as they are considered messengers of a
famous founder chief known as the mhun-
doro. “Their lairs are often very close to
homes and there is a lot of interaction. If
someone’s crops are constantly destroyed
by these animals, that person is taken to be
flouting local rules. Some say land without
baboons is not worth living in, mainly
because their presence is a sure sign that
dangerous animals like the leopard, which is
fond of baboon flesh, is absent.”^12
Maasai displacement by parks: from
“second cattle” to the “government’s
cattle”
It is widely recognised that a pastoralist
lifestyle is often more compatible with con-
servation and prevention of human-wildlife
conflict than is a sedentary, agricultural
mode of livelihood. While the Maasai, tran-
shumant pastoralists of East Africa, tradi-
tionally endured some livestock depredation
by wild predators, generally these herders
coexisted with wildlife without any major
conflicts, until formalised development and
conservation initiatives took root in the
region.^13 Historically, the Maasai’s livestock
and local wildlife followed similar seasonal
routes in East Africa and coexisted relatively
peacefully side by side. “Many Maasai elders
claim that wildlife traditionally was used as
‘second cattle,’” but only during times of
extreme drought when their own herds
were severely depleted; thus “reliance on
second cattle helps to explain the traditional
Maasai tolerance toward wildlife.”^14
Over the last several decades, however, the
establishment of national parks and protect-
ed areas excluded the Maasai from access
to traditional water resources and prevented
them from following traditional nomadic
migratory routes, especially during the dry
season. This is one factor in the shift of
some Maasai from pastoralist to settled
agricultural lifestyles that has increased the
potential for conflicts with wildlife, and fos-
tered an increase in intensive land use to
the detriment of wildlife, including the sub-
division and sale of critical wildlife habitat.^15
The prohibition of occasional consumption
of wildlife in emergencies or hard times has
also reportedly contributed to a decline in
Maasai economic well-being.^16
The wildlife of protected areas still largely
(60-85%) depends on dispersal areas out-
side the parks,^17 which inevitably brings
them in contact with pastoralists and their
herds. Maasai feel keenly the inequity in
treatment whereby the Maasai’s cattle are
banned from the park, while the “govern-
ment’s cattle,” as the Maasai now refer to
wildlife, are allowed outside it. This combi-
nation of conservation policies that interfere
with traditional practices of coexistence has
increased resentment of, and reduced coop-
eration with, governmental conservation
policies. The sum result is a simultaneous
decline in the Maasai’s economic well-being,
autonomy and ability to maintain their dis-
tinctive culture, an increase in resentment
of and conflict with conservation initiatives
and authorities, and a rise in mutually
harmful conflict between the Maasai and
wildlife.
Haisla spiritual value of wildlife: shap-
ing government conservation policy
The greater Kitlope ecosystem on the north
coast of British Columbia is a critical home-
land to grizzly bears and black bears. This is
also the heartland of the Haisla Nation,
where the grizzly bear is considered an ani-
mal of great spiritual power. Their tradition
strictly forbids killing a grizzly bear, except
in self-defense or for food. Alarmed in the
last decade that both bear populations were
in serious decline (thought to be because of
trophy hunting), in 1994 the Haisla took it
upon themselves to ban all hunting of any
bears in Kitlope until populations recovered
sufficiently. Working with conservationists,
the Haisla people took this initiative on and
then asked others to join the moratorium.
As a result, the British Columbia govern-
History, cculture aand cconservation
