Reenvisioning the university education needs of wildlife conservation professionals in the United States

Abstract

The future viability of wildlife conservation in the United States hinges on the field's ability to adapt to changing social–ecological conditions including shifting societal values and mounting pressures to engage a greater diversity of voices in decision‐making. As wildlife agencies respond to calls to broaden their relevance amid such changes, there is a need to consider the role of university education programs in preparing future wildlife professionals to meet the challenges of this new era. We identify four core areas of competency (technical, leadership, administrative, and adaptive) for universities to consider integrating into new or existing programs to support the emergent needs of the wildlife profession. We focus on undergraduate degree programs as a critical foundation for wildlife‐related careers but also recommend consideration of these skill sets in other areas of professional development including graduate education. Our approach acknowledges the importance of building on traditional areas of expertise such as biology and expanding them to include more interdisciplinary training in areas such as systems approaches, the social sciences, and organizational change. We conclude with recommendations for implementation, highlighting several successful examples, for universities to contemplate as they explore programmatic changes to help build greater capacity for wildlife conservation in the 21st century.

Mapping social conflicts to enhance the integrated management of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

“…Effective social‐ecological integration requires continued collaborations between wildlife biologists and social scientists, in spaces that promote reflexivity (Atkins, 2004), relational thinking (Cruikshank, 2005; Haraway, 1988; Latour, 2005), and negotiation of epistemological differences (Angelstam et al, 2013; Fielding, 2012). Interdisciplinary research also faces limited funding, training, leadership, and acceptance within natural resource agencies and even academic institutions (Jacobson et al, 2022; Teel et al, 2022). Although these institutional barriers persist, wildlife agencies and organizations can work to increase their social science capacities and shift their institutional cultures toward recognizing the importance of social data and local knowledge (Bélisle et al, 2018; Jacobson et al, 2022; Manfredo et al, 2019; Morales et al, 2021).…”