I lived in WY when the reintroduction took place and attended several of the public meetings. The State game pros (those actually in charge of game management) were adamantly against the reintroduction for any number of reasons not the least of which being they doubted the premise (promised by the Feds) that wolves would be restricted to the park (which premise has since proved to be laughable of course).
I find the idea that somehow all animals should be protected as a natural part of the ecosystem to be specious at best. Large predators were indigenous to ALL of North America when the first Europeans came. They were "wiped out" because they don't co-exist with civilization very well. Should we reintroduce large predators (bear, wolves, cats) nationwide? After all, mountain lions, wolves and griz are "endangered species" even more so in FL, VA, GA, etc than they are out west.
How about non-predatory species? Bison once roamed the plains in the millions. Should we reintroduce them as well? Of course that would eliminate just about all civilization from MO to the Rockies including roads and rail (much less farms, ranches, towns and cities) but it was at one time the "natural" ecosystem.
No one (that I know) is advocating the extinction of any species (I would disagree with the eradication of wolves, griz, etc in the wilderness in AK or Canada as strongly and I disagreed with their reintroduction in WY, MT, ID, etc), but it's foolish not to recognize the difficulties (or impossibilities) of allowing some species to co-mingle with human civilization. Unfortunately the USFWS seem to have been infused with fools who advocate exactly that. They seem to have been taken over by radical "greens" who have animal primacy as their agenda to the detriment of humans. Not by setting aside wilderness areas (which I support) but by allowing (and encouraging) predator re-population of areas already inhabited and used by man.
As an illustration, here's a reasonably accurate re-telling of part of a conversation I was a part of with two very highly placed wildlife officials, each the director of very large (multi million acre) regions in the South West, and each the boss of numerous game wardens, concerning the (re-introduced) Mexican Wolf. I'll change the names and not identify the specific areas (to protect the guilty, lol) but I assure you the conversation took place substantively as related:
Fred: Your wolves are coming across the river and killing our calves (trophy elk herd), what are we going to be able to do about it?
Joe: All our wolves are accounted for and they are all on this side of the river.
Fred: No, I'm telling you, there are some down here and they have already killed a couple of calves. We need to get them out of here.
Joe: Listen to what I'm saying Fred, ALL of our wolves are accounted for and are on this side of the river.
Fred: So if my guys kill your wolves there won't be any repercussions?
Joe: If it's south of the river it must be a really large coyote and not a wolf, because all of our wolves are up here. I don't even need to hear about it.
Pretty sad when wildlife officials, even the ones in charge of managing the re-introduction, have to find ways to skirt the rules laid out by D.C. bureaucrats, but that's the political reality we live in. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
That situation often leaves private persons (and even State wildlife officials) with some hard choices. As admin here I would never advocate (or allow anyone else to openly advocate) illegal actions, and in fact I personally would not purposely shoot a wolf illegally except in self defense, if for no other reason than that I jealously guard my legal firearms owner status. If I were a rancher I might feel differently, though I would never tell anyone, especially in a public forum.
