Synthesis

INTRODUCTION

At their roots, conservation efforts of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Nations share a goal: the preservation of life and its systems. Yet, unlike non-Indigenous Nations, many Indigenous cultures hold a fundamental belief in the great equality of all aspects of Mother Earth (Taku River Tlingit 2006, Atleo 2011, Coulthard 2014), including all Non-Human People. This is the belief that Non-Human People and the Land itself have agency and rights and can protect us and teach us how to exist with them, if we listen and learn. Many Indigenous ontologies understand the Land as the interaction of the physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental aspects of both living and non-living elements; this is the meaning I use (Cruikshank 2006, Miller and Davidson-Hunt 2013, Coulthard 2014, Liboiron 2021). The processes of listening to and learning from the Land, which many Indigenous Nations have been practicing since time immemorial, have been damaged by recent history (King 2013, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015). We all must reach toward rejuvenating these practices for any hope of peace with nature (UNEP 2021). The respectful weaving of Indigenous Knowledge Systems with western (or dominant [Liboiron 2021] or Eurocentric [Aikenhead and Michell, 2011]) systems is key. To build some ideas, I focus on Indigenous Knowledge Systems and their use of conservation science, and I make comparisons to how Western Knowledge Systems use conservation science. This starting place is possible because of some concepts and goals that are shared between the two knowledge systems in the pursuit of conservation.

There are many shifts within conservation and environmental management to be more inclusive of Indigenous Knowledges. One is the shift toward using biocultural frameworks, which aim to deeply tie together biological and cultural elements of the Land, water, and animals or to eliminate the separation between biological and cultural diversity altogether (Caillon et al. 2017). Similar shifts are happening in the fields of human health (Fox 2018, Redvers 2019) and Indigenous protected areas (Porter-Bolland et al. 2012, Shultis and Heffner 2016, Indigenous Circle of Experts [ICE] 2018). Although there are increasing calls to include Indigenous Knowledges, how those calls could be responded to is often not considered. The deep, structural elements of Indigenous Knowledges are not understood; their inclusion becomes superficial (Theriault 2011). Despite some lack of clarity in how to justly include Indigenous Knowledges in conservation and environmental management, guides do exist to help work toward just engagement with Indigenous Nations (Wong et al. 2020).

In the natural sciences, there has been extensive work to bring together what has largely been called Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and western science (Berkes 2018). Unfortunately, the word “traditional” in TEK can be misleading, connoting that the knowledge is in the past. Instead, Indigenous scholars intend “traditional” to include anticolonial (Simpson 2004, Liboiron 2021) and decolonial (Tuck and Yang 2012, Kovach 2021) considerations. There are vast power imbalances between Indigenous Knowledge Systems and dominant Western Knowledge Systems that decolonial and anticolonial thinking help to remedy. Indigenous work must also come from Indigenous worldviews that do not extract TEK from its contexts (McGregor 2021). Hence there is a clear need to state that any Traditional Ecological Knowledge arises from a system of knowledge. This does not mean getting rid of traditional practices of science (although see Aikenhead and Michell 2011 for an exploration of the myth of the typical view of Eurocentric science), but it does mean deeply decolonizing policies within conservation science (Domínguez and Luoma 2020).

I lend my voice to the growing chorus of Indigenous scholars arguing that critical practices of decolonization and indigenization must occur when Indigenous Knowledge Systems are brought into the field of conservation science. Without decolonial thought and critical engagement with Indigenous Knowledge Systems, ontological or worldview violence may ensue. Here, I investigate conservation knowledges specifically, drawing from Indigenous Law, the politics of recognition, and Indigenous worldviews. I focus on Canada, drawing from my experience in the Northwest and, specifically, in the Yukon. I draw from both lived experience and current literature, and my ideas are meant to stand and speak with faith (TallBear 2014), with the work being undertaken to contribute to indigenizing and decolonizing conservation. I also lend voice to the voiceless, or Non-Human People, as my Elders have taught me, and to add to strategies or pressure points that push toward and help achieve a more socially just world for all beings and the Land itself.

DECOLONIZATION WITHIN CONSERVATION SCIENCE

I believe your nation might wish to see us, not as a relic from the past, but as a way of life, a system of values by which you may survive in the future. This we are willing to share.
– Philip Blake, 1974 testimony for Berger Inquiry. G. S. Coulthard, 2014, p. 63.

Decolonization is a major theme throughout key Indigenous literatures (Tuck and McKenzie 2015, Kovach 2021), described extensively therein. The need to avoid romanticization of Indigenous Knowledge(s), maintain their diversity, consider power dynamics in how they enter colonial structures (or do not), and how worldviews influence outcomes are all emphasized eloquently (Tuck and McKenzie 2015). Other authors emphasize how, when working with Indigenous Knowledge(s), epistemological, ontological, ethical, and practical considerations must be included (Wilson 2008, Reo and Whyte 2012, Campion et al. 2023, Hird et al. 2023). There is widespread agreement among Indigenous academics that any consideration of Indigenous Knowledge must include an active and transformative engagement with decolonial practices (Simpson 2004, Tuck and Yang 2012, Coulthard 2014, Liboiron 2021, McGregor 2021).

Decolonization can focus on both external colonialism, which is the use and extraction of Land for colonial benefits, and internal colonialism, which is projecting cultural norms, laws, institutions, and policies from the dominant colonial society onto Indigenous peoples (Tuck and Yang 2012). Within the field of conservation, decolonization can aim to reimagine Indigenous futures that are informed by Indigenous worldviews and hence relationships to Land, waters, and species other than human (our relatives). Decolonization keeps in mind that colonialism, defined in a nuanced and thoughtful way by Max Liboiron (2021), is a structure (Patrick Wolfe in Tuck and Yang 2012) that reproduces itself and the power dynamics that grant access to Land (Tuck and Yang 2012, Liboiron 2021). Decolonial practices urge us to step back from western conceptions of sustainability and bring in Indigenous worldviews that, without romanticizing, maintain that humans and nature are one, the good and the bad (Pete 2020), much as Borrows (2019) noted that the law must consider both the best and worst of humanity to create just laws.

More practically, decolonization also means reconnection, which the Yukon First Nation Climate Action Fellowship (2023) has highlighted. The Yukon First Nation Climate Action Fellowship was tasked, by 14 First Nations in the Yukon, with developing a Climate Action Plan, which was finalized and endorsed in 2023. Decolonization means exploring asymmetrical power imbalances that reproduce western conceptions of conservation and environmental management, much as how Glen Coulthard (2014) sees power reproducing in politics of recognition. Decolonization means working against male-centered systems in forms of hetero-patriarchy (Coulthard 2014). Decolonization means interrogating dominant western sciences, where the cultural and epistemological traditions that inform most western sciences must be challenged. For example, Max Liboiron wrote about anticolonial science that works against dominant western structures of science (2021).

There is incredible work being done to decolonize and indigenize conservation work. The proliferation of and pivot to Indigenous-partnered work is exemplary, but also must continue and be constantly improved. Examples include decolonial marine practices (Aini et al. 2023), pushing natural science research ethics and research development (Wong et al. 2020, Cooke et al. 2022a, McKemey et al. 2022), and broadening conservation to human rights and considerations (Cooke et al. 2022b). Other examples include the role of youth and women in Land Guardian or ranger programs (Daniels et al. 2022), the importance of place-based rights and tenure (Kenrick et al. 2023), building conservation projects with and for communities (Lindsay et al. 2022, Aini et al. 2023), expanding what type of knowledge is relevant in nature conservation (Robin et al. 2022), and avoiding cultural assimilation (Wheeler et al. 2020).

The structures that form how conservationists work through research, science, policy, and decision-making must be constantly interrogated because they are premised on dominant western cultural values and concepts such as Terra Nullius and the Doctrine of Discovery (Borrows 2019). Decolonial thought is required for these fundamental underpinnings of society to shift to include Indigenous values and knowledge. Through a wider structural examination of how conservation knowledge is applied today in research, science, policy, and decision-making, we can avoid parceling out Indigenous Knowledge(s) piecemeal, which leads to extractive inquiries and, instead, consider the foundations that will uplift, develop, and continually recreate Indigenous Knowledge Systems (Simpson 2004, McGregor 2021).

This work arises from Northern Canada and the influences and dynamics there. Elders from my family’s community of Carcross (part of Carcross Tagish First Nation), with their permission, are referenced, as are specific worldviews. The deep focus is to arise theory from a place, with some ties to other parts of the world. Some of the many Elder mentors I have had the pleasure of learning from are Norma Kassi, Mark Wedge, Joe Copper Jack, Edna Helm, Norman James, and many others. I acknowledge that not only Elders carry Indigenous Knowledge but also those they teach and those the Land teaches. Work within Carcross Tagish First Nation was under University of Alberta ethics approval; more importantly, this work was approved by Carcross Tagish First Nation’s internal processes with a research agreement, approval from their internal Land Management Board, and personal conversations with Elders.

Because of Eurocentric societal influences, there is a tendency toward universalizing principles in work bringing in Indigenous viewpoints (Ermine 2007, Aikenhead and Michell 2011, Liboiron 2021). I try to avoid the tendency to generalize; instead, I focus on the people and places my relational worldview comes from. I leave the readers to further apply the thoughts to their specific places, to help avoid universalizing. However, where I see links from other parts of the world, I note relationships and draw some connections. My target audience is natural scientists within the conservation field because they are generally educated in western settings. Despite the increasing focus on interrogating positivistic practices of science, they still dominate the conservation field and its decision-making circles. I focus on my own experiences and build theory outward, trying to limit the pressing colonial tendencies of systems as they currently stand.

Positionality

To convince yourself / To testify / The way a broken carafe testifies / To the existence of water.
– Iryna Shuvalova, Ukrainian Poet from her Poem “To Write About War.”

In Indigenous methodologies, positionality statements are a common strategy to help readers understand the implicit and explicit biases and backgrounds of authors. I am an Indigenous scholar who has been involved in the conservation field for many years. I was on the Board of Directors of the Yukon Conservation Society for three years and president for one. I have worked across the Yukon and Northwest Territories in research settings for organizations such as Wildlife Conservation Society and the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board. For my PhD, I have worked on bringing forth Indigenous Knowledge Systems into Land and Water planning for the Carcross Tagish First Nation, salmon conservation on a territorial scale, and policy work within the Yukon and beyond. I have lived my life in the Yukon, being born in Whitehorse and spending many summers in Fort Liard, Northwest Territories. My status is with Taku River Tlingit, though I am also deeply tied to Carcross Tagish First Nation. My father is Tlingit and Polish, and my mother is Dene and Métis. My thoughts come from a deeply place-based and relational perspective that span from the Yukon to the Northwest Territories in northern Canada.

My views come from innumerable meetings with many philosophically different types of conservation practitioners (Indigenous and non-Indigenous), being part of conservation work, and academic thought both locally and nationally. From Tlingit, Dene, and mixed European backgrounds, I have engaged with my work, and continue to do so, aiming to preserve the system of life that supports us all: Indigenous, non-Indigenous, and Non-Human People. In my work, I aim to testify toward healing of the carafe of Indigenous Knowledge Systems that have been, if not broken, deeply damaged by past histories that are still very real today (King 2013, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015). I seek the resurgence of Indigenous philosophies, ethics, moralities, and laws in the contemporary world, and I see the protection of Non-Human People and places as the protection of Indigenous People because we can (and should) be part of the Land and water (McClellan et al. 1987; Basso 1995; Simpson 2014).

Key working terms

Fish are rendered as significant to capital accumulation strategies only within the confines of their disposability, as opposed to for their merit as being fish.
– D. Hoogeveen, 2016, p. 365.

There are several terms that need defining so we can walk on a path together in mutual understanding. These terms reference complex ideas that may have many unfolding definitions based on the place and context. I lean into definitions that arise more commonly in Canada and North America in general and in the pursuit of conservation work here.

Colonialism

When I refer to colonialism, I refer to the structures that produce and enable it (Tuck and Yang 2012, Coulthard 2014; Paperson 2017, Liboiron 2021). Colonialism is Canada’s laws and policies today, implicitly and explicitly. Through Canada’s laws, policies, regulations, and educational systems, we are all pushed toward colonial structures of relating to the world, including human and Non-Human People, which must be challenged if we believe in a more just world. Examples of such structures are laws, which force western cultural beliefs on people to the exclusion of Indigenous cultural beliefs, and policies, which force the use of dominant science, ethics, and practices rather than Indigenous science, ethics, and practices. Structures of colonialism force many Indigenous Nations to refer to their non-human relatives as resources, which enables extractive relationships. Structures of colonialism force the selling and extraction of Land without just consideration of the people and places there since time immemorial. All have been discussed extensively by Indigenous scholars (Coulthard 2014, Tuck and McKenzie 2015, Liboiron 2021).

Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Wherever work with Indigenous Knowledge takes place, Indigenous Knowledge must be seen as a system (McGregor 2021) arising from place-based relationships (Basso 1995, Tuck and McKenzie 2015, Country et al. 2016, Wong et al. 2020). For knowledge to survive, it requires a system behind it so it may be understood, practiced, used, and reproduced. As worldviews and cultures meet, Indigenous Knowledge tends to be distilled down to parts as it enters the dominant practice of science because of the reductive tendencies of dominant science. And so we have seen a proliferation of parts of Indigenous Knowledge extracted (e.g., ethnobiology, ethno-ornithology, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and others, though not all work within these fields is extractive) rather than being used, reproduced, understood, and practiced within the context it is created (system of ethics, laws, beliefs). For example, Traditional Ecological Knowledge work can lead to extraction of parts of Indigenous Knowledge without considering that Indigenous Knowledge is from deeply respected place-based relations and without supporting the renewal of Indigenous Knowledges as a whole. As a result, we see a proliferation of interviews with Elders for specific types of knowledge (What plants are medicines? Where are caribou in July?). These types of approaches to engaging with Indigenous Knowledge do not consider the system that creates that knowledge and allows it to flourish and how the knowledge is thought about by Indigenous Knowledge Holders.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems have many definitions. However, as done in Wetiko Legal Principles: Cree and Anishinabek Responses to Violence and Victimization (Frieland 2018), the definitions must fit within the place-based context. For example, Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and Indigenous Knowledge must be shown to be part of a system (the context). The system is informed by ethics (Reo and Whyte 2012), places (Basso 1995), and laws (Borrows 2019) that are worlds deep. It is a system that arises with place as you learn with a part of the world (Country et al. 2016). When we fail to consider how knowledges arise from systems that support and enable them, we extract knowledge, we create situations where we limit people, locking them in colonial pasts and presents and limiting the dynamic nature of knowledge.

For example, some definitions of Indigenous Knowledge (or Traditional Knowledge; see Davis in Reid et al. 2006) can tend to freeze knowledge in the past, not leaving it open to continual renewal and exploration in the present through its application, development, and communication (Whyte 2017). Also, contemporary Indigenous Knowledge(s) can use oral storytelling to pass on knowledge, but they also use writing (a useful technology). Storytelling can more easily pass on spiritual and emotional elements, yet stories are not the only way; consider the thousand ways we are moved by literature. Some definitions may also lead to extraction of Indigenous Knowledge out of the system that supports it, leading to more potential harm than good (McGregor 2021). Indigenous Knowledges should also be linked to social justice (unless it reinforces colonialism; Whyte 2020) and to helping bring Indigenous Knowledges into the pressing fight against climate change (Whyte 2017). Finally, Indigenous Knowledge comes from many places and peoples; hence, to avoid melding all into one there must be an acknowledgement of the deeply contextual nature of Indigenous Knowledge systems.

Ontologies

Ontology is a “theory of the nature of existence, or the nature of reality.... Ontology is thus asking, ‘What is real?’” (Wilson 2008:33). As one example of what may be real in indigenous contexts, the spirit is real from some northern Canadian Indigenous perspectives, and animals and landscapes are relations with spirit that may communicate with humans (Nelson 1986, Cruikshank 2006). This is related to epistemology, which studies what we may know, asking the question “How do I know what is real?” (Wilson 2008:33). As examples of different epistemological outlooks, dreams may be a source of knowledge, and communicating with animals by talking with them may be ways of taking in nonverbal or spiritual information. Cosmology, axiology, methodology, and methods are interrelated concepts that help us understand how we create new ways of relating with knowledge (explored in various Indigenous methodology books including Wilson 2008, Tuck and McKenzie 2015, Kovach 2021).

I consider “ontology” closely related to “worldview,” and I include the Land as essential to understanding Indigenous worldviews that span the pluriverse (Cadena and Blaser 2018, Campion et al. 2023). Within many Indigenous ontologies, the Land has agency and is made up of many Non-Human Peoples (Nelson 1986, Cruikshank 2006, Castro 2007, Miller and Davidson-Hunt 2013, Caillon et al. 2017). Within many Indigenous ontologies, knowledge may be gained from scientific, spiritual, and dream worlds, and it can make sense to consider all these knowledges at once to make the best decisions (Cajete 1999, Kimmerer 2013, Miller and Davidson-Hunt 2013).

Non-Human People

The original people were told they must speak the new language. They were told they must wear the new clothes. They were told they must gather from the ocean for profit and not for balance, and they must look upon fish as things and not as salmon-people.
– Ernestine Hayes in Made of Salmon: Alaska Stories from the Salmon Project , 2016, p. 106.

Lastly, I refer to Non-Human People when speaking about species other than humans. Several other terms have gained popularity, including “other than human” and “more than human” (Country et al. 2016, Weber and Barron 2023, Westerlaken et al. 2023). I believe they do not draw deeply enough from some Indigenous worldviews, based on my interviews with Inland Tlingit Elders (Edna Helm, Ishkaahittan Clan Elder, personal communication, 30 January 2023; Mark Wedge, Deisheetaan Clan Elder, personal communication, 21 February 2023), literature (McClellan et al. 1987, Cruikshank 2006, Miller and Davidson-Hunt 2013, Lord 2016), and movements in laws and policy from Indigenous Peoples throughout the world (Taku River Tlingit 2006, Caillon et al. 2017). The term “Non-Human People” does not exclude the other terms, which provide valuable theoretical grounding for Indigenous worldviews to respectfully enter conservation science.

Personhood is a concept well understood by audiences living in dominant western cultures, as are concepts of rights and agency that people have inherently. Some westerners might know of and understand how “personhood” can be applied to, for example, rivers in New Zealand and Canada and ecosystems in Columbia (Hutchison 2014, Nerberg 2022). Due to the globalizing effects of colonization, these concepts of personhood are crossing boundaries in translation more readily. And so, as a measure for respect for those who have protected and taught me on my lands, I refer to rivers, ecosystems, and other Non-Human People as my relatives. All these terms require special attention and study of decolonization to be justly placed within conservation science and to reimagine new versions of conservation knowledge.

Ontological violence

When I refer to ontological violence, I mean violence on knowledge systems that are not enshrined in dominant nation-states. Violence in this form occurs when the full breadth of a nondominant knowledge system (including its laws, ethics, beliefs, etc.) is not considered but, instead, only the parts that are relevant to the dominant knowledge system that studies it are taken. Dominant knowledge systems may ignore the parts of other knowledge systems that they deem not relevant, which ultimately leads to ontological violence because the full system that creates nondominant knowledge is not supported. Worldview violence is synonymous with my definition of ontological violence. I use examples of dominant knowledge systems causing violence to nondominant systems from Canada and, specifically, the Yukon.

In the past, ontological violence within Canada was very explicit. An 1892 quote from Richard Pratt, founder of the residential school system inflicted on Indigenous People in North America, evidences the extent of the violence: residential schools were necessary to “kill the Indian in him to save the man” (Pratt 1892:46). Some argue that ontological violence is now more implicit. As Indigenous Nations seek and work toward recognition (see Coulthard 2014), they can lose sight of applying their own worldviews in the present. This is hardly a failing—many Indigenous Nations are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, healing from intergenerational trauma (Talaga 2018).

Many Indigenous Nations have damaged knowledge systems, which reinforce intergenerational traumas (Talaga 2018). Yet Indigenous Nations are resilient, resurgent, and know the way to live with the world, philosophically and justly, if given the chance to remember and then teach. Some Nations are farther along this path than others. We all seek recognition, and it is no different in the sciences. And in seeking recognition within science, there is a real risk that Indigenous Elders are extracted for their knowledge by scientists to become study subjects, consultants, or experts rather than working to teach the next generation, help them heal from the past. If critical engagement through the lenses of decolonization is not practiced in our work, we may repeat the wrongs of the past (King 2013, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015), adding one final gasp of colonial breath before a world in crisis sinks (Pimm et al. 2014, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2020, IPCC 2022). Indigenous Knowledge Systems have a unique and special role to play in helping address these crises, now widely acknowledged throughout the world (Porter-Bolland et al. 2012, Caillon et al. 2017, Sterling et al. 2017, ICE 2018).

Further, ontological violence is enmeshed in the destruction of Land and other-than-human people. Indigenous Knowledge arises from the Land (Simpson 2014), walks with the Land (see the Yukon, Canada initiative “How We Walk with the Land and Water,” https://www.howwewalk.org/), speaks with faith with the Land (an expansion on Kim TallBear’s [2014] indigenist feminist methodology). When the Land is destroyed, parceled out, and extracted, so Indigenous Knowledge is destroyed and, with it, any hope of its renewal, rebirth, reconstitution, and re-relationality. The protection of Non-Human People and places is the protection of Indigenous Knowledges. The question then is how to gently, respectfully assert pressure so the worldviews of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples can work together without the risk of violence.

ONTOLOGICAL PRESSURE POINTS

Pushing on pressure points to counter colonial structures helps to enforce anticolonial (Simpson 2004, Liboiron 2021) or decolonial (Tuck and Yang 2012) frameworks and strategies. I refer to them as “pressure points” because leveraging them could help us weave together dominant western and Indigenous worldviews and knowledges.

Point one: Interrogation of “What is Knowledge?”

The first need is to consider what constitutes knowledge. Knowledge, broadly speaking, is how we make up and make sense of the world. It is the visceral stimuli of heat (or touch). It can be the (supposedly) dispassionate collection and examination of data. It can be the spirit world telling you of the sacred. It is guided by the stories we know and the laws we follow. In essence, knowledge is how we reach and interact with the world around us. The study of ontology investigates the different bounds of knowledges.

Generally, western natural science (which many conservation scientists are enmeshed in) follows a positivistic view of knowledge. Consider Fig. 1. Positivism generally aims to find universal principles—it is the road that cuts through and extracts knowledge into a point. Positivism considers that, if we take enough measurements of something, we will find the truth—which is a powerful way of seeing the world. Outside of the road we see other truth(s) of multiple different realities intersecting with one another, of diversity of perspectives and generalizations, which aligns with more Indigenous ways of seeing the world (Tuck and McKenzie 2015). Other philosophies that fit more outside the road would be constructivism and phenomenology (Merriam and Tisdell 2015).

Point two: Worldview or ontological considerations

We must recognize that Caribou are our protectors, not the other way around.
– Edna Helm, Southern Lakes Caribou Summit, Carcross Yukon, Ishkahittaan Elder, Crow moiety.

We are stuck in a system of hierarchies, one which many Indigenous Nations and peoples do not conceptually support. As Edna Helm, Matriarch of the Ishkahittaan (Frog) clan so eloquently put it at a gathering discussing caribou: “the land, the animals protect us, can protect us, if we allow.” In these words, an aspect of a worldview unfolds, where caribou (or anything, if we allow) can teach us to live in harmony with the Land and waters, if we can listen and watch. It is a statement that acknowledges the sacrifice that caribou have made so Indigenous Peoples can survive. It is a statement that acknowledges the agency, rights, interdependency, and nonhierarchical relationship of ourselves with the rest of life (here, caribou specifically).

In conservation science and practices, we are forced into terminologies and interpretations that place us in a hierarchical relationship with the world. We study resources, rather than relatives (are we not all evolutionarily related?). We manage species, rather than celebrate and reinforce relations. We are forced to dehumanize the rest of the world that is not us (Hoogeveen 2016; Mark Wedge, Deisheetaan Clan Elder, personal communication, 21 February 2023), or we embrace speciesism (Singer 2023). We discover, rather than form new relations with knowledge. We exist in a world of domination, subjugation, and extraction with the natural world, with existence, rather than embracing the protection that caribou, that all things, may give us in a healthy, functioning ecosystem. This is something a more Indigenous worldview can help to teach dominant western forms of being.

An example from the Yukon and Northern British Columbia in Canada is relationship planning for the Southern Lakes Caribou (https://southernlakescaribou.com). Through this coalition, six First Nation Governments and three non-First Nation Governments are working together to conserve caribou with great success: from historical lows in the 1990s, caribou populations have increased by 100 times. These efforts have always had strong First Nation’s leadership and continue to do so today. Having been on the Steering Committee for this initiative for several years, I have seen a shift away from more colonial management planning to relationship planning. Relationship planning in this context has centered First Nation worldviews, though it has not been without hiccups. Yet, constantly, we remind ourselves that caribou are our relatives, and we are here for caribou. This allows parties to move through conflicts and continually discuss what will be the best decision for caribou.

Point three: Ethical Space

Ethical Space is a tool being developed in Canada. In conservation, its use may be invaluable. Ethical Space brings together ground rules and teachings for respectful engagement within meetings of people of different life histories, worldviews, cultures, and knowledge systems (Ermine 2007). The number of proponents and teachers of Ethical Space within the Canadian setting have grown in the past decade (Littlechild and Sutherland 2021). Yet, if we allow, the Land may teach us Ethical Space; if we allow the Land, caribou to teach us how to live with them, we may shelter in the healthy landscapes this creates. In this way, caribou, or any species, may be our protectors, an easier leap from Indigenous worldviews, perhaps harder from others. Here we must expand and find a place for the voiceless (Caillon et al. 2017, Copper Jack 2022).

Of course, another aspect is human-to-human relations, as discussed beautifully in Ermine (2007), and by the Conservation Through Reconciliation Partnership (https://conservation-reconciliation.ca/), a Canadian initiative to advance Indigenous-led Conservation and Protected Areas, in Canada and elsewhere (Littlechild and Sutherland 2021). Broadly, this means each Knowledge System stands for and by itself, and there is no derogation of either. It is a practice that grows easier with time and builds off trust and strong relationships. Ceremony, prayer, and opening meetings in a good way that acknowledges our full selves make room for it and can help us reach Ethical Space.

One example of a tool that creates Ethical Space and pushes it farther is Joe Copper Jack’s Lands and Peoples Reconciliation Model (Copper Jack 2022). Elder Joe Copper Jack tries to simplify the process of Ethical Space, which he calls “Sacred Space” (due to a possible conflict orientation of the term “Ethical”). Within his model, good rules of engagement are created, respect between all parties is built, and Indigenous worldviews are centered. Ethical Space, something many people can practice to one degree or another, pushes against the tendency to dismiss any knowledge that is not science when people meet and discuss issues and solutions.

Point four: The Ethical Spaces between knowledge systems

There must be acceptance that multiple views of reality can be explored through the Ethical Spaces between knowledge systems. Fig. 2 gives a visual representation of Ethical Space (Ermine 2007), highlighting essential considerations when thinking about knowledge systems. The Ethical Space between knowledge systems highlights that each system has a history, culture, values, and tools, even if we do not realize it. The Ethical Space between knowledge systems highlights that each system is distinct, yet also diverse. Within Ethical Space, knowledge can be communicated between each system or at least can contribute to the discussion at hand. The Ethical Space between knowledge systems is also a gradient; it is a space that sometimes overlaps and weaves into other knowledge systems. Also, as cultures exchange knowledges, there are people who gain understandings in each system, though this requires careful, critical work. And whereas there has been work to bridge different ideas of nature (Aikenhead and Michell 2011, Berkes 2018, Artelle et al. 2021), the deep need to explore different aspects of decolonization and avoiding ontological violence have not been explored thoroughly enough. One example from law that demonstrates what can happen when Ethical Space is maintained is using an Indigenous classification system based in story to see how child protection laws can be framed around Wetiko stories (Wetiko is an Algonquian cannibalistic spirit that possesses people; Frieland 2018). Another example is from John Borrows, who explored how Canadian constitutional law can draw from Anishinaabe Seven Grandmother/Father Teachings in its application and interpretation (Borrows 2019). In Papua New Guinea, the time and care needed to form this Ethical Space between knowledge systems for Indigenous-led protected areas management is exemplified by Ailan Awareness (https://ailanawareness.wordpress.com/), a grassroots organization that has been using decolonizing methods in marine conservation for 14 years (Aini et al. 2023).

At the center of Fig. 2 is “knowledge,” which can consist of many different types. Generally, from Western Knowledge Systems, there is a glorification of scientific evidence and validity, backed by the implicit and explicit assumptions and laws of dominant nation states and the knowledge systems that exists within them. In Indigenous Knowledge Systems, knowledge can be purely scientific, but it may also be spiritual, emotional, from dreams, and from non-human relatives. Based on what I have been told by Elders such as Edna Helm (Ishkaahittan Clan Elder, personal communication, 30 January 2023) and Mark Wedge (Deisheetaan Clan Elder, personal communication, 21 February 2023) and have seen myself, I argue that Non-Human People have their own systems of knowledge. Dominant science and societies are slowly acknowledging non-human agency as well. For example, Peter Singer (2023) highlighted changes in western law that acknowledge Non-Human People’s rights. The Land has knowledge too, in timescales beyond us and in the processes that shape and sustain us, or that wash us away if not respected (i.e., consider the locations of villages, climate change, and contaminated sites). Recognizing other Knowledge Systems is my acknowledgment of the vast system of knowledges I know nothing about (a list too long to give but examples include East Asian, East Indian, and African philosophies).

Point five: Science, scales, and other tools

Science is a tool, as are policies, laws, and philosophies, to help us exist in and make sense of the world. Too often we place too much power in the tool rather than in the user of the tool. For example, positivistic science can be a powerful tool, but it may be used by those with wildly different values and ethics, which can lead to fantastically different outcomes and applications and may be a tool of colonialist structures (Whitt 2014). From a deeply rooted Indigenous perspective, animal experimentation may not make sense; there are Nations in Canada that do not believe in even collaring wild animals for scientific studies due to the disrespect this visits on the animal. Yet, from a dominant western perspective, animal experimentation is commonplace (Singer 2023).

Tools can be non-physical (e.g., law[s], science, policies) and physical (computers, hunting implements, vehicles; Paperson 2017). It is important to explore how tools may be thought of and used to support different worldviews. Much like new hunting implements, tools may be taken up and used through a traditional mindset to create mutually respectful relations, so can tools of science be used with Indigenous Knowledge(s). Conversely, some with Eurocentric viewpoints use scientific tools to place humans above or separate from nature, which may be incommensurable with Indigenous Knowledges and ethics (Miller and Davidson-Hunt 2013, Hoogeveen 2016, Caillon et al. 2017). An example of unethical practices from Inland Tlingit perspectives in the Yukon is catch and release fishing. In essence, we must awaken and push against ideological certitude (Kovach 2010), or what Kant might call a dogmatic slumber, when examining the use and development of tools.

It is also important to consider who holds a tool such as science and uses it to either guide what it studies or how the results are interpreted. This gets at the heart of the danger of directly comparing western science to Indigenous Knowledge. Indigenous Knowledges come from deep philosophical, place-based, land-based traditions, they are entire systems of knowledge that have ethics (Reo and Whyte 2012), management systems (Artelle et al. 2021), laws (Lamb et al. 2023), societal values (Borrows 2019), and their own form of rational, scientific-like thought (Berkes 2018). Dominant western science has its own philosophies, values, management systems, and laws. If we directly and uncritically compare science to Indigenous Knowledge, we risk ignoring the vast complex of worldviews, ethics, and values that are part of Indigenous Knowledge, divorcing knowledge from context and, in so doing, colonizing it.

One thought experiment is to consider the general principle of relationality within Indigenous thinking opposed to the principles of discovery and ownership prominent in more dominant western thinking. The principles guide how we interpret science and its findings. Indigenous ways of being have us form sacred relationships with knowledge (Wilson 2008, Tuck and McKenzie 2015). In contrast, we discover and own scientific findings in dominant ways of being, commodifying knowledge and building intellectual capital. The latter outcomes lead to a web of potential derogation of Indigenous worldviews if we uncritically compare Indigenous Knowledge to dominate western science. We work against communities of beings and our sacred obligations to relatives on the landscape, we make their knowledge our own, because it is how science and the structures that operate around it currently work.

Point six: Changing language(s) in conservation

Under what conditions does managing, rather than eliminating, environmental pollution make sense?
That would be colonialism.
– M. Liboiron, 2021, p. 42.

Language can liberate as well as oppress. When we refer to our non-human relatives as resources we immediately set the stage for oppressing and even erasing their worlds. When we refer to what uses the Land may provide us, we derogate the vast web of relations that take part in that Land. The abuse we visit on the world becomes manifest in our everyday language as it relates to conservation and its actions. The abuse we visit on the world becomes manifest in colonial laws, policies, and principles that frame the environmental work we do. Hence, changing key terms can lead to vast steps toward two worldviews communicating.

Changing key terms can pay homage to ageless ancestral laws and values and teachings of Indigenous Peoples. This may not be true everywhere, but it does follow a certain natural order of things, where humans are part of a vast web of relations everywhere, wherein our DNA sings of relationality to all forms of life and the environment can shape our variation. So, while not completely the same, the world rhymes with itself, breaks forth in new melodies everywhere, while drawing from similar notes, similar patterns of relationality. Our task is to find ontological pressure points, such as changing terms from resources to relationships and from use to relationality, so that we can envision and reach for liberation of worldviews-Indigenous, Non-Human People, and the Lands, waters, and airs that sustain and shape us all.

As non-western philosophers (Singer 2023) seek animal liberation with their arguments, we must seek our own liberation from colonial terms that oppress our own views and the worldviews of animals. For example, in the Yukon context, a shift away from environmental management planning is taking place, moving to relationship planning (Yukon Land Use Planning Council and Indigenous Planning and Traditional Knowledge [IPTK] Committee 2022). Language frames how we talk about the objects in our worlds or what Coulthard (2014) refers to as objects of our knowledge. It is incredibly important to note how language may oppress or liberate something or someone, which applies in conservation knowledge.

In the Yukon, land use planning is quickly being replaced by land relationship planning. The Yukon Land Use Planning Council (YLUPC), which was created out of Treaty process and advances land use planning for Nations, has been working under the leadership of Elders to explore what relationship planning truly entails. Recently, they have submitted recommendations to shift their process under Treaties to land relationship planning that is “a value-centered, collaborative process founded on relationships and with responsibilities for land, water, animals and each other” (YLUPC 2022:2). The relationship terminology makes it easier to center Indigenous worldviews, where the processes of continuing relationships with the Land are supported rather than lines drawn on a map that demarcate where humans may extract different parts of the land for their own gain.

Point seven: Thought structures as tools

Thought structures can be considered technologies that enable settler colonization of all aspects of life through their underlying laws, values, and management structures, ultimately supporting human life at the expense of all else (Paperson 2017). Thought structures include policies, laws, regulations, management apparatuses, and similar things that are framed by our knowledges and have real effects in the world but are not generally tangible. An example of a thought structure in the environmental assessment process is denying the intrinsic value of non-humans as beings in their own right, thus possibly limiting engagement of Indigenous worldviews (Hoogeveen 2016). This contradicts relational views of Indigenous research and, perhaps, Indigenous conservation. Relationality includes the Land and spirit (Wilson 2008), it includes ways of seeing the world beyond dominant western scientific paradigms, which strip emotion from the process.

Policies are meant to offer solutions to problems and are good examples of thought structures. Policies may be seen as a mutually agreed covenant to move forward together. Largely, policies draw from western conceptions of a world that focuses on the mental. We need to bring in more Indigenous ontologies and Non-Human People considerations if we are to move forward together. Policies in their indigenization can also create capacity by redefining what capacity is. Elders, as noted by Allan Carlick (Taku River Tlingit Elder, personal communication), must be seen as our Knowledge Holders, our experts, our PhDs, and our biologists. Policies from Indigenous and non-Indigenous nations can help to do this.

CONCLUSION

Nuance is Sacred.
– J. Borrows, 2019, p. 223.

To help heal, to renew Indigenous Ways of Being (Knowledge Systems), we must delve deeply to avoid the continuance of histories of cultural (and often physical) genocide on Indigenous Peoples—and still deeply on Indigenous places. As we heal the carafe, we must acknowledge that Indigenous Knowledge Systems require lifetimes of training and lived experiences to fully grasp (McGregor 2021), yet also draw lessons back and forth between dominant Western, Indigenous, and Non-Human People Knowledge Systems, as just societies have done over time. As caribou can protect us, we must protect one another as biological and climate crises unfold. Embracing the wisdom of the ideas of two-eyed seeing (Bartlett et al. 2012, Reid et al. 2020), making space for the voiceless (Caillon et al. 2017, Copper Jack 2022), braiding knowledges (Kimmerer 2013), and weaving knowledges (Johnson et al. 2016), we must support one another while remaining diverse and distinct, celebrating our differences and similarities.

We must also stand not just with our worlds but with the worlds of Non-Human People too. The death of them is the death of us (UNEP 2021, IPCC 2022). For many Indigenous Peoples and some non-Indigenous, we are part of them, and they are a part of us (McClellan et al. 1987). It is a statement easily understood and generally embraced by Indigenous Peoples, but non-Indigenous Peoples could (and should) fully embrace it as well.

We must acknowledge the systems that create new relations with knowledge. As Fig. 3 highlights, there are tools, societal values, laws, cultures, ontologies, ethics, and many other things that make up a system of knowledge. If we divorce the knowledge we use from its context and from the systems that enable and create that knowledge, we risk colonization and a continuance of cultural genocide and ontological violence. The goal must be the flourishing of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, the Knowledge Systems of Non-Human People, and all knowledge systems if we are to exist in Ethical Spaces and have the best chance to work against crises. This may mean doing a different type of science (i.e., the often-quoted approach of “science with a heart”) that involves a more two-eyed seeing approach as espoused by a Mi’kmaw Elder Albert Marshall (Bartlett et al. 2012, Reid et al. 2020).

Each Nation and Knowledge Keeper has the right to use knowledge as they like, but it should be done critically, with nuance, and in ways that help rebuild the systems that create Indigenous Knowledges. That means following laws and ethics of Nations, it means creating the situations, spaces, and capacities so knowledge can pass to the next generation of Indigenous Peoples. It means supporting Indigenous sovereignty (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ 2007) and rights (Ignace et al. 2023) and protecting the Lands and places where Indigenous Knowledges (Simpson 2014) and stories (Basso 1995) come from. It does not mean creating the sterile interview environments to extract parts of Indigenous Knowledge.

Working in relation with Indigenous Knowledge Systems can be an act of reconciliation for colonial nation states, communities, and peoples, contributing to resurgence for Indigenous Nations, communities, and people. In Canada, reconciliation is a household word, while Indigenous thought leaders push for an ancient past in contemporary rhymes (Wilson 2008, Coulthard 2014, Simpson 2014, Kovach 2021). In the field of conservation, I argue the need for healing, resurgence, reconciliation, and ethics, and for the slow and careful meeting of worlds that must have shared goals in mutual crisis.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems have been extensively discussed, yet there are key elements—such as spirituality, emotion, rights, and considerations of Non-Human People—that have not been fully explored or brought together. Without fully nuanced views in our mutual work, we risk harm and further hurt, further colonization and violence. We must seek policy that draws from all sources of knowledge as deeply as possible for the crises we face. We must also do so in our sciences, in our laws, in the ways we reach for conservation knowledges.

Conservation science and its applications are currently bounded by the structures that produce and enable colonialism. To move beyond what colonial structures recognize, we must continue a path of paradigm shifts. We must run down this path. We must each be agents in the demise of capitalist, neoliberal dreams that war on nature, that war on Indigenous places, knowledges, spirits, and our non-human relatives and places.

We are all forced to use the tools of oppression (Coulthard 2014) to seek the liberation of non-human worlds, to conserve more than ourselves, and to preserve Indigenous worldviews. Yet, instead, we must stand and speak with faith with the non-human worlds and the Indigenous Peoples (TallBear 2014) we partner with. We must constantly acknowledge that, in the destruction of other worlds, we destroy ourselves because we are one and the same. We must build relations with the world through science, through Indigenous science, through spirit, through emotion, through the physical, and through the mental.

LITERATURE CITED

Aikenhead, G., and H. Michell. 2011. Bridging cultures: Indigenous and scientific ways of knowing nature. Pearson, Don Mills, Ontario, Canada.

Aini, J., P. West, Y. Amepou, M. L. Piskaut, C. Gasot, R. S. James, J. S. Roberts, P. Nason, and A. E. Brachey. 2023. Reimagining conservation practice: Indigenous self-determination and collaboration in Papua New Guinea. Oryx 57(3):350-359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060532200103X

Artelle, K. A., M. S. Adams, H. M. Bryan, C. T. Darimont, J. (′Cúagilákv) Housty, W. G. (Dúqváísḷa) Housty, J. E. Moody, M. F. Moody, D. (Muq’vas) G. Neasloss, C. N. Service, and J. Walkus. 2021. Decolonial model of environmental management and conservation: insights from Indigenous-led Grizzly Bear Stewardship in the Great Bear Rainforest. Ethics, Policy & Environment 24(3):283-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.2002624

Atleo, R. E. 2011. Principles of Tsawalk: an Indigenous approach to global crisis. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774821285

Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall. 2012. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2(4):331-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8

Basso, K. H. 1995. Wisdom sits in places: landscape and language among the Western Apache. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

Berkes, F. 2018. Sacred ecology. Fourth edition. Routledge, New York, USA.

Borrows, J. 2019. Law‛s Indigenous ethics. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Cadena, M. de la, and M. Blaser, editors. 2018. A world of many worlds. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Caillon, S., G. Cullman, B. Verschuuren, and E. J. Sterling. 2017. Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological wellbeing in resilience indicators. Ecology and Society 22(4):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09746-220427

Cajete, G. 1999. Native science: natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light Publishers, Sante Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Campion, O. B., S. West, K. Degnian, M. Djarrbal, E. Ignjic, C. Ramandjarri, G. W. Malibirr, M. Guwankil, P. Djigirr, F. Biridjala, S. O‛Ryan, and B. J. Austin. 2023. Balpara: a practical approach to working with ontological difference in Indigenous land & sea management. Society & Natural Resources 37(5):1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2199690

Castro, E. V. D. 2007. The crystal forest: notes on the ontology of Amazonian spirits. Inner Asia 9(2):153-172. https://doi.org/10.1163/146481707793646575

Cooke, P., M. Fahey, E. J. Ens, M. Raven, P. A. Clarke, M. Rossetto, and G. Turpin. 2022a. Applying biocultural research protocols in ecology: insider and outsider experiences from Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 23(S1):64-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12545

Cooke, S. J., S. Michaels, E. A. Nyboer, L. Schiller, D. B. R. Littlechild, D. E. L. Hanna, C. D. Robichaud, A. Murdoch, D. Roche, P. Soroye, J. C. Vermaire, V. M. Nguyen, N. Young, J. F. Provencher, P. A. Smith, G. W. Mitchell, S. Avery-Gomm, C. M. Davy, R. T. Buxton, T. Rytwinski, L. Fahrig, J. R. Bennett, and G. Auld. 2022b. Reconceptualizing conservation. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 1(5):e0000016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000016

Copper Jack, J. 2022. Lands and peoples reconciliation model. Proceedings of the land relationship planning gathering: using Indigenous Knowledge to improve regional planning. Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. https://www.respectcareshare.ca/model

Coulthard, G. S. 2014. Red skin white masks: rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816679645.001.0001

Country, B., S. Wright, S. Suchet-Pearson, K. Lloyd, L. Burarrwanga, R. Ganambarr, M. Ganambarr-Stubbs, B. Ganambarr, D. Maymuru, and J. Sweeney. 2016. Co-becoming Bawaka: towards a relational understanding of place/space. Progress in Human Geography 40(4):455-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515589437

Cruikshank, J. 2006. Do glaciers listen? Local knowledge, colonial encounters, & social imagination. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Daniels, C. W., Ngukurr Yangbala rangers, S. Russell, and E. J. Ens. 2022. Empowering young Aboriginal women to care for country: case study of the Ngukurr Yangbala rangers, remote northern Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 23(S1):53-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12538

Dominguez, L., and C. Luoma. 2020. Decolonising conservation policy: how colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate Indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land 9(3):65. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030065

Ermine, W. 2007. The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal 6(1):193-204. https://nebnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/The-Ethical-Space-of-Engagement.pdf

Fox, P. 2018. Indigenous health indicators: a participatory approach to co-designing indicators to monitor and measure First Nations health. The Alberta First Nations Information Governance Centre, Tsuut’ina, Alberta, Canada. https://afnigc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Indigenous-Health-Indicators.pdf

Frieland, H. L. 2018. The Wetiko principles: Cree and Anishinabek Responses to violence and victimization. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Hayes, E. 2016. Seasons. Pages 105-109 in L. Lord, editor. Made of salmon: Alaska stories from the Salmon Project. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

Hird, C., D. M. David-Chavez, S. S. Gion, and V. van Uitregt. 2023. Moving beyond ontological (worldview) supremacy: Indigenous insights and a recovery guide for settler-colonial scientists. Journal of Experimental Biology 226(12):jeb245302. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.245302

Hoogeveen, D. 2016. Fish-hood: environmental assessment, critical Indigenous studies, and posthumanism at Fish Lake (Teztan Biny), Tsilhqot’in territory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34(2):355-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775815615123

Hutchison, A. 2014. The Whanganui River as a legal person. Alternative Law Journal 39(3):179-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1403900309

Ignace, L., L. Burton, S. Mynott, M. Meehan, E. Olson, J. Steel, J. Ojeda, S. Harper, L. Ramirez, D. Baker, L. Sleigh, C. Frenkel, C. Rhodes, and N. C. Ban. 2023. Researchers’ responsibility to uphold Indigenous rights. Science 381(6654):129-131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4470

Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE). 2018. We rise together: achieving Pathway to Canada Target 1 through the creation of Indigenous protected and conserved areas in the spirit and practice of reconciliation. ICE, Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/pc/R62-548-2018-eng.pdf

Indigenous Planning and Traditional Knowledge (IPTK) Committee and Yukon Land Use Planning Council. 2022. Land relationship gathering: using indigenous knowledge to improve regional planning in Yukon: executive summary and proceedings. Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. https://planyukon.ca/~documents/yukon-land-use-planning-council-documents/land-relationship-gathering-2021-proceedings-1/?layout=default

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Summary for policymakers. Pages 3-32 in V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, editors. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001

Johnson, J. T., R. Howitt, G. Cajete, F. Berkes, R. P. Louis, and A. Kliskey. 2016. Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science 11(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x

Kenrick, J., T. Rowley, and P. Kitelo. 2023. ‘We are our land’–Ogiek of Mount Elgon, Kenya: securing community tenure as the key enabling condition for sustaining community lands. Oryx 57(3):298-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060532300008X

Kimmerer, R. W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

King, T. 2013. The inconvenient Indian: a curious account of Native people in North America. Anchor Canada, Vaughan, Ontario, Canada.

Kovach, M. 2010. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Kovach, M. 2021. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Second edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Lamb, C. T., R. Willson, A. K. Menzies, N. Owens-Beek, M. Price, S. McNay, S. P. Otto, M. Hessami, J. N. Popp, M. Hebblewhite, and A. T. Ford. 2023. Braiding Indigenous rights and endangered species law. Science 380(6646):694-696. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg9830

Liboiron, M. 2021. Pollution is colonialism. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Lindsay, M., L. Beames, Yawuru Country Managers, Nyul Nyul Rangers, and Bardi Jawi Rangers. 2022. Integrating scientific and Aboriginal knowledge, practice and priorities to conserve an endangered rainforest ecosystem in the Kimberley region, northern Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 23(S1):93-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12535

Littlechild, P. D., and C. Sutherland. 2021. Enacting and operationalizing ethical space and two-eyed seeing in Indigenous protected and conserved areas and crown protected and conserved areas. Conservation Through Reconciliation Partnership, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. https://conservation-reconciliation.ca/ethical-space-resources/enacting-and-operationalizing-ethical-space-in-ipcas-and-crown-protected-and-conserved-areas

Lord, N., editor. 2016. Made of salmon: Alaska stories from the Salmon Project. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

McClellan, C., L. Birckel, R. Bringhurst, J. A. Fall, C. McCarthy, and J. R. Sheppard. 1987. Part of the land, part of the water: a history of the Yukon Indians. Douglas & McIntyre, Madeira Park, British Columbia, Canada.

McGregor, D. 2021. Indigenous Knowledge Systems in environmental governance in Canada. KULA 5(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.148

McKemey, M. B., B. Rangers, Y. M. Rangers, O. Costello, J. T. Hunter, and E. J. Ens. 2022. ‘Right-way’ science: reflections on co-developing Indigenous and Western cross-cultural knowledge to support Indigenous cultural fire management. Ecological Management & Restoration 23(S1):75-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12532

Merriam, S. B., and E. J. Tisdell. 2015. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. Fourth edition. Jossey-Bass, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

Miller, A. M., and I. Davidson-Hunt. 2013. Agency and resilience: teachings of Pikangikum First Nation elders, Northwestern Ontario. Ecology and Society 18(3):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05665-180309

Nelson, R. K. 1986. Make prayers to the Raven: a Koyukon view of the northern forest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226767857.001.0001

Nerberg, S. 2022. I am Mutehekau Shipu: a river’s journey to personhood in eastern Quebec. Canadian Geographic, April 8. https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/i-am-mutehekau-shipu-a-rivers-journey-to-personhood-in-eastern-quebec/

Paperson, la. 2017. A third university is possible. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. https://doi.org/10.5749/9781452958460

Pete, S. H. 2020. Seliš ontological perspectives of environmental sustainability from oral traditions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43:71-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.03.003

Pimm, S. L., C. N. Jenkins, R. Abell, T. M. Brooks, J. L. Gittleman, L. N. Joppa, P. H. Raven, C. M. Roberts, and J. O. Sexton. 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187):1246752-1246752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752

Porter-Bolland, L., E. A. Ellis, M. R. Guariguata, I. Ruiz-Mallén, S. Negrete-Yankelevich, and V. Reyes-García. 2012. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 268:6-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034

Pratt, R. H. 1892. The advantages of mingling Indians with Whites. Pages 45-59 in I. C. Barrows, editor. Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction. George H. Ellis Publisher, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. https://carlisleindian.dickinson.edu/sites/default/files/docs-resources/CIS-Resources_1892-PrattSpeech.pdf

Redvers, N. 2019. The science of the sacred: bridging global Indigenous medicine systems and modern scientific principles. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA.

Reid, A. J., L. E. Eckert, J.-F. Lane, N. Young, S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, N. C. Ban, and A. Marshall. 2020. “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries 22:243-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516

Reid, W. V., F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano, editors. 2006. Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Reo, N. J., and K. P. Whyte. 2012. Hunting and morality as elements of traditional ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 40:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9448-1

Robin, L., K. Robin, E. Camerlenghi, L. Ireland, and E. Ryan-Colton. 2022. How dreaming and Indigenous ancestral stories are central to nature conservation: perspectives from Walalkara Indigenous Protected Area, Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 23(S1):43-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12528

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020. Global biodiversity outlook. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-en.pdf

Shultis, J., and S. Heffner. 2016. Hegemonic and emerging concepts of conservation: a critical examination of barriers to incorporating Indigenous perspectives in protected area conservation policies and practice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(8-9):1227-1242. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112053-10

Shuvalova, I. 2022. To write about war [translated from the original Ukrainian by Nina Murray]. Continental Literary Magazine, August 23. https://continentalmagazine.com/2022/08/23/to-write-about-war/

Simpson, L. B. 2014. Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 3(3):25. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22170/17985

Simpson, L. R. 2004. Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous knowledge. American Indian Quarterly 28(3):373-384. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0107

Singer, P. 2023. Animal liberation now: the definitive classic renewed. Harper Perennial, New York, New York, USA.

Sterling, E., T. Ticktin, T. Kipa Kepa Morgan, G. Cullman, D. Alvira, P. Andrade, N. Bergamini, E. Betley, K. Burrows, S. Caillon, J. Claudet, R. Dacks, P. Eyzaguirre, C. Filardi, N. Gazit, C. Giardina, S. Jupiter, K. Kinney, J. McCarter, M. Mejia, K. Morishige, J. Newell, L. Noori, J. Parks, P. Pascua, A. Ravikumar, J. Tanguay, A. Sigouin, T. Stege, M. Stege, and A. Wali. 2017. Culturally grounded indicators of resilience in social-ecological systems. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 8(1):63-95. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2017.080104

Taku River Tlingit. 2006. Taku River Tlingit First Nation Constitution Act, 1993 (amended January 21, 2006). Taku River Tlingit First Nation, Atlin, British Columbia, Canada. https://trtfn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/TRTFN-Constitution.pdf

Talaga, T. 2018. All our relations: finding the path forward. House of Anansi Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

TallBear, K. 2014. Standing with and speaking as faith: a feminist-Indigenous approach to inquiry. Journal of Research Practice 10(2):N17. https://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/405/371.html

Theriault, S. 2011. The food security of the Inuit in times of change: alleviating the tension between conserving biodiversity and access to food. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 2(2):136-156. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2011.02.01

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). 2015. Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future. Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. James Lorimer & Company, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/trc/IR4-7-2015-eng.pdf

Tuck, E., and M. McKenzie. 2015. Place in research. Taylor and Francis, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315764849

Tuck, E., and K. W. Yang. 2012. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1):1-40. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2021. Making peace with nature: a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. Nairobi, Kenya. https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature https://doi.org/10.18356/9789280738377

United Nations General Assembly. 2007. Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

Weber, E. J. W., and E. S. Barron. 2023. Coloniality and Indigenous ways of knowing at the edges: emplacing Earth kin in conservation communities. New Zealand Geographer 79(2):132-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12367

Westerlaken, M., J. Gabrys, D. Urzedo, and M. Ritts. 2023. Unsettling participation by foregrounding more-than-human relations in digital forests. Environmental Humanities 15(1):87-108. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-10216173

Wheeler, H. C., F. Danielsen, M. Fidel, V. Hausner, T. Horstkotte, N. Johnson, O. Lee, N. Mukherjee, A. Amos, H. Ashthorn, Ø. Ballari, C. Behe, K. Breton-Honeyman, G. Retter, V. Buschman, P. Jakobsen, F. Johnson, B. Lyberth, J. A. Parrott, M. Pogodaev, R. Sulyandziga, and N. Vronski. 2020. The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic. People and Nature 2(3):544-556. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10131

Whitt, L. 2014. Science, colonialism, and Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511760068

Whyte, K. 2017. Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes 55(1-2):153-162. https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153

Whyte, K. 2020. Too late for Indigenous climate justice: ecological and relational tipping points. WIREs Climate Change 11(1):e603. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.603

Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Wong, C., K. Ballegooyen, L. Ignace, M. J. (Gùdia) Johnson, and H. Swanson. 2020. Towards reconciliation: 10 calls to action to natural scientists working in Canada. FACETS 5(1):769-783. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0005

Yukon Land Use Planning Council (YLUPC). 2022. Regional planning recommendations for the parties. YLUPC, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. https://planyukon.ca/~documents/yukon-land-use-planning-council-documents/council-recommendations/letter-to-yukon-government-and-affected-first-nations-under-chapter-11-regarding-advancing-yukon-reg/?layout=default

Yukon First Nations Climate Action Fellowship. 2023. Reconnection Vision. Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. https://reconnection.vision