The need for indigenous voices in discourse about introduced species: Insights from a controversy...

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.


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


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


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).


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’).


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).


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-


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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).


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-


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.

The need for indigenous voices in discourse about introduced species: Insights from a controversy...

Documents

Transcript of The need for indigenous voices in discourse about introduced species: Insights from a controversy...