Managing wild minds: From control by numbers to a multinatural approach in wild boar management in the Veluwe, the Netherlands

Abstract

Current wildlife management practices rely largely on quantitative data to legitimise decisions, manage human-wildlife conflicts and control wildlife populations. This paper draws attention to the affective relationships between humans and animals inevitably formed in the practice of producing these data. Based on fieldwork that explores wild boar management in the Veluwe, the Netherlands, we demonstrate the significance of these affective encounters. Specifically, we develop an understanding of mindedness that draws on processes of affective learning in wildlife management practices. To understand this mindedness and how it emerges in wild boar management practices, we use the concepts of affect, attunement and animal subjectivities. First, we show how the numero-politics involved in wildlife management presumes animal minds to be static and generically defined by species, and their presence and behaviour to be context independent. Subsequently, we describe the entanglements of humans, wild animals and the landscape, aiming to produce an appreciation of the mutuality that is involved in knowing and conserving wildlife. This, we propose, helps to demonstrate how variousindividual or collectiveforms of human and non-human mindedness are implicated in management practices but remain invisible and underappreciated in formal accounts. We conclude by explicating a multinatural approach to the management of wildlife that explicitly builds on an acknowledgment of mindedness as a feature of individuals, collectives and landscapes. K E Y W O R D Saffective relations, human-wildlife relations, mindedness, Veluwe, wild boar, wildlife management

Animal geographies II: Killing and caring (in times of crisis)

“…Here, killing occurs as retribution for loss or in hope of preventing future loss (Gibbs et al, 2020; Pooley et al, 2017). Seemingly rational and objective logics, such as counting and culling, obscure political struggles (Boonman-Berson et al, 2019). Researchers investigate complex relationships between conservation, conflict and killing, including changing values, attitudes and motivations for killing (Bluwstein, 2018).…”

The Badgers Have Moved the Goalposts!

“…Other historically awkward animals, including beavers, wild boar and polecats, are now returning to the British countryside: for them to flourish we need to find modes of co-existence which can take account of animal agency and benefit all publics, not just those who already care deeply for wildlife. 48 I noted at the end of Chap. 6 that there seems to be some 'backstage' potential for moving past the unproductive and bruising confrontations of today's public controversy.…”

“…Therefore any sustainable bTB policy must also address those factors which make it difficult for badgers and people to co-exist, including their tendency to exercise their own agency, and the feelings this creates in people when for example their crops or other property gets damaged. 46 Practical frameworks for addressing these kinds of problems already exist, but have mostly been directed towards charismatic and rare species such as elephants, great apes and big cats, often in the Global South. 47 If we in Britain expect people elsewhere to live with (and care for) much more difficult and dangerous charismatic species, should we not learn to cope with one mildly cantankerous mustelid?…”

Distancing animal death: Geographies of killing and making killable

“…'s (2005) article on experiences of farmers in Cumbria during the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic who wept over the bodies of their dead cows and sheep. Moreover, much work across animal geographies and the environmental humanities has drawn attention to the intertwined nature of killing and caring, particularly in conservation (Boonman‐Berson et al., 2019; Gibbs, 2020; Ginn et al., 2014; Palmer, 2020). Whilst van Dooren (2011, p. 294) doubts that killing can be abandoned in conservation, believing that some killing is inevitable to protect threatened species, he argues that it should be challenged and must be ‘a last resort’, echoing Atchison's (2019) problematisation of killing with indifference.…”