The Chapter addresses issues of ownership and conflict over resource use with specific focus on the government of Tanzania’s (State) obligation to protect wildlife resources, embodied in the doctrine of public trust. The State’s obligation has faced challenges reflected in dissatisfaction from a cross section of stakeholder’s on the strategies it has deployed in its endevour to protect the wildlife resources. The specific focus of this theme has mainly been influenced by an operation by the State in its effort to curb the escalating rate of decimation of elephants to supply the international illicit ivory trade. The operation by the government christened “Operesheni Tokomeza,” (loosely translating to “Operation Eradicate”) was purportedly designed under the provisions of the relevant laws passed by Parliament to combat poaching of elephant tusks to supply the illegal ivory trade. It initially met with a lot of resistance from a cross-section of citizens who alleged, among other things, that the operation was being conducted in a manner that led to violation of human rights of communities living in the proximity of the Reserves, Parks and other protected areas. With the support of a multitude of Members of Parliament, the government gave in to the pressure and suspended the operation. The contending claims by the government and stakeholders boils down to a category of resource use conflict which gives rise to interesting dimensions taking into account the fact that ownership of resources in Tanzania is vested in the government (in some cases in the President) as Trustee of the resources by the law, the beneficiaries being the citizens. The government maintained that it has a duty to ensure that wildlife resources, in this case elephants, are protected for, inter alia, the beneficiaries - the present and future generations. These claims bring to the fore emerging paradigms in the human-wildlife conflict (as contemplated by the law) not previously envisioned. This Chapter probes into these contending claims in the context of the legislative and institutional framework and the emerging paradigms in the human-wildlife conflict discourse.