on the landscape (as native, wild species), or did not belong (as introduced,
invasive, or feral animals) (IN08; IN12). This aspect of the controversy parallels debates over
native and introduced species elsewhere (e.g., Chew, 2009).
Many Euro-Canadian ranchers and range managers tend to experience and perceive the horses
as an indirect financial loss: a competitor for forage resources that could potentially limit the
weight of cattle or necessitate the purchase of additional feed for livestock, thereby reducing
the economic returns from ranching. Government range managers interviewed for this study
expressed a belief that it was their job to advocate for the interests and values of the cattle
ranching industry (IN08). Ranchers and government range managers expressed appreciation
for the wild freedom of open range and to some extent, the ways in which free-ranging horses
symbolize those qualities. However, their livelihoods depend on cattle, so they value them
most highly, followed by other animals only to the extent that they do not threaten livestock
values.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
9
As government and private landowners expanded their control of the land base and resources,
wild horses became more vital and economically important to FN than to many non-FN
people. Tsilhqot’in people relied on wild horses they captured as a resource for their own
transportation and livelihoods, as a source of functional income (e.g., from selling them), and
for other benefits. Under government pressure to ranch within land reserves that were too
small to support adequate grazing for cattle and horses (Thistle, 2008/9; Lutz, 2008), FN
relied on wild horses that were free to obtain (given adequate skill) and that could sustain
themselves on open range without purchased feed. Most FN people experienced horses as a
“culturally facilitating” species (Pfeiffer and Voeks, 2008), which supported the continuation
and adaptation of traditional livelihoods, cultural practices, and relationships with the land. As
one participant explained, “today they’re still important, because you know we really feel that
horses enhance our culture… our way, our needs (IN03).”
As an example, in Nemiah Valley, as in other First Nation communities, it has historically
been common practice for a variety of people to use wild horses as a resource: chasing and
catching them, and then training or selling them for use as domestic saddle horses (Tsilhqot’in
Nation v. British Columbia BCSC 1700, 2007; Robinson and Wickwire, 2005). In Tsilhqot’in
territory, the practice continues to this day. First Nations and some people from settler
cultures also have long-standing and active practices of selectively culling wild horse bands in
order to influence the characteristics of the animals. While some local residents would
historically release their own branded horses to range freely and catch them as needed (IN03;
IN06; IN05), it is also clear from interviews that there have been bands of wild horses in
remote parts of the landscape existing independently of humans since before written record
(IN03; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia BCSC 1700, 2007). Hence the practice of
chasing and catching free-ranging horses was sometimes an exercise in retrieving free-ranging
domestic stock animals, and at other times meant catching for the first time horses that had
never been owned, caught or trained before. Once wild horses are trained, they are said by
many Tsilhqot’in to make the best competitors for annual Mountain Races because of their
speed, boldness and agility on rough terrain.
Characteristics that local wild horses develop by growing up and surviving in backcountry
landscapes were valued by Xeni Gwet’in participants. They distinguished local Chilcotin
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
10
horses (or cayuse5) from domestic animals raised elsewhere by characteristics such as: strong
hooves; adaptation to local wild plants for feed; sure-footed movement, speed and endurance
on rough terrain; and intelligence, especially when encountering wildlife. These
characteristics have significant value for people who rely on horses in the backcountry, in
terms of economics, safety and reliability (IN01; IN06; IN13). A horse that knows what to eat
in remote environments can stay healthy and strong indefinitely without the need for grain or
hay to be packed along on trips (IN13). When encountering potentially dangerous terrain and
wildlife, a horse that is sensitive to danger yet responds intelligently is vital to the safety of
the rider and can make the difference between life and death. Strong hooves reduce the need
for expensive shoeing, and also reduce the likelihood of costs associated with a lame horse.
Finally, a strong, fast, sure-footed horse is essential for chasing other wild horses, winning
races, and engaging in other backcountry activities that yield direct economic benefits to the
rider (IN01d).
Wild horses with these characteristics, having been caught and trained, facilitate traditional
activities and cultural values by supporting people to spend time on the land. In this way both
horses and people maintain skills and characteristics that are needed in the backcountry.
When people ride into the backcountry on horseback, they are continuing the age-old practice
of actively monitoring the land through empirical observation and livelihood activities.
Cultural Identity
Horses are a central part of local Xeni Gwet’in cultural identity, having been integrated into
local life, livelihoods and spirituality. They facilitate the ways in which local people access
and relate to their traditional territory. Horses have been, and still are, used to travel through
the backcountry in a landscape that remains largely inaccessible by roads (IN03). They pack
supplies and bear weight on hunting and harvesting trips (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British
Columbia, Testimony of H. Setah, 2004). Historically, horses were vital to ranch work,
haying, and often to the survival of cattle in winter when forage plants were covered under
snow (IN09).
5 The term cayuse refers to “a native [sic] range horse” (Merriam-Webster, 2011), and is common throughout Western North America. The word may be from the Chinook language. Historically the term has been used as a derogatory reference to wild horses kept and used by First Nations. However, in Nemiah, First Nations people use the term in a positive way, referring with some pride and admiration to horses that grew up wild in Tsilhqot’in territory.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
11
Although horses are not as necessary as they once were for transportation between
communities, they remain central to local lifestyles, partially through the deliberate choices of
local leaders and youth. As one participant (IN01a) explained, having horses
“…keeps the kids out of trouble. It even keeps us out of trouble, too eh? From
what the old timers always said, before: own a horse and you’ll stay out of
trouble. …They know... If you own a horse, if you look after him, you’re going
to stay out of trouble.”
Xeni Gwet’in youth working with horses engage in physical activities, learn independence
and responsibility, and ride out into the backcountry. Young adults learn techniques for
handling and working with horses that are passed down through generations (IN01).
Throughout the summer months, it is common for Tsilhqot’in community gatherings to
involve gymkhanas,6 horse races, or backcountry trail rides along ancient travel routes.
Through these activities, horses continue to facilitate the ongoing relationships between Xeni
Gwet’in people and the land, and play a vital role transferring other aspects of culture
between generations. While working with horses and on community rail rides, older
generations teach younger people about traditional places, plants, travel routes, Tsilhqot’in
language, names and identities, family traditions, and proper personal conduct.
Some study participants articulated parallels between the culture and community structure of
Xeni Gwet’in people and the wild horse herds that share their land. People identify with the
horses’ behaviour and the seasonal movements of small family herds, which parallel the
traditional seasonal movements of small Tsilhqot’in family and community groups (IN03).
Participants shared stories of personal and spiritual relationships among individuals, families,
and wild horses (IN11; INNB), indicating a way of perceiving animals as kin who share home
places, resources and landscapes. Rather than singling out horses as separate or distinct from
other parts of their culture and territory, Xeni Gwet’in perceive them as important and sacred
parts of a whole system. One non-FN participant explained this relationship:
There’s another element of course, the horse has immense cultural and
spiritual value, not just to First Nations but to everybody … There’s an
immense connection, a tremendously strong connection between human beings
6 Competition days of games and races on horseback.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
12
and the horses. And ah … even the old horse hunters from the ‘30s and ‘40s
and ‘50s will say that, “Well, we had to hunt them because we got through the
Depression that way,” for instance or “hard times, cause we got some
money,” and there were too many, no question. I guess there were, and that’s
because they killed off the predators, probably. And, ah … but they feel that
something very, very important would be lost if there were no more wild
horses, which has happened in most of the world (IN16).
Wild horses symbolize freedom, raw power, and the “wild west,” frontier-like feel that
characterize the experience of being in Chilcotin landscapes. Wild horses symbolize the
intertwined social, cultural, and ecological qualities of that region. For many non-FN people,
Chilcotin wild horses are iconic representations of landscapes and certain ways of life that are
both real and imagined. Those ways of life, and those animals, are actively lived and
protected by FN peoples—an ironic association for horses as a (re)introduced species. Thus
the symbolic cultural values that many people attach to wild horses embed them in a cultural
“nativeness” that counters, to some extent, perceptions of horses as an introduced species.
Power Dynamics: Horses, Land Use and Values
Conflicts over wild and free-roaming horses in the Chilcotin are a political and economic
expression of the clash over deeper cultural and environmental values. These value
differences are manifest in different approaches and priorities – among FNs, provincial
government departments, and stakeholders from settler countries – for land use, local
economic development, and relationships between people and the wild animals that inhabit
the landscape. The link between free-roaming horses and political control of the land dates
back as far as the history of settlement by Euro-Canadians and the establishment of cattle
ranching as a major part of the Chilcotin economy. Wild horses grazing on open range were
considered a natural resource with intrinsic and economic value by many FNs.
Tsilhqot’in FNs never signed a treaty or ceded rights or title to their territory. The last two
centuries in the Chilcotin have been characterized by deeply rooted struggles over territorial
control, land and resource use, and decision-making autonomy. On a number of occasions,
FNs have taken action to protect their territory and the animals and resources within it from
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
13
exploitation or control by outside interests. From the 1890s onward, some ranchers and
colonial government administrators contested FNs’ use of grassland and open range resources
(Reid, 2008/09), including the presence of wild horses (Thistle 2008/09).
FNs publicly claimed wild horses as their own vital economic resource. Colonial and early
government authorities in B.C. explicitly stated that the eradication and control of wild horses
was essential to “firmly [deal] with and repress” FN peoples (Thistle, 2008/09). Thistle
further explains about the fight over management of wild horses that: “for the Native people
involved, this was a fight against processes of colonialism that had dispossessed them of both
land and livelihood” (p.86), and goes on to describe how the government-ordered horse hunts
that followed were often protested and sabotaged by local FN. Among the Xeni Gwet’in, a
selective resistance to externally imposed management of wild horses has been an active part
of larger power struggles and conflict over environmental values between FN and provincial
governments.
During the late twentieth century, controversy over wild horses in Tsilhqot’in territory
continued to be interwoven with contested land and resources. In the 1990s the Xeni Gwet’in
First Nation took the provincial and federal governments to court in order to assert rights and
title to their traditional territory. Wild horses served as iconic symbols of the region’s
character, culture and wildness in a publicity campaign by FN and environmental
conservation organizations. The unique and deep relationship of Xeni Gwet’in people with
horses was an essential part of court proceedings (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia,
Plaintiff Final Argument, No. 90-0913, 2007). The eventual B.C. Supreme Court decision
recognized the Tsilhqot’in right to capture and use wild horses—legitimizing the presence of
free-roaming horses on the landscape (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC
1700). Yet there continues to be ongoing disagreement between FN and provincial
government agencies over how to manage horses, desirable population size, and the
nature/extent of the horses’ impacts on native species and habitat. A particular concern
expressed by many FN participants in this study was the ways in which management
decisions about free-roaming horses are made and how they impact FNs’ interests, to which
we now turn.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
14
Environmental Values and Approaches to Species Management
While there is a long history of disagreement among FN, settler ranchers, and government
authorities over how to deal with wild and feral horses, the lines are not clearly drawn along
ethnic lines. Individuals from all groups participated in horse chasing, round-ups and sales as
part of the management and use of wild horses. Under the provincial government system that
issued permits for horse culls, local people—both FN and those from settler cultures—
obtained permits to capture and sell, or to shoot wild horses, though perhaps with different
motivations and pressures behind their actions.
Participation in horse culls was ostensibly voluntary. Yet in many cases such action by
Tsilhqot’in people was taken under financial or political duress or through their desire to
exercise some control over the number of horses to be culled (IN01). For Tsilhqot’in people,
the right to manage wild horses and the lands on which they dwell according to their cultural
and environmental values is inextricably linked to issues of political power and social justice.
Tsilhqot’in participants described the ongoing attempts by provincial government agencies to
control or eradicate free-roaming horses as one more of many attempts by outside,
authoritarian governments to exercise control over FN people (IN09).
You know this ah … Forestry department, they enacted policy guidelines, or
whatever, to kill off a lot of these wild horses. [First Nations]...they were
given the bounty [on] each of the horses. They had to cut off their ears and
give it to them. That’s how they were paid. And to this day, they still want to
destroy all the wild horses out in our country.
Interviewer: So when they had the round-up two years ago, they got people
from the local community?
Basically from the community. But some of my brothers didn’t want to chase
any horses (IN11).
Tsilhqot’in participants recalled pressure to shoot more horses off open range lands than they
preferred (IN03). Government records from the 1960s and 1970s indicate that the provincial
government actively tried to influence FN to catch and cull wild horses in higher numbers
(Bouchard, 1971).
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
15
Tsilhqot’in people responded to and resisted government pressure to severely cull or eradicate
wild horse populations in a number of ways, retaining some influence when it came to
managing wild horse populations. Participants in this study described their decision to
participate in horse round-ups and culls being motivated partly by financial necessity, yet also
partly by the desire to exert some control over how many horses were culled, as well as
where, when, and how it was done (IN01a; IN11). The complexity of those decisions were
described by a Xeni Gwet’in witness during court testimony in the Tsilhqot’in Indigenous
rights and title case (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, Cross-examination Oct. 18,
2004):
Q Can you tell me, why is it that three horses would have been shot rather
than rounded up?
A Okay, let me put it this way: at that time if I didn't take this job on, they
would have brought somebody else in; they would have shot more horses and
they would have round up more horses. At that time I didn't have a job. I just
got married and I was poor. That's why I took this job.
Government records indicate that some FN people applied for permits to shoot wild horses,
and then deliberately “held” the permits while not exercising them, in order to protect horse
populations. Dubbed “protection permits,” this practice was considered problematic by
provincial government officials (White, 1970). In 1992, after their access to funds from the
provincial range improvement system, which was available to ranchers who paid into the
regional Stockmen’s Association, was repeatedly predicated on the removal of free-roaming
horses from the land, Xeni Gwet’in ranchers decided to stop paying range fees to the
provincial government for range use on their own territory, and created their own Nemiah
Valley Stockmen’s Association (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, Testimony, October
21, 2003; IN03).
Recently, government agencies have expressed a desire to work cooperatively with FN to co-
manage free-roaming horses. However, some civil service employees still try to convince FN
to further reduce wild horse populations by appealing to the values they suppose Tsilhqot’in
culture places on the land. One study participant suggested that FN people “must not realize”
(IN14) that wild horses as a species are threatening wildlife and habitat values, and that the
management response should be to remove more horses from the range. However well-
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
16
intentioned, such suggestions perpetuate the patronizing, imperialist attitude that outside
governments know what is best for FNs, and that local knowledge is not a sufficient basis for
management decisions. Tsilhqot’in people hear such suggestions in historical context: as the
continuation of over a century of provincial government pressure to reduce or eradicate wild
horse populations.
Thus power struggles over the degree and type of control to exert over free-roaming horses in
the Chilcotin are partly an expression of disagreement over a (re)introduced species. Yet those
disagreements are also an expression of much deeper power struggles over how land,
resources and animals are valued and managed. While provincial government agencies no
longer appear to be motivated by goals of ethno-cultural assimilation, structural power
imbalances and the legacy of authoritarian management actions continue to characterize
debate over wild horses and the quality of participation by Indigenous peoples in management
decisions.
Implications of the Case Study
This study demonstrates contrasting ways that people value introduced species, and how those
value differences can influence perceptions, management approaches, and the ways that local
people are affected by management actions. Tsilhqot’in FNs have argued for over a century
that free-roaming horses are just as important to their livelihoods and culture as many other
animals and plants to which FN people have rights and responsibilities. First Nations
participants in this study perceived management of the horses as part of an integrated
approach to landscape management.
But to us horses … you know when we want to protect horses, we’re thinking
of the future … That’s just like protecting the land… If we can protect the
horses’ habitat and where they go, we’re protecting moose, deer, like all
these other wildlife (IN03).
Within the last decade, some provincial government agencies have begun to formally
recognize local FNs as co-managers of the horses and their rights to let the horses run wild on
their own territory (Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700; Pederson,
2008). However, in practice a lack of funding for field time and continuing misunderstandings
about traditional knowledge by provincial government staff (IN12; IN14), and continued
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
17
distrust of government intentions among FNs (IN11) serve as structural barriers to true
collaboration or co-management with FN.
There are often historical parallels between derisive attitudes to animals and to people that are
perceived to be “out of place” or uncontrolled (e.g., Jerolmack 2008). The history in B.C. of
attempts by government agencies to control FN peoples’ access to land by eradicating wild
horses creates an uncomfortable context for current government wild horse management.
Controversy over management of free-roaming horses is a hot political issue, not only in
Canada but the United States (Rikoon, 2006), Australia (Nimmo et al., 2007), and New
Zealand (McNeely, 2001). In each place, Indigenous people have their own relationships and
values with regard to horses (Robinson et al., 2005); for example, Petrie (2011) describes how
horses were accepted and integrated into Maori culture in New Zealand, becoming an
important element of both spiritual and social status.
The experience of the Tsilhqot’in is an example of how people most immediately affected by
species management or control actions may not have a proportionately powerful voice in the
political decision processes that determine management. Decisions about management or
control of certain key species may be loaded with much more significance and meaning for
Indigenous peoples than for others.
The Xeni Gwet’in approach to co-existing with free-roaming horses, for example,
demonstrates how a species considered by some people to be invasive can be accepted into
the livelihood practices of local communities. Xeni Gwet’in culture accepts the horses’
presence and evaluates their impacts based on current observations and social-ecological
criteria.
A key aspect of Xeni Gwet’in stewardship is to directly, empirically observe horse
populations in order to develop an intimate knowledge of various groups and sub-populations.
Many FN people, and some long-term residents from settler cultures who share similar
environmental values, interact with wild horses as neighbouring family groups, valuing and
managing them in ways that foster the “toughness” of wild populations. They intervene in
population numbers at a localized scale only to the extent that systemic ecosystem indicators
(e.g., grazing impacts in forest meadows) and other ecosystem drivers (e.g., fire stress and
climate impacts) warrant. They traditionally manage grazing impacts of horses and cattle
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
18
together, with consideration for a variety of ecological factors, spiritual and cultural values,
and social pressures on local people (IN03; IN11). In so doing, they take a spatially-scaled,
integrated approach to management, focusing on systemic impacts and functionality as well as
cultural criteria (Knights, 2008).
While the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation faces the same challenges as any agency dealing with
range management and wild horse populations, their approach to monitoring, and their
removal of horses at specific geographic locations and appropriate times (i.e., only where it
becomes necessary, as it becomes necessary), allows for a strategic, effective response to
ecological processes that is adaptable and sensitive to change without heavy financial
investment. This model for using direct observation and acknowledging the ecological and
social heterogeneity of a species’ impacts has relevance for practitioners of wildlife
management in a variety of circumstances where the resources, capacity, or desirability for
large-scale management intervention may be limited.
Although Tsilhqot’in values and approaches to managing wild horse populations are similar
to the principles of adaptive ecosystem science and social-ecological resilience, they are
distinct from past and current management practice of free-roaming horses by provincial
government agencies. Tsilhqot’in people have an important contribution to make to the
management of wild horses. This case illustrates a situation where Indigenous peoples’ voices
must be included in discourse and decision-making about an introduced species, in order for
that discourse to fully represent the values of that species.
Conclusion
As scholars explore social values underlying the perception and management of introduced
and invasive species, it is important to consider the perspectives of various groups in society.
Indigenous cultures and societies often have knowledge of how animal and plant species have
moved, interacted and changed their spatial distributions and ecological relationships over
long periods of time. Many Indigenous peoples have knowledge, wisdom and livelihood
traditions that provide a basis for integrated approaches to managing people, nature,
economics and culture together in adaptive ways, and thus provide valuable insight to current
discourse about introduced and invasive species. Such contributions can include alternative
approaches to evaluating the relative costs and benefits of species. Many FN also have
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
19
experience with strategically managing resources to enhance or support social-ecological
system health and functionality, rather than focusing on reference states for community
composition, or attempting to eradicate an entire species from an area as though it were a
“monster” (Chew, 2009). In an era when global change threatens biocultural diversity (Davis,
2009), the inclusion of Indigenous voices and values is essential to socially just, equitable,
and sustainable approaches to managing biodiversity.
This case study of horses suggests that whether a species is revered, ignored, or vilified
depends largely on its perceived costs and/or values to the dominant social, political and
economic interests of the time. Free-roaming horses evoke all three responses from different
people. Thus, these responses may have a stronger bearing on the perception, labeling and
management of a species than its actual ecological impacts. In the Chilcotin as in other parts
of North America, free-roaming horses serve as a mirror for social and cultural biases, values
and perceptual predispositions, demonstrating that the qualities people attach to species, and
the actions they take to manage or control them, are often as much a reflection of people’s
preferences and expectations of the natural world as they are a function of a species’
characteristics.
Xeni Gwet’in relationships with free-roaming horses highlight the power dynamics that
underlie the labeling of a species as harmful to human interests, including the ways that
relative costs and benefits, and the measures taken to control or eradicate a species, may be
evaluated and experienced. The social, cultural and political milieu within which management
of horse populations historically took place—one of pressure from colonial and provincial
governments on FNs to cede autonomy in land use decisions and assimilate culturally with
Euro-Canadians—is a formative part of Xeni Gwet’in and Tsilhqot’in identities, influencing
their political relationships and management decisions today.
We do not dispute the need for active management of invasive species in some cases.
However, we do suggest that attention to social and political dynamics underlying the labeling
and management of introduced and invasive species will help scholars and practitioners
identify the most strategic, effective, and socially equitable approaches to management. By
exploring some of the contributions that Indigenous perspectives, experience and knowledge
can make to fundamental management questions, this paper makes a case for more frequent
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
20
and direct inclusion of Indigenous voices in future discourse about introduced and invasive
species.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge generous support from members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation,
all Tsilhqot’in Nations, and residents in the Nemiah Valley, for allowing and facilitating
research within their communities and territory, and for their warm hospitality towards the
primary researcher during her visits. We are grateful to Stephen Murphy, Scott Slocombe,
Susan Wismer, John Lewis and Erik A. Beever for their research support and guidance, and to
two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful suggestions. Field research was made
possible by in-kind support from Friends of Nemaiah Valley (FONV), Valhalla Wilderness
Society, B.C. Ministry of Forests and Range, Woodward and Company, as well as numerous
individual volunteers. The research was supported by financial contributions from a Standard
Research Grant (to BMHL) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (SSHRC), the Ontario Ministry of Colleges Training and Universities, the
Wilburforce Foundation, The University of Waterloo, FONV, Valhalla Wilderness Society,
and contributions from individual private donors.
Bibliography
Balsiger, P.W. 2004. ‘Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale’.
Futures 36: 407-421.
Beever, E. A., and P. F. Brussard. 2000a. Charismatic megafauna or exotic pest? Interactions
between popular perceptions of feral horses (Equus Caballus) and their management and
research. Paper presented at the Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California,
Davis.
Beever, E. A., & P. F. Brussard. 2000b. ‘Examining ecological consequences of feral horse
grazing using exclosures’. Western North American Naturalist 60: 236-254.
Berger, J. 1986. Wild Horses of the Great Basin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
21
Bhattacharyya, J., D. S. Slocombe, and S. D. Murphy. 2011. ‘The “Wild” or “Feral”
Distraction: Effects of Cultural Understandings on Management Controversy Over Free-
Ranging Horses (Equus ferus caballus)’. Human Ecology 39: 613-625.
Bouchard, E. A. 1971. Memorandum - Attention: Grazing. (July 9, 1971). Ministry of Forests,
BC, Canada.
Caplat, P., and S. R. Coutts. 2011. ‘Integrating Ecological Knowledge, Public Perception and
Urgency of Action into Invasive Species Management’. Environmental Management 48:
878-881.
Chew, M. K. 2009. ‘The Monstering of Tamarisk: How Scientists made a Plant into a
Problem’. Journal of the History of Biology 42: 231-266.
Chew, M. K., and A. L. Hamilton. 2011. ‘The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical
Perspective’. pp. 35-47 In David M. Richardson (Ed.) Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The
Legacy of Charles Elton, 1st edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Clark, D. A., and D. S. Slocombe. 2009. ‘Respect for Grizzly Bears: an Aboriginal Approach
for Co-existence and Resilience’. Ecology and Society 14: 42.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1994. ‘The Unnatural World: Behavioural aspects of humans and animals in
the process of domestication’. In A. Manning and J. Serpell (Eds.), Animals and Human
Society: Changing Perspectives (pp. 23-35). New York: Routledge.
Collins, J. 1995. ‘Mange on the Range: The Chilcotin's wild horses are judged to be a
nuisance’. British Columbia Report, (April 24, 1995): 42.
Cothran, E.G. and W.P. McCrory. 2013. A Preliminary Genetic Study of the Wild Horse
(Equus caballus) in the Brittany Triangle (Tachelach’ed) Region of the ?Elegesi Qayus
(Nemiah) Wild Horse Preserve of British Columbia. Professional Report completed for
Valhalla Wilderness Society, Friends of Nemaiah Valley, and Xeni Gwet’in First Nation.
Texas A&M University, Texas, USA and New Denver, British Columbia, Canada.
[Unpublished Draft, June 6, 2013.]
Cowdrey, M., Martin, J., & Martin, N. 2011. Horses and Bridles of the American Indians.
Nicasio, California: Hawk Hill Press.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
22
Davis, W. 2009. The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World.
Toronto, ON: House of Anansi Press Inc.
Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and L. L. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fazey, I., J. A. Fazey, J. G. Salisbury, D. B. Lindenmayer, and S. Dovers. 2006. ‘The nature
and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation’. Environmental
Conservation 33: 1-10.
Foster, J. and L.A. Sandberg. 2004. ‘Friends or foe? Invasive species and public green space
in Toronto’. Geographical Review 94: 178-198.
[GCC] Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia. 2010. Cariboo-Chilcotin and
Central Interior: In Depth http://www.bcgrasslands.org/cc_cidigdeeper.htm (accessed
May 9, 2010).
Gobster, P. H. (2001). Visions of Nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration.
Landscape and Urban Planning 56: 35-51.
Goddard, L., and S. Smitten. 2002. Wild Horses, Unconquered People. B. Hamilton
(Producer). Canada: Omni Film Productions, Ltd.
Hall, S. J. 2009. ‘Cultural Disturbances and Local Ecological Knowledge Mediate Cattail
(Typha domingensis) Invasion in Lake Patzcuaro, Mexico’. Human Ecology 37: 241-249.
[INAC] Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 2009. Pronunciation guide to First Nations in
British Columbia. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/bc/fnbc/fsnst/prnfn-eng.asp. (accessed
December 7, 2010).
Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and
Skill. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Jerolmack, C. 2008. ‘How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem
Animals’. Social Problems 55: 72-94.
Kavar, T., and P. Dovc. 2008. ‘Domestication of the Horse: Genetic Relationships Between
Domestic and Wild Horses’. Livestock Science 116: 1-14.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
23
Kendle, A. D., and J. E. Rose. 2000. ‘The aliens have landed! What are the justifications for
'native only' policies in landscape plantings?’ Landscape and Urban Planning 47: 19-31.
King, S. R. B. 2002. Home range and habitat use of free-ranging Przewalski horses at Hustai
National Park, Mongolia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 78: 103-113.
Kirkpatrick, J. F., and P. M. Fazio. 2010. Wild Horses as Native North American Wildlife.
http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/18457/pid/18457 (accessed April 28, 2010).
Knights, P. 2008. ‘Native species, human communities and cultural relationships’.
Environmental Values 17: 353-373.
Lutz, J. S. 2008. Makuk: A New History of Aboriginal-White Relations. Vancouver, BC:
UBC Press.
Marshall, N. A., M. Friedel, R. D. van Klinken, and A. C. Grice. 2011. ‘Considering the
social dimension of invasive species: the case of buffel grass’. Environmental Science and
Policy 14: 327-338.
McCrory, W. 2002. Preliminary Conservation Assessment of the Rainshadow Wild Horse
Ecosystem, Brittany Triangle, Chilcotin, British Columbia, Canada. New Denver, BC:
McCrory Wildlife Services Ltd.
McNeely, J.A. (Ed). 2001. The Great Reshuffling: Human Dimensions of Invasive Alien
Species. Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2011 “cayuse”. http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/cayuse (accessed November 16, 2012).
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: And Expanded
Sourcebook (2nd Edition). London: Sage.
Nimmo, D. G., Miller, K. K., & Adams, R. (2007). Managing Feral Horses in Victoria: A
Study of Community Attitudes and Perceptions. Ecological Management and Restoration
8: 237-243.
Norgaard, K. M. 2007. ‘The politics of invasive weed management: Gender, race, and risk
perception in rural California’. Rural Sociology 72: 450-477.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
24
O'Brien, W. 2006. ‘Exotic Invasions, Nativism, and Ecological Restoration: On the
Persistence of a Contentious Debate’. Ethics, Place and Environment: A Journal of
Philosophy and Geography 9: 63-77.
Paulson, N., A. Laudati, A. Doolittle, M. Welsh-Devine, and P. Pena. 2012. ‘Indigenous
Peoples’ Participation in Global Conservation: Looking Beyond Headdresses and Face
Paint’. Environmental Values 21: 255-276.
Pedersen, M. C. 2008. Personal Letter File: 292-30/General, 15640-04. Chilcotin Forest
District: Ministry of Forests and Range, British Columbia.
Petrie, H. 2011. ‘Satisfaction in a Horse: The Perception and Assimilation of an Exotic
Animal into Maori Custom Law.’ In I.D. Rotherham and R.A. Lambert (eds). pp. 313-326.
Pfeiffer, J. M., and R. A. Voeks. 2008. ‘Biological invasions and biocultural diversity: linking
ecological and cultural systems’. Environmental Conservation (Foundation for
Environmental Conservation): 1-13.
Reed, C. M. 2008. Wild Horse Protection Policies: Environmental and Animal Ethics in
Transition. International Journal of Public Administration. 31: 277-286.
Reed, C. 2012. ‘Enriching the Lives of Wild Horses: Designing Opportunities for Them to
Flourish’. Environmental Values 21: 317-329.
Reid, J. 2008/09. ‘The Grasslands Debates: Conservationists, Ranchers, First Nations, and the
Landscape of the Middle Fraser’. BC Studies 160: 93-118.
Rikoon, J. S. 2006. Wild horses and the political ecology of nature restoration in the Missouri
Ozarks. Geoforum 37: 200-211.
Robert, N., Walzer, C., Ruegg, S. R., Kaczensky, P., Ganbaatar, O., & Stauffer, C. (2005).
Pathologic Findings in Reintroduced Przewalski's Horses (Equus caballus przewalskii)
in Southwestern Mongolia. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine. 36: 273-285.
Robinson, C. J., D. Smyth, and P. J. Whitehead. 2005. ‘Bush Tucker, Bush Pets, and Bush
Threats: Cooperative Management of Feral Animals in Australia's Kakadu National Park’.
Conservation Biology 19: 1385-1391.
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
25
Robinson, H. and W. Wickwire. 2005. Living by Stories: A journey of landscape and memory.
Vancouver: Talonbooks.
Rotherham, I.D. and R.A. Lambert (Eds). Invasive and Introduced Plants and Animals:
Human Perceptions, Attitudes, and Approaches to Management. London, UK: Earthscan.
Salter, R. E., and R. J. Hudson. 1978. ‘Distribution and management of feral horses in
Western Canada’. Rangeman's Journal 5: 190-192.
Scott Jones, J., and S. Watt. (Eds.) 2010. Ethnography in Social Science Practice. New York:
Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
Schwartz, K. Z. S. 2005. Wild horses in a 'European wilderness': imagining sustainable
development in the post-Communist countryside. Cultural Geographies 12: 292-320.
Setah, D. 2010. Personal Communication. Nemiah Valley, British Columbia, Canada.
Simberloff, D. and M. Rejmánek. 2011. Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Steiner, G., and A. Posch. 2006. ‘Higher education for sustainability by means of
transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world
problems’. Journal of Cleaner Production 14: 877-890.
Stokes, J. S. 1975. Permit (File# 052130). Files on Horse Control Program obtained through
Freedom of Information Request from Ministry of Forests and Range, British Columbia,
Canada. Request by Jonaki Bhattacharyya and Katherine Card.
Storrar, J. A., R. J. Hudson, and R. E. Salter. 1977. ‘Habitat Use Behavior of Feral Horses and
Spatial Relationships with Moose in Central British-Columbia’. Syesis 10: 39-44.
Swart, J.A.A. 2005. ‘Care for the Wild: An Integrative View on Wild and Domesticated
Animals’. Environmental Values 14: 251-263.
Thistle, J. 2008/9. ‘Accommodating Cattle: British Columbia's 'Wars' with Grasshoppers and
'Wild Horses'’. BC Studies 160: 67-92.
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia: Argument of the Plaintiff, No. BCSC 1700 Registry
No. 90-0913 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2007).
Forthcoming in Environmental Values ©The White Horse Press http://www.whpress.co.uk
26
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia: Reasons for Judgment, No. 90-0913, BCSC 1700
(British Columbia Supreme Court 2007).
Wagner, F. H. 1983. Status of wild horse and burro management on public rangelands. Paper
presented at the Transactions of the Forty-eighth North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference, Washington, D.C.
Warren, C. R. 2007. ‘Perspectives on the 'alien' versus 'native' species debate: a critique of
concepts, language and practice’. Progress in Human Geography 31: 427-446.
White, J. R. 1970. Memorandum - Attention: Grazing (Vol. G.R.I. Horse Control). Forest
Agrologist, Kamloops BC: Ministry of Forests, British Columbia.
Wilson, S. 2008. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada: Fernwood Publishing.