That's a very appealing idea — after all, biologists and ecologists are the experts at biology & ecology. But what if the biologists and the ecologists disagre

That's a very appealing idea — after all, biologists and ecologists are the experts at biology & ecology. But what if the biologists and the ecologists disagree? E.g. maybe the wolves would be great in one biological aspect but bad for the ecosystem? Of course any decision has multiple impacts: even if biologists and ecologists agree, what about stakeholders? Should farming and ranching experts have a seat at the table? What about climatologists (after all, maybe wolf flatulence better or worse than deer flatulence)? What about mining interests, who might need to adjust physical security? What about suburban homeowners, who might need to do likewise? What about urban renters, who might really want to see those suburbanites move into the city? And of course even if we limit the discussion strictly to scientists who can be strictly objective about the decisionmaking, they can still be wrong, because the settled science at any point in time can be incorrect (cf. phrenology, the safety of leaded gas and the immediacy of self-driving cars). At the very least, if we make the vote democratically, whatever happens can be blamed on everyone collectively.