Understanding the ‘human dimensions of wildlife’ – how humans value wildlife, how they affect and are affected by wildlife, and what triggers people to be willing to live with a translocated species – are the first building blocks and vital steps towards the long-term success of a conservation translocation project. However, to be fully meaningful, the understanding of the human dimensions needs to be nested in a social engagement process, which has too often been overlooked or poorly designed by conservation practitioners. A well-developed engagement process has the power to increase the transparency, credibility, and legitimacy of a decision-making process, thus fostering support for a conservation policy, plan, or project – including a conservation translocation. Nevertheless, planning and running a tailored engagement process are not the final steps. Reporting back and evaluating the process is key to ensuring the success of any public involvement. Such an approach keeps the public engaged over time, increases transparency, and legitimises the decision-making process. ‘One size fits all’ stakeholder engagement approaches typically fail to reflect the specific needs of the unique social dynamics within the system and fall short of reconciliation of the relationships, and disentanglement of the deeper roots of conflict. The ‘Levels of Conflict’ model is one tool used to orientate conservation practitioners and stakeholders to the types and depths of conflict in a given situation. Conservation conflicts are microcosms of larger societal conflicts, and conservation conflict transformation (CCT) provides a way of thinking about, understanding, and actively addressing such conflicts. Practitioners of CCT consider disputes as opportunities to constructively engage with the underlying relationships, decision-making processes, and social systems to create an enabling social environment for effective, lasting, broadly supported conservation efforts.