Obviously an emotional issue, but let's get a grip here...

Most non-professional hunters tend not to want an environment completely without wolves. But at the same time, they don't see a need for wolves to reproduce and repopulate completely unchecked.

Unfortunately, the "SSS" crowd only fuels the marketing exaggerations pushed on media by the "no wolf hunting" crowd. It absolutely serves their agenda to portray ALL hunters as wanting the extinction of the wolf. And so the "ESA" drama continues.

I might suggest we all become a bit more level-headed in our rhetoric and emotions regarding the wolf.

1. Man does not hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem, and likely never will.

2. Without a credible predator, uncontrolled elk and bison populations in Yellowstone HAVE done damage to the ecosystem there.

3. Man DOES hunt the area outside the park's boundaries and fulfills the role of a credible predator there. Further, man can be bound by laws and regulations applied to adjust elk populations. Wolves cannot be held to concepts like "emergency closure", "additional cow tags", etc.

4. Outside the park, there is little need for additional predation to control damage to ecosystems. Hence, there is little ecological need for the wolf. Its existence outside is merely aesthetic, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is completely undesirable.

5. Large predators are innately incompatible with human civilization and activities. While wolves are not prone to attacking humans (at least in terms of documentation), the general attitude of "antis" that predators can coexist with man is almost completely in error (problems with mountain lions, black bears, etc.)

I'm completely okay with wolves inside the park to balance things out. I'm not in favor of their uncontrolled (i.e. protected) status beyond a reasonable range or buffer outside park boundaries. I believe that Wyoming's management plan is very reasonable, but because the message has been hijacked by the two extremes, Wyoming's hands are tied by the court.