YES. Integrating "CIK" with scientific approaches can help promote sustainable wildlife management practices that are respectful of cultural traditions and local communities, leading to more effective and culturally appropriate conservation strategies.

With the exception of a handful tribes that are still mostly isolated and living as hunter-gatherers, basically 100% of the world´s human population has nowadays transitioned to a fully sedentary society relying on agriculture and domesticated life stock as food source. The resulting increase in population density has driven the need for resources far over they carrying capacity of the land. Motorised vehicles made it possible, that in case of local famines the lack of self produced food can be compensated by help from outside or an increase in foraging area and arable lands... all leading to extinctions, extinction debts and a general loss of natural life and its diversity.

The shameful track record is long, even our ancestral indigenous tribes have millennia ago hunted species to extinction.

That all being said, before chemical fertilizers and globalization, framers have developed more sustainable ways, to keep soil fertility, than slash and burn.

So YES, a sustainable future can only be achieved by combining knowledge from both sides. Indigenous culture has to adapt where the traditional ways are not sustainable (e.g. slash and burn with no reforestation, whaling, overgrazing even by nomadic Mongolians) because of earth being single ecosystem, educated by science. While on the other hand the sustainable traditional ways have to be integrated in mainstream industrial agriculture.

CIK , indeed ,will help to manage the wildlife resources. Because, CIK has a long-standing practice experiences amid the community to guide pertinently the futuristic actions either scientific or culture driven.

Yes, CIK can be key in managing wildlife as they have been formed over centuries based on the interaction of people and nature.

Many of the local activities and customs are based on certain biological rhythms and have existed without harming the biosystems, and this is related to the accumulated vast "unpolished" knowledge.

Yes, there is so much knowledge trapped in Culture and Indigenous Knowledge. I come from India, where some practices from childbirth to certain practices in death are scientifically relevant. It is also true that some are irrelevant now and are being followed just out of tradition. But, this does not mean, that CIK is not integral in the understanding and sometimes may even serve as the base for specific scientific research. Ignoring CIK in wildlife management is like reinventing the wheel since scientific techniques will lead back to the same road where CIK was initially leading us.

For instance, there are companies that talk about how important it is to use charcoal in our toothpaste and these were the same companies that condemned charcoal a decade ago saying it isn't hygienic.

Beauty companies praise ubtans and are launching new formulations from forest biota, when in fact my grandmother made those ubtans for me as a baby and massaged me with them for better skin.

Here you go. A lot of money could have been saved by just documenting this knowledge, especially from tribal communities who treat deadly diseases with leaf and root concoctions.

In the first place, I want to thank you good people for providing answers to my Question about CIK and management of wildlife.

Let me drop some key points here.

I have been interacting with Neighbours of protected areas in my communities (Kasese Uganda) and they strongly believe they're part and partial of the natural resource. So they said there's a big attachment/connection. I agreed and I agree!

• I am so much interested in the local participation (contributions) of local or indigenous people towards the management/conservation of wildlife resources because these people are most affected or beneficiaries at the end. So their voices should be heard and considered if we ever need a sustainable natural resource. Indigenous groups are often better placed than scientists to provide information on local biodiversity and environmental change, and are important contributors to the governance of biodiversity at local and global levels.

• Did you know that Culture and cultural values are commonly associated in conservation with the spiritual and religious significance of landscapes and wildlife, manifested in sacred sites or spiritual landscapes, and in rituals, customs and ceremonies.

• The most prevalent rationale for conservation engagement with culture is evident where conservation priorities based on Western science and values naturally align with local cultural values. In many cases, however, the significance of a particular site or species is cultural rather than biological. For example, there is significantly higher biodiversity associated with semi-natural sacred Neolithic standing stone monuments than on surrounding heathland (Shepheard-Walwyn & Bhagwat, Reference Shepheard-Walwyn and Bhagwat2018). The maintenance of the sites creates habitats for rare and threatened species even though the sites are valued for their heritage, recreation and spiritual attributes rather than for their biodiversity.

• Taboos—social norms that protect species or places because of their role in folklore—are common manifestations of cultural values in conservation. In two cases concerning primates (Infield et al., Reference Infield, Entwistle, Anthem, Mugisha and Phillips2018; Baker et al., Reference Baker, Tanimola and Olubode2018), beliefs appear to have partially protected particular populations, and sometimes associated sacred sites. However, both cases also report negative impacts such as increased crop-raiding, and protection of culturally significant species rarely extends to other taxa or habitats.

• The value of knowledge-practice-belief complex of the indigenous people relating to conservation of wildlife is seldom recognized in research. In the African context, indigenous knowledge has long been overshadowed and thus ignored by western conservation knowledge. Consequently, much of this knowledge is fast disappearing in application to wildlife diversity conservation.

Yes, it is very important as the local people are part of the ecosysytem which is being considered for conservation/preservation. Without their understanding and involvement, it is impossible to have a stable conservation plan of the area.

I definitely think that Indigenous Knowledge is crucial to effective management of Wildlife Resources. I have published a book on this topic (Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology, Routledge 2011) in which I argue that there concepts and approaches in Indigenous Knowledge that are superior to those of Western Science, especially the emphasis on knowledge of individuals, and the recognition that All Things are Related and All Things are Connected. Western Science often assumes that it is the only standard that is rigorous. The problem is that Western Science depends heavily on principles such as Cartesian Dualism and Maximum Sustainable Yield which are horrible for effective conservation. If Indigenous people are not involved in conservation and land use practices these practices are very likely to fail for a wide variety of reasons. If anyone wants a pdf copy of my book please contact me at [email protected].

Hi Raymond Pierotti thanks for the answer to my Question. May I share your pdf as you mentioned to enable me have a look and read the findings. I have sent you an email. Thanks.

Yes, absolutely, what I recommended for conserving soils and biota in New Zealand... Article An Indigenous-assisted cultural perspective on conservation ...