If you manage the animals, then are they no longer wild? If no longer wild, then why persist in calling this thing that you do wildlife management? When first confronted with this argument, I was at a loss. I do not remember my reply. It (and the question) still bother me. I should have argued that I manage the resource, not the animals. I would have lost ground for what people know about wildlife is from TV and that is usually depicting hand-on work with animals. I may have colleagues that haze elk into another area, use salt to attract herds to an area, use repellents to discourage animals from eating certain things of value, and even kill a marauding livestock killer. These are the exceptions but they are evidence that we actually manage animals. We tend animals in experimental situations. More evidence.

In India at a famous refuge south of Delhi I asked the refuge manager what was his measure of success in management. I expected a discussion of objectives, a tirade about political uncertainty and lack of guidance, and comments about budgetary inadequacy. His answer was "the closeness to which we can approach the animals." I remain perplexed. He sought to protect the animals from all disturbance. The "no fear" slogan was to writ large on the land. He provides spaces or habitats for the animals, trails for the visitors, guides, and control of peoples' behavior to prevent disturbance. The criterion of success was in "flushing distance", the less the better...for the animals and the visitors to the refuge. Harmony was the quest. He was a thoughtful person. The meaning of "wildlife management" probably meant little to him. He had a permanent job on a large national area, a budget, large staff, and did what his predecessor did. I remain perplexed by his answer for many reasons. I realize cultural and religious differences between his answer and my expectation. I want to find out the difference in flushing distance between animals on his area and similar nearby areas. I wonder about the effects of the experiences of migratory birds while off his area. I want a plot of the change in distances observed over the years. I am curious about which animals he observes and which ones do not respond. I remain perplexed by him but by similar observations on areas around the world. I want to know what effect the manager had.

If I apply fertilizer to a crop and I can see no measurable change in plant growth, I will probably not apply the same fertilizer or some amount next year. I understand cause and effect and when fertilizer is expensive, I do not want to spend money for things that give me no substantial return. Why should a different standard be applied to the manager. If I (as a tax-paying society) spend money and ask a manager to provide goods and services, some sort of benefits, from the wildlife resource, then I should expect to be able to see or sense a significant difference in the resource being managed and that elsewhere. I am sure the animals on the Indian refuge were more calm, less flighty, more likely to walk away than to fly or run. There was less entropy. They were more free than when off the refuge. They experienced "sanctuary." Maybe that is all that is needed. But one form of wildlife management holds that the wildlife manager is more than a warehouse guard, one who locks up a place and tends it. Some do. Their work is important. There are few such jobs. The activities can usually be performed with little education or special skill and knowledge. There are so many different places and special situations that generalizing about needs is dangerous, doomed to be wrong from a hundred qualifiers. The alternative is that of the decision maker, hiring staff and directing their activities on such areas so that cost effectiveness is achieved.