Conservation Education Structure and Content of Graduate Wildlife Management and Conservation Biology Programs: an International Perspective Introduction In recent decades the fields of wildlife biology, ecology, and conservation biology have converged, reflecting a shift in the composition of stake- holder groups from one dominated by hunters to one dominated by nonconsumptive users, rapidly evolv- ing political circumstances, and the need to respond to crises (Thomas & Pletscher 2000; Riley et al. 2002). Wildlife and conservation biologists have responded to this change in em- phasis by periodically reflecting on whether existing programs provide graduates with sufficient and appro- priate knowledge and skills for them to be effective in professions that re- quire much more than knowledge of how to manage huntable resources (Noss 1997; Society for Conservation Biology [SCB] Education Committee 2003). In the 1980s North American wild- life biologists recognized the need for better communication; the inclu- sion of core elements in the curricu- lum reflecting a broader, more in- terdisciplinary approach; and greater flexibility to allow students to pur- sue individual interests ( Peek 1989; Gigliotti & Decker 1992). Through- out the 1990s the importance of in- corporating human dimensions into curricula was recognized, acknowl- edging increasing human demands on wildlife resources and the con- cept of people being “at the begin- ning, middle and end of all manage- ment issues” (Decker & Chase 1997; Shaw 2000). Human dimensions can be described as identifying what peo- ple think and do about wildlife, un- derstanding why, and incorporating these insights into policy and man- agement decision-making processes and programs (Decker & Lipscomb 1991, in Decker & Chase 1997). In the early 1990s a survey of 79 col- leges and universities in the United States revealed that 28% of wildlife biology schools (undergraduate and graduate) offered human-dimensions courses (Gigliotti & Decker 1992). This proportion increased to just un- der 50% of 85 programs surveyed in 1996 (Cannon et al. 1996). By 2000 some workers expressed concern that the biological and tech- nical sides of wildlife management were being downplayed by an in- creasing emphasis on courses such as planning, policy, and environmen- tal law (Bleich & Oehler 2000; Porter & Baldassarre 2000). A grounding in technical skills and biological knowl- edge is generally acknowledged to be essential, although certain process skills and attitudes are also required to solve problems and influence the decision-making process (SCB Edu- cation Committee 2003). The im- portance of proper data collection and interpretation in the practice of good science and the value of statis- tics courses taught by biologists have also been emphasized ( Johnson et al. 2001; Otis 2001; Kendall & Gould 2002). The failure of traditional conserva- tion approaches to stem the acceler- ating loss of biodiversity has caused some workers to consider that wild- life managers or conservation biolo- gists can be effective only through their influence on policy-making pro- cesses ( Jacobsen & McDuff 1998; Clark 2001; Messmer et al. 2001). They suggest that training programs need to teach students three things: (1) an understanding of how the policy-making system works; (2) mas- tery of skills in critical thinking and development of an interdisciplinary procedure for analyzing problems; and (3) development of influence and responsibility within policy systems. Given the duration of most wildlife management and conservation biol- ogy undergraduate and graduate pro- grams and the increasing range of skills identified as essential for prac- titioners in these fields, it is clear that it is not possible to teach every- thing (Brown & Nielson 2000). Sug- gestions for curricula improvement therefore focus not on adding fur- ther material but on integrating new material into case studies, field trips, and internships (Noss 1997; Berkson 2002). Some universities offer a non- thesis option for a master’s degree, which gives students an extra year of course work in which to learn about relevant social sciences. We sought to review the structure and content of graduate-level pro- grams in wildlife management and conservation biology. We did not differentiate between wildlife man- agement and conservation biology programs because the conservation of species has become a dominant theme in wildlife management. Wildlife management has been viewed as the 7 Conservation Biology, Pages 7–14 Volume 19, No. 1, February 2005