I like wolves. My dog is half wolf. I give them utmost respect as a fellow hunter, 'cause when you get down to it, we're out in the woods doing the same thing.
But that's just me & my two cents.

I may call him my big dummy, but he's way too smart for his own good.

Gov. Intelligence huh Jim?

Absolfreakinlutely!!

I am slightly confused about one thing here.
I don't want anyone to think I am gonna say "don't shoot the wolves!"
But...
If I understand correctly; one of the main reasons we legitimize hunting deer and elk is; to keep their numbers low, to keep them from over-browsing, and to keep herds from becoming diseased.
So then, if that is true, why then can we say we need to hunt wolves because they are killing too many deer and elk?
This seems to me to be contradictory.

It seems to me that we could kill two birds with one stone here. I love to hunt deer. I really love to eat venison, but weren't wolves hunting deer and elk long before anyone in this country ever bought a hunting license?

A whole host of environmental groups who would much rather see wolves eat deer and elk than us...

Sorry, I couldn't resist, Mike left it open for me...
Actually I'm all for both wolves eating as many deer and elk as their needs demand as well as proper management of wolves as a species.
I admit, I am enthralled by predators and I have always been a big fan of the wolf recovery program. I don't begrudge them their nature and some day I would be thrilled to hear one howl once again on the plains of Oklahoma (Teddy Roosevelt actually went on one of the last wolf hunts in Oklahoma).
However, there are a lot of extremely naive people out there who believe a hands-off approach is feasible when it's clearly not.
Phillip above mentioned the lion situation in California.
Look at the black bear hunt controversy in New Jersey, where the prevailing wisdom is that somehow we can condition bears to stay away from humans if we just sic enough little dogs to bite their asses and run them off every time they tip over a trash can.
See, problem solved and we don't need a hunt.
Well, hell, where are they supposed to go? Somewhere else? It's full-up with people, too.
Do I personally have any desire to shoot a wolf? No. Not in the least, and if given the opportunity I'd decline.
But I'm a pragmatist, and I recognize the necessity of balancing the needs of wolves with the needs of people.
This is the same argument, damn near verbatim, that these groups like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity and the NRDC make with other species that are candidates for ESA listing (I know this is a delisting situation for the wolf but the points are the same).
I don't consider environmentalism a dirty word, and I really support and admire a lot of what these groups try to do. And unlike a lot of hunters I truly don't think the majority of them have a specific anti-hunting agenda.
It's just that these groups see environmental issues in black and white, i.e. if a species is in decline why hunt it? If a species is attempting a recovery, why hunt it? With species after species they fail to understand all the cultural, environmental and economic consequences of what they're proposing.
Or maybe they do and they justify their actions from a purely empirical standpoint, that external factors shouldn't matter.
Either way their intractable stance ends up alienating the very groups they should be reaching out to.
Mike mentioned the ESA, which I think should be renamed the law of unintended consequences.
I hate to ramble here, but for example there are a number of prairie species in my area that right now are the subject of lawsuits against the USFWS, lawsuits that are attempting to force through litigation the listing of these species under the ESA.
This despite an overwhelming desire by virtually every wildlife agency, landowner, conservation organization and research facility in the region to keep these species off the list.
Why? Because once a species is listed it eliminates virtually all options for managing it, and then once that's gone you've engendered resentment and lost the one group you most needed to court: the landowners.
I've been covering the issue for a long time, and not once have I ever seen a representative from the Center for Biological Diversity at a public meeting. I don't know if they've ever been out here at all. Apparently all they know how to do is file lawsuits and issue press releases.
I know, because I get them all the time, and all the landowners know is that a bunch of out-of-state activists are trying to shut down their operations, even if how they're operating is actually beneficial to the species in question.
I realize I'm going off on a tangent here, but all you have to do is substitute "prairie dog" or swift fox" or "lesser prairie chicken" with "wolf" and exact story could have an Oklahoma dateline.

maybe it's time to reread Farley Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf."

Kill all 'em ar woffs!

Bubba

I think they tried to reintroduce red wolves in Land Between the Lakes in Western KY. It did not turn out at all. Seem like they did it in the Northeast somewhere too and they interbred with coyotes so bad it just wasnt viable. In most areas I believe coyotes and or humans have filled the niche wolves used to fill.

Chad that was some good fodder to read. I think Ed Bangs hit it right on the head "Everybody's crying wolf".
Phillip said it correctly that politic and emotion have no place in wildlife management.
Leave wildlife management to those who are trained and dedicated to do so within the "big picture" of the US as it exists today.

Bubba,

I can see that your last two posts were sarcastic in nature.

But you have your facts wrong: Wolves do indeed spend time cleaning up carrion. But that carrion is most often the result of a recent hunt by the very pack doing the cleaning up. I personally know a hunting guide from Montana who watched as a pack of wolves took down a mature and perfectly healthy and strong bull elk.

"Yes, open a wolf season!" You may be saying these words sarcastically, but taken at face value, they are (or should be) music to the ears of environmentalists, conservationists, landowners, hunters and taxpayers alike.
Because once wolves are de-listed, they can then be managed properly. They can be given a fear of humanity that is necessary to keep them from predating on livestock and pets, and their numbers will be kept at a level that will not cause strain on the prey species (elk, deer, moose). At the same time, it will be a more cost-effective way of managing wolves than having Uncle Sam, or one of his 50 Sons do the work of managing wolf populations. Hunters will pay to hunt wolves. Let the funds derived from this source pay for the management, just like it helps to with deer, elk, antelope, goat, sheep, moose, cougar and bear.

Regulated hunting has never wiped out a species. I'm all for the wolves being reintroduced, but when a population can be hunted it should be. The money generated can go back into conservation.

I don't like the idea of using Federal or State officers. If the population can take a hunt, then let the public at large get the tags.

Seems like depradation hunting is pretty widespread and this should be where the environmental groups spend their energy. I would think that any public hunt would mostly take wolves that would be killed by depradation permit. Hunters, or a good chunk of them, don't range too far from civilization to hunt and would tend to pick off those animals closest to farms and towns.

One option would be to give the permits to the farmers who have experienced a loss. Then the farmers could sell them to recoup losses, provide hunting opportunity, and reduce wolves near the farm. It would then give farmers some economic incentive to not poach the wolves.