jonyreb

wolves should have never been reintroduce into the lower 48. there is a reason that our ansesters whent to such great lenghts to kill them off!!!

SP10

As hunters we may be the biggest stakeholders in this issue since it can be argued that wolves represent another predator that competes with us for a limited number of game animals. However, we are not the only shareholders in this controversy. Yellow Stone National Park and other federal lands belong to all U.S. citizens, not just the 7% ofus who hunt, and under our system of government the majority of shareholders, not stakeholders, decide howthese lands and the flora and fauna on themshould be managed. Re-indroduction of wolves into the lower 48 states appears to have the support of the American public. I do not have to like it, just like I do not like the ban on cougar hunting here in California, but I do have to accept it as the will of the majority of Americansand abide by their decision. It is our job to convince them that they have made the wrong decision and they should agree to steps to remedy the harm done.

Lanse couche couche

Unfortunately, it is easy for the majority of stakeholders to support reintroduction of problematic species in an area where they dont live and therefore won't suffer the consequences. Isnt it possible to restock predators on isolated public lands where they aren't a problem. You then have hunting of them open in adjacent areas where they might start to exapand and do harm. Or is some version of that policy already in place.

Wolf killer

Lance

Wyoming has about 10% of there state coveredin a protected area. The protected area lists wolves as trophy game animals. The other 90% is a predator area. This allows people to shoot wolves on sight in 90% of the state.
IMHO This will thin out the problem wolves & keep the rest of the wolves in the protected area.