another fact remains. The only reason their numbrs are low enough to even be listed in the first place is because of the actions of humans many years ago with your same attitude toward wolves.
Yet even another fact remains--a real one this time
Wolves in AK and Canada have NEVER reached the point that protection under the ESA is necessary. In AK, the state manages the wolves, which number 6000-8000 animals. Similarly, Canada's 50,000gray wolves are managed by provincial governments and are NOT considered endangered or (even) threatened
----
http://training.fws.gov/library/Pubs3/wolves00.pdf
So, the wolves aren't listed because their overall numbers are in ANY danger, They're only listed here in the continental US and since it is that case combined with re-introduction into once existing territory, where does it end?? If it's right to re-introduce them into once existing territory in MT, ID, and WY, then why shouldn't we reintroduce them to Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio. They were once "wolf territory" right??.
If one place is now right for the taxpayer funded "re-introduction" and the other is not, then obviously the places where they are being "re-introduced" is determined subjectively, and it is the subjectivity of the current policy that is being called into question....and, if that same "subjectivity" is being supported by a bunch of warm and fuzzy feeling, anti-hunting, Walt Disney idealists, along with an uneducated public, then of course, it is right for real sportsman to oppose it and fight for their own way of life. It's just a shame that all sportsman can't concentrate their efforts effectively because of differences and ignorance within their own ranks.