ment announced a one-year ban on grizzly
bear hunting, essentially canceling the 1994
bear hunt in Kitlope. Longer term restric-
tions on bear hunting were subsequently
put into place with resulting improved bear
populations in the region.^18
This example of an indigenous community’s
reverence for and tolerance of one of the
most dangerous mammals in North America
is an excellent example of human-wildlife
coexistence. Realizing that the root of this
coexistence is imbedded in cultural beliefs
and attitudes, we see the power of cultural
tolerance in determining the success of con-
servation and the prevention of human-
wildlife conflict. This belief about an inter-
twining of nature and culture is not unique
to the Haisla. Many traditional and local cul-
tures maintain beneficial beliefs about their
relationship with nature and wildlife, and
thus demonstrate tolerance and even rever-
ence for wildlife. Within this relationship is a
dependence on wildlife. If the Haisla no
longer had grizzly bears, they would lose
their very real, tangible connection to this
spiritual power. This intense awareness,
rooted in tradition, makes the Haisla more
willing to tolerate its presence and occasion-
al disturbance.
Patterns of Tolerance
The selection of cases discussed above is
anecdotal and intended to illustrate the
potential that culture holds as a resource.
These cases, however, are representative of
a wider body of examples, including the
Tuareg and elephants in the Sahel,^19 the
Maldharis and the lions of Gir in Gujarat,
India,^20 Buddhists and tigers in Asia^21 and
others. More exhaustive and systematic
analysis of a larger number of cases is
needed to assess the linkages between cul-
tural beliefs and practices of tolerance, con-
text-specific level of human-wildlife coexis-
tence and their local and global relevance
for conservation. In the meantime, anecdot-
al evidence from a wide diversity of prac-
tices and beliefs that can support coexis-
tence with wildlife suggests a number of ini-
tial conclusions.First, in some societies, culturally transmit-
ted knowledge and beliefs shape behavior
to prevent damages and constrain people
from excessive retaliation when wildlife
cause economic loss or inflict physical harm.
The Kelabit of Borneo know that they can
time farming decisions according to the
arrival of certain migratory birds. The
Maasai pastoralists of East Africa historically
have relied on wild animals, their “second
cattle,” for sustenance
when times are hard.
Shona people in Zimbabwe
are more tolerant of the
presence of baboons
because they indicate that
leopards are unlikely to be
nearby. Thus, ecological
knowledge enables people
to gain material benefits
that offset crop-raiding,
livestock predation and
other costs they suffer from wildlife and
reduce the incentive for retaliation.Equally important in these examples are reli-
gious and spiritual beliefs about animals. For
certain peoples in Borneo, migratory birds
are associated with divinity and bring
omens. For many Hindus, monkeys are
associated with loyalty to the gods and are
considered a friend of the people. For the
Haisla people of British Columbia, the grizzly
bear has great spiritual importance. Farmers
near the Bhadra wildlife sanctuary in India
revere elephant pad marks left in their
fields. Despite the occasional costs, these
people gain spiritual and religious rewards
from wildlife encouraging them to tolerate
harm due to wildlife and refrain from retalia-
tion.These tangible and intangible rewards stem-
ming from knowledge and belief are valu-
able for conservation. The spiritual rewards,Conservation aas ccultural aand ppolitical ppractice
Ecological kknowledge
enables ppeople tto ggain
material bbenefits tthat
offset ccrop-rraiding,
livestock ppredation
and oother ccosts tthey
suffer ffrom wwildlife
and rreduce tthe iincen-
tive ffor rretaliation.