[cyorir]

That's essentially technocracy. I think some amount of technocratic decision-making is good in a government, but at the end of the day you still need that government to be informed by the needs/desires of the people (democracy, more or less). Democracy should be informed by the technocrats, not replaced by technocracy. In this case, I think voters should be listening to ecologists to understand the effects that reintroduction of wolves will have, but it's good that it's still up to the voters to decide whether to prioritize restoring the ecosystem versus making life easier for those in the agriculture industry.

[appleiigs]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee

"The term is used to refer to suboptimal traits that such a process may produce as a result of having to compromise between the requirements and viewpoints of the participants, particularly in the presence of poor leadership or poor technical knowledge, such as needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision"

[beerandt]

Technocracy would be letting the ecologists make decisions about wildlife refuges, and agro-scientists making decisions about range land.

The initial decision of what to prioritize and what "expert" to consult is still inherently political.