Actually, the wolves are not protected, they have been removed from the ESA, the antis are suing to put them back on the ESA. SSS era has passed us by, it is time to focus on strict management principles. However, what are folks to do if the wolf is placed back on the ESA? We currently sit at 6x the poulation the ESA called for.
They are actually still listed in some states - MN, WI, and MI among them. The proposed de-listing did not go through because some states (I forget which one(s)) did not have a viable management plan in place. Or maybe they
were delisted, but in any case, they are still federally protected under ESA for the time being.
The thing that shocked my the most is how many "hunters" are supporting the pro wolf movement with sympathethic (pathetic in my view) statements about how they love to see wolves in the wild, many near their homes, and how they can't see any reason why they should be hunted. My guess is these "hunters" could really care less how much game they see on a hunt or if they are ever successful again in harvesting an animal.
You think hunters who don't hate wolves are "pathetic?"
What a coincidence: I think the same of hunters who think they're the only people in this country who should have a say about what goes on in our forests and woods. This may be a news flash to you, but ALL Americans have the same rights to enjoy the outdoors that hunters do. And they vote, too.
So lets just keep killing wolves illegally - or cheering on the killing and supporting it with the "SSS" stupidity - and maybe we can reap the backlash of it from the non-hunting public: more lawsuits, wolf populations increasing as the suits drag on, and once they're fully delisted everywhere, we just keep hating 'em and killing 'em and teaching our kids "SSS" until they get listed again. Then our kids get to deal with the same cycle and we'll just keep blaming the "antis" for our own ignorance. Good plan. Pure genius.
And we do this why? So that by eliminating wolves, we can make the U.S. into a giant hunting preserve (?), even though the vast majority of outdoor users may not even be hunters. Pretty selfish, not to mention unrealistic and unlikely to occur.
I hunt mainly because I enjoy being outside. That's the "success," for me and for a lot of other hunters. If I get something, great. If I don't, I certainly don't think of it as an "unsuccessful" day. If you're hunting just to kill sh*&, you might want to re-evaluate why you hunt or worse, what example you might be setting for others.