We probably shouldn't be surprised that the controversy over Wyoming's elk feedgrounds is likely headed to court.

But if there's any way to keep that from happening, the parties involved should give it their best effort.

Conservation groups said last week they're prepared to file a lawsuit to force the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to conduct environmental reviews of the 15 elk feedgrounds operated by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department on federal lands in northwest Wyoming. Apparently convinced that Game and Fish on its own won't move to scale back elk feeding, the conservationists are turning to their old friends - the National Environmental Policy Act, and probably the courts - in an attempt to force change.

Earlier this month, we advocated reduced use of feedgrounds as a way to address concerns about the spread of diseases including brucellosis and chronic wasting disease. Elk numbers in northwest Wyoming have been maintained at artificially high levels for close to a century, but disease concerns have made it clear that we need to take a look reducing those numbers by feeding the animals less.

What we don't need, however, is to move the debate into the court system.

As the legal battles over snowmobiling in Yellowstone and wolf management have shown, court rulings rarely produce results that please anyone. And the litigation goes on for years, racking up big legal expenses.

In this case, there does appear to be some question as to whether the Forest Service and BLM have adequately studied the environmental effects of elk feedgrounds. Those agencies should assess whether they should take another look at their agreements with the Game and Fish Department to make sure they comply with the law.

The real solution, however, is for Game and Fish to scrutinize each feedground to see how it may be possible to reduce or phase out feeding. The agency has said it will develop an individual management plan for each feedground, and the analyses will address the possibility of feeding phaseouts. The department should move as quickly as possible on those studies, and conservationists should allow them to happen - while offering their input - before taking the issue to court.

The debate over elk feeding is emotional and divisive. But if both sides truly have the interests of the elk at heart, they should be able to work out a solution themselves - without any judges getting involved.