Human–Animal Relations and Environmental Governance
Our conversation with Joshua Reuther in the University of Alaska Museum of the North moved from archaeology to present-day environmental management in Alaska.
We began with recent archaeological findings that challenge established ideas about human–animal relations. Joshua Reuther spoke about evidence showing that intensive salmon use in Alaska may have a much longer history than previously assumed. We connected this to research on early reindeer management in northern Fennoscandia and to studies of dog domestication in the interior Alaska region. One interesting example was the use of dietary evidence to identify early stages of domestication before genetic changes become visible. This raises questions about where the boundary between “wild” and “domesticated” animals actually lies.
From there, we discussed Indigenous understandings of human–animal relations. Rather than seeing domestication as human control over animals, many northern traditions describe long-term relationships of cohabitation, learning, and mutual adaptation. Stories, rituals, and hunting practices often present animals as social beings that possess knowledge and agency.
We also spoke about current efforts to reintroduce species such as bison and elk to different parts of Alaska. Joshua Reuther was critical of approaches that treat ecosystems as something that can simply be restored or re-engineered to a previous state through human intervention. Large-scale projects, including proposals to recreate past ecosystems as a response to climate change, often rely on technological optimism while overlooking uncertainty and unintended consequences.
The discussion then turned to present salmon management. Joshua pointed to the example of the Indian River near Sitka, where changes in salmon populations due to changes in the river associated with climate change and human reconfiguring of the watershed have been a matter of concern for many years. Different sections of the river are managed by different authorities, creating a dynamic governance situation. More generally, overlapping responsibilities between state and Federal agencies, Indigenous organizations, parks, and other institutions often make co-management a very dynamic process.
At the same time, Indigenous communities do not always share the same interests. Joshua Reuther noted that views on salmon conservation and co-management and commercial fisheries can differ between coastal and inland communities. As a result, management systems may place different groups into conflict with one another rather than creating conditions for collaboration and co-management.
The conversation highlighted how questions of human–animal relations, environmental change, and governance are closely connected. Whether discussing dog domestication thousands of years ago or salmon management today, the challenge remains how humans and non-humans can coexist within changing ecological and political landscapes.
