Actually, they may be wrong there, although I am sympathetic with the argument ecologically, but do not agree genetically. A "species" is defined by all that is capable of producing viable hybrids. Hence, horses and donkeys are separate species because mules are sterile. On the other hand, dogs and wolves may not be because they do interbreed and bear viable progeny capable of reproducing (which really crashes the greenie "endangered species" argument, BTW). Look at the differences among domestic dogs. That is but one species; i.e., they can interbreed. Hence, they are not different species although they do possess heritable differences.
The Canadian wolf and the US domestic variety are functionally different in that the larger size of the former is far more capable of taking down their prey in this system, which they have done. Yet they are not genetically different. They may be epigenetically different, in that their habitat has impressed upon them tendency toward larger size because of the larger prey they have up there. In fact, depending upon food, a canid such as the American wolf can scale upwards to twice its size in but five generations under sufficiently favorable conditions.
I know that throws a monkey wrench into the argument, but truth does come first. The point as far as I am concerned is that if elk were overpopulated (which they were) the states should have issued more cow tags instead of bringing in wolves.
Are you in Oklahoma?
You sound like you live just down the road in Montana.
I have seen your case made before, and find it reasonable. Pro-wolf people will claim they are actually the same species while people on the ground here say “maybe so strictly speaking but these animals are way bigger and act differently.”
I am certainly willing to accept your point.
You are right about the cow tags and so on. There are any number of courses our Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department might have followed, but they are so horridly politicized...it’s just unbelievable now, I have friends, one a really decent human being, who have risen to top positions and now stand before microphones lying without scruple.
You can tell by the wear and tear on them but if they buck the system-—if they even hint at the truth-—they will effectively end their careers.
Personally I can’t imagine having to do it, or doing it even if I “had to”...makes me think of the (paraphrased) Clint Eastwood line:
Josey: Why do you do it?
Bounty Hunter: It’s a living.
Josey: Lying ain’t much of a living, boy.
Ha!