There is rising recognition of resource-use rights of Indigenous Peoples and
Local Communities (IPLCs) within wildlife conservation. Historically, sociocultural
institutions ensured wildlife sustainability in many IPLC areas. However, the
future viability of such institutions is uncertain as IPLCs change in response to
external pressures and internal aspirations, potentially rendering many traditional
institutions weak and open to exploitation. This is particularly true for wildlife
hunting, which remains a central sociocultural and economic activity for many
IPLCs.

​

If you’re a scientist or a researcher who has ever
conducted field research, you’ve probably hired one of us – a local field assistant, an insider, a guide, an interlocutor – who is vital in introducing you to local families, the people you call ‘respondents’. We help you collect data, and sometimes, we collect it for you. In return, we are given stipends, honorariums, and occasionally a few additional incentives.
While some lucky ones make it into the ‘Acknowledgments’ of
your reports and publications, most of us are forgotten when
your fieldwork ends. But for us, the story doesn’t end with your departure. Our story continues to include you. Mine is one such story.

Bufo gargarizans, a species complex, has a wide distribution ranging from Japan to south-western China, Vietnam, and Russia but was not previously reported from India. Surveys conducted in Dibang Valley district of Arunachal Pradesh near the Indo-Tibetan border with China in 2014–15 revealed previously unreported specimens of the toad genus Bufo.

The prelude:
It was March 2012. I was in the Lower Dibang Valley district of Arunachal Pradesh conducting surveys for a renowned
conservation organisation to determine tiger presence outside
Protected Areas of Northeast India. “If you want to find a
lot of tigers, you must go high up in the mountains. In our culture, tigers live on tall mountains,” said an Idu Mishmi elder as I sat in his hut close to Roing town, the headquarters of
the Lower Dibang Valley.

A new approach calls for Indigenous knowledge to take centre stage in environmental research

Increasing calls to re-conceptualise human relations with nonhuman nature in the Anthropocene have spurred a range of multispecies studies seeking to analytically de-centre the human to focus on the lives and struggles of nonhumans. Scholars have also called for deeper collaborations between conservation biology, political ecology, and critical animal studies. Research spanning these disciplinary approaches has considerable analytical potential but presents seriously discordant ethical positions for interdisciplinary multispecies researchers like us.

​

​

Hunting of wildlife is a significant source of food and cash income, particu-
larly for the rural poor across the tropics (Coad et al. 2019; Milner-Gulland et al.2003). It is also one of the leading causes
of worldwide declines in tropical wildlife (Bennett et al. 2002), even observed in cases where hunting is subsistence only (Chacon 2012; Peres 2000). Yet, for many traditional and Indigenous peoples, hunting and associated rituals are integral to establishing and maintaining social roles, group identities, and reciprocal relations
with nature (Hill 2011; Lewis 2008).

The fascinating tale of the
multi-coloured golden cat of Arunachal’s Dibang Valley.

Iho Mitapo grew up hearing stories about how his elders made long journeys every day from their homes in the Elopa and Etugu villages in the hills, crossing forests and encountering herds of wild animals, to reach their farmlands. They cultivated and harvested crops and took the same route back to their homes, said 30-year-old Mitapo who now lives in Roing town of Lower Dibang valley district in Arunachal Pradesh.