One of the most influential arguments in the field of Environmental Sociology with regard to human-wildlife relations is that people living close to wildlife demonstrate a degree of tolerance toward damage caused by wild animals resulting in a "will to coexist" with those animals. However, the universality of this argument has not yet been examined historically and in consideration of the local variety of human-wildlife relations. Focusing on the analysis of two local societies in east Africa, this paper discusses the history and interaction of the three factors of "farness/nearness of human-wildlife relations-tolerance/intolerance of damage caused by wildlife-existence/nonexistence of the will of people to coexist with wildlife". It is demonstrated that "near relations" are no guarantee of "tolerance toward damage" and the "will to coexist", and that "meanings of relations" acknowledged in a local society are important in understanding the different ways in which these features interact. On one hand, the "meanings of relations" are shared and reproduced through daily practices in local societies, and on the other hand, they can easily be changed by the influence of the outside world. As "relations" to wildlife vary according to time and species and, not all "relations" are approved of by local people, the complacent way of thinking that "near relations" always lead to the "(will to) coexistence" and the easy extension of the discussion of coexistence with wildlife to that of with nature must be questioned.