So they can only make part of the decision correctly: that there should be some sort of reintroduction, and what aspects of it are scientifically/biologically r

So they can only make part of the decision correctly: that there should be some sort of reintroduction, and what aspects of it are scientifically/biologically required for success. They are not a good sole party to address the economics, social/cultural/community issues, or a number of other aspects of programs like this. Wolf reintroduction is major change with the potential for disproportionate impact on a small group of people (or at least there's a huge fear of it), and combined with a very real sense that some outside elite authority is just autocratically dictating without listening there is great potential for it to go sideways. (Keep in mind that centralized power structures dissipate with distance/isolation - witness rural sheriffs refusing to enforce specific laws in some states, etc.) In general there should be a second angle: how to support the community, make the program successful, and have buy-in. This means maybe there should be some combination of communication, support, insurance, or grants to mitigate community concerns, and that it should be treated as an ongoing back-and-forth that tries to balance concerns for long term success, not as a dictate to people who are ignored.