Certain questions have always puzzled me. Why doesn’t science work to answer conservation policy questions in a systematic, reliable, and holistic way? Why isn’t science easily translated into science-based policy? Why don’t scientists listen to policymakers’ questions about evaluation, assessment, and feasibility estimates and better advance the scientific knowledge base needed to answer policy questions? I pursued a conservation social science PhD under Barbara Knuth at Cornell University in order to position myself to answer these questions through the process and products of doctoral research. My dissertation explored the human dimensions of black bear management. In many ways the context was ubiquitous to human–wildlife conflict around the world. Humans and black bear populations were increasingly overlapping and coming into contact with each other. When a black bear attacked an infant who later died from her injuries, there was widespread agreement among stakeholders that social science, along with ecology, was needed for decision?making. My research explored how to foster voluntary behavior change and compliance with rules among humans so as to reduce human–black bear conflict. I will never forget the last question I received during my dissertation defense. Lou Berchelli, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation bear biologist, asked me why the behavior change program I designed, implemented, and evaluated did not generate intended outcomes and what I would change if I could do it all over again. My answer was automatic: I would focus more on non?compliance and enforcement. It was at that moment that I started to think deeply about why a marriage between conservation and criminology would be a good idea and what it might look like. I also considered what such an interdisciplinary perspective might bring to the conservation policy arena.