I think managing wolves as a big game animal is probably a good idea. Going all hysterical and attempting to eliminate all wolves is probably not. Same with bears, cougars, lynx, wolverines, badgers, eagles and every other predator. I love hunting, I love wilderness, and I love wild things. When I am camping alone, far from anyone, I like to hear the wolves howl, the elk bugle, or the grizzly turning rocks. The experience would be diminished if any one were missing. There is huge amount of BS on both sides of the issue and I suspect it is wise to listen to neither one.
Here, in BC, there is an effort to save the remnants of a mountain caribou herd. As part of this effort, wolves have to be cobtrolled because the herd can tolerate little predation and they are a relatively easy target for the wolves. Now, the caribou herd did not end up in it's current condidtion due to predation by wolves. That was caused by habitat destruction more than anything but now, the wolves are a threat to the remaining herd. Although it is entirely possible it is too little too late, controlling the wolf population in this instance is justified. Controlling predator numbers
is also necessary if we wish to reduce the pendulum swing which is typical of a natural ecosystem and maintain populations of specific prey groups. This is why I think wolves, and other predators, may be treated as game species and managed that way.
By the way, I am also in agreement with allowing landowners and livestock producers to control predators on their own property. I do so and see no reason why anyone should not. On the other hand, rangeland is another matter and there, predators are a game animal. Shooting a predator to protect livestock is, generally, acceptable but is often difficult to define. If a cougar is stalking a foal, there is little doubt. If grizzly is eating berries but looks like he might want a beef steak one day, that's not reason enough.
In the end, I doubt that any federal govt. can manage anything. GD
