Peter: Your views are somewhat popular with various people, to be sure. Of course, in your case you travel to someone else's country to find territory where there are large predators. This might be an enjoyable experience for you, but it is not one that gives me thrills or one I find even interesting. I live among large predators every day of my life. They hold no thrill for me.

You must understand, irradication is not going to happen. Wolves are here to stay. Ditto cougar, black and grizzly bear and coyote. We have them all. And all are competing for the same food source along with me and other fellow hunters. My own opinion is that I desire the bare minimum of them all. Maybe not total irradication {though in the case of wolves in Idaho that would be a goal I would support if such a policy became possible, which it isn't}.

As for danger to humans, I doubt they will be much, though in larger densities they like cougar will take a little child from time to time I suppose. For those who feel there are already too many people around this might not be a big deal, and certainly not a reason to dramatically control wolf numbers. On a side note, I find it quite interesting that those who feel human numbers should be chopped back don't include themselves in the group that should get chopped!

A curiousity at the least!

Daryl, the State of Idaho did not want wolves. Wolves were forced on the State by the Federal government. Since wolves are listed as endangered, the Federal government maintains management rights exclusively. IF they are delisted, the State will manage them {having to maintain certain quota's of course}. Under the State plan, they would gain "Big Game" status {same as black bear and cougar} and could be hunted. This seems the best possibility, as undesireable as it is. The State game biologists I have spoken to on this subject are not too happy with being stuck in the middle. Right now, wolves are seriously impacting the herds. The State can do almost nothing about it. And remember, the State biologists take the heat for decreased game populations in spite of the fact that they cannot at present do anything to stop the damage. I spoke to the head game biologist for Idaho today on the phone. He readily admits that it will take some years to learn HOW to manage wolf populations, that is, keeping them at numbers low enough to minimize impact on game animals, while making sure not to allow wolf numbers to drop below Federal requirements. If that were to happen, wolves would again be relisted, control taken away from the State, and hunting of wolves banned. Our State game department is in a very tough position. At any rate, he said the sooner we get control in the hands of the State, the sooner they can develop the skills and plans to manage wolves effectively.