BUILDING CARNIVORE COEXISTENCE ON ANISHINAABE LAND: GOLD

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

STANDARD NON-LETHAL DETERRENT RESEARCH AND RELATIONSHIP

BUILDING BETWEEN LIVESTOCK FARMERS AND THE BAD RIVER BAND

OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

Abigail R. Fergus

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

(Environment and Resources)

at the

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – MADISON

2020

Date of oral defense: 12/8/2020

The thesis is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee:

Lacey Hill Kastern, Deputy Director, Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory

Council (WTCAC)

Adrian Treves, Professor of environmental studies, Nelson Institute of Environmental

Studies

Larry Nesper, Professor of anthropology and American Indian Studies, Department of Anthropology

Acknowledgments

The best way to express my gratitude is to tell my story of how I got here and who

helped me. When I was in the 7th grade, we watched Living with Wolves in science class,

and Jamie and Jim Dutcher inspired in me a deep desire to be with wolves, but I had no idea

how I could make that happen. I remembered that young dream in college, and I began

researching histories of coexistence with and persecution of gray wolves. During college, the

Thanksgiving of 2016, I went to Standing Rock where the Oceti Sakowin Oyate taught me to

know whose land I occupy, the ways that life depends on water, and to find my way of

standing up to protect life.

After visiting Standing Rock, I came back to the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) land, now

known as mid-Michigan. I studied biology, environmental policy, and public affairs with

Alma College professors, who instilled in me an appreciation for learning through diverse

lenses and protecting the ecosystems we are a part of. In particular, Megan McCullen helped

me learn about Anishinaabeg, whose land I had been on ever since I grew up on Lake

Michigan. Megan also introduced me to Autumn Mitchell, an Eagle Clan woman enrolled

with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and Autumn generously shared about her life and culture

with me.

When I was a curious undergraduate student diving into wolf research, Adrian Treves

gave me his time and knowledge through a phone interview, which was pivotal to my early

learning journey. I’m grateful for the wealth of experience he has generated and for his

openness to learning along with me as a student. I look forward to a future of collaborating

with Adrian and the Carnivore Coexistence Lab. Larry Nesper’s book The Walleye War was

one of my early teachings in Anishinaabe lifeways and history. I am grateful to Larry for this

foundation and for sitting on my committee.

In my undergraduate research, I learned of the then-recent history of gray wolf hunts

in the Great Lakes through a paper from the Little River Band of Odawa Indians, which also

introduced me to the existence of Tribal sovereignty in conservation. I learned about the

connection between Anishinaabe (Ojibwe people) and Ma’iingan (gray wolf) through the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s Ziibiwing Center. I hoped to learn more from this ancient lens of

coexistence- so I reached out to every Anishinaabe natural resources department I could find,

requesting to be a self-funded intern to learn about Ma’iingan in exchange for volunteering.

In 2017, Lacey Hill-Kastern, Naomi Tillison, and Mike Wiggins Jr. decided to give me this

opportunity with the Bad River Tribe by inviting me to help update the Mashkiiziibii

Ma’iingan Relationship Plan. My relationship with tribal members and the Mashkiiziibii

Natural Resources Department grew and transformed over the past three years as I worked as

an intern, wildlife technician, graduate student, and wildlife specialist. All the while, Lacey

Hill-Kastern has mentored and supported me with her expertise and passion. Anishinaabe

elders have enriched me with their knowledge and stories: Mike Legrew, Edith Leoso, Joe

Rose Sr., Bob Wilmer, Joe Bates, Bob Shimek, Paul Demain.

Ever since my internship with Bad River Tribe, Peter David and Philomena Kebec

have generously shared their experience and teachings in Anishinaabe treaty rights and

understanding of Ma’iingan (gray wolf). It has been an honor to collaborate with Peter and

Philomena in Ma’iingan conservation and to build on the passionate work these two have put

in.

iii

I moved to Chequamegon Bay following my internship with Bad River. Eventually, I

befriended Xander Waters, who, along with Dale Peacock, is to thank for teaching me about

bovine husbandry, including milking, grazing, and rearing cattle. This knowledge helped me

get rid of my “greenhorns” and conduct research with farmers more meaningfully. Xander

has also been there for me from fladry making crises to weed whacker related injuries and

emotional hardships. Every farmer who participated in the deterrent study taught me a great

deal through their generosity with their land, livestock, and knowledge.

The fall before my field research, I sustained a disabling shoulder injury that severely

limited my mobility and capability to carry weight. I am grateful for the professionals who

helped me recover physically and mentally: Jen Banowetz, Amy Margulies, and Colleen

Cobey. Pursuing my master’s education has been one of the most challenging endeavors of

my life, and toward the end, I found myself overwhelmed with fatigue. I’m grateful for the

friendship I developed with Marisa Lee and the enthusiasm for my work that she helped me

tap back into through her generous read-throughs of my thesis and her knowledge sharing

about native plants and Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe language). I am also grateful for the

friends who have been there for me throughout this entire journey of becoming a wolf

biologist: Audrey Karr, Paige Daniel, Christine Calleja, Dalia Barghouty, Ishijah Johnson,

Eryn Corinth, and Harman Kaur. I am also grateful to my 10-year-old dog companion Boo,

who helped me keep going through the most challenging days in my final stretch.

I cannot name every person who deserves my gratitude, but you know if you have

been part of this journey of mine, and I am humbled by what you have given me.

Abstract

Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is a growing concern for the wildlife conservation

field, as once-extirpated carnivore populations return to their native landscapes (Stone et al.,

2017; Treves and Karanth, 2003). In contrast, the human population continues to grow and

put pressure on shared ecosystems (Treves and Bruskotter, 2014). Much of HWC centers

around real or perceived threats that carnivore species may pose to domesticated animals

(Hogberg et al., 2015; Naughton-Treves et al., 2003; Shelley et al., 2011; Williams et al.,

2002). We believe that improving carnivore coexistence globally requires both relationship

building and gold-standard scientific experimentation. Specific demographics, including

farmers, have a disproportionate influence on the survival of carnivores- yet it has been

reported in the literature that some farmers are isolated from and in conflict with wildlife

professionals (Browne-Nuñez et al., 2015). Farmers may develop negative attitudes toward

carnivore coexistence if they feel that wildlife professionals have neglected their need to

protect their livestock animals, and perspectives, in turn, can shape actions- including the

legal or illegal killing of carnivores (Treves et al., 2013). Finding possible solutions to

predation on livestock requires gold-standard experiments involving randomization, crossover, and transparent discussion of assumptions. Through gold-standard research, we

evaluate non-lethal deterrents’ effectiveness in preventing or reducing carnivore visitation to

livestock pasture. We tested the efficacy of Foxlights® and fladry at disrupting wildlife

corridors and thus carnivore visitation to livestock pasture land surrounding the Bad River

Reservation in what is now known as northern Wisconsin. We have striven to make our work

reproducible by providing careful detail in the methodology section of Chapter 1. We used

Chapter 2 to explore Abi Fergus’s positionality in relationship building with the Bad River

Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians and with livestock farmers and the

need for wildlife professionals to do this work.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments

Abstract

Chapter 1

Introduction

Carnivore Coexistence

Beef Farming in Northern Wisconsin and Carnivore Risk

Tribal and Non-Tribal Attitudes toward the Gray Wolf

Relationship Building/Outreach

Methods

Achieving Gold-Standard Non-Lethal Coexistence Research

Identifying and Examining Assumptions

Ethics Review

Study Area

Farmer Recruitment

Conducting Our Study

Data Analysis

Cutting off wildlife corridors with fladry lines

Feasibility of Deterrent Use

Relationship Building and Farmer Attitudes

Results

Carnivore Presence

Deterrent Effectiveness

Post Trial Deterrent Adoption

Navigating farmer demographics

Implications for Wildlife Professionals

Works Cited

Chapter 2

Anishinaabe People

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western Science

An Outsider Approach to Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

Reciprocity at the Foundation of Collaborations

Why Relationship Building Matters for Carnivore Coexistence

Coevolutionary Hypothesis of Homo sapiens and Canis lupus

Great Lakes States Failures to Consult Tribes and Honor Treaties

Federal Failure to Honor Trust Responsibility to Tribes

Relationship Building with Bad River Tribe

Relationship Building with Livestock Farmers

Doing Carnivore Coexistence Outreach with Farmers

Lessons from the 2020 Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Symposium

Rematriation

Studying Indigenous Language and Culture

Respecting Life with an Ecosystem Level Understanding

Reciprocity in Community Engagement

Conclusion

Works Cited

vii

List of Tables

Table 1 …...…………………………………………………………………………………22

Table 2 …...…………………………………………………………………………………23

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1...……………………………………………………………………………………11

Figure 2..…………….………………………………………………………………………24

Chapter 1

Introduction

Carnivore Coexistence

Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is a rising concern worldwide as many carnivores are

returning to landscapes from which they were once extirpated. Humans need to adapt to the

return of carnivores, such as the gray wolf (Stone et al., 2017; Treves and Karanth, 2003).

Human populations and the spread of agriculture have increased over time and are acting as the

most significant cause of carnivore decline (Treves and Bruskotter, 2014; Treves and Karanth,

2003).

Carnivore coexistence solutions are not straightforward. Humans may perceive other

animals as competitors or threats to livestock, crops, and humans (Browne-Nuñez et al., 2015;

Treves and Karanth, 2003; Treves et al., 2013). There is a growing interest in the non-lethal

methods of carnivore coexistence to uphold biodiversity and ecosystems rather than prioritizing

human-centric development (Stone et al., 2017). The use of non-lethal deterrents may help

facilitate carnivore coexistence better than lethal actions, since killing one carnivore individual

or pack can lead to the source of depredation switching to a different carnivore, family unit, or

individual (Mcmanus et al., 2014; Shivik et al., 2003; Stone et al., 2017; Treves and NaughtonTreves, 2009). Lethal control may also be ineffective in targeting the carnivores responsible for

livestock depredations, especially if the lethal method is a non-targeted hunt of the species

(Mcmanus et al., 2014; Treves and Karanth, 2003). Furthermore, the assumption USFWS made

in the past that wolf hunts would increase human tolerance of wolves has been undermined, and

attitudes have worsened toward wolves following hunts (Browne-Nuñez et al., 2015; Treves and

Bruskotter, 2014).

Finding non-lethal solutions for carnivore coexistence is complicated by the case-by-case

nature of conflict with livestock. Livestock owners hold a great diversity of attitudes towards

carnivores and livestock depredation, which may be influenced by early life experiences or

membership of demographics such as “farmer” or “bear hunter” (Hogberg et al., 2015;

Naughton-Treves et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2002). Furthermore, livestock operations are not

uniform and can host a diversity of husbandry methods, fencing types, generational farming

history, and surrounding topography. The HWC situation at hand calls for experimentation and

relationship building specific to bioregional livestock rearing communities, as opposed to trying

to extrapolate findings from other studies. In our study area, it was apparent that many farmers

also held suspicion toward collaborating with a researcher on carnivore coexistence after they

reported having negative experiences with state and federal government agencies. This sentiment

has been reported in an attitudinal study that also took place in Wisconsin (Browne-Nuñez et al.,

2015).

Beef Farming in Northern Wisconsin and Carnivore Risk

Carnivores may have access to domestic livestock without pursuing them as prey

(Wydeven et al., 2004). In 2004, Wydeven et al. found that while all wolf packs in Wisconsin

had access to domesticated animals, most packs did not kill any livestock. Still, livestock

depredations did rise in Wisconsin and become more common in the 1990s as the wolf

population recovered (Wydeven et al., 2004). This study reflects the case-by-case nature of

carnivore coexistence, as most carnivore packs and individuals do not come into conflict with

domestic animals.

Many factors go into whether a population of wolves shows a preference for livestock

rather than for their natural prey. In some cases, high populations of a single natural prey species

are less appealing to wolves than livestock predation, but multiple and smaller populations of

native ungulates will draw wolves more than farm animals will (Treves et al., 2004; Meriggi and

Lovari, 1996). One reason for this predation trend may be that a single species experiencing

constant predation from a certain predator, may learn more quickly how to evade the predator.

For example, white-tailed deer retain instinctual responses to lower their vulnerability to

predation (Nelson and Mech, 1994). Many domesticated animals, though, have lost their

ancestor’s natural defenses against predation, thanks to selective breeding for tameness (SmithThomas, 2016).

A three-year Minnesota study of gray wolf movements showed that the majority of

instances of wolves on pasture lands were by chance passing (Chavez and Gese, 2006). These

results were based on comparisons to simulations of what random activity would look like in

wolf movement. Not all wolf visits to livestock entailed a case of depredation. During the three

years of the study, eight young or vulnerable farm animals were killed by wolves (Chavez and

Gese, 2006).

Habitat variables and secondary prey may also influence whether wolves pursue livestock

or natural prey. Studies have underlined the case by case nature of conflict as wolves have been

found to both prey more heavily on livestock despite a healthy availability of natural prey

(Treves et al., 2004) and to prey more heavily on natural, secondary prey despite livestock being

more readily available (Chavez and Gese, 2005). In the first study, the reason for heavy livestock

predation was hypothesized to be due to the landscape consisting mainly of pasture rather than

being intermingled with forest, wetlands, and open water (Treves et al., 2004; Treves et al.,

2011). In the second study, muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) made up the second-largest percentage

of the gray wolf’s diet, which may indicate that the presence of secondary prey helps to reduce

livestock predation (Chavez and Gese, 2005).

Farms in Wisconsin that graze cattle tend to be small, family-owned operations with an

average of about forty cattle (CIAS23, 2008). Losing a livestock animal to a carnivore causes

small farmers emotional and financial hardship.

According to USDA APHIS WS Wildlife Biologist David Ruid, in 2019, twenty-four

farmers in Wisconsin had livestock (excluding fowl) losses caused by gray wolves (Ruid, 2019).

One event at one farm led to thirty-eight sheep being killed. Reports and instances of injuries to

horses caused by wolves have increased on the Bayfield Peninsula, near our study area,

according to Ruid. In Ruid’s experience, most wolf complaints come from farmers concerned for

beef cattle, as opposed to other livestock such as dairy cattle and sheep. While wolves do not

have a large impact on Wisconsin cattle as a whole, Ruid emphasized what the impact means for

an individual farmer and how predators may also have non-lethal but adverse effects such as

stressing and scattering livestock. Comparative data for livestock depredation caused by other

carnivores have not been historically collected due to the agency’s focus on gray wolf

depredations, which may also be field by cultural tendencies to disproportionately blame wolves

for depredations (Ruid, 2019).

Tribal and Non-Tribal Attitudes toward the Gray Wolf

In 2009, Victoria Shelley, a graduate student of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab of the

University of Wisconsin – Madison, conducted her graduate research in collaboration with the

Mashkiiziibii Natural Resources Department (MNRD) of the Bad River Tribe: “The Influence of

Culture on Attitudes to Wolves and Wolf Policy among Ojibwe Tribal Members and Non-tribal

Residents of Wisconsin’s Ma’iingan Range” (Shelley et al., 2011). Shelley randomly mailed out

questionnaires to Bad River Tribal members and randomly selected non-tribal members that live

in the gray wolf range of Northern Wisconsin. The study found that Bad River Tribal members

were more supportive of protective gray wolf policy and less supportive of a proposed gray wolf

harvest than the non-tribal respondents. At the same time, attitudes toward the wolf are not

completely homogenous among Bad River Tribal members, with some members being open or

supportive to some hunting of the gray wolf for example (Shelley et al., 2011). A Tribal member

supporting some hunting of the wolf also does not mean they disrespect or hate the wolf:

“Wolves were harvested [historically] by Native Americans, however the wolf selected

was harvested compassionately. Usually it was those wolves disconnected from the pack

and scavenging. Those wolves were less likely to survive without the pack; just as an

Anishinabe would less likely be Anishinabe with-out the tribe [anonymous Bad River

Tribal member]” (Shelley et al., 2011).

This study also underlines the way in which livestock ownership, which was more

prevalent among non-tribal member respondents, may influence attitudes toward the wolf

(Shelley et al, 2011). Livestock owners may feel they have more at stake when it comes to

carnivore coexistence while tribal members without livestock may have less reason to feel

negatively or competitively toward wolves and other carnivores. Still, attitudes toward wolves

are not uniform among Bad River Tribal members (Shelley et al., 2011) and in Abi Fergus’s

experience as wildlife specialist for the Bad River Tribe, some tribal hunters will attribute lack of

success in hunting white-tailed deer to the influence of wolves.

Relationship Building/Outreach

Wildlife professionals may improve human tolerance toward carnivores with effort

because changes in belief and emotion lead to changes in human behavior (Treves et al., 2013).

Attitude, which influences behavior, can be shaped by experiences (Browne-Nuñez et al., 2015).

Building relationships with livestock farmers in which information is mutually built upon can

increase those livestock farmers’ tolerance toward carnivores that may pose a threat to domestic

animals. This theory is exemplified in a study where participants exhibited an increased tolerance

toward black bears (Ursus americanus) when they were given information on both the benefits

of black bears and how to mitigate unwanted impacts by black bears (Treves and Bruskotter,

2014).

Non-lethal deterrents are one group of tools that may be used to enable carnivorelivestock coexistence along with good husbandry practices, guardian animals, and fencing.

Habituation by carnivores is commonly sighted as an argument against non-lethal deterrents by

skeptics. Adequate research and investment in non-lethal options do not exist to substantiate such

claims. Our study set out to test the effectiveness of the non-lethal deterrents fladry and

Foxlights® in reducing carnivore visitation to livestock farmland. We hope that this research will

expand the scientific understanding of the efficacy of non-lethal deterrents, serve the farming

community in the Northwoods of Wisconsin, and assist in relationship building toward carnivore

coexistence between the Bad River Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and neighboring

livestock farmers.

Methods

Our Study of Fladry and Foxlights®

A primary repellent interrupts an animal’s behavior with an undesirable stimulus (Shivik

et al., 2003). These stimuli cause temporary fear or perceived danger in the target animal

(Breitenmoser et al., 2005; Darrow and Shivik, 2009). Deterrents are a type of primary repellent

that keep the target animal away from a specific area, such as grazing land, with a stimulus that

might involve light, sound, or a chemical (Smith et al., 2000). We studied fladry and Foxlights as

non-lethal deterrent options on cattle and sheep farms. These deterrents have not yet been studied

adequately and extensively with gold-standard research that involves randomization and

crossover (Eklund et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2016; Shivik, 2006; Treves et al., 2016; van Eeden et

al., 2017).

Fladry is made of flags sewn into nylon rope (Breitenmoser et al., 2005; Darrow and

Shivik, 2009; Davidson-Nelson and Gehring, 2010; Eklund et al., 2017; Shivik, 2006; Shivik et

al., 2003; Young et al., 2015; Zarco-González and Monroy-Vilchis, 2014). According to the

manufacturing company, Foxlights are deterrents that flash two colors of LED light at 360

degrees, which can be seen from up to one km away (Foxlights International, n.d.). This

deterrent is designed to simulate a human walking around with a flashlight and runs when the

device detects nightfall. According to the manufacturing company, the flashes of light are

randomized to prolong the period before predators habituate to the light (Foxlights International,

n.d.). In Chile, Ohrens et al., 2019 found Foxlights to significantly reduce predation of llamas by

mountain lions, but an insignificant effect on reducing predation of llamas by Andean foxes.

Achieving Gold-Standard Non-Lethal Coexistence Research

Treves et al., 2019 identified five types of bias commonly found in research, and which

must be overcome to answer unresolved questions in carnivore coexistence, such as

●

Do survivors prey on domestic animals at similar rates after removals?

Do surviving predators compensate for vacancies by altered reproductive rates?

How much is predation on domestic animals compensatory?

How do sympatric species of predators respond to the removal of competitor

species?

● Does one source of predator removal affect other sources of predator removal?

Bias may be introduced in research throughout the process, from hypothesis forming to

what findings get published. Treves et al., 2019 categorized five common types of bias found in

wildlife research. Selection or sampling bias occurs when treatment and controls are handpicked

rather than randomly assigned. Selection/sampling bias can also occur if a sample size is so small

that the treatment and control groups differ significantly for reasons unrelated to the explanatory

variable. We worked to avoid this form of bias by using an online application to randomly assign

the sequence of treatment and control across farms and then evaluating whether there was any

reason to believe that farms within the same treatment and control sequence would have any

spillover effect on one another. For example, the two farms of closest proximity to each other

ended up being assigned randomly by the simulator to different treatment and control sequences,

supporting our assumption that the closer proximity of these two farms compared to the

remaining farms would not introduce bias.

Treatment bias occurs when the researcher does not standardize the amount of time or

intensity between setting up and maintaining treatment areas. We found this to be one of the

most considerable challenges, as farm “Jav” clearly experienced greater carnivore conflicts than

any other farms. Still, we worked to control treatment bias by allocating roughly the same

amount of time to do treatment setup and take down on each farm. We spent about four hours

with a crew of three or four, including Abi Fergus (hereafter “AF”), to install fladry and

Foxlights on each farm. We did not record time spent on each treatment setup, but used the eight

hour work day scheduleof the field crew to allocate half a work day to setup on each of the six

farms. Rather than investing disproportionate time-altering setups at farm “Jav,” AF invested

extra time consulting and brainstorming for possible husbandry solutions with these farmers.

When treatment areas needed to be visited to inspect fladry, AF put effort to visit treatment

areas across farms equally by keeping a log of farm visits. At times controlling for treatment bias

was limited by AF’s physical capability, especially because she was in the process of building

strength and stamina after acquiring a physical disability prior to the study.

Measurement bias is introduced when the measurement method is inconsistent between

treatment and control. Ideally, blinding, in which the researcher and any participants are unaware

of treatment and control assignment, is used to counteract this bias. Different stages of blinding

can occur if a journal is presented only with methodology in accepting a paper, but not the results

or if the person who conducts data analysis is unaware of the order of treatment and control. We

did not find any of these blinding steps feasible, so measurement bias may be more prevalent

than other sources of bias in our research.

Reporting bias occurs when research methods or findings are misrepresented in analyzing

data, reporting results, or communicating findings- often biased toward a result the researcher

desires. We avoided reporting bias by explaining all data exclusion and by conducting and

reporting on data analysis conservatively.

Publication bias occurs when journal editors disfavor publishing work based on

insignificant results, replication that affirmed previously reported results, and replication that

contradicts previously published results. Registered reports in which methodology, but not

results, are reported and serve as the basis of publication decisions can help overcome this form

of bias. We did not find it feasible to create a registered report for this study because we needed

the flexibility to make small methodological adjustments leading up to the experiment rather

than being able to commit to a predetermined methodology as registered reports require.

In addition to these controls against bias we have detailed, ours was a crossover

experiment in which all farms received both treatment and control and thus a farm could be

compared to itself between these different phases, rather than introducing errors associated with

comparing different but similar treatment areas or farms. We categorize our research as goldstandard.

Identifying and Examining Assumptions

In a developing research topic such as non-lethal carnivore coexistence, it is especially

important to critically identify and examine assumptions that arise from the level of uncertainty

in this research. We have striven to discuss our assumptions to reduce bias in our work and allow

readers to evaluate these assumptions for themselves.

Ethics Review

We received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of

Wisconsin–Madison for human subject research. The study was performed in accordance with

ethical guidelines from the Belmont Report, and verbal informed consent was obtained from all

farmer participants. The animal protocol followed in this research was reviewed and approved by

the University of Wisconsin–Madison Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Study Area

Our study area consisted of six small cattle and/or sheep farms that bordered or were

within the Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Relationship Plan buffer zone (Figure 1) (Fergus and HillKastern, 2019).

Figure 1

Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Plan Buffer Zone Extending into 1837 ceded territory

This buffer zone extends roughly six miles out from the borders of the Bad River

reservation and is demarcated by major roads (Fergus and Hill-Kastern, 2019). Within the buffer

zone, the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Bad River Tribe) is

to hold co-management authority with the State of Wisconsin in accordance with the way the

LCO vs. Voigt decision (No. 74-C-313-C) interprets and reaffirms the treaty rights of

Anishinaabeg (Fergus and Hill-Kastern, 2019).

On study farms, acreage of grazing land ranged from twenty-five to two-hundred-forty

acres, with a mean size of one-hundred-nineteen acres. Cattle herds ranged from thirty to ninetyfour head of cattle, with a mean herd size of sixty-four cattle. Two of the six farms also kept

sheep, having thirty and thirty-five sheep, respectively.

Our deterrent study ran from June through early September, roughly the average grazing

period in this area- when snow cover is gone, the grass is growing, and farmers have their

livestock out on pasture. In May and April, before the study, the region received above-average

precipitation and below-average temperatures (Kilger, 2020). During the period of study, from

June through September, precipitation and temperatures were average. Wind speeds were

average throughout the study year, yet this region receives greater wind speeds and gusts than

certain inland regions, because of the effect of Lake Superior. Additionally, pasture settings often

entail large amounts of open land, where wind speeds tend to be even higher (Kilger, 2020).

This is important to note for the fladry deployment, which we found to be influenced by strong

wind gusts on multiple farms.

Comparable livestock grazing practices took place throughout the research period on all

farms. We did not seek to control farmers’ patterns in grazing their animals at varying distances

from treatment areas, and we assumed this produced random error unrelated to experimental

treatment. Each farm varied in how frequently farmers moved livestock between paddocks

(grazing units within the pasture, separated by temporary fencing).”All farms were subject to

unique environmental conditions. Yet, all farms were within the Bad River Watershed and were

surrounded by relatively similar wetland and mixed hardwood and pine forest habitat.

Farmer Recruitment

To recruit research participants, AF generated a contact list of about thirty small livestock

farms in and around the Mashkiiziibii Relationship Plan buffer zone by cross-referencing

Ashland County GIS websites and a phone book. Lacey Hill-Kastern (hereafter LH-K) and an

Ashland county farm hand-reviewed this list for accuracy. AF also added farmers to her

recruitment list when she received recommendations from farmers she spoke with or from peers

who worked for farmers in the area. AF called every farmer on this list three times to try and

recruit them for the study. We enrolled two of the six farms using this list and phone calls, but

for the most part, farmers who received cold calls were unresponsive or uninterested. AF visited

all farms that did not respond to phone calls and networked with enrolled farmers to recruit the

remaining six farms. The first farm AF recruited had to withdraw from the study before the field

season began for undisclosed reasons. This reduced recruitment from seven to six farms

Conducting Our Study

AF received verbal consent before enrolling each farmer into this study and conducted

entrance interviews with each farmer to understand their husbandry practices and experiences

with wildlife professionals and with local carnivores. During these interviews, AF used aerial

imagery of the farm to collaboratively identify known or likely wildlife corridors which passed

through livestock pastures and were assumed to be the most likely path of any carnivores that

may visit the farm.

We established treatment areas near the conjunction of identified wildlife corridors and

pasture and deployed trail cameras to detect carnivore occurrences. The strengths and limitations

of working with trail cameras to study wildlife are well documented (Petroelje et al., 2019).

Strengths include this method’s non-invasiveness, passive data collection, and well-developed

technology. One limitation of employing trail cameras is the time and personnel required to

process the large quantities of data. However, computer learning programs are being

programmed to facilitate faster and more effective trail camera photo processing to identify

wolves and other species with 95 percent accuracy (Petroelje et al., 2019). AF installed trail

cameras on garden posts to monitor predator activity. AF aimed trail cameras along animal trails

and corridors in the pre-trial to enhance the likelihood of detecting wildlife presence. AF aimed

trail cameras along the line of fladry, which was installed perpendicular to animal trails and

corridors, identified in collaboration with farmers. AF replaced the SD cards and checked on the

battery levels every time she visited a farm for another purpose (e.g. check on fladry, transition

experiment).

Prior to treatment setup, AF constructed fladry using materials commonly available in

farm supplier stores: polywire, plastic step-in posts, and flagging tape. AF was supported by two

to three Wisconsin Tribal Conservation Advisory Council (WTCAC) and MNRD field crew

members for treatment area setup. AF and the crew hung the polywire from step-in posts to

create perpendicular lines of fladry across wildlife corridors. The crew assembled the fladry in

the field by hand tying pre-cut strips of flagging tape at 10 cm apart. Ten centimeters is the width

of the average coyote skull, so we tested narrow rather than traditionally spaced fladry, in line

with recent studies’ recommendations and methodologies (Skulls and Dental Formulas, n.d.;

Young et al., 2019). AF ensured only a few centimeters of space existed between the bottom of

the fladry line and the earth to avoid the potential of animals crawling beneath the setup. In both

the first and the second trials, AF ran a second line of polywire along the bottom of the flags to

try and prevent the flags from furling in the wind. To further prevent fladry tangling, the field

crew weed-whacked the vegetation beneath and surrounding the fladry on treated farms. When a

treatment area was in the control phase, AF and the crew created a fladry placebo control by

bunching up and tieing off each flag.

At all treated areas, we also installed one Foxlight roughly at the center of the fladry line

to serve as a night time deterrent. Foxlights were installed above the top of fladry lines. When a

treatment area was in the control phase, AF removed the Foxlight battery to serve as a placebo

control for the active Foxlights.

Treatment areas refer to the locations that AF identified as wildlife corridors leading to

livestock pasture. The distance between treatment areas and participating farms was naturally

determined by where wildlife was traveling and what farmers were willing to participate, rather

than being hand selected. In a larger study or on farms with too many identified wildlife

corridors to feasibly treat, it would be prudent to randomly select which corridors would be

treated. The nearest pasture on the closest two research farms was about 1,145 feet apart, and

carnivore occurrences were not identical between these two treatment areas. These two farms

were also randomly assigned to different treatment and control sequences. The nearest treatment

areas on the same farm were about 700 feet apart, and carnivore occurrences were not identical

between these two treatment areas.

AF manually inspected each trail camera picture for the presence of carnivores and resaved these images with the common English name for the species and a number to denote

unique occurrences for that individual or species. Ultimately, AF organized the data by

indicating how many independent occurrences of coyotes and black bears were detected in the

treatment and in the control periods, by farm and by treatment area. No other carnivore species

was detected via trail camera during the study period. However, a bobcat was detected by a trail

camera on one farm following the study in a post-trial data collection.

The Browning BTC-8A trail cameras deployed seemed to be very sensitive and effective

at picking up on wildlife activity based on the frequent detection of small arthropods such as

Lepidopteran at distances up to the eighty feet (detection range of the cameras used). Most

camera-related issues that AF encountered came down to human error or the learning curve of

how frequently cameras should be checked and how their maintenance and data should be

organized. In future studies, a checklist should be incorporated to avoid the human error of

forgetting to turn trail cameras on.

Data Analysis

We removed all three treatment areas on the farm “Jav” from the data analysis because

all treatment areas on this farm were subject to livestock displacing or damaging trail cameras

and deterrents and a landscape in which wetlands were encroaching on the entire western border

of the pasture land. This resulted in a possible compromise of our attempt to randomize the

assignment of treatment and placebo control phase order. Order was randomly assigned at the

farm level, so the removal of farm “Jav” from the data analysis resulted in a disproportionate

number of treatment areas receiving a placebo control and then a treatment, instead of a

relatively equal distribution between the two conditions. We removed one treatment area on the

farm “Ady” from the data analysis because of a long data gap caused by an error of forgetting to

turn on the trail camera.

We categorized each farm based on their treatment and control sequences: AB for

treatment and then control or BA for control and then treatment. Eleven treatment areas made up

the sample size for this analysis, with three AB treatment areas and eight BA treatment areas.

This uneven distribution was due to the previously mentioned exclusion of the farm “Jav” and a

single treatment area on the farm “Ady.”

To control the seasons’ potential impact on carnivore occurrences, we conducted a test of

phase differences. To control for the possible impact of the order in which treatment and control

were applied to a treatment area, we performed a Wilcoxon rank sum test (JMP® 2019).

We employed multiple statistical tests of effectiveness to be conservative in our data

analysis. We calculated the difference in carnivore occurrence between the first and second

phases for each treatment area on every farm. We tested for period effects and for any carryover

effects (to test whether treatment or control periods influenced one another) (Díaz-Uriarte, 2002;

Jones and Kenward,1989; Ohrens et al., 2019). We found our small sample of data to be nonnormal, so we employed the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum to test for differences in

carnivore occurrences between treatment and control and between treatment periods. To test for

the effect of Foxlights and fladry on carnivore occurrences, we used the Hills-Armitage ANOVA

procedure (Díaz-Uriarte 2002; Jones and Kenward 1989).

Cutting off wildlife corridors with fladry lines

Fladry is typically used to enclose pasture or overnight pens (Musiani and Visalberghi,

2000). It was not feasible for AF to encompass the hundreds of acres of pasture on six farms with

fladry. We assumed this would not be possible for small scale farmers or small natural resources

agencies to accomplish based on AF’s experience with both groups. Fladry was created as a tool

for hunters to coral wolves along the line of flagging (Shivik et al., 2003). We applied this

concept in our use of fladry to perpendicularly cut across wildlife corridors leading to pasture.

Wildlife corridors are paths of low resistance between important locations for species,

such as foraging or bedding areas (Wade et al., 2015). In our study, wildlife corridors were

identified based on aerial photos which reflected natural corridors such as waterways and on the

ground confirmation that wildlife trails were apparent based on trampled vegetation. Trail

camera photos of black bears and coyotes confirmed the use by wildlife of these corridors (Table

1; Table 2). Fladry has historically been applied around the entire perimeter of livestock pasture,

but this was not feasible for our study. Instead, we sought to disrupt the function of wildlife

corridors, namely deer trails, which undisrupted serve as paths of least resistance for prey and

predators alike (Wade et al., 2015). Our goal was to see if fladry lines and Foxlights could reduce

the low resistance associated with corridors and thus reduce carnivore occurrences on livestock

pasture. Wildlife make decisions in moving across landscape based on a mix of factors including

energy expenditure, exposure to predators, and availability of forage (Gallagher et al., 2017). We

sought to increase the perception of risk or the need for energy expenditure by cutting off deer

trails, which led to pasture. It is reasonable to assume that we did not identify and treat every

single wildlife corridor leading up to pasture. If a researcher uses trail cameras adaptively and

works with a farmer over time, the ability to identify most wildlife corridors may increase.

Feasibility of Deterrent Use

This study proved to be physically and emotionally demanding for AF to coordinate due

to numerous factors, including the learning curve of implementing the experimental design, the

frequent turnover in field crew, and trail camera and deterrent ordering delays. Still, because the

field research was done in coordination with the Mashkiiziibii Natural Resources Department

(MNRD), the study served as a realistic portrayal of a natural resource agencies’ execution of a

pilot study into the use of non-lethal deterrents.

The intense gusts that Lake Superior can create over the study landscape, wetland

landscapes, thick vegetation, and the tendency in cattle to chew on their surroundings made

fladry deployment difficult. The accessible flagging tape used to construct fladry had the

downfall of being low friction on the polywire, leading to bunching. The level of maintenance

required for the fladry may be unappealing to a farmer, but it may also be a valuable way to

increase human presence via maintenance checks. It was a steep learning curve for AF to set up

the experiment, and efficiency in setup was only developed over time. As a result, AF did not tie

the bottoms of the fladry to the bottom polywire in the first trial, due to limited time. For the

second trial, the field crew help was more consistent, and we were more efficient in deploying

fladry, so we successfully tied the bottom of the fladry, which reduced the problem of bunching

in the wind. We assumed the difference between phases caused by tying and not tying fladry

bottoms would not have a significant impact on results, because AF visited fladry lines following

windy events to correct bunching and because there did not appear to be large differences in how

the fladry moved with the bottom tied or the bottom resting on a bottom polywire line.

Sometimes untied flags would wind themselves around the bottom line, for example. The withinsubjects analysis makes this source of error conservative, because it would tend to make

treatment more similar to placebo. This is because wind makes fladry non-functional just as the

bunching of flags makes the placebo non-functional.

In addition to fladry bunching and cattle destruction issues, constructing and deploying

the fladry was time-intensive. Across all six farms, AF and the field crew installed about 1,800

feet of fladry. The length of fladry lines varied between treatment areas on farms based on how

much distance was required to cut off a corridor; fladry lines averaged 120 feet. While fladry line

lengths varied between farms, one way AF worked to keep treatment and attention to farms

relatively consistent was by allocating about the same amount of time to set up the experiment on

each farm. Typically, the field crew of AF and two or three WTCAC or MNRD aides took about

four hours to complete each farm’s research setup. The cost of our fladry setup consisting of

step-in posts, polywire, and forestry flagging tape came out to be about $0.40 cents/foot, which

is consistent with the new Minnesota Non-Lethal Wildlife Specialist’s recent work on installing

fladry (Hart, 2019).

The flagging tape for fladry was precut by AF using a homemade spooling device that

allowed five rolls of flagging tape to be cut to the proper length at the same time. It took AF

about twenty hours to cut the amount of flagging she predicted would be needed to treat

corridors based on the GIS measurements. Overall, the experiment setup could have been

improved with better organization and time for attention to detail if supplies had been ordered

and prepared during the winter months, but that was not possible for this study. We assumed the

unpredictable circumstances that AF needed to adapt in order to conduct this experiment

reflected the unexpected roadblocks a farmer would face if they tried taking non-lethal deterrent

use into their own hands.

Relationship Building and Farmer Attitudes

We recommend relationship-building occur overtime ahead of intended research projects

with livestock farmers to increase successful participant recruitment. AF began recruiting

farmers four months ahead of the field research or cattle grazing period from June to September.

AF attended farming community events like a dairy breakfast and dairy association meeting to

recruit participants. Only one of the six farms that participated in the study was recruited at one

of these events, which mostly consisted of dairy rather than meat producers.

The most effective means of recruitment was by showing up in person and having local

connections- both of which take in-person time and effort. AF drove to farms she had not heard

from over the phone to recruit participants and this led to two of the six study farms enrolling.

One farmer was inclined to enroll because AF was acquainted with their son, who heard about

the study. This farmer promptly asked AF to visit their neighbor, who also enrolled in the study.

Most farmers expressed to AF that they would enroll in the study to help AF in her studies, as

opposed to immediately seeing potential benefits for their farm. None of the participating

farmers seemed to have the capacity or interest in personally helping monitor the deployed

deterrents or to be involved in the review of the data, and AF assumed this mostly relates to the

reality small livestock farmers face of being overburdened to make ends meet. This sentiment

also reflects the role farmers have repeatedly told AF that government and academic scientists

should play- finding solutions for preventing livestock depredations.

Results

Carnivore Presence

We confirmed the presence of coyotes (eight total occurrences) and black bears (four

total occurrences) within the research area based on trail camera data (Table 1; Table 2). We did

not detect period or carryover effects at the treatment area or the farm level using the traditional

frequentist significance level P<0.05.

Table 1

Carnivore occurrences by farm, treatment area, treatment phase; order of control (A) and treatment (B);

carnivore occurrences following the experiment (post-trial)

Farm

Treatment Area

Phase 1 Phase 2

Phase 1-Phase 2

Order

Post Trial

2 "Tig"

West Pasture

2 "Tig"

West ATV

2 "Tig"

East ATV

-7

3 "Tik"

White River

3 "Tik"

Triangle Wood

4 "Sor"

Tree Fall

4 "Sor"

Wooded Pasture

-1

5 "Eut"

North Pasture

5 "Eut"

Feedlot

5 "Eut"

Horse Pasture

6 "Ady"

Ravine

Table 2

Carnivore occurrences by farm, treatment phase; order of control (A) and treatment (B); carnivore

occurrences following the experiment (post-trial)research trial

Farm

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 1-Phase 2

order

A-B

Post Trial

2 "Tig"

-7

3 "Tik"

4 "Sor"

-1

5 "Eut"

6 "Ady"

Between all treatment areas on all farms, the occurrence of carnivores did not vary

significantly (Wilcoxon two-tailed, P > 0.05; df=10; Z=1.1). Ignoring treatment areas, the

occurrence of carnivores did not vary significantly between farms (Wilcoxon two-tailed, P >

0.05; df=4; Z=1.53). We established treatment areas based on unique deer trails, and farmers

rotated their livestock throughout the experiment at different proximities to these treatment areas,

supporting our assumption that all treatment areas and farms were independent. Still, the same

carnivore individuals could have visited multiple treatment areas, undermining our assumption.

Interestingly, two treatment areas on Farm 2 that could be reasonably visited by the same

carnivore were not visited on the same night by the same black bear individual. Still, this

assumption remains potentially violated, and our sample size was small after excluding all

treatment areas of Farm 1 “Jav.”

Deterrent Effectiveness

Given the possibility of the same carnivore individual visiting multiple treatment areas,

we employed more conservative tests by running an ANOVA and an analogous Wilcoxon test on

the five remaining farms (as opposed to on the treatment area level) where data collection and

deterrent deployment were consistent.

During treatment periods, farms experienced one carnivore occurrence and eleven

occurrences during the placebo control periods (Table 2). On average, there were 0.72 carnivore

occurrences to a treatment area (SD=2.2) and two carnivore occurrences to a farm (SD=2.9).

Predator occurrences were detected in both treatment and control periods, and the observed

difference in occurrences between treatment and control on the farm level was insignificant

(ANOVA type statistic df=1, F=0.53, P=0.3; Figure 2; Wilcoxon two-tailed, statistic P>0.05),

although the direction of effects suggests the need for further testing with larger samples.

Figure 2

Carnivore occurrences by experimental phase (Ph) and order of control (A) and treatment (B).

clarify if farms or treatment areas

Discussion

We found fladry and Foxlights to have insignificant effects on carnivore visitation of

treatment areas near livestock pastures. During our study, the only livestock depredation reported

was the chronic depredation of poultry on farm “Jav.” This treatment area that was not included

in the data analysis due to the Foxlight being repeatedly knocked down by barn animals. Still, it

was apparent that the Foxlight was not deterring a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) or a domestic cat

(Felis catus) repeatedly entering the poultry barn, which also had motion detection lights

installed by the farmer.

Post Trial Deterrent Adoption

Following the study, AF established a non-lethal deterrent and camera lending program

through the MNRD Wildlife Program and informed all participating farmers how they could

contact AF to enroll in this program. Farm “Jav” was the only farm to enroll in this program the

following summer, while the remaining farmers weren’t motivated to participate or continue

using fladry and Foxlights. Farm “Jav” was the only farm to experience depredation of livestock

(an estimated $800 of poultry) during the study. This farm was eliminated from the data analysis,

due to camera and deterrent errors in all treatment areas. It was observed that motion detection

lights and Foxlights failed to deter a red fox and a domestic cat repeatedly shown on camera

entering the poultry barn. AF and this farmer continue to collaborate on brainstorming potential

husbandry changes that may reduce future poultry losses.

Navigating farmer demographics

While the husbandry and backgrounds of farmers may vary substantially, trying to

control for which “types” of farmers enroll in a study may not be very feasible, based on our

experience. It is important for some level of farmer buy-in to accomplish carnivore coexistence

research. If a farmer isn’t convinced of any possible benefits they will not see it as worth their

time, or any perceived risk to their livestock, to allow a researcher on their land and around their

livestock. Additionally, conclusions and observations in research can be improved by a farmer’s

interest in the study and in informing the researcher of any carnivore sightings or encounters. We

find it best to openly recruit farmers of any demographic (generational, first generation, organic,

non-organic, etc.) and base enrollment on whether the farmer is interested rather than pushing to

work with less interested farmers. Successful interpersonal communication is intrinsic to this

work and it won’t help a researcher to get off on an awkward start with a farmer or be in a

position in which they feel added pressure to prove themself to the farmer who less than

willingly joined a study.

If a researcher happens to recruit more interested farmers than the researcher actually has

capacity to work with, then could be a good opportunity to qualitatively categorize farmers into

husbandry and background types and then randomly select an equal sample from each category,

but the researcher should not sacrifice being able to effectively work with recruited farmers for

the sake of “perfect” data. It seems reasonable to assume that if some farmers enroll and have a

positive experience working with the researcher, that additional and varied demographics of

farmers will become interested and participate in future studies, which can also provide more

insight to how carnivore coexistence may vary between farming demographics.

Implications for Wildlife Professionals

Despite AF needing to overcome numerous roadblocks, from late supplies to physical

challenges, this gold standard cross-over experiment proved to be achievable by a natural

resources department, and future replication and experimentation can improve upon this study.

Our study served as a pilot into non-lethal deterrent research, and replication should be

done in future studies. Our research can be improved upon with a larger sample size of farmswhich could be easier to achieve in the future with continued relationship building with farmers

and the troubleshooting that our study accomplished.

Future researchers in our study area should also examine the effectiveness of the local use

of livestock guardian animals, including great pyrenees dogs for guarding sheep and donkeys for

guarding cattle. Gold-standard research may be hard to accomplish with livestock guardian

animals on farms which already train these animals, because it can be reasonably assumed that

farmers will not want to put their livestock at risk by removing guardian animals as a control. If

farmers are provided with the livestock guardian animals evaluated through the study, they may

be more willing to participate in the treatment and control phases of crossover experimentation,

but the researcher should keep in mind the financial and time costs of acquiring and training

these animals. Researchers in our study area should also explore how specific husbandry

practices may impact livestock depredations, especially since the region hosts some farms with a

history of chronic depredations.

Currently, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services is contracted by state agencies both for lethal

and non-lethal responses to carnivore coexistence needs. In 2020, the Minnesota DNR

established funding for the first time to have a non-lethal wildlife specialist to research and

deploy non-lethal tools for carnivore coexistence (Hart, 2019). In Wisconsin, Dave Ruid has

been researching non-lethal options for six years and recently has been focusing on developing a

noise making deterrent (Ruid, 2019). This carnivore coexistence work can be improved on

moving forward by developing researching and funding partnerships so that more diverse

backgrounds and areas of expertise inform carnivore coexistence. USDA APHIS Wildlife

Service biologists declined our request to share black bear translocation events with us, citing

privacy concerns. We assumed this had little effect on our research, as none of the farms were

surrounded by sweet corn fields where bears sometimes are trapped from to be relocated for

foraging on the corn crop. Stil, future studies could be benefited by successful collaboration and

involvement of more natural resource agencies such as USDA APHIS WS.

One effort that may help bring us to expand the carnivore coexistence field and better

serve rural communities across what is now called North America is the current work of the

Endangered Species Coalition to develop a model for a “gold standard wolf conservation plan.”

This Master’s thesis helps to inform the development of this model plan-particularly on the

subjects of carnivore coexistence research and outreach and relationship building with farmers

and tribal members.

With the research field of carnivore coexistence growing, state and federal agencies have

more ethical, scientific, and traditional ecological knowledge available. With this expansion of

the field we may move past the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation’s (NAMWC)

history involving the tyranny of the minority and failure to live up to Public and Indian Trust

responsibilities (Lopez-Bao et al., 2017).

Wildlife managers should improve and increase outreach with farmers. Some of them

have expressed distrust or resentment toward the WDNR for not engaging more with the public

about mountain lion sightings and coexistence, for example. Wildlife professionals also should

learn from and collaborate in the farmer relationship building that tribal agencies of Bad River

Tribe, the Red Cliff Tribe, and the Ho-Chunk nation are accomplishing through consultation on

carnivore coexistence and non-lethal deterrent use. The WDNR should also update its outdated

wolf management plan from 1999 and, in doing so, reinstate the science committee with the

inclusion of tribal experts (in addition to formal tribal consultation).

Success in Relationship Building

Prior to the deterrent study, none of the farmers reported having any kind of relationship

with the Bad River Tribe. Following our research, two of the six farms explicitly shared that they

would rather work with the Bad River Tribe than the WDNR, because of the carnivore

coexistence values they came to learn the Mashkiiziibii Wildlife Program holds and because they

felt they’d get more of a response from Bad River Tribe than WDNR for situations such as the

sighting of mountain lions. The four remaining farmers seem to remain in good relationship with

the Mashkiiziibii Wildlife Program, but as previously mentioned may not be motivated to adopt

deterrents, related to a recent lack of depredation issues and a lack of capacity to deploy them.

Future Relationship Building

The study area includes a wave of young farmers, many of whom attended Northland

College and do not come from a farming background or traditional views of livestock farming.

AF became connected with this younger population of farmers toward the end of our study.

Many of these people draw values from permaculture and strive to farm in a regenerative way.

One example of the way permaculturists address carnivore coexistence is illustrated by Michael

Pollan in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma:

“That’s the efficiency of a hedgerow surrounding a small field, something every farmer

used to understand before ‘fencerow to fencerow’ became USDA mantra.”... More birds

on a farm mean fewer insects, but most birds won’t venture more than a couple hundred

yards from the safety of cover. Like many species, their preferred habitat is the edge

between forest and field. The biodiversity of the forest edge also helps control predators.

As long as the weasels and coyotes have plenty of chipmunks and voles to eat, they’re

less likely to venture out and prey on the chickens... It was all of a biological piece, the

trees and the grasses and the animals, the wild and the domestic, all part of a single

ecological system” (Pollan, 2006).

The up and coming farmer group in our study area seems to be a promising demographic

to focus collaborative carnivore coexistence efforts on in the future by teaming up in

documenting effectiveness and interaction that occur with coexistence methods, including both

non-lethal deterrents and livestock guardian animals. The study area also hosts Northland

College, Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College, a Lac Courte Oreilles satellite campus, and

numerous high schools. Students may be good volunteers to assist small livestock farmers by

deploying deterrents and running trail cameras on behalf of farmers and in coordination with the

Mashkiizibii Wildlife Program. AF will explore this route in the future.

Future Land Use Study

As previously discussed, farm “Jav” had a western property border almost entirely

overlapping with a growing wetland and was eliminated from the data analysis. The farmers

attributed the growing wetland to a wildlife conservation easement they reported existed on this

bordering land. This bordering wetland habitat seemed to render it difficult to fence off the

farm’s grazing land effectively from coyotes in particular. Farms “Eut” and “Ady” were also

reported to be in an area that had changed in recent history from forested land to developed

agricultural land. These scenarios and other studies have underlined the potential impacts of land

use and habitat type on carnivore visitation of farms and predation of livestock (Treves et al.,

2004; Treves et al., 2011; Wydeven et al., 2004). Future studies should explore these potential

influences and possible solutions that are less extreme than asking farmers to move their homes

and operations. It is interesting to note the discussion cited above from Michael Pollan on the

potential role of hedgerows in keeping certain native species traveling adjacent, but not through,

livestock pasture. Given the historical tendency in NAMWC toward lethal control, there would

seem to be fertile ground for wider prioritization and study of non-lethal options for coexistence.

Works Cited

Arnold, N. A., Ng, K. T., Jongman, E. C., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2007). The behavioural and

physiological responses of dairy heifers to tape-recorded milking facility noise with and without a pretreatment adaptation phase. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 106(1-3), 13-25.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.07.004

Breitenmoser, U., Angst, C., Landry, J., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Linnell, J. D., & Weber, J.

(2005). Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A. RAFnowitz

(Eds.), People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-existence? Cambridge University Press, 49-71.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511614774.005

Browne-Nuñez, C., Treves, A., Macfarland, D., Voyles, Z., & Turng, C. (2015). Tolerance of

wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral

inclinations. Biological Conservation, 189, 59-71. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.016

Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS). (2008). The Wisconsin Beef Cattle Industry:

A Snapshot, fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2010/11/beefsummary-jeff.pdf.

Chavez, A. S., & Gese, E. M. (2005). Food HAFts of Wolves in Relation to Livestock

Depredations in Northwestern Minnesota. The American Midland Naturalist, 154(1), 253-263.

doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2005)154[0253:fhowir]2.0.co;2

Chavez, A. S., & Gese, E. M. (2006). Landscape Use and Movements of Wolves in Relation to

Livestock in a Wildland–Agriculture Matrix. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(4), 1079-1086.

doi:10.2193/0022-541x(2006)70[1079:luamow]2.0.co;2

Darrow, P. A., & Shivik, J. A. (2009). Bold, shy, and persistent: Variable coyote response to light

and sound stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 116(1), 82-87. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.06.013

Davidson-Nelson, S. J., & Gehring, T. M. (2010). Testing fladry as a nonlethal management tool

for wolves and coyotes in Michigan. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 4(1), 87-94.

Díaz-Uriarte, R. (2002). Incorrect analysis of crossover trials in animal behaviour research. Animal Behavior 63:

815–22.

Eklund, A., López-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G., & Frank, J. (2017). Limited evidence on

the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific

Reports, 7(2097). doi:DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-02323-w

Fergus, A and Hill-Kastern, L. (2019). Mashkiiziibii Wildlife Program. Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan (Gray Wolf)

Relationship Plan (Edition 2). Odanah, WI: Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians,

Mashkiiziibii Natural Resources Department.

Foxlights International Pty Ltd. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.foxlights.com/

Hart, J.P.. (2019, October). An Update on Wolf-Human Conflict in Minnesota. Presented at 2020

Great Lakes Wolf Symposium, Ashland, WI.

Hogberg, J., Treves, A., Shaw, B., Naughton-Treves, L. (2015). Changes in attitudes toward wolves before and after

an inaugural public hunting and trapping season: early evidence from Wisconsin’s wolf range.

Environmental Conservation, doi 10.1017/S037689291500017X.

Importance of reducing noise when handling livestock. (2010, July). Retrieved from

http://www.grandin.com/behaviour/principles/noise.html

Jones, B. & Kenward, M.G.. (1989). Design and analysis of cross-over trials. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.

Johns, J., Masneuf, S., Patt, A., & Hillmann, E. (2017). Regular Exposure to Cowbells Affects

the Behavioral Reactivity to a Noise Stimulus in Dairy Cows. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4.

doi:10.3389/fvets.2017.00153

Johns, J., Patt, A., & Hillmann, E. (2015). Do Bells Affect Behaviour and Heart Rate Variability

in Grazing Dairy Cows? Plos One, 10(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131632

Kautz, M.T., Belant, J.L., Beyer D.E., Strickland, B.K., Petroelje T. R., Sollmann, R. (2019).

Predator densities and white- tailed deer fawn survival. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83 (5) 12611270. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21681.

Kilger, N. (2020). NOAA Climate Data for 2019 Grazing Season in Northern Wisconsin. Odanah, WI.

Lance, N. J., Breck, S. W., Sime, C., Callahan, P., & Shivik, J. A. (2010). Biological, technical,

and social aspects of applying electrified fladry for livestock protection from wolves (Canis lupus). Wildlife

Research, 37(8), 708. doi:10.1071/wr10022

Lac Courte Oreilles Band Of Lake Superior Chippewa Ind. v. State of Wis., 663 F. Supp. 682 (W.D. Wis. 1987) (US

District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin June 23, 1987) (Dist. file).

López-Bao, J. V., Chapron, G., & Treves, A. (2017). The Achilles heel of participatory

conservation. Biological Conservation, 212, 139-143. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.007

Mcmanus, J. S., Dickman, A. J., Gaynor, D., Smut, B. H. (2014). “Dead or Alive? Comparing Costs and Benefits of

Lethal and Non-Lethal Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation on Livestock Farms.” Oryx 49, (4): 687–695.

doi:10.1017/s0030605313001610.

Meriggi A, Lovari S. 1996. A Review of Wolf Predation in Southern Europe: Does the Wolf

Prefer Wild Prey to Livestock? The Journal of Applied Ecology 33(6):1561.

Miller, J. R., Stoner, K. J., Cejtin, M. R., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D., & Schmitz, O. J.

(2016). Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large

carnivores. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 40(4), 806-815. doi:10.1002/wsb.720

Morrigan, J. (1999). The welfare of cull Holstein cows in an abattoir: Testing the effects of

reduced noise in the chute and a workshop on humane handling (Master's thesis, Dalhousie University

(Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Musiani, M. and E. Visalberghi (2000). "Effectiveness of fladry on wolves in captivity." Wildlife Society Bulletin

29: 91-98.

Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock depredation

and compensation payments on rural citizens' attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 17(6): 15001511

Nelson M.E. & Mech L.D. (1994). A Single Deer Stands-Off Three Wolves. American Midland

Naturalist 131(1):20

Ohrens, O., Bonacic, C., & Treves, A. (2019). Non-lethal defense of livestock against predators:

Flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(1), 32-38.

doi:10.1002/fee.1952

Petroelje, T., Lewis, M., Wilton, C., Parsons, B., Starking, M., Roloff, G., Belant, J. (2019,

October). A Machine Learning Platform to Automate Identification of Wolves (Canis lupus) in Remote

Camera Images. Presented at 2020 Great Lakes Wolf Symposium, Ashland, WI.

Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. The Penguin Press.

Rosane, O. (2018, May 23). Humans and Big Ag Livestock Now Account for 96 Percent of Mammal Biomass.

Ecowatch.

Ruid, D. (2019, October). An Update on Wolf-Human Conflict in Wisconsin. Presented at 2020

Great Lakes Wolf Symposium, Ashland, WI.

Shelley, V., Treves, A., & Naughton, L. (2011). Attitudes to Wolves and Wolf Policy Among Ojibwe Tribal

Members and Non-tribal Residents of Wisconsin's Wolf Range. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16: 397413.

Shivik, J. A. (2006). Tools for the Edge: What’s New for Conserving

Carnivores. BioScience, 56(3), 253. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0253:tftewn]2.0.co;2

Shivik, J. A., Treves, A., & Callahan, P. (2003). Nonlethal Techniques for Managing Predation:

Primary and Secondary Repellents. Conservation Biology, 17(6), 1531-1537. doi:10.1111/j.15231739.2003.00062.x

Skulls and Dental Formulas of Common North Carolina Mammals. (n.d.). North Carolina

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

http://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/educational/documents/Skullreferenceguide-NCMammals.pdf

Smith, M. E., Linnell, J. D., Odden, J., & Swenson, J. E. (2000). Review of Methods to Reduce

Livestock Depredation II. Aversive conditioning, deterrents and repellents. Acta Agriculturae

Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science,50(4), 304-315. doi:10.1080/090647000750069502

Smith-Thomas H. (2016). Wolves’ Impact On Stockmen: Are Non-Lethal Methods Effective for

Deterring Depredation? Western Cowman.

Stone, S. A., Breck, S. W., Timberlake, J., Haswell, P. M., Najera, F., Bean, B. S., & Thornhill,

D. J. (2017). Adaptive use of nonlethal strategies for minimizing wolf–sheep conflict in Idaho. Journal of

Mammalogy, 98(1):33–44. doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyw188.

Treves, A., & Bruskotter, J. (2014). Tolerance for Predatory Wildlife. Science, 344(6183), 476-477.

doi:10.1126/science.1252690

Treves, A., Chapron, G., López-Bao , J. V., Shoemaker, C., & Goeckner, A. R. (2015). Predators

and the public trust. Biological Reviews, 92(1), 248–270. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12227

Treves, A. & Karanth, K.U.. (2003). Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management

worldwide. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1491-14

Treves, A., Krofel, M., & Mcmanus, J. (2016). Predator control should not be a shot in the

dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(7), 380-388. doi:10.1002/fee.1312

Treves, A., Martin K.A., Wydeven, A.P., Wiedenhoeft, J.E. (2011). Forecasting Environmental

Hazards and the Application of Risk Maps to Predator Attacks on Livestock. Bioscience 61(6): 451-458.

Treves, A., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2009). Evaluating lethal control in the management of

human-wildlife conflict. In People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistence? (pp. 86-106). Cambridge

University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774.007

Treves A, Naughton-Treves L, Harper EK, Mladenoff DJ, Rose RA, Sickley TA, Wydeven AP.

(2004). Predicting Human-Carnivore Conflict: a Spatial Model Derived from 25 Years of Data on Wolf

Predation on Livestock. Conservation Biology 18(1):114–125.

Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., & Shelley, V. (2013). Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward Wolves.

Conservation Biology, 27(2), 315-323. doi:10.1111/cobi.12009

van Eeden, L. M., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., Macdonald, D. W., Ripple, W. J., Ritchie, E.

G., & Newsome, T. M. (2017). Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conservation

Biology, 32(1), 26-34. doi:10.1111/cobi.12959

Vucetich, J. A., J. T. Bruskotter, R. O. Peterson, A. Treves, T. Van Deelen, and A. M. Cornman.

2013. Evaluating the scientific soundness of plans for harvesting wolves to manage depredations in

Michigan. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Natural Resources Report No. 2013-3.

Wiedenhoeft, J. E., Walter, S., Gross, M., Kluge, N., McNamara, S., Stauffer, G., . . . Johnson, R.

(2020). Wisconsin gray wolf Monitoring Report 15 April 2019 Through 14 April 2020 (Rep.). Retrieved

September 23, 2020, from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources website:

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/WildlifeHAFtat/wolfreport2020.pdf

Williams, C.K., Ericsson, G., Heberlein, T.A.. (2002). A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their

reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2): 575-584.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2009). Wolves and Deer in Wisconsin. Retrieved

from https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehAFtat/wolf/documents/wolvesdeer2009.pdf

Wydeven, A., Treves, A., Brost, B., & Wiedenhoeft, J. (2004). Characteristics of Wolf Packs in

Wisconsin: Identification of Traits Influencing Depredation. In People and Predators: From Conflict To

Coexistence (pp. 29-49). Island Press. Retrieved 2004.

Young, J. K., Miller, E., & Essex, A. (2015). Evaluating fladry designs to improve utility as a

nonlethal management tool to reduce livestock depredation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 39(2), 429-433.

doi:10.1002/wsb.531

Young, J. K., Darper, J., & Breck, S. (2019). Mind the Gap: Experimental Tests to Improve Efficacy of Fladry for

Nonlethal Management of Coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 43(2):265–271. DOI: 10.1002/wsb.970

Zarco-González, M. M., & Monroy-Vilchis, O. (2014). Effectiveness of low-cost deterrents in

decreasing livestock predation by felids: A case in Central Mexico. Animal Conservation, 17(4), 371-378.

doi:10.1111/acv.12104

Chapter 2

Introduction

Relationship building can resolve challenges in carnivore coexistence and arguably all

other issues created and faced by Western culture. The three years of carnivore coexistence

research and outreach I have done on Anishinaabe Aki (Ojibwe land) in the 1842 treaty territory

(Northern Wisconsin) has centered around relationship building with livestock farmers and with

Bad River tribal members.

Positionality is the relationship a researcher has to their study area- true objectivity does

not exist. Instead, it is important that we critically reflect on the values and experiences we hold,

which shape our positionality and strive to select value systems that do the most good and the

least harm. In my research, I worked to build a positionality of reciprocity by building good

relationships with the Bad River Tribe and with small livestock owners to aid in efforts to move

beyond the historical North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) that entails

human-centric values that defer to killing and relocating carnivores, rather than studying ways

that we can coexist in the same places.

In this chapter, I will outline why reciprocal relationship building is essential to carnivore

coexistence and how I went about relationship building. It is my hope that this chapter may

benefit the wildlife field with examples in how to do relationship building, which holds benefits

for everyone- Tribes, livestock owners, and carnivores included.

Anishinaabe People

According to Anishinaabeg (Ojibwe people), they have been on Anishinaabe Aki

(roughly the Western Great Lakes region) since time immemorial (Benton-Banai, 1988; E.

Leoso, personal communication, October 8, 2020). Western science has only been a way of

knowing for four hundred years: since Sir Francis Bacon’s publication of his scientific method in

1620 (Klein, 2003). At the same time as the birth of the scientific method, French explorers were

arriving at Turtle Island (North America). This European settler contact with North America had

been foretold to Anishinaabeg in prophecies which instructed them to move West until they

found the place where the food grew on the water (About the Anishinaabe-Ojibwe; BentonBanai, 1988; E. Leoso, personal communication, October 8, 2020). This understanding of the

Anishinaabe migration timeline was shared with me by elders and knowledge holders including

Midewiwin Society member and MNRD Historic Preservation Officer Edith Leoso.

“Looking at Anishinaabeg timeframes in certain places, we recognize that the

migration began at approximately 900 A.D. We completed the move in about 500 years,

which was about 1400 A.D. Much has happened since then that shifted people here and

there, but we have been in this general vicinity of the continent since the beginning of

Creation. We have stories of how some Anishinabe moved to the south and west, stayed

in the East, and went back east, as well, after the Migration. The Micmac Tribe in Maine

has a place where all the Elders gather to meet. There was a big tree there. They have met

there for so long, they don’t know how long. The place was called Odanah. But they

didn’t know what the word meant because it wasn’t their language until one Micmac

Elder came here for ceremonies, and I told her. She was happy to know and took that

story home to Maine. I was glad they kept the name. Oday – Heart; nuh, short for nong –

indicating it is a locative, a place. Place of the Heart” (E. Leoso, personal

communication, October 8, 2020).

Many indigenous people reject the Bering Strait Hypothesis, while it remains a prominent

paradigm in Western science (Deloria, 1997). Recent archaeological research presented evidence

for humans in southern South America at least 18,500 YBP, and Pierotti and Fogg (2017) contest

this means that if humans had entered the Americas (accompanied by early dogs/wolves) at least

20,000 years ago, if not longer (Pierotti and Fogg, 2017). Anishinaabeg and other indigenous

peoples have cultivated place-based knowledge over a longer time period than the existence of

the refined Western scientific method.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western Science

Western science is certainly a powerful knowledge system, but it has its limitations and is

most powerful when combined with additional, diverse knowledge systems. Lynn (2006)

describes that the naturalistic model of science does not result in purely objective facts because

Western science’s strength lies in describing “tangible phenomena” in “closed systems''.

Studying and considering diverse knowledge systems, including indigenous knowledge systems,

can benefit wildlife professionals in selecting value systems that result in the least harm (Lynn,

2006) to ecosystem and indigenous lifeways, for example. In other words, issues including

carnivore coexistence are best addressed with the combined strengths of Western science in

tangible fact-finding and other knowledge systems in making the necessary value-laden

decisions with a strong ethical backing (Lynn, 2006). Some Western scientists seem to hold an

underlying assumption that indigenous knowledge is not valuable or is not as valuable as

Western science (Whyte, 2013). This misconception has been a mistake, as explained by

Anishinaabe scholars Robin Wall Kimmerer and Kyle Powys Whyte, who practice both Western

and Indigenous scholarship.

Anishinaabeg are well versed in passing down value systems that have guided them in

living regeneratively, within ecosystems, through adaptation. Anishnaabe Scholar Kyle Powys

Whyte explains TEK among his people:

“For Anishinaabe peoples, our oldest stories and political systems speak to a key

philosophical challenge: how can societies be organized to be as adaptive as possible to

seasonal and interannual changes? Our ancient stories speak of extreme weather events,

seasonality, trends of environmental change, migration across different ecosystems, and

humans' capacity to influence entire regions through fire, flood control, trade, among

other collective actions” (Whyte, 2019).

In some ways, Western science is different from TEK; Western science is often focused

on measurable observations, technology to extend observations, hierarchical taxonomy,

reductionism, and mechanistic understanding, hypothesis testing, mathematical modeling,

skepticism, and specialization (Gartner, 2019). Western science and TEK also have

commonalities in focusing on empirical observation, pattern recognition, knowledge

organization, cycles, and culturally specific biases, arguments, and explanations (Gartner, 2019).

By understanding these commonalities and differences, we can better understand how to draw

from both science and TEK to do effective research and outreach.

The knowledge and systems that Anishinaabeg and other indigenous people hold can take

various forms, and there is no one definition of TEK (Whyte, 2013). TEK often seems to reflect

phenological knowledge that land based people such as traditional hunters and trappers cultivate

from experiences on the land. Just as Anishinaabe attitudes about Ma’iingan are not uniform

(Shelley et al., 2011), TEK is not uniform and instead is shaped by an individual or group’s

learning with and from the land. One example of phenological TEK is a teaching I’ve heard

among Mashkiiziibii Odana (the Bad River community) is that when Waawaatesi (Fireflies;

Lampyridae) start flashing in the late summer hunting Waawaashkeshi (White-tailed Deer;

Odocoileus virginianus) can begin. This is generally the same time of summer that fawns are

independent enough to survive on their own if a doe was taken. Whyte proposes examining the

role of TEK since a clear definition does not exist. Following this guidance, I will briefly

examine how my understanding of the different shapes and roles of TEK has evolved throughout

my work with the Bad River Tribe in using Western science and TEK to research and do

carnivore coexistence.

An Outsider Approach to Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

“In order to be involved with wolf conservation, the State and Federal government need

to understand how to take care of wolves. That’s what the Anishinaabe have done for

years by observing and learning. Conservation of wolves is a part of our history. If we

allow them to be killed, we allow ourselves to be killed.” – Mashkiiziibii Elder Edith

Leoso, 2017 (Fergus and Hill-Kastern, 2019)

Generally, indigenous peoples of North America lived sustainably before colonization

occurred and influenced these ways of life (Gartner, 2019). Hunter-gatherer lifestyles gave many

indigenous peoples an intimate knowledge of their dependency on other life, from predators to

prey animals (Gartner, 2019). Anishinaabeg have learned skills and morals from animals

(Benton-Banai, 1988). Anishinaabeg and their stories hold knowledge in coexisting with

Ma’iinganag and other life. Mashkiiziibii Elder and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Edith

Leoso shared with me that her grandmother taught her to put out small amounts of food in the

woods by their home to help coexist with other animals by keeping them away from the yard and

their dogs.

In addition to the Anishinaabe creation story of Ma'iingan, various other stories involve

Ma’iingan teaching lessons to Anishinaabeg (Benton-Banai, 1988; Usik, 2015). These stories

often reflect what environmental values Anishinaabeg have traditionally held (Usik, 2015). The

analysis of these stories and the lessons Anishinaabeg gain from them may also help shed light

on how they successfully co-inhabited North America with Ma’iingan. One Anishinaabe value

these stories exemplify is that humans are lesser than other members of their ecosystem because

of the dependence humans have on other biotas to survive (Usik, 2015). This contrasts with

Western attitudes of dominance over the natural world, which much of the scientific community

is influenced.

In 2013, eighty-three percent of Ma’iinganag (plural form of Gray Wolf) in modern

Wisconsin lived on Anishinaabe Reservations or ceded territory, underlining in part the

important role Anishinaabeg play in Ma’iingan’s fate (Sanders, 2013). When I began my

research with the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (hereafter

Bad River Tribe), my early impression of TEK was that it had to be handed down by generations

and was information that connected us directly back to ancestors. I thought the only route to

TEK was talking to tribal elders, which I happily did weekly at the Bad River Elder lunch during

my first two years of work with the Tribe.

Over the course of attending Bad River elder lunches, I learned how today’s Anishinaabe

Elders often grew up separated from their culture. Violent and deadly boarding schools separated

indigenous children from their families for one-hundred years up until the 1970s, and it is in

today’s young generations that language and culture are being reclaimed and revitalized in

immersion schools and programs (Ammann, 2019; Kebec et al., 2020; Kimmerer, 2015; Whyte,

2017; Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014). The slogan behind one of the first boarding schools, Carlisle,

was “kill the Indian to save the man” and children were punished for speaking their language or

practicing Anishinaabe culture (Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014).

I began to realize that learning TEK differs from my experience in learning Western

scientific knowledge (WSK), because Western learning has been more predictable as I steadily

extract teachings from lectures and readings. On the other hand, my TEK learning has been

based in relationship building with knowledge holders. I can’t predict when I will be gifted with

new knowledge in return for what I can share about wildlife populations and coexistence efforts,

but looking back I have learned a great deal of phenological patterns and natural history of the

area from relationship building with tribal elders.

I have learned many ways Anishinaabe TEK can take shape by working as an intern,

wildlife technician, and now wildlife specialist for Mashkiiziibii Natural Resources Department

(MNRD) of the Bad River Tribe. Doing traditional skills outreach with Bad River youth has

caused me to reflect on my own city upbringing and how much I can learn from people with long

running relationships to the land. When I work with the MNRD Wildlife Technician, who grew

up hunting and trapping on the Bad River Reservation, I find myself taking lots of notes when he

relays his updated tactics to trap Amik (beaver; Castor canadensis), because through these

conversations I am learning the animal behavior of how a beaver can foil a trap set by carrying

the right sized stick in its mouth and how a desperate beaver may try to overwinter in a

mudbank.

Bad River continues to foster a strong tradition of learning and living off the land- despite

the attempted assimilation of boarding schools. This has meant that any given conversation I

have with a Bad River tribal member who practices hunting, fishing, trapping, or gathering holds

a lot of valuable knowledge, such as where Ma’iingan corridors run through the Reservation or

how families traditionally leave some food scraps out to help coexist with Ma’iingan and other

animals, a traditional form of what’s called “diversionary feeding” in the conservation field.

TEK takes many forms and comes from many sources. I engage with TEK in a similar

way to how I scrutinize scientific information in order to assess whether the knowledge may hold

true from my perspective. I consider the positionality of TEK holders and scientists alike. I

explore what assumptions underlie the TEK or the science. When given the opportunity, I put the

TEK or the science to the test in my own experimentation, research, and conservation work. This

approach is in line with the approach of Anishinaabe Botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer.

I have learned to involve both TEK and WSK in my research from MNRD and from

Anishinaabe Botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer. One of many ways to do this is by conducting

Western scientific experiments based on questions surrounding TEK. Kimmerer’s student did

this in a study on Wiingashk (Sweetgrass; Hierochloe odorata); they researched the effect on

sweetgrass growth of two different traditional harvesting techniques and a control of no harvest.

The sweetgrass harvesters of both methodologies wanted to know which harvest technique had a

better ecological impact. Kimmerer’s student found that both ways of harvesting led to better

sweet grass regeneration than the control of no harvest. Kimmerer concluded that this is an

example of how humans can benefit our ecosystems if we foster the right relationships

(Kimmerer, 2013).

Braiding Sweetgrass is full of teachings from Kimmerer in how to honor and draw from

both WSK and TEK. I will now elaborate on reciprocity and the importance of incorporating it

in working with land-based peoples, including indigenous folks and small farmers.

Reciprocity at the Foundation of Collaborations

Now that I have explored some of the ways TEK can take shape and be drawn upon, I

will explain reciprocity, which is central to research partnerships with Anishinaabeg.

Anishinaabe Botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer explains the Anishinaabe value of reciprocity by

describing the plant responsibilities in the Iroquois three sisters’ garden (Kimmerer, 2013).

“The corn stands eight feet tall; rippling green ribbons of leaf curl away from the stem in

every direction to catch the sun. No leaf sits directly over the next so that each can gather

light without shading the others. The bean twines around the corn stalk, weaving itself

between the leaves of corn, never interfering with their work. In the spaces where corn

leaves are not, buds appear on the vining bean and expand into outstretched leaves and

clusters of fragrant flowers. The bean leaves droop and are held close to the stem of the

corn. Spread around the feet of the corn and beans is a carpet of big broad squash leaves

that intercept the light that falls among the pillars of corn. Their layered spacing uses the

light, a gift from the sun, efficiently, with no waste. The organic symmetry of forms

belongs together; the placement of every leaf, the harmony of shapes speak their

message. Respect one another, support one another, bring your gift to the world, and

receive the gifts of others, and there will be enough for all.”(Kimmerer, 2013).

I have worked to show reciprocity to the Bad River Tribe for the lessons I am

continuously gifted by honoring and addressing TEK along with Western science. I follow

Kimmerer’s work in, because she is renowned for her ability to see through the Western

scientific and the Anishinaabe lenses in her studies of the natural world. She explains Western

science’s historical exclusion of TEK, which we can move past. In an interview, Kimmerer

summarized how her embrace of both science and TEK contrasts with how many scientists treat

TEK:

“Both Western science and TEK are methods of reading the land. That’s where they

come together. But they’re reading the land in different ways. Scientists use the intellect

and the senses, usually enhanced by technology. They set spirit and emotion off to the

side and bar them from participating. Often science dismisses indigenous knowledge as

folklore — not objective or empirical, and thus not valid. But indigenous knowledge, too,

is based on observation, on experiment. The difference is that it includes spiritual

relationships and spiritual explanations. Traditional knowledge brings together the seen

and the unseen, whereas Western science says that if we can’t measure something, it

doesn’t exist” (Tonino, 2016).

Why Relationship Building Matters for Carnivore Coexistence

“Consent, trust, accountability, and reciprocity are qualities of relationships that are

critical for justice- oriented coordination across societal institutions in any urgent matter.

Yet they are precisely the kinds of qualities of relationships that take time to nurture and

develop” (Whyte, 2019).

I have pursued my graduate education with an approach that embraces Western science

and Indigenous Knowledge systems. I learned this approach to education and research from

MNRD and the work of indigenous scholars such as Robin Wall Kimmerer, Winona LaDuke,

Vine Deloria Jr., Kaitlin Curtice, Basil Johnston, and Kyle Powys Whyte. To adopt this approach

in my education and research, I had to deconstruct certain messages I grew up with: that Western

science always leads to solid and unbiased conclusions, that stories and Western science are

incompatible, and that indigenous peoples existed only in the past.

In my work, I have strived to understand how my life and work has depended on the

colonization of indigenous peoples and to address constructively the systems that continue to

perpetuate settler-colonialism, as explained by Kyle Powys Whyte:

“Settler colonialism is not entirely a matter of when or how one’s ancestors came to the

U.S.. Having settler privilege means that some combination of one’s economic security,

U.S. citizenship, sense of relationship to the land, mental and physical health, cultural

integrity, family values, career aspirations, and spiritual lives are not possible—

literally!—without the territorial dispossession of Indigenous peoples” (Whyte, 2018).

The colonization of Turtle Island (North America) is directly tied to the near or complete

extirpation of wolves and other carnivores (David, 2009; Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014). The

population of wolves and Anishinaabeg followed the same violent drop following European

colonization, and in more recent history, have seen the same recovery (David, 2009; Zhaashiigid

(Shimek), 2014). The colonization of indigenous peoples, including the Anishinaabeg, and the

extinction threats faced by wolves and other carnivores are tied together. The Anishinaabe

creation story of Ma’iingan and Anishinaabe (meaning spontaneous man in Anishinaabemowin)

illustrates this connection and demonstrates the importance of indigenous knowledge systems.

The Creator put Ma’iingan and Anishinaabe together as brothers to travel the earth and

name all of creation (Benton-Banai, 1988; Isham, 2019; Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014). Ma’iingan

and Anishinaabe lived together and grew close, but when their job of naming all of creation was

over, the Creator separated the two but told them that they would walk parallel paths (BentonBanai, 1988; Isham, 2019; Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014). Ma’iingan and Anishinaabe are

connected, what happens to one happens to the other (Benton-Banai, 1988; Isham, 2019;

Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014). The root of the issues that threaten and endanger animals is the

same as the issue faced by indigenous people: Western colonization and the broken relationships

it has caused.

Indigenous peoples have survived colonization just as wolves survived near extinction in

the continental U.S. (David, 2009; Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014; Whyte, 2017). Indigenous

peoples have lessons to teach as the conservation field addresses climate crisis and mass

extinctions (McGregor et al., 2020). The colonization of Turtle Island and the rapid destruction

of habitat and displacement of indigenous peoples has been called a form of climate change that

indigenous peoples have survived (Whyte, 2019). Indigenous declarations have called for this

respect, inclusion, and attention to indigenous knowledge for decades (McGregor et al., 2020).

The climate and extinction crises, which indigenous peoples hold unique knowledge

about from being disproportionately affected by them, are quickly worsening. Building the

needed trust and accountability to stop undermining the solutions of indigenous peoples takes

time (Whyte, 2019). For more than 500 years indigenous perspectives on Turtle Island have been

colonized or silenced (often with the help of our Western scholar predecessors), and we do not

have time or justification to continue this trend.

It’s a recent phenomenon that Indigenous governments are being engaged as the

sovereigns they are in conservation by state and federal agencies (Whyte, 2013). And yet from

my direct experience as a wildlife specialist for the Bad River Tribe and in the realm of wolf

conservation in particular, state and federal governments have much to improve upon in

honoring treaties with and inherent sovereignty of Tribes. Potawatomi Scholar Kyle Powys

Whyte’s work underlines a need for collaboration between indigenous and non-indigenous

entities for environmental justice for both human and non-human beings (Whyte, 2013).

Coevolutionary Hypothesis of Homo sapiens and Canis lupus

"The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms… The

true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma" (deWaal,

2013).

I have outlined how indigenous culture is embedded with long running and ecological

knowledge. Thus, TEK and science can often converge. A historical connection between wolves

and humans is not only supported by Anishinaabe culture, but also supported by some

evolutionary theory. In The First Domestication: How Wolves and Humans Coevolved, Pierotti,

and Fogg work to support their hypothesis of coevolution/self-domestication with the wolf

(Pierotti and Fogg, 2017). Pierotti is a professor at the University of Kansas and specializes in

the evolutionary and behavioral ecology of mammals, including wolves. Fogg received her

master’s degree in Indigenous Nations Studies at the University of Kansas. The authors draw

upon indigenous knowledge, evolution and systematics, and personal knowledge of coexisting

with wolves to argue that Gray Wolves greatly shaped the human species.

“These two species [Gray Wolves and Ravens (Corvus corvax) ] helped code the

memories of various peoples and cultural traditions as they adapted to the new

environments they encountered. Even more important, these two species helped humans

survive in lands about which the nonhumans knew far more than did the humans. Since

most of these survival skills involved hunting and scavenging, it is hardly surprising that

the most intelligent and social hunter [Gray Wolves] and the most intelligent and social

scavenger [Ravens] are the two nonhuman species most often recognized as creators by

the peoples of North America or that they also seem to be each other’s closest allies.

“Wolves may have been a major force that shaped human evolution, creating a territorial,

cooperative, group-living species with strong family bonds from an intelligent ape which

had been none of these. One major reason that Wolf (and Dingo) are viewed as creator

figures is that they may literally have made us the humans we are today” (Pierotti and

Fogg, 2017).

Pierotti and Fogg underpin their coevolutionary hypothesis by addressing the outdated

conception in Western science that competition, rather than cooperation, is more prominent in

ecology and evolution (Pierotti and Fogg, 2017; deWaal, 2017). One study found that in nonhuman animal species, cooperation composed 85 to 95 percent of recorded behavior (Pierotti and

Fogg, 2017; Shouse, 2003). The Roman Catholic church was responsible for shaping some of the

attitudes of the competition and dominion held by Western peoples towards carnivores.

“The Roman Catholic church, however, attacked relationships between Europeans and

the non-domestic animals with which they had cultural and emotional ties. When the

church was solidifying its hold on European imaginations, it demonized European

shamanic traditions and rituals in which animal spirits were invoked.

“After the bears were all gone, the church turned to wolves with frightening efficiency.

Such traditions emerged from the odd argument, endorsed by Augustine, Aquinas, and

Descartes, among others, that animals lacked souls and the fostering confusion between

human and animal nature was an abomination” (Pierotti and Fogg, 2017).

Pierotti and Fogg also criticize the outdated field of taxonomy, because the Linnaean

system is reductionist and shaped by Christian creationism (Pierotti and Fogg, 2017). They warn

of the ways creationism continues to influence some Western science and attributes this to the

limited, human-centric way some researchers continue to view domestication, despite the fact

that Charles Darwin argued that domestication and evolution were connected (Pierotti and Fogg,

2017).

Pierotti and Fogg’s work is helpful and interesting in considering how humans and other

animals may have shaped one another over evolutionary time- but some vulnerabilities in their

arguments include the argument that apes are not communal or territorial and the contested way

they define domestication.

Great Lakes States Failures to Consult Tribes and Honor Treaties

Some scientists have dismissed indigenous knowledge for being value-laden, but in

actuality, the idea of objectivity taught to many Western scientists is flawed (Lynn, 2006). Lynn

points to the Nuremberg trials and the Tuskegee study to exemplify the dangerous outcomes that

result when we pretend science is free from human bias or can be truly objective. Additionally,

the erasing, denial, or stealing of indigenous knowledge has serious consequences as the global

loss of culture is tied to the global loss of biodiversity (Bannister, 2007; LaDuke, 1999; Lynn,

2006).

The way scientists have erased and denied indigenous knowledge has been damaging to

Great Lakes Anishinaabeg (Johnston, 2012;Sanders, 2013; Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014). As an

example, Anishinaabeg have been harmed by the way that state natural resource agencies have

excluded Tribes in decision making around wolf conservation. In Wisconsin, under the Walker

administration, the Wisconsin DNR ignored multiple Tribes’ assertions of buffer zones in which

Ma’iingan was not to be hunted within a buffer around reservations of ceded territory, in order to

protect Reservation wolves (Sanders, 2013). In 2012, Bad River wrote to former WDNR

Secretary Cathy Stepp and requested that Ma’iingan be protected from the planned state wolf

hunts not only on the Bad River Reservation but also within a roughly 6-mile buffer zone beyond

the reservation boundaries in order to adequately protect reservation Ma’iinganag which don’t

abide by the political boundaries of the reservation.

“The [Wisconsin] DNR asserted that the tribal usufructuary right is ‘a resource harvesting

right, not a resource preservation or enhancement right infringing on the State’s

management authority’” (Sanders, 2013).

This reasoning provided by WDNR in actuality has infringed on the treaty rights of the

Great Lakes Anishinaabe bands. Before colonization, part of the Anishinaabe traditional lifeway

was protecting their brother, Ma’iingan.

“For the Anishinaabe, wolves are revered for their caretaking. Wolves masterfully take

care of their own families. Wolf pups are taken care of by an entire pack, and are well

cared-for, even if the biological parents of those pups die. Wolves also masterfully take

care of the other animals and the land. They cull diseased prey animals and keep grazing

to an appropriate level to ensure the continued availability of important plant species” (P.

Kebec, personal communication, December 12, 2020).

The State of Wisconsin needs to honor the treaties and trust responsibilities toward Tribes

and the burden of proof is legal on the state to show that policies and decisions are the options

which do the least harm to the Great Lakes Anishinaabeg (Sanders, 2013). Anishinaabeg ceded

land to the Federal government in 1837 and 1842, before the State of Wisconsin existed, in

exchange for the promise that Anishinaabeg would be able to maintain their traditional way of

life through explicit and implicit rights, which are still being parsed out between GLIFWC and

the State of Wisconsin today (Sanders, 2013). The treaties are to be interpreted in the way the

signatory Tribes would have understood the agreement. The 1842 treaty ensures the “usual

privileges of occupancy” meaning that to this day, Anishinaabe lifeways must be protected.

Article II of the 1842 treaty: “The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded

territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy” (Treaty, 1842).

Article V of the 1837 treaty: “The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild

rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guaranteed

to the Indians” (Treaty, 1837).

GLIFWC Wildlife Biologist Peter David has been one of my mentors since 2017 and I

have learned a great deal from his experience representing Anishinaabe bands’ ceded territory

rights in the drafting of the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan. David describes the historic and

current problems with the Wisconsin plan, pertaining to Anishinaabe lifeways and sovereignty:

“One of the reasons GLIFWC has focused its efforts in Wisconsin is because relative to

Minnesota, the approach in Wisconsin is much more draconian in terms of the impact it

will have on the wolf population. In particular, Minnesota is not looking to substantially

alter the population this first season, while Wisconsin has that as a specific goal. And

that’s one of the biggest issues that remain in the Wisconsin wolf-management plan; not

only is it out of date—failing to incorporate what we’ve learned over the last 15 years

[now 21 years] —but it also has this somewhat poorly defined population goal of 350

animals. As someone who was part of the team that drafted that original management

plan, I can tell you that 350 was supposed to be a management threshold above which

certain management activities would be permissible. Others, however, have glommed

onto that 350 figure and said, ‘That’s our goal for the state, and we need to reduce the

population down to it.’ That’s a position the tribes are very much at odds with”

(Johnston, 2012).

The Minnesota DNR in the past has openly dismissed Anishinaabe wolf management

input as a “cultural concern” and decided it should not have an influence in related decision

making (Usik, 2015). This line of reasoning fails to recognize the ways in which European

culture and thinking dominate wolf management in the U.S.. Values that can be traced back to

Europe before colonization, such as livestock husbandry, exploitation of the feminized earth, a

Christian right to dominion, preference for the “more useful” domestic animal over wild animals,

and an Aristotelian hierarchy that places humans above all wild animals, are often upheld by

modern wolf management goals. The logic employed by the Minnesota DNR also reduces

Anishinaabe nations from the sovereigns they are to a cultural interest group (Usik, 2015).

Ethicist Bill Lynn recommends using science for what it’s best at, explaining tangible

phenomena (Lynn, 2006). Scientists need ethics for guidance in the value-laden decisions related

to how to conduct research and how the research findings may affect people, animals, and

ecosystems. According to Lynn “ethics is a cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary dialogue that

uses reason and evidence while discriminating between moral values” (Lynn, 2006). The more

cultures and disciplines that inform a scientist’s selection of moral values to conduct research

with, the closer they can get to true objectivity since various lenses and experiences are drawn

upon to reach evidence-based conclusions.

To the extent that co-management has occurred between the Great Lakes States and

Anishinaabe Bands, wildlife populations have been better off when the Anishinaabe are included

(Busihan and Gilbert, 2009). Ethical, scientific, traditional, and legal understanding all point

toward the importance of states improving from the historic lack of respect for Anishinaabe

sovereignty and values in the wolf hunts that occurred in the early 2010s (Sanders, 2013;

Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014). Six Bad River Ma’iinganag were killed in 2013 hunts and two

were killed in 2012 hunts according to GIS mapping by Lacey Hill Kastern during her time as

MNRD wildlife specialist.

Federal Failure to Honor Trust Responsibility to Tribes

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) is a natural resources

agency with delegated authority to represent and protect traditional lifeways on behalf of 11

Anishinaabe Tribes including the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa

Indians (Isham, 2019). GLIFWC wrote a letter detailing the Great Lakes Anishinaabe Tribes’

opposition to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) proposed delisting of the

Great Lakes Gray Wolf. The underlying reasoning for the Great Lakes Anishinaabe Tribes’

opposition to delisting is that without federal protections, the Great Lakes states’ lack of

preparedness and the public’s lack of tolerance and great responsibility in Ma’iingan mortality

pose an imminent threat to the wolf. This merits the gray wolf at least the status of threatened

under the Endangered Species Act (Isham, 2019).

The federal government, through the Endangered Species Act, has historically failed to

fulfill its trust responsibility to Tribes in order to support traditional, indigenous lifeways

(Zygmunt, 2004). Endangered Species Act listings and delisting are most often determined by

litigation rather than informed by science, ethics, and trust obligations (Zygmunt, 2004). For the

gray wolf and Anishinaabe treaty rights to truly be protected, it seems a new framework is

needed moving forward:

“In recognition of the importance of Ma’iingan as an iconic animal of North America,

and an animal which suffers from human misconceptions about its dangerousness to

human interests, GLIFWC, and its member tribes seek partnership with the Service to

consider management frameworks outside the parameters of the Endangered Species Act,

including the Tribes’ reserved rights. Ideally, we would work together to change public

perceptions about Ma’iingan and cooperate to ensure its ability to persist and thrive

within the Great Lakes region, and other suitable areas within the United States, at the

natural carrying capacity of these places” (Isham, 2019).

Relationship Building with Bad River Tribe

Now that I have laid a foundation for the importance of reciprocity, decolonization, and

legal and ethical considerations in conservation, I will recount exactly how I did relationship

building with the Bad River Tribe and with small livestock farmers in Northern Wisconsin to

improve carnivore coexistence. Building rapport with the Bad River members and with livestock

owners was central to my carnivore coexistence research. The trust I built with these groups and

the knowledge I gained from them helped me design this study.

I designed my study to expand the scientific knowledge on non-lethal deterrents in a way

that could be reproduced by a livestock farmer or a small natural resources agency. My rapport

with the Tribe was built over a span of a year and a half, prior to my enrollment in graduate

school. My background knowledge in livestock husbandry was built over a year prior to

beginning my field research and aided in building rapport with farmers. I spent an unprecedented

amount of time relationship building with the Tribe and farmers, compared to what would have

been possible if I had not begun this work until I started pursuing my Master’s degree. My

graduate schooling, however, came out of the relationship I started building with the Tribe

during my undergraduate studies. As a result, I have insider knowledge on issues, culture,

politics, and ways on and off the Bad River Reservation that enriched my research.

I began my work with the Bad River Tribe as an intern for the Mashkiiziibii Natural

Resources Program (MNRD) to gather input for the update of the Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan

Relationship Plan. I interviewed wolf biologists, white livestock owners, and tribal members

about their attitudes toward wolves and asked for their input on the Tribe’s Ma’iingan plan. The

plan outlines protections for gray wolves within the reservation and within a six-mile buffer zone

surrounding the reservation.

In addition to this work, I shadowed the wildlife, warden, and invasive species programs

within MNRD. MNRD gave me a place-based learning experience that established my ability to

conduct my graduate research by teaching me skills in wildlife tracking. Bad River Tribal

Chairman Mike Wiggins Jr. has explained the approach taken by me and my mentor (also nontribal) Lacey Hill Kastern as mimicking Anishinaabe approaches to our work as wildlife

specialists for MNRD.

Through my internship with MNRD, I also gained an education in treaty rights and

Anishinaabe culture. Thanks to my continuous education in treaty rights, I am able to better

conduct research in a way that can support Anishinaabe bands in gaining full recognition of their

treaty and inherent rights to hunt, fish, gather, relate, and live in a traditional way.

I wanted to work with an Anishinaabe Tribe because I wanted to gain a radically different

and more complex understanding of the wolf than what was available in my own culture as a

Western scientist. Western cultures portray the wolf as vicious in stories such as Peter and the

Wolf or Little Red Riding Hood (Lopez, 2004; Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014; David, 2009;

Williamson, 2011). In Europe, the forested habitat of the wolf was cleared and livestock replaced

native prey, causing some European agricultural people to come into conflict with wolves and

carry these fearful images of the wolf to the “New World” (Linnell and Cretois, 2018; Lopez,

2004). In more recent history, the wolf was nearly eradicated from the United States by the

1970s, leaving generations of farmers to learn their practice on a landscape with fewer predators.

Today, some generational farmers may be wary of changing their husbandry practices, as a result

of growing up farming in a way that didn’t entail thinking about carnivore coexistence. Today,

Bad River Tribal leadership and many livestock farmers in modern northern Wisconsin have a

common interest in successful coexistence with predators: no predators killing livestock and no

humans killing predators in retaliation. Additionally, the farming community in the 1842 ceded

territory seems to be shifting and growing as organic and regenerative farming is popular among

Northland College graduates and other white settlers who end up on the Chequamgon Bay.

I translated my internship into an undergraduate thesis outlining recommendations for the

update of the Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Relationship Plan and relocated to Ashland, WI- next to

the Bad River Reservation. I spent a year between undergraduate and the beginning of my

Master’s working as a wildlife technician for MNRD and working with Lacey Hill-Kastern to

acquire federal funds to sponsor my graduate education and research and to solidify the skills in

wildlife tracking and outreach I began developing as an intern.

Relationship Building with Livestock Farmers

I grew up in a city and I had a lot of learning to do about farming culture before I could

conduct my deterrent research. During my internship with MNRD, previous wildlife specialist

Lacey Hill-Kastern emphasized the importance of understanding the diversity of people and

lifeways in the Northwoods, in order to work together on common interests- including carnivore

coexistence. Hill-Kastern grew up near the Bad River Reservation, is a hunter, and participated

in 4-H as a student. Learning from Hill-Kastern’s perspective and eight years as a wildlife

specialist for MNRD prepared me to engage with people of diverse perspectives toward

carnivores.

During my internship with MNRD, when I met with cattle farmers to interview them

about their attitudes toward wolves and the aspects of the Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Relationship

Plan, I was given a window into the history of livestock owner-government relationships in the

area. Livestock farmers painted a picture of government scientists being out of touch with the

everyday needs and lives of farmers (Fergus, 2017). One farmer told me that a government

scientist asked if he could just keep his cattle indoors during the black bear mating season. This

was out of touch with the realities of livestock grazing whenever grass is growing (Fergus,

2017). This example demonstrates that some scientists may lack sufficient understanding of

livestock husbandry to effectively troubleshoot conflict with farmers.

When some farmers recounted the loss of livestock animals to carnivores, they spoke

with a mix of emotions including sadness for the lost animal and frustration, but not hatred

toward the carnivore. Many small farmers hold a meaningful connection with their animals, that

shouldn’t be ignored by those trying to promote carnivore coexistence (Fergus, 2017). Many

natural resource issues beyond carnivore coexistence, such as water quality and wetland

preservation, depend on collaboration with farmers and scientists ought to build understanding

and relationships with farmers. The insights I gained in engaging with cattle farmers of the

Northwoods was essential for what was a prolonged task: recruiting farmers for my graduate

research despite the bad taste in many farmers’ mouths when it comes to government scientists.

During my first year in the Northwoods, I was also diving into agriculture outside of my

studies and employment. I befriended a small, regenerative beef farmer who taught me about

rotational grazing: a healthy way to move livestock across a landscape to make carbon

sequestering grasslands, just as many extinct megafauna such as the mastodon once did (Savory

and Butterfield, 1999). Carbon is sequestered by the healthy plants and soils that result from

rotational grazing (Savory and Butterfield, 1999); the cattle are in reciprocity with the grasses

they digest in their rumen and the soil they puck under their hooves.

In addition to showing me where the Tribe and livestock owners might have common

interests, my cattle farmer friend taught me how to milk cows and move cattle to different

pastures. This hard work gave me a small taste of the reality of a cattle farmer in the

Northwoods. This experience guided me in designing a research project that would take up as

little of a farmer’s stretched time as possible. Thanks to receiving lessons in livestock rearing, I

was able to relate better with farmers and conduct effective outreach during my field research as

unexpected carnivore situations arose.

Doing Carnivore Coexistence Outreach with Farmers

During my field research on non-lethal deterrent effectiveness, one farming community

reported two sightings of a mountain lion. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) maintains a policy that they will only investigate mountain lion sightings if pictures of

the animal or its tracks are provided, giving the rationale that people may mistake another large

carnivore for the big cat. When members of the farming community first reported a mountain

lion sighting to me, I stayed up into the night texting one member of the neighborhood. I sent her

resources from other states with established mountain lion populations which contained advice

on how to be safe on the same landscape as lions.

The next day, I traveled to the community to search for sign of a mountain lion, despite

the fact that tracking conditions were abysmal following a lack of rain and in some places the

compacted nature of the clay soil. Predictably, I failed to find mountain lion sign, but I was able

to conduct some outreach with the members of the farming community to help them understand

mountain lion behavior and how to keep their children and animals safe given the circumstances.

One farmer opted to attach bells to horse saddles to keep her kids safer on their regular

horseback rides through the woods, by warning any avoidant carnivore of their approach. The

initial alarm experienced by farmers following the first mountain lion sighting subsided when

they were given resources and when I assumed their sighting was plausible. I took time to

consider what the farmers were experiencing emotionally, and based the actions I took on

helping ease stress by providing resources about the carnivore they may be sharing the landscape

with. Ethologist and primatologist Frans deWaal’s definition of cognition is the ability to take on

another’s perspective (deWaal, 2017) and this reminds me of the importance of wildlife

professionals being able to put themselves in the boots of a farmer in working toward carnivore

coexistence.

Later that summer, a different family within the same farming community reported a

mountain lion sighting to me. Youth in the family were putting the chickens in for the night

when they looked over about twenty-five yards away along a vegetated ditch to see what they

reported as a mountain lion watching the chicken coop. While my trail cameras in this

community and my tracking never produced mountain lion sign, at the end of summer a

mountain lion was caught on camera thirty-seven miles north in the same county (well within

one lion’s range) with a dead coyote in its mouth (Myers, 2019).

It seemed effective to approach farmers with the assumption that their carnivore sightings

were plausible, even if it is eventually discovered that a misidentification happened. The summer

after my deterrent research, I continued consulting with a farmer who experienced significant

poultry loss to a red fox and a feral cat during the deterrent research. One day in the summer of

2020, she and her family came home from a day trip and looked out the back sliding door of the

house to see what they believed was a mountain lion eating a chicken. The farmer ran outside to

shout it away and caught a clear view of it after it crossed a highway and stood in the neighbor’s

driveway, flicking its tail, looking back at the farmer, and not displaying fear.

The same week, some of the farmer’s neighbors caught one of two very large bobcats on

camera. The photo, along with the reported behavior consisting of lack of fear towards a

shouting human and the targeting of chickens as prey, led me to conclude that the chicken-eating

culprit was most likely one of the large bobcats. Even though the farmer’s initial impression of

what carnivore she was interacting with was off, this farmer still required assistance reflecting on

and learning from her sightings and then understanding bobcat behavior. Not only did the farmer

need help to learn about coexisting with cats, whether a mountain lion or a bobcat, but I also

needed the education. My background has been in studying gray wolves specifically and I held

an unexamined assumption going into this research that I would not be potentially responding to

interactions with mountain lions and bobcats. Responding to farmer reports when I have the

capacity to is the most valuable training and learning I get toward doing carnivore coexistence

and I encourage others in my field to take these opportunities for learning and outreach.

Following my own relationship building with the Bad River Tribe and northern

Wisconsin livestock farmers, I worked to build relationships between these two groups. I also

began my work in teaching other wildlife professionals how to do similar relationship building

and learning when I co-organized the 2020 Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Symposium. I will conclude

this chapter by reflecting on some of the lessons I gained from the symposium which pertain to

the work natural resource professionals and carnivore researchers have ahead of us.

Lessons from the 2020 Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Symposium

“After hundreds of years of interaction, many Euro-Americans do not understand the

complexity of the relationship Anishinaabe (original man) in the region [the Western

Great Lakes] have with the wolf (Ma’iingan). Nor do some Anishinaabe understand the

Euro-American relationship to the world we all share. We have been neighbors for many

years; we still have much to learn about each other. To start gaining ground on a mutual

understanding, some tough issues and questions have to be raised” (Zhaashiigid

(Shimek), 2014).

On January 31, 2020, Bad River Chairman Mike Wiggins Jr. welcomed scientists, tribal

citizens, elders, farmers, veterans, and Chequamegon community members to the 2020

Mashkiiziibii Ma’iingan Symposium hosted by the Mashkiiziibii Wildlife Program at the

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. During this three day gathering, ahead of the anticipated

2020 delisting of the gray wolf, tribal, state, and federal employees, as well as citizens of the

Chequamegon Bay area, came together to discuss Ma’iingan and the varying relationships and

responsibilities we hold with and to the wolf.

I co-organized the Ma’iingan Symposium with a team from MNRD, Red Cliff Band

Forestry & Wildlife Department, and GLIFWC. The Bad River Tribal Council saw a need for

Anishinaabe-centered conversations about Ma’iingan after the painful experiences that led up to

modern Ma’iingan hunts in the Great Lakes in the early 2012 and 2013.

Anishinaabe approaches to protecting Ma’iingan, a brother to Anishinaabeg, have not

been historically embraced by the Wisconsin or federal government agencies (Sanders, 2013;

Johnston, 2012). Under the Scott Walker governmental administration, the WDNR ignored

Tribes’ assertion of sovereignty in protecting Ma’iinganag (wolves) in a buffer zone, extending

into ceded territory, around reservations. The protection of these buffer zones would more

adequately protect reservation wolves as carnivores with a large territory and no regard for

political boundaries (Sanders, 2013). At the time of the Ma’iingan Symposium, the Tony Evers

governmental administration had just taken over from Walker’s openly anti-wolf era. The

symposium facilitated Great Lakes Anishinaabeg to remember and discuss trials and successes in

protecting brother Ma’iingan in coordination with state and federal government actions or

inactions. The symposium also greatly served non-tribal natural resources personnel- especially

myself.

Aurora Conley, member of Ma’iingan Dodem or Wolf Clan and of the Bad River Band,

co-organized the symposium with me. The symposium would not have been possible without

Conley’s charisma and knowledge of Anishinaabe ways. Conley ensured the symposium took

place in a honorable way, from providing gifts and hospitality to our guests to understanding

how to respectfully and successfully “schedule” an Elder to share knowledge at a public event.

Co-organizing the Ma’iingan Symposium was my first responsibility as Wildlife Specialist for

MNRD and Aurora taught me how to honor and learn from the Anishinaabe ways in engaging

with the community about our place in nature and about our relationship with other carnivores. I

heard first hand from academic scholars and federal wildlife managers how the symposium held

lessons that touched them and taught them. I will now summarize some lessons offered by

Anishinaabe elders and scholars at the Ma’iingan Symposium that hold important implications

for those in the natural resources field.

Rematriation

“Some in the Anishinaabe community would ask, how can the state of Minnesota

legislate the killing of my Wolf Brother? How can the state of Minnesota, after years of

hard lessons, legislate a new variety of colonialism and racism directed at Anishinaabeg

without consultation or consent? The statewide wolf hunting, trapping, and snaring

season has been problematic for tribes to manage their resources as they see fit.

Minimally, if there is something rare, endangered, special, or sacred to the Minnesota

Ojibwe tribes, they should be allowed to care for it within Indian Reservations

boundaries” (Zhaashiigid, 2014).

Western culture and colonization have stolen a great deal from indigenous peoples

including land, technology, and kin. One example, raised at the symposium, of this theft that

should be rematriated is the way in which the University of Minnesota stole and genetically

modified the sacred food and medicine Manoomin (Wild Rice; Zizania palustris). I am using the

relatively new term rematriation rather than repatriation intentionally. Many indigenous groups

have adopted the term to better reflect their own culture rather than Western culture:

“The Indigenous concept of Rematriation refers to reclaiming of ancestral remains,

spirituality, culture, knowledge and resources, instead of the more Patriarchally

associated Repatriation. It simply means back to Mother Earth, a return to our origins, to

life and co-creation, rather than Patriarchal destruction and colonization” (Muthien, n.d.)

Manoomin can be translated to mean the good berry. Anishinaabeg found manoomin in

the Great Lakes region, following prophecies that warned of danger from new people arriving at

Turtle Island, if Anishinaabeg did not migrate as earlier discussed (About the AnishinaabeOjibwe; Benton-Banai, 1988; E. Leoso, personal communication, October 8, 2020).

In contrast to popular Western culture, Anishinaabeg understand the life and inherent

value that exists in all the members of an ecosystem and that humans depend on other beings for

our own life (McGregor et al., 2020). Altering the genome of a sentient being is generally

unacceptable in Anishinaabe culture, so the history of University of Minnesota’s work to

“domesticate” manoomin for growing in agricultural systems was done without consent from

Anishinaabeg.

At the symposium, White Earth Elder Zhaashiigid Nooding (Robert Shimek) shared

about his ongoing conversations with the president of the University of Minnesota about the

Manoomin that was stolen from Anishinaabeg and genetically modified. Zhaashiigid Nooding

has been involved in Indigenous treaty rights battles since 1975, starting with the Boldt Decision,

which affirmed Samish, Snoqualmie, Steilacoom, and Duwamish treaty rights to fish.

Zhaashiigid Nooding has told the University of Minnesota president that an acceptable form of

rematriation for this theft and botchery of a sacred food and medicine would be to assist in

drafting a Tribal Endangered Species Act on behalf of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe.

There has been a history of the federal government influencing what plant and animal

relatives can be afforded certain legal protections within reservations. The establishment of

Tribal Endangered Species Acts, similar to Tribal Clean Water and Air plans, would improve

recognition of tribal sovereignty in wildlife conservation. Tribal Wildlife and Natural Resources

agencies are generally small and do both the work of engaging in the North American Model of

Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) and all of its bureaucracy in addition to upholding and

revitalizing traditional ways of relating with and stewarding ecosystems and all the animal and

plant relatives that make up the ecosystem. This example highlights an area where non-tribally

affiliated academics and professionals in wildlife can build good relations and perform

rematrition, by supporting the improved recognition of Tribal sovereignty.

It is not logical for indigenous peoples to be held to solving problems such as biodiversity

loss with Western governance and systems, when time tested indigenous knowledge systems

exist that better aided indigenous people to live in balance with nature before colonization

(McGregor et al., 2020). Additionally, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss continue

and indicate that the NAMWC and other Western approaches to conservation are not proving to

be effective (Lopez-Bao et al., 2017). Reducing the burden and work put on Tribes by the federal

and state government as well as academia can better enable Tribes to focus on revitalizing

traditional ways that can restore ecosystems.

Studying Indigenous Language and Culture

“The spirits announced that the Anishinaabeg would have the same voice as them. They

were going to have to share the same language as the spirits. The language of the

Anishinaabeg would be spiritually driven. And that was the only thing left to be done if

the Anishinaabeg wanted to have a voice in the matters of the earth and the spiritual

universe. This voice of the Spirits is the language Ojibwe Anishinaabeg continues to use

today” (Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014).

Indigenous culture and language are embedded with knowledge about the land- the same

voice as the spirits (Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014; Mills, 2019). While we can translate to an

extent between languages, there are often concepts that don’t directly translate to Western

concepts in the English language (Mills, 2019). Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe language) and

culture has been formed over millennia on the landscape that I now research carnivore

coexistence. As an outsider to this culture, Mashkiiziibii Tribal Chairman Mike Wiggins Jr.

described my approach to carnivore coexistence work between the Tribe and neighboring

livestock farmers as mimicking Anishinaabe ways. I do not claim to hold a deep knowledge of

Anishinaabe ways and there will always be more that I do not know than what I do know, but it

is an honor to be told that I’ve been a good enough student of Anishinaabeg to be respectfully

drawing from their knowledge alongside my background in Western science. Any mistakes

within this chapter are solely my own.

Incorporating Anishinaabemowin and culture in my work not only helps in my

relationship building with the Tribe, but it also enriches the work that I do. The historic fear and

persecution of the wolf by European pastoral people is well known and it is thanks to studying

and mimicking Anishinaabe understanding of and love for Ma’iingan and other carnivores that I

am effectively expanding carnivore coexistence.

One example of how we can study traditional knowledge held by Anishinaabeg is to

study common root words (Lee, 2020). Ma’iinganiminaatig (Wolf Berry; Symphoricarpos

occidentalis) translates into Wolf Berry Tree and grows in open forests and in prairies across

Anishinaabe ceded territory (Lee, 2020). I hypothesize the reason this plant was named after

Ma’iingan is the ecological benefits the plant provides for many other members of its ecosystem,

similar to the way that Ma’iingan balances and improves the health of ecosystems.

Ma’iinganiminaatig provides food, cover and nesting for birds, small mammals, and browsers

(Lady Bird, 2009).

The Anishinaabemowin word for muhsroom is Wazhashkwedoons. Wazhashk means

Muskrat. This connection reminds me of the Anishinaabe flood story about muskrat diving

through the waters until they found earth. When they submerged where the other water animals

waited, the muskrat had drowned but had a fist of soil that was used to build the new earth on the

turtle’s back. The story of Wazhashk reminds me of the evolutionary story of how fungi made

terrestrial life possible by subsisting on minerals from rocks and creating the soil that formed the

earth. Wazhashkwedoons create life through decay just as Wazhashk gave life through death in

the Anishinaabe story.

I came to these ways of thinking through Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe language) after the

past few years of learning Anishinaabe stories and from Anishinaabe Aki (Ojibwe land).

Learning Anishinaabe stories and language opens me up to more lenses and ways of fulfilling

my own roles to my ecosystems as a professional wildlife specialist and as a student of

carnivores.

Language use also has implications for the way we treat the natural world. Robin Wall

Kimmerer discusses the extractive implications of referring to beings such as plants as “it” and

offers the pronoun “ki” like “kin” instead (Kimmerer, 2015).

“Grammar is how we chart relationships through language, including our relationship

with the Earth… And yet in English, we speak of our beloved Grandmother Earth in

exactly that way: as “it.” The language allows no form of respect for the more-thanhuman beings with whom we share the Earth. In English, a being is either a human or an

‘it’” (Kimmerer, 2015).

After I complete my Master’s education I intend to take the study of Anishinaabemowin

more seriously so that I can support the Bad River community in revitalizing the language and so

that I can pursue the deeper understanding that is only available when you can think in the

language of a land.

Respecting Life with an Ecosystem Level Understanding

“One by one, individually, in pairs, flocks, herds, etc, the different plants and animals

described how they would help Anishinaabeg. Some said, I will offer myself if they are

hungry. Others said they would help if Anishinaabeg were sick one sort of way or

another. Some even said they would give Anishinaabeg an itchy butt if she/he sat down on

them. When asked how this was to help, poison ivy and stinging nettle said it would teach

Anishinaabeg to always be aware of what was around them. A few even said that if they

caught Anishinaabeg out in the bush by themselves, they would eat them. When asked

how this was to help, grizzly bear and cougar said they would teach them to be respectful

of all. And so it was, each member of the creation described to the Spirits and to

Anishinaabeg how and what they would do to help.” (Zhaashiigid (Shimek), 2014)

Carnivore coexistence does not mean the complete absence of conflict. Instead, carnivore

coexistence in part is about understanding the reasoning behind occasional conflict and how to

avoid and navigate it. Carnivore coexistence may also require accepting some level of loss, but

the cost of coexistence should not all fall upon farmers.

Some conflict is more avoidable than others. It is not uncommon for a hunting dog to be

killed by wolves, but many cases involve hunters sending their dogs into wolf territory

unattended for training or to hunt black bears. It seems that these hunters ignore the high conflict

risk maps available on the WDNR website and from Treves and Rabenhorst (2017).

A federal wildlife biologist in attendance at the Ma’iingan Symposium had recently lost

his canine companion to a wolf in what the biologist described as an uncommon accident. The

wildlife biologist had been very close to his dog and they were not hunting when the dog got

ahead of the biologist, happened upon a wolf, and was killed. At the tail end of a breakout

session the wildlife biologist shared this story with attendees of the symposium. He explained

that initially he was struggling with anger toward the wolf that killed his friend. Midway through

the symposium, he shared that the conversations about Ma’iingan helped him to be more at peace

with the situation. He explained that the symposium helped him remember that the wolf was

doing their job by protecting their home from another, unknown canine. In the end, the wildlife

biologist said that he could not remain mad at the wolf for doing what it was supposed to.

This experience demonstrates how if we look at coexistence issues on an individual or

even species scale, it can be hard to process the emotions or ethics of a situation. Lynn discusses

this issue as he points out the importance of recognizing the inherent value of living beings and

doing away with human centric lenses (Lynn, 2006). His recommended solution aligns with the

Anishinaabe way of considering things on an ecosystem level, so that the guiding ethic can be

what is good for an ecosystem as a whole rather than debating over how valuable each sentient

being is in comparison to one another. With this geocentric lense, or the consideration of what is

best for an ecosystem and all its members as a whole, we can better understand how it is often

for the best of the ecosystem and all of its individuals to have wolves, even if a side effect is the

occasional killing of a domestic dog brought into wolf territory by humans.

There is an Anishinaabe story that tells of how humans have responsibility in conflict

between undomesticated and domesticated animals. Animoosh (Dog; Canis lupus familiarus)

had run to warn Anishinaabeg that the animals were very tired of the way Anishinaabeg

disrespected and abused them- some animals were even threatening to kill Anishinaabeg.

Ma’iingan caught Animoosh in the act and revealed to the rest of the animals what had

happened:

“Turning to the dog, the bear speaking on behalf of his brothers said, ‘For your betrayal,

you shall no longer be regarded as a brother among us. Instead of man, we shall attack

you. Worse than this, from now on you shall eat only what man has left, sleep in the cold

and rain, and receive kicks as a reward for your fidelity.’

“The bear turned again to the crowd. ‘To make it difficult for man to enslave us again, no

longer will we speak the same language. Instead we shall speak in different languages.

From now on we shall live to ourselves, for ourselves. Let them learn to fend for

themselves without our help’” (Johnston, 1976).

Reciprocity in Community Engagement

“Soon, Wenaboozhoo began pleading for Ma’iingan to help him out of the freezing water.

He was getting so desperate that he told Ma’iingan that he would do anything he wanted

in order to get assistance back to dry land. After a period of deliberation and listening to

the increasingly pitiful pleadings of Wenaboozhoo, Ma’iingan finally turned his tail to

Wenaboozhoo. After considerable effort, he was able to drag Wenaboozhoo out of the icy

water to safety. In exchange for his assistance, Ma’iingan told Wenaboozhoo they now

had to give names to all the plants, trees, animals, birds, fish and all gifts of the creation.

When agreement was reached, they began their journey. This was one of the final steps in

making sure Anishinaabeg had a comfortable life on earth.” (Zhaashiigid (Shimek),

2014)

When I entered into carnivore coexistence research, I held an unhealthy assumption that

the only way I could benefit farmers and not waste their time was if I personally discovered

effective solutions for their carnivore coexistence needs. Food subsidies in the United States,

shaped by corporate interests like McDonalds, make it hard for small livestock farmers to get by.

Both UW-Extension and USDA NRCS are understaffed in Northern Wisconsin and associated

resources don’t fully permeate the farming community. I knew conducting my research would

benefit me, but I also wanted to try and benefit the farmers.

Even when I do not have concrete science or answers to offer, it has been apparent that

sharing resources, listening, thinking and experimenting together makes a difference to livestock

farmers and helps provide some piece of mind. Humans are communal animals and just as I

don’t want to feel like this problem is solely on my shoulders in the 1842 ceded Anishinaabe

territory (northern Wisconsin), farmers don’t want to feel they have no one to turn to when they

run into conflict with carnivores

During a symposium break out session, one of the farmers I conducted the deterrent

research with shared her story and philosophy behind the way she coexists with carnivores while

rearing diverse livestock. She accepts that some mortality will happen, but works with me to

explore whether there are ways to free range poultry despite them being an easy target for many

carnivores. She understands that if she were to kill carnivores like red foxes or bobcats that come

onto the farm, they will only be replaced by a new individual. It is better to work to establish an

understanding of coexistence with carnivores through means including non-lethal deterrents,

human presence, and husbandry practices.

This farmer lost about $800 in poultry to a red fox during our study and Foxlights proved

to be ineffective, in this situation, at keeping the fox from repeatedly taking chickens. During the

breakout session the farmer also solicited advice from the group about ways we could try and

improve coexistence the next summer. The group included other farmers, students, wildlife

professionals, and generally interested community members. The farmer came away from the

session feeling heard and energized to try again the next summer, and our partnership in learning

carnivore coexistence continues to this day

Works Cited

About the Anishinaabe-Ojibwe. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2019, from

http://www.ojibwe.org/home/about_anish.html.

Ammann, B. (2019). Waadookodaading: Ojibwe Language Immersion School. Retrieved July 26, 2020,

from https://theways.org/story/waadookodaading.html

Baird, Ian. Lecture. Geography 500: Qualitative Strategies in Geography. University of

Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin. 18 September. 2019.

Bannister, K. (2007, October). The ethics of engagement: An ethnobiologist's perspective. Academic Matters.

http://polisproject.org/PDFs/Ethics_of_engagement.pdf

Benton- Benai, E. (1988). The Mishomis book: The voice of the Ojibway Hayward. Hayward, WI: Indian

Country Communications.

Betts, R. F. (2012). Decolonization: A brief history of the word. In Beyond Empire and Nation: The

Decolonization of African and Asian societies, 1930s-1970s. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.5

Busiahn, T., Gilbert, J Gilbert. 2009. The Role Of Ojibwe Tribes In The Co-management Of Natural

Resource In The Upper Great Lakes Region: A Success Story. GLIFWC,

www.glifwc.org/minwaajimo/Papers/Co-management Paper Busiahn FINAL.pdf.

David, P. (2009). Ma'iingan and the Ojibwe. In Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the

United States. Verlag, NY: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85952-1

de Waal, F. (2013). The bonobo and the atheist: In search of humanism among the primates. W W Norton

& Co.

deWaal, F. B. (2017). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? New York ; London: W.W.

Norton & Company.

Fergus, A. (2017). Recommendations for the Update of the Bad River Ma’iingan Management

Plan (Unpublished undergraduate). Alma College, Alma, Michigan.

Gaa-pi-inakamigak: Mashkiiziibii History. (2019). Retrieved December 1, 2019, from

http://www.badriver-nsn.gov/history.

Gaikesheyongai, S., & Keeshig- Tobias, P. (1994). The seven fires: An Ojibway prophecy. Toronto.

Ontario, Canada: Sister Vision Press.

Gartner, W. (2019, February 22). Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Lecture presented at Natural

Resources in Native North America, Madison.

History: Pokagon Band of Potawatomi. (2019). Retrieved December 1, 2019, from

http://www.pokagon.com/our-culture/history.

Isham, M. J., Jr. (2019). GLIFWC Comments on 2019 Gray Wolf Delisting Proposal [Letter written July

10, 2019 to USFWS]. Retrieved October 3, 2020, from

https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/GLIFWC%20Comments%20on%20Wolf%20Delisting%20with

%20Resolution.pdf

Johnston, B. (1976). Ojibway Heritage. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kebec, P., Remacle, C., Conley, A., Akerman, S., & Tochterman, A. (2020). Expanding The Circle of Care A

Practical Guide to Syringe Services for Tribal and Rural Communities. WI: Little Big Bay LLC.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the

teachings of plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2015, March 30). Nature Needs a New Pronoun: To Stop the Age of Extinction, Let’s Start

by Ditching “It”. Yes! Retrieved from https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/togetherearth/2015/03/30/alternative-grammar-a-new-language-of-kinship/

Klein, J. (2003, December 29). Francis Bacon. Retrieved July 26, 2020, from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/#SciMetProInsMag

LaDuke, W. (1999). All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. United States: South End Press.

Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Plant Database. (2009). Retrieved November 17, 2020, from

https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=SYOC

Lee, Marisa. (2020). Everlasting Leaf: A Lake Superior Ojibwe Plant Diary. Unpublished manuscript

Leoso, E. (personal communication, October 8, 2020)

Linnell, J. D. C. & Cretois, B. 2018, Research for AGRI Committee – The revival of wolves and

other large predators and its impact on farmers and their livelihood in rural regions of Europe, European

Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels

Lopez, B. H. (2004). Of wolves and men. New York: Scribner Classics.

López-Bao, J. V., Chapron, G., & Treves, A. (2017). The Achilles heel of participatory

conservation. Biological Conservation, 212, 139-143. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.007

Lynn, William S. 2006. “Between Science and Ethics: What Science and the Scientific Method Can and

Cannot Contribute to Conservation and Sustainability”. In Gaining Ground: In Pursuit of Ecological

Sustainability, edited by David Lavigne, 191-205. Limerick, IRL: University of Limerick

Mcgregor, D., Whitaker, S., & Sritharan, M. (2020). Indigenous environmental justice and sustainability.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43, 35–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.007

Miller, J. R., Stoner, K. J., Cejtin, M. R., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D., & Schmitz, O. J.

(2016). Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large

carnivores. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 40(4), 806-815. doi:10.1002/wsb.720

Morey, D. F., & Jeger, R. (2015). Paleolithic dogs: Why sustained domestication then? Journal of

Archaeological Science: Reports, 3, 420-428. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.031

Myers, J. (2019, November 6). Cougars confirmed in Bayfield County. Superior Telegram. Retrieved

August 9, 2020, from https://www.superiortelegram.com/sports/outdoors/4757497-Cougars-confirmed-inBayfield-County

Peacock, T. D., & Wisuri, M. (2009). Ojibwe: Waasa Inaabidaa, we look in all directions. St. Paul, MN:

Minnesota Historical Society.

Pierotti, R. J., & Fogg, B. (2017). The first domestication: How wolves and humans coevolved. New

Haven ; London: Yale University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1wc7rbm

Red Cliff Origins and History. (2018). Retrieved December 1, 2019, from

http://redcliff-nsn.gov/divisions/TNRD/H.htm.

Sanchez, L. (n.d.). Encyclopedia of Geography. In Encyclopedia of Geography. Sage.

Sanders, J. (2013). Wolves, Lone and Pack: Ojibwe Treaty Rights and the Wisconsin Wolf Hunt.

SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2349010

Savory, A., & Butterfield, J. (1999). Holistic management: a new framework for decision

making. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Shelley, V., Treves, A., & Naughton, L. (2011). Attitudes to Wolves and Wolf Policy Among Ojibwe

Tribal Members and Non-tribal Residents of Wisconsin's Wolf Range. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16:

397-413.

The Ojibwe People's Dictionary. (2015). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Tonino, L. (2016, April). Two Ways of Knowing. The Sun. Retrieved August 9, 2020, from

https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/484/two-ways-of-knowing

Treaty With The Chippewa, 1837. , U.S.-Chippewa nation of Indians, July. 29,

1837, 7 Stat., 536.

Treaty With The Chippewa, 1842. , U.S.-Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi, and Lake Superior, Oct. 4,

1842, 7 Stat., 591.

Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., Harper, E.K., Mladenoff, D.J., Rose, R.A., Sickley, T.A., Wydeven,

A.P., (2004). Predicting Human-Carnivore Conflict: a Spatial Model Derived from 25 Years of Data on Wolf

Predation on Livestock. Conservation Biology 18(1):114–125.

Treves A, Rabenhorst MF. 2017. Risk Map for Wolf Threats to Livestock still Predictive 5 Years after

Construction. PLoS ONE: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180043.

Usik, Katherine Anne. "The hunt for Ma’iingan: Ojibwe ecological knowledge and wolf hunting in the

Great Lakes." MA (Master of Arts) thesis, University of Iowa, 2015.

https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.hxfiyzqg

Vucetich, J. A., J. T. Bruskotter, R. O. Peterson, A. Treves, T. Van Deelen, and A. M. Cornman. (2013).

Evaluating the scientific soundness of plans for harvesting wolves to manage depredations in Michigan. Little

River Band of Ottawa Indians NaturalResources Report No. 2013--- 3.

Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept:

a philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2(1). doi: 10.1186/2192-1709-2-7

Whyte, K. (2019). Too late for indigenous climate justice: Ecological and relational tipping points. Wiley

Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(1). doi: 10.1002/wcc.603

Whyte, K. P. (2018, April 13). White Allies, Let’s Be Honest About Decolonization. Yes!, (Decolonize).

Wydeven, A. P. (2004). Predicting Human-Carnivore Conflict: a Spatial Model Derived from 25 Years of

Data on Wolf Predation on Livestock. Conservation Biology, 18(1), 114–125. doi: 10.1111/j.15231739.2004.00189.x

Zhaashiigid, N (Shimek, R.) (2014). The Wolf Is My Brother the Cultural, Spiritual, and Historic

Relationship Between Ojibwe Anishinaabe and Ma’iingan of the Great Lakes Region of North America.

Duluth, MN: Idle No More. Retrieved July 30, 2020, from https://www.scribd.com/document/254829826/TheWolf-Ma-iingan-is-My-Brother.

Zygmunt J.B. Plater. (2004). Endangered Species Act Lessons Over 30 Years, and the Legacy of the Snail

Darter, a Small Fish in a Pork Barrel. Environmental Law 34, no.2 : 289-308.

Conclusion

“Decisions regarding wolf management should take into consideration the effect that

decisions will have on the ecosystems that tribes depend upon, including the ceded

territories in which tribes have usufructory rights. The exercise of reserved rights is

dependent upon the existence of healthy and diverse landscapes and waterways. In our

region, the presence of Ma’iingan is essential for the presence of many other important

harvested species” (P.Kebec, personal communication December 12, 2020).

On October 29, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) removed

the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list, excluding only the Mexican gray wolf

population, despite five scientific reviewers underlining failures of science and ethics in this

move. This move turns authority in making decisions which impact gray wolves, and thus the

ecosystems they serve as keystone species in, over to states and Tribes. The delisting makes it

even more important to note the failing history of state natural resource agencies in living up to

gray wolf conservation and tribal trust responsibilities. As previously discussed, WWisconsin

law pertaining to gray wolves is of particular concern.

Wisconsin law mandates that a wolf hunt must be hosted by the WDNR if wolves are off

the Endangered Species Act list (29.185: Wolf harvesting licenses; (5) Seasons; zones). On

September 23, 2020 the current WDNR board composed of hunters and farmers made it clear

they want a hunt to take place at the start of 2021 (Wisconsin Natural Resources Board, 2020).

Wisconsin law also mandates that if a landowner participates in the state wildlife damage

abatement program, they must open up their land to the public for “hunting the type of wild

animals causing the wildlife damage on that land and on contiguous land under the same

ownership, lease or control” (29.889: Wildlife damage abatement program; (7m) Wildlife

damage claim program).

It’s also pertinent to note that the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan is outdated, as it has

not been updated since the 1999 publication of the plan. One of the many areas of concern

around the out of date nature is the inclusion and interpretation of a wolf population goal of 350

individuals. This outdated goal has been far surpassed by the current gray wolf population in

Wisconsin- estimated to be between 1,034 and 1,057 individuals as of winter 2019. This means

that Wisconsin wolf hunt quotas could entail the death of more than two-thirds of the current

wolf population in the state.

Most tribal reservations within what is now Wisconsin offer protections for Ma’iingan

against being killed under most circumstances, so it is reasonable to assume that after delisting

many of the remaining wolves will be on or around reservation land, where they are not

persecuted to the same degree if at all. This continues a history of a disproportionate burden

Tribes carry to protect Ma’iingan and seems to weaken the USFWS position that wolves should

be delisted.

“This Order is issued by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretaries) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, as

amended (the Act), the federal-tribal trust relationship, and other federal law. This Order

further acknowledges the trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States

toward Indian tribes and tribal members and its government-to-government relationship

in dealing with tribes. Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities

under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal

sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that

Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species,

so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation” (Secretarial Order

#3206).

While state and federal agencies demonstrate a failure to live up to wildlife conservation

law or to craft laws supported by ethics and science, many Tribes continue to reclaim

sovereignty in caring for their relationships to ecosystems in traditional ways and in employing

Western science.

“We know when we look at a global map of biodiversity hotspots- if you map the

homelands of indigenous people and the diversity of indingenous languages- they map

almost one for one. It is in our homelands where biodiversity is safeguarded. Our spiritual

traditions and governance toward one another and our living world underline this way of

life that protects and generates biodiversity” (Kimmerer, 2020).

Indigenous technologies like working with Ishkode (fire) to increase landscape

biodiversity and wildlife habitat is one of many examples of the knowledge indigenous people

hold- a pertinent example as climate change and extractive human practices increasingly threaten

humans and other animals as wildland fires grow in frequency and deadliness.

In the 1842 ceded territory, there has been a cyclical history of collaboration between

white settlers and Anishinaabeg to protect ecosystems and lifeways. Some white settlers have

stepped up to support Anishinaabeg during the walleye wars leading up to Anishinaabe treaty

rights affirmations (Nesper, 2002). White settlers also joined Anishinaabe led opposition during

the successful fight against the proposed GTAC taconite mine in the penokees (Pearson, 2017).

Today this cycle continues; Bad River hosted the Ma’iingan

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.