Caribou Hunters and Researchers at the Co-Management Interface: Emergent Dilemmas and the Dynamics of Legitimacy in Power Sharing

摘要: A member of my community] just put a burr in pants....Someone is making some very negative statements, and too bad it happened behind back. Now, there are things I don't agree with that go on, but there's also lot things, good comes from [research]. Research necessary."- Native Community Representative to Caribou Co-management BoardYou take group people you them on board give the mandate make decisions based information, they want damn information. They [science-based] I've seen this Porcupine Board, Mayo Council, [Yukon] Fish Wildlife Management Board...once they're part management process decision process, realize importance But when outside have fundamental problems it.- Government Agency BoardIntroductionFew conflicts northern resource more contentious than those arising threeway intersection indigenous peoples' traditional relations animals, proposals for industrial development, natural scientists' quest advance knowledge wildlife. Historical aspects such well articulated literature (Berger 1977; Freeman 1989a; Page 1986). The legacy internal colonialism Arctic by nation states (Osherenko Young 1989), differences root metaphors underpin science-based (Berkes 1999; Cruikshank 1981, 1998; Gamble 1986; Scott 1996) inseparable link between property relations, cultural views control nature, power (Asch 1989; Feit MacPherson 1978; Usher 1983) been noted.Twenty years ago, as peoples, scholars managers assessed these conflicts, was anticipation hope about potential benefits establishing alternative institutions providing communitygovernment sharing wildlife 1981; 1981). As discourse, Berkes (1981), (1971; 1987), Osherenko (1988a; 1988b), (1973; 1988), (1989b), Carbyn (1988) others framed "state" "indigenous systems" management, explicit assumption reflect culturally defined authority systems practices, beliefs affecting resources, users their greater community (Bromley 1992a, 1992b). Considering community-state "power-sharing" alternatives, advocating implementation co-management argued holistic insights into ecosystem dynamics would result an integration knowledge, self-regulatory features lower enforcement costs state, challenges legitimacy state claims be resolved through redistribution rights duties leading involvement making. There were questions speculation ultimate shape future co-management. Anticipating local approaches spoke "dual knowing" could interact resolve common challenges. Pinkerton (1989), concerned forces bureaucratization, asked if nascent arrangements remain resilient accountable communities. Looking ahead, (1981) suggested emergence "third system" which drew respective strengths differing traditions.Some three decades after several legally agreements Canada, opportunity move beyond experience understand processes underlying dynamics. …