I've always been bothered by the linguistic problem with terms like "managing wildlife" or "managed wilderness." If it's "managed," how can it be wild? Of course, if it's not managed, it probably won't be around for much longer, and management is the only way to ensure that whatever it is--a plant, an animal, an ecosystem--will be preserved in some form, in the face of encroaching human development.

An article in the Denver Post today describes how some 300 species are managed across the West, from wolves and grizzly bears to rattlesnakes and gila monsters. These critters are tracked and tagged and monitored, and the data collected is used to determine the best policies to ensure the best chance for survival of the species, with the minimum inconvenience to humans.

Species protected under the Endangered Species Act are perhaps the most closely monitored and managed, but if it walks, flies, swims, or slithers on the ground, you can bet there are a few wildlife biologists watching it. The information they gather is used to set policies on everything from hunting to trail closures to public land use to development.

In Rocky Mountain National Park, the current management debate is over elk: with no natural predators (wolves were eradicated from the area early in the last century and have not yet found their way back), the elk population has skyrocketed in the park and the surrounding area, which puts too much pressure on the park's vegetation. To keep the elk population in check, proposals that have surfaced in recent years include birth control (shooting contraceptive darts at females), re-introduction of wolves to the park, and simply shooting a set number of elk.

Photo credit: Colorado Division of Wildlife