This article examines how the authorization of scientific discourses in the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 has influenced the ways people make claims about culturally significant animals. In it, I focus on struggles over the management of two endangered fish species among a federally recognized Native American tribe, state resource managers, and other actors. I discuss how the requirements of the ESA, namely that decisions regarding the protection of endangered species must be made based “solely on the basis of the best scientific…data available,” have pushed people to reframe their cultural claims about the environment as scientific claims in order to gain legal authority. I argue that these animals span the social worlds of indigenous hunters and fishers, regulators, and ecological scientists. As such, they offer the opportunity to interrogate the relationships among ways of knowing the environment. I suggest that strict divisions among “types” of knowledge as well as hard-and-fast bonds between groups and “their” knowledge become problematic. Instead, people assemble eclectic articulations of knowledge to make the most authoritative claim possible in a given context, contradicting the assumption that certain people know the world only, or primarily, in a particular way.
AbbottAndrew Delano. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AgrawalArun. 1995. “Dismantling the Divide between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge.” Development and Change26 (3): 413–39.
3.
BerkesFikret. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
4.
BockingStephen. 1997. Ecologists and Environmental Politics: A History of Contemporary Ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
BockingStephen. 2004. Nature’s Experts: Science, Politics, and the Environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
6.
BuchananNicholas. 2010. “Negotiating Nature: Expertise and Environment in the Klamath River Basin.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
7.
BuchananNicholasDarian-SmithEve. 2011. “Introduction: Law and the Problematics of Indigenous Authenticities.” Law & Social Inquiry36 (1): 115–24.
8.
CliffordJames. 2001. “Indigenous Articulations.” The Contemporary Pacific13 (2): 467–90.
9.
CorburnJason. 2005. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
CorburnJason. 2007. “Community Knowledge in Environmental Health Science: Co-producing Policy Expertise.” Environmental Science & Policy10 (2): 150–61.
11.
CruikshankJulie. 2000. The Social Life of Stories. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
12.
CruikshankJulie. 2001. “Glaciers and Climate Change: Perspectives from Oral Tradition.” Arctic54 (4): 377–93.
13.
CruikshankJulie. 2005. Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
14.
Darian-SmithEve. 2004. New Capitalists: Law, Politics, and Identity Surrounding Casino Gaming on Native American Land. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
15.
DelaneyDavid. 2003. Law and Nature. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DoremusHolly D.Dan TarlockA.. 2008. Water War in the Klamath Basin: Macho Law, Combat Biology, and Dirty Politics. Washington, DC: Island Press.
17.
EspilandWendy. 1998. The Struggle for Water: Politics, Rationality, and Identity in the American Southwest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
EwickPatriciaSilbeySusan S.. 2003. “Narrating Social Structure: Stories of Resistance to Legal Authority.” American Journal of Sociology108 (6): 1328–72.
19.
FoucaultMichel. 1981. “The Order of Discourse.” In Untying the Text: A Post-structuralist Reader, edited by YoungRobert, 48–78. Boston, MA: Routledge.
20.
GarroutteEva Marie. 2003. Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21.
GierynThomas F.1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
HallStuart. 1986a. “Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.” Journal of Communication Inquiry10 (2): 5–27.
23.
HallStuart. 1986b. “On Postmodernism and Articulation: An Interview with Stuart Hall.” Journal of Communication Inquiry10 (2): 45–60.
24.
HaysSamuel P.1987. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25.
House Committee on Natural Resources. 2001. Water Management and Endangered Species Issues in the Klamath Basin, 16 June 2001. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
26.
House Committee on Natural Resources. 2007. Endangered Species Act Implementation: Science or Politics? May 9, 2007. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
27.
JasanoffSheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
JasanoffSheila. 2004. “The Idiom of Co-production.” In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, edited by JasanoffSheila, 1–12. London, UK: Routledge.
29.
Klamath Tribe Fish and Game Office. 1989. “Mule Deer, Part II: Mule Deer Habitat Effectiveness.” Klamath Newsletter.
30.
Klamath Tribes. 2001a. “A Critique of the Klamath Water Users Association’s Report Entitled ‘Protecting the Beneficial Uses of Waters of Upper Klamath Lake: A Plan to Accelerate Recovery of the Lost River and Shortnose Sucker.’” Docket #15. Public Access File for the National Research Council Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, Project BEST-K-01-04-A, The National Academies, Washington, DC.
31.
Klamath Tribes. 2001b. “Klamath Basin in Crisis: Degraded Ecosystems a Major Cause, Restored Ecosystems a Key Solution.” Docket #13. Public Access File for the National Research Council Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, Project BEST-K-01-04-A, The National Academies, Washington, DC.
32.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
LatourBruno. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
LiebesmanLawrencePetersonRafe. 2003. Endangered Species Deskbook. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.
35.
McKibbenBill. 1999. The End of Nature. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
36.
NadasdyPaul. 2003. Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State Relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver: UBC Press.
37.
National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38.
New York Times. 2001. “3 Accused of Shooting Up Oregon Town; Water Dispute Cited.” New York Times, December 21.
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 2003. “Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team Review of the USFWS and NMFS 2001 Biological Opinions on Management of the Klamath Reclamation Project and Related Reports.” Technical Report 2003-1, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Salem, OR.
41.
RamptonSheldon. 2003. “Fools Rush In: The Militia Movement and Klamath Falls.” Center for Media and Democracy. Accessed April 5, 2006. www.prwatch.org/prwissue/2003Q2/fools.html.
42.
RancoDarren John. 2000. “Environmental Risk and Politics in Eastern Maine: The Penobscot Indian Nation and the Environmental Protection Agency.” PhD diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
43.
RichlandJustin B.2008. Arguing with Tradition: The Language of Law in Hopi Tribal Court. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
RohlfDaniel J.1989. The Endangered Species Act: A Guide to Its Protections and Implementation. Stanford, CA: Stanford Environmental Law Society.
45.
ScottJames C.1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
ScottJames C.1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
Shrader-FrechetteKristinMcCoyEarl D.. 1994. “Applied Ecology and the Logic of Case Studies.” Philosophy of Science61 (2): 228–49.
48.
SilbeySusan. 2007. “Talk of Law: Contested and Conventional Legality.” DePaul Law Review, 56 (2): 639–59.
49.
SilbeySusanHuisingRuthanneCoslovskySalo Vinocur. 2009. “The ‘Sociological Citizen’ Relational Interdependence in Law and Organizations.” L’Année Sociologique59 (1): 201–29.
50.
StarSusan LeighGriesemerJames R.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387–420.
51.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered Status for the Shortnose Sucker and Lost River Sucker.” Federal Register53 (137): 27130–34.
52.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. “Biological/Conference Opinion Regarding the Effects of Operation of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project on the Endangered Lost River Sucker (Deltistes Luxatus), Endangered Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes Brevirostris), Threatened Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus), and Proposed Critical Habitat for the Lost River/Shortnose Suckers.” US Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Office, Klamath Falls, OR.
53.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. “Lost River Sucker (Deltistes Luxatus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.” US Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Office, Klamath Falls, OR.
54.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. “Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes Brevirostris) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.” US Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Office, Klamath Falls, OR.
55.
WalleyChristine. 2002. “‘They Scorn Us Because We Are Uneducated:’ Knowledge and Power in a Tanzanian Marine Park.” Ethnography3 (3): 265–98.
56.
WalleyChristine. 2004. Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
WhyteKyle Powys. 2013. “On the Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a Collaborative Concept: A Philosophical Study.” Ecological Processes2 (7): 1–12.
58.
WylieSara Ann. 2011. “Corporate Bodies and Chemical Bonds: An STS Analysis of Natural Gas Development in the United States.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
59.
WynneBrian. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and the Public Uptake of Science.” Public Understanding of Science1 (3): 281–304.
60.
WynneBrian. 1996. “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-lay Knowledge Divide.” In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Theory, Culture & Society, edited by LashScottSzerszynskiBronislawBrianWynne, 44–83. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
YoungAmalie. 2001. “Fourth Shot at Releasing Water Foiled, Oregon Farmers Try to Open a Canal Gate That Holds Back Water to Protect Endangered and Threatened Fish.” Contra Costa (CA) Times, July 15.
