Misunderstanding the ‘‘nature’’ of co-management: a geography of regulatory science and indigenous knowledges (IK).

Governments, NGOs, and natural scientists have increased research and policy-making collaborations with Indigenous peoples for governing natural resources, including official co-management regimes. However, there is continuing dissatisfaction with such collaborations, and calls for better communication and mutual learning to create more ‘‘adaptive’’ co-management regimes. This, however, requires that both Western and Indigenous knowledge systems be equal participants in the ‘‘co-production’’ of regulatory data. In this article, I examine the power dynamics of one co-management regulatory regime, conducting a multi-sited ethnography of the practices of researching and managing one transnational migratory species, greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons frontalis), who nest where Koyukon Athabascans in Alaska, USA, practice subsistence. Analyzing the ethnographic data through the literatures of critical geography, science studies and Indigenous Studies, I describe how the practice of researching for co-management can produce conflict. ‘‘Scaling’’ the data for the co-management regime can marginalize Indigenous understandings of human– environment relations. While Enlightenment-based practices in wildlife biology avoid ‘‘anthropomorphism,’’ Indigenous Studies describes identities that operate through non-modern, deeply imbricated human–nonhuman identities that do not separate ‘‘nature’’ and ‘‘society’’ in making knowledge. Thus, misunderstanding the ‘‘nature’’ of their collaborations causes biologists and managers to measure and research the system in ways that erase how subsistence- based Indigenous groups already ‘‘manage’’ wildlife: by living through their ethical commitments to their fellow beings. At the end of the article, I discuss how managers might learn from these ontological and epistemologicaldifferences to better ‘‘co-produce’’ data for co-management.