[conservativeharleyguy]

I grew up hunting pretty much everything, including elk and deer, and still hunt and shoot (birds).

I also fur-trapped for coyotes, foxes, beaver, and bobcats for years (helped put me through college).

So sorry, but I'm certainly no tree hugger, and somewhat resent the implication.

What I am is a realistic conversationalist.

My opinion on this subject is formed from years in the field, and something with which you may not be familiar, called education (in the form of reading, you know...books!).

But, please tell me something.

If a few small, human-regulated packs of wolves are really threatening the deer and elk populations with extinction in today's modern world (a ludicrous assertion, BTW), then why didn't vastly greater numbers of wolves manage to kill off all of the herd species hundreds of years ago?

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of wildlife biology understands the need for predation on ungulate herd species (deer and elk, Einstein).

If it were left solely to hunters, they generally kill the biggest, most fit animals, and leave the smaller, weaker animals to die of starvation, disease, and predation, resulting in faster herd die-offs.

People just hate wolves.

The primary reason is that most humans simply can't stand the reality that wolves (and coyotes) are a good bit smarter than they are.

The ideal solution is a balance of managed human predation (that's hunting for you "C" students), with effective natural selection from a variety of predatory species.

[Centurion2000]

The primary reason is that most humans simply can't stand the reality that wolves (and coyotes) are a good bit smarter than they are.

I agree with some of what you say but this is complete bullsh*t. Show me ANY wolf that can drive a car, balance a checkbook, shoot a rifle and pick up a telephone and call.

Wolves have their place, but they are never smarter than humans. Better instincts and cunning yes, more intelligent, no.