The Unnatural Kingdom Response

Conservationists are using a number of methods to restore populations, tow of which are intense monitoring of the wildlife (prey and predator) in the area to protect humans, and another of controlling species allocation of those herd. They are both similar in that they monitor the herds of given population with the intent of increasing the populations of them, but differ in that the first one is a little more Laizzez-flaire by comparison. The second one goes to great lengths to manage the reproduction of the animals in the area, moving pregnant bighorns around and taking genetic samples of the animals present. The second one in my opinion while more extreme seems more likely to have success because of the comprehensive level of the manipulation of the herd. This is vitally important to the herds success as predators are heavily managed, and reproduction is controlled to ensure larger populations (hopefully resolving the issues), though this comes with a much greater resource and monetary cost.

Restored populations of bighorn sheep will have less genetic diversity than they did 200 years ago because they lost huge segments of their genetic diversity to disease and hunting. With their herds so heavily reduced there was little choice for reproduction, thus lowering the diversity (at least genetically) between each Bighorn sheep. However in an attempt to resolve this issue Conversationalist have attempted to increase the genetic diversity artificially by moving pregnant female sheep from one herd to another. This also leads to a new question, should these animals be considered wild? The dictionary defines wild as "(of an animal or plant) living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated" and by this definition of wild I can't say these new populations are "wild". They may live in the wood or isolated areas, but they do so without the true characteristic of a wild species. Everything about their lives is monitored, from their predators to reproduction. If a state existed like this for Humans (manly likely do) that controlled humans in the way these animals are controlled, almost Orwellian by description we would never consider that the natural affair of things. By this Logic we must not extend that title to animals either, though the ethical questions of the whether saving a species like this is right, and if a second rate solution to the fundamental conversationalists problem is better the a true resolution is remain up for debate.   

Link to initial Article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/sunday-review/the-unnatural-kingdom.html?_r=1