Human–Wildlife Conflict Is Not a Myth

Abstract

Despite well-established critiques of the term, human–wildlife conflict remains a valid way to refer to certain types of harmful interactions between people and wild animals. Efforts to diversify human–wildlife interaction terminology beyond the conflict paradigm were partly catalyzed by an influential article in Conservation Letters titled “Rearticulating the Myth of Human-Wildlife Conflict,” which argued that the term conflict should be reserved for disagreements between people (i.e., human–human conflicts). Revisiting that discursive intervention, I examine here multiple interpretations of conflict and highlight its existence in nonhuman species. Conflicts take diverse forms, occur across different scales, and therefore carry varied meanings depending on context. They can also result in substantial harm, underscoring the need for empathy toward affected people and wildlife. Human–wildlife conflict is therefore not a “myth” but a real phenomenon with significant consequences for people and wildlife around the world. Rather than abandoning the term, future scholarship should continue to refine situated understandings of conflict within human–wildlife interaction research to help identify actionable pathways toward coexistence.