Jabali:

As usual, you are asking the right questions and I appreciate your interest in the broader scope of the problem!

Various compensation measures have been implemented. Theoretically, if wolves kill livestock the owner is compensated for their loss. This of course sounds great to many outsiders who "just want to save the wolves", sounds "just" and makes them feel good. What are those Idaho redneck hillbillies whining about anyway? Case closed, book shut. Those who don't want wolves are bad. Now let's go buy another pair of shoes from Gucci's, sip a latte and figure out how we can shut down all those evil coal-fired power plants {in the USA, not China of course..}.

But in your question you hint that there is something more and you are right. You imply you smell complexity that might escape the unwary. You are right. {Are you a Barrister?

}

First, loss of a producing cow, sheep or horse can not just be made up for in a few dollars. Genetics, training time {horses} etc can be of immense value and while most stockmen know that merely living in Idaho means there may be more losses to be incurred than say living in Ohio, that itself begs the question why a man down is now allowed to be kicked.

The other element of this problem is "proving it". We are drowning in coyotes and other predators exist, too. It is not easy to prove that wolves made the kill, and without that proof, no compensation. Even if a steer or range cow WAS killed by wolves, between the time of the attack and the time of discovery, all tracks and evidence of the killers may be {frequently is} obliterated by the combined efforts of crows and coyotes. Then there are the "indirect" costs. What if a $25,000 horse is chased across a pasture, runs through a fence and must be put down? Who pays? Who is going to prove it was wolves that chased it thru the fence?

A few years ago, two steers owned by by neighbor were chased out of their pasture and up the mountain by a pack of wolves...or was it huge stray dogs...and these two went wild, completely berserk, defying all attempts to round them up, costing many days of effort and living like spooked elk until the owner {an older fellow whose legs won't stand that mountain anymore} gave me and my son the green light to hunt them. We did, difficult in itself and killed one. Prematurely for the plans of the owner of course, but what were his options? Now, how does he prove it was wolves that did it?

The state knows from the number of proven wolf attacks that these animals, as Daryl points out make every effort they can to kill livestock in the absence of game {or sometimes just because it is easier}. But proving each and every kill is very difficult indeed.

You are right to ask the questions you do. They are totally legitimate. I wish everybody who had attractions to the concept of wolf recovery asked the same questions. It IS a tough issue.

My question for those who desire to have wolves reintroduced to Idaho is this; Why stop at Idaho? Why not bring them back to their entire worldwide range wherever it was they existed? Why not? Because common sense precludes it. Wolves are an unmitigated menace and their numbers should be small, small indeed. Like small pox in a laboratory. Kept so their genetic material may be investigated and used for research and that is about it.