cant degrees of tolerance toward wildlife, or
even perceive benefits from its presence. To
understand a conservation challenge involv-
ing conflict, and to define strategies for mit-
igating conflict, we need to analyze these
distinct variables associated with coexis-
tence alongside those associated with con-
flict. In this way, conservationists can identi-
fy specific ways of working in cooperation
with local people toward common goals as
part of an overall conservation strategy.
Culture is a significant contributor to both
coexistence and conflict. Cultural attitudes
and culturally shaped behavior toward
wildlife contribute to the level of tolerance
that people feel and demonstrate towards
intrusion, predation, and destruction caused
by wildlife. It also affects the degree to
which people react with punitive behavior
against wildlife, protected areas and valu-
able habitats, or resist policies or officials
with relevant responsibilities. While people’s
beliefs and behavior are sometimes per-
ceived as an “obstacle” to conservation, a
more complete understanding embraces
people not as an outside threat, but as an
internal variable with characteristics that
can not only exacerbate but also minimise
conflict. If we examine the conservation
equation from the perspective that people
offer opportunities and strengths, not just
threats or weaknesses, we may discover
rich, complex, pro-conservation cultural
roots that can contribute to effective wildlife
conservation initiatives.
The nature of these roots will vary widely,
but they all may help, at least in part, to
rebuild tolerance where it has been eroded
because of government intervention, poorly
conceived and managed conservation pro-
grams, or exclusion from management or
ownership of resources. As conservationists
and as humanists who care about conserva-
tion, we should attend to the diverse pat-
terns of culture and behavior of people who
live with wildlife, as much as to the diverse
genetic makeup and behavior of wildlife
species.Cultural Lessons of Tolerance
Some of the most fundamental values of
some cultures support tolerance of wildlife.
“Nature has been the foundation of all
human cultures...and any healthy society of
the future will need to incorporate ways and
means of linking people with the natural
world.”^2 Many cultures hold a “holistic world
view with people as a part of the environ-
ment, rather than distinct from it, with an
ideology of “respect for living things, partic-
ularly animal species.”^3 “Indigenous and tra-
ditional peoples frequently view themselves
as guardians and stewards of nature,” and
often understand their knowledge of biodi-
versity and of resource management as
“emanating from a spiritualbase.”^4Some cultures view good and evil as neces-
sary complements, in contrast to the rigid
either-or dualism that characterises some
aspects of Western thought. In other words,
good exists side by side with evil, and
therefore when bad things happen, it is
understood that this is simply the way the
world works.^5 Hardship is tolerated as a
complement to good fortune; they are
halves of a whole system and together, a
complete way of life. In a sense this prem-
ise serves as a cultural insurance, helping
people to accept misfortune when it comes.
Sometimes that misfortune comes in the
form of wildlife raiding crops, killing live-
stock, or attacking a person. Standing
alone, such a belief system is obviously not
adequate to address today’s human-wildlife
conflict situations. Nor should passivity with
respect to retaliation serve as an excuse to
ignore the costs of conflict. Such beliefs and
values can, however, help members of a
community maintain patience and flexibility
and accept some level of costs associated
with maintaining wildlife populations.This is not to claim that every traditional,