FAQ

FAQ

Why this conversation? Why now?

It’s the next step in a long journey.

Between 2015-2018, Francine Madden was engaged as a third party neutral (TPN) in the conflict over wolves in Washington State. Before 2015, in the words of those involved in the conflict, people across the state felt like they were in an ever escalating “war”, where each side was continuously “throwing grenades” at their ‘other’. It had been impossible for the state to develop policy that anyone could agree on. Yet, Francine worked with the participants, communities, government and citizens to co-design a new, more relationship-centered, constructive process that helped reconcile their “us vs them” dehumanizing conflict and led to mutually beneficial policies and outputs around the conflict over wolves.

In the year after her work in Washington concluded in 2018, Francine received calls almost weekly from people across the nation, asking: how do we scale up what you did in Washington? How do we use this approach in my state? How do we transform wolf conflict across the American West?

So, when the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) — likely hearing similar requests and recognizing that society needed more than the current processes and options provided — sought a different path for engagement, we jumped at the opportunity.

Why even do this at all?

Destructive conflict is costly. Survival is insufficient.

Destructive social conflict is culturally, socially, emotionally, economically and physically costly to all (and that’s just the costs to people!). People’s way of life is under very real threat. People feel ignored. They don’t feel their values or needs are being recognized in decisions that affect them. Whether your concern is conservation, community or culture, mere survival is insufficient. And yet, in a deeply divided society, the long term viability of communities, cultures, and conservation is harmed. It is often said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We are asking society to try something different.

Isn’t it about time?

What is the Conservation Conflict Transformation (CCT) Approach?

We use a relationship-centered approach called Conservation Conflict Transformation (CCT).

We engage in conflict as a neutral third party. In this role, we design and guide processes that create the space and opportunity for people to constructively engage in shared problem-solving.

CCT differs from other conflict approaches in that it is designed to:

  • GO DEEP: Reconciling the identity conflict that prevents trust, shared understanding and progress.
  • GO WIDE: Engaging society more broadly because conflicts over wildlife and other natural resources are both symbolic of and a microcosm of the larger societal conflicts
  • GO LONG: Ensuring that both people — their communities and cultures — and wildlife have the security and stability to thrive over the long term.

 Why use a relationship-centered approach rather than a problem-centered approach?

Because before we can get to problem-solving, we need to reconcile the us vs them, identity-based conflict in the room. Only then can people come together and engage thoughtfully and creatively in shared problem-solving. You may feel impatient to get to a solution, and we get that, but our brains simply can’t remove our emotions from decision-making (no matter how hard we might try!). Emotions drive decision-making. If negative, they can foster the destruction of otherwise good decisions. If positive, they can speed up the development of constructive, fair, creative solutions. 

So, ask yourself, when it comes to your deepest values, needs and way of life, what kind of emotions from your adversary do you want coming into the room?

Have there been adjustments to the project's scale and timing?

Yes, although the original vision was for a multi-year, multi-phase initiative, the National Wolf Conversation shifted to a single, pivotal three-day gathering in early 2025. 

This process was originally funded and structured as a three-year project: the first year focused on national engagement and co-designing the conversation, the next 18 months dedicated to holding discussions both with the 25 people and in communities around the nation, and the final phase aimed at sharing the outcomes through a broad outreach strategy. We’ve done our best to bring everything to a meaningful close with the hope that the work we’ve all done together may continue through private funding sources.

While the final process and project look different than initially conceived, we are so proud to have been able to achieve so much of what we originally hoped!

What are the outputs, or deliverables of this process?
More updates coming soon!

We’re currently finalizing interviews with each of the 25 participants at both the start and end of the three-day conversation, capturing their reflections,

A summary will also be provided soon, offering an overview of the process and key highlights.

Was the USFWS a part of this process?
Yes, the USFWS had representatives that participated in the opening conversation, selected in the same way everyone else was. The USFWS had no more voice or influence in this process than any other participants when it comes to design of the process or discussing the social conflict about wolves. This is by design – theirs and ours. (Yes, we realize until this process, this had never happened before!)