For 37 states in the United States, Project Wild has become an officially sanctioned, distributed and funded "environemtnal and conservation education program." For those who are striving to implement focused, sequential, learning programs, as well as those who wish to promote harmony through a non-anthropocentric world view, Project Wild may serve as the biggest single impediment to their work that the field has yet produced. Opposition to Project Wild has come from several camps. Two states, Missouri and Maine, object to its not being more pointedly pro-hunting. From the opposite side of the anthropocentric/biocentric debate, eight organizations have criticized Project Wild: the American Humane Association; the Fund for Animals, the Animals Protection Institute, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Some aspects of Project Wild that have caused concern are: it is not a focused, sequential program; it does not concentrate enough on developing understandings of broad ecological concepts; it employs poor teaching and learning techniques; it contains a pervasive and systemic anthropocentric bias; and it puts too little emphasis on the urgency of the crisis that the United States faces and the need to adapt less consumptive lifestyles. (AA)