At least one valid approach to discussing and thinking about this subject is identify what has changed and inquiring whether this change is desirable. While I have heard people say that reintroducing wolves may be more natural or may be more original, I haven't heard these people deny that the reintroduction of the wolves has changed elk hunting. In some areas -- for example in Idaho -- reintroduction of the wolf has decreased elk numbers and made elk hunting more difficult. I don't know about what other people think, but if elk hunting becomes more difficult -- to whit, success rates drop further -- it is not long before it reaches a point where I give up elk hunting.

Is the fact of elk hunters giving up on elk hunting a bad thing? Some people would say no, but others would disagree. I reckon the people who make money from elk hunters would disagree -- motels, restaurants, sporting good stores, gas stations. If the number of hunters drops below a critical mass, isn't it possible that the political balance can shift and the anti-hunters will ban hunting entirely? These are non-trivial issues to place in the balance.

And what is in the other part of the balance? The "rightousness" of restoring the wolf to part of its historical range? This is kind of a vague concept, in my book. I wonder how much weight "rightousness" carries in the balance? Certainly extinction is not in question -- the wolf is not in danger of extinction.

I don't hunt elk in Idaho or Wyoming. I hunt elk in SW Colorado, and the wolf isn't down there chewing up the elk. If that day comes and the success ratio is cut in half, do count me out on the continued elk hunting. And do cut my 20 year old son out too. And cut out my niece's husband out who might join me some time. And do cut out any on-going tradition of going elk hunting that my going out and bringing along others -- son, niece's husband -- might start. I would guess I would not be alone in this. Good? I dunno.