Since no one else will say it I will. Go to google or what ever your favorite search engine is and look up wolf attacks in Europe. The attacks in the states were never recorded although they happened, Indians mentioned them frequently. Once the wolf population was thinned down and records were being kept, naturally wolf attacks on humans were either very low or non-existent, mainly due to low wolf population and their fear of men with firearms.
In Europe wolf attacks are well documented, happening often in the 18th and 19th centuries(and probably before that)and you can find mention of them by searching. Since the European wolves are the same species as American and Canadian wolves it follows that their American continent relatives will also attack humans if A:)they are hungry enough from being over populated and B:)if they have no fear of man due to the fact they are not hunted.
Both of these suppositions are borne out by the fact that Mountain lions attacks used to be very low in most states. In CA, since hunting lions was outlawed because the species was put on the endangered list(a lie BTW, they were never endangered) attacks have increased. The media does a great job of not reporting most of them after the failed attempt a few years back to re-open hunting of lions because of increased attacks.
The lions in CA have A:)increased their populations way beyond the range that can support them and B:)have lost all fear of man because they are no longer hunted.
Lions are very territorial and run their young off when they reach adult age, forcing the young ones to seek new range. Wolves don't do this so it will take longer for them to get to the point they will start killing and eating people but they will, sooner or later.
If you happen to be one of those people who actually believe wolves won't attack people you only need to think about dogs. Dogs are closely related to wolves, they are supposedly tame, but they kill people every year and for reasons usually not related to food.
Wolves killed and ate people in Europe for centuries and they killed and ate Indians according to their legends, which are most likely true, and they will kill humans again if given the chance.
Well researched and well said.
Yes, humans should be allowed to hunt Wolves, to a certain extent; just not at a rate that reduces their population below a level at which some of their largest animal-food-sources - like Elk and Deer, become over populated in the wild, due to having no natural predator enemies.
Large Herbivores will graze an area into a plain or a desert, if by excess population, and restricted area, they are allowed to. When Wolves could be hunted without any limit in states like Idaho and Montana at one time, that is exactly what happened in some areas. One of the primary trees in some areas - the Aspen - was eaten in its childhood to such an excess that in some areas there had been no new Aspen trees in a generation. The severe depletion of the Aspen totally changed the flora and fauna, creating a resource-depletion-chain that reduced the variety and number of plants and animals in the affected areas.
Now, land and animal management regulators in the northern states and southern Canada are trying to strike a balance between protection of humans and their livestock and keeping a balance between natural predator and prey in the wilderness that abuts where humans have settled up there.
In places like California, human settlement has nearly eliminated, when not at least vastly reduced, most all major natural animal-food-sources for large predators such as Mountain Lions and Wolves, except in some limited areas. It is a very different situation than what one finds in the areas of the states and provinces along the U.S. Canadian border, especially in the west.
Maybe in some future era if human population in that area is equal - in a per-square-mile sense - to places like California, there will be a need to hunt Wolves to near-extinction (not total) - for human safety. We are not there now.