This chapter presents the results of a two-year-long grounded empirical study conducted in East Africa, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, involving interviews with a broad range of stakeholders in the wildlife policy subsystem—including senior bureaucrats, academics, NGOs, traders and local communities. Using Q methodology, the study maps and analyses competing policy beliefs and their influence on decision-making processes. Findings reveal persistent ideological divisions, limited information-sharing and resistance to initiatives such as WEMS-Asia—driven by both belief-based tensions and broader institutional and political factors. While scientific belief offers potential common ground, it rarely shifts core convictions and is often selectively used to reinforce existing positions. In polarised contexts, the credibility of science may also be compromised by its entanglement with powerful interests. The study concludes that although belief systems shape decision outcomes, they do so within a broader framework of internal and external influences.