Do you agree that Hunters should kill gray wolves, they are off the endangered list?

Ummm... yeah. The only problem is that there is not enough habitat for them to keep breeding like they are genetically programed to. If the numbers are not controlled, you will end up with far more wolves dying than if you allow hunters to remove problem animals and those that are moving outside of their range. People live in most of the wolves' former habitat, and I think that they would be slightly miffed at you if you told them they had to move for the sake of an animal's living space. That's not likely to happen in the real world. As for people killing deer and rabbits and other critters the wolves feed on, there are some flaws in your logic. There's a shocker.

First, the numbers needed to feed the wolves, and the numbers taken by humans are both relatively small compared to the overall populations of those species in the wolves' habitat.

Second, the main problem with the wolves isn't really a lack of food at this point. That won't be an issue until the population density reaches a critical point in their environment. And that is only likely to happen if silly people who don't know all of the facts try to impose restrictions on any kinds of population controls needed for the management of the species. e.g. bunny huggers who get their panties in a wad over what their other bunny hugging friends have told them is happening, based on a few pages they read in a book somewhere. Unless you have a degree in wildlife biology, I would hazard a guess that you or your friends aren't really qualified to make these kinds of decisions.

As for the hunting of wolves, my main question is this: So? Who cares if the animals are hunted? They are going to be killed anyway as part of the wildlife management program run by the various wildlife agencies. The ones who are responsible for maintaining healthy populations of wolves. A hunter with a rifle, shooting a wolf, is a much faster death than either poisoning or starvation. Both of which become very real possibilites if you take away hunting as an option. Besides, the money spent by the hunter on licensing fees is probably significantly more than YOU have ever donated for protecting the wolves. And most of that money goes straight to the state wildlife agencies.

So, how about you go back to the coffee house and whine to your little friends about how evil we hunters are. And realize that if it weren't for us, wildlife would be in far worse shape.

Your 'points' don't make any sense.

"If hunters stopped killing deer and rabbit, then grey wolves would not starve."

The environment, no matter where, can ONLY sustain a certain number of animals. If there are more deer and other prey animals, that means less room, less food, sicker animals, and that in turn will greatly affect the wolf population, in a bad way.

With over population, then the chance for disease is greater and once some diseases get a good 'hold' on an animal population, it can destroy that population and it can be transmitted VERY VERY easily.

"Animals were doing fine before Europeans with guns came here."

You are NOT native here most likely, same with the rest of us, we are a mix if cultures, and they came over here. Do you even know how much good hunters have done for the environment?

Grow up and get an education, and don't let other people make your mind up for you. God gave YOU a brain for YOU to use.

The wolves involved where transplanted from Canada into the Yellowstone area and elsewhere, where there hasn't been wolves since the late 1890s to 1920.The areas where managed as deer,elk and antelope habitat, since that time. You re-introduce a predator like wolves which kill every few days and you can decimate an entire herd in a matter of months. These wolves that will be culled are over-populated and destroying the game in the areas involved. Now, guess who has to pay for all the damage done--HUNTERS. Hunters pay more for habitat and non-game projects than anyone else because we choose to hunt and are will to pay the price for it. Your poor tax dollars are a small percent of the cost paid.

Again, these wolves are not where they where intended to be kept-surprising how animals move around like that. There are wolves in Central Idaho and even now in the North Idaho regions that never had any and where never an intended habitat for the wolves. We haven't even addressed the wolves issues with dead livestock properly yet.

Reintroducing wolves was an asinine thing to do and yes they should now be seen as hunt controlled species. Hunters paid billions of dollars over the years to be able to hunt deer,elk,moose,bear and cougar. Now it is only fair that wolves are on the list.

Comparing a modern hunter and wolves isn't an equal metaphor either: hunters don't shadow a herd and kill them all off like wolves do. And the odds are greatly in favor of the game animals vs humans.

So, no the wolves won't starve, they will just move on to better hunting areas and when that fails they will kill livestock and then your dogs.

The wolves have already consumed 50% of elk and killed off 50% of coyotes. You think that trend will resolve itself if people stop hunting... no.

Typical.. hunters tax dollars paid for the 14 year wolf restoration. Now that they are overpopulating and they need to be hunted the cry babies make the hunters out to be the bad guys. Least you not forget you have the hunters to thank for the wolves.

Its not as if they are going to hunt ALL the wolves. Just a very small percentage so that they dont kill off all the prey and competition. It is to maintain balance.

Something you need to remember is that YOU live on land that was once inhabited by animals. As our wilderness is fragmented and urban sprawl continues proper wildlife management is key to keeping healthy populations of wildlife. You however just sit and point the finger at hunters without even realizing that you are a part of the problem.. difference is that hunters are active in wildlife management while you just sit there and point fingers at everyone else.

Wrong. It is not President Obama's order that the gray wolf be de-listed, that was Bush's doing. Yes, Obama is environmentally sensitive. Seems you have an issue with politics more so that endangered animals.

if you want to be an animal lover then you need to keep in mind that city dwellers do less for wildlife than hunters do. hunters have been around since the stone ages. they needed to eat and now, since there is so much land that has been wiped out to make room for cities animals don't have the space they need. the less space there is for animals the more crowded areas for them get. and animals are mostly social creatures but they need space to hunt, sleep, eat, and play. since now there is less habitat for them then the populations of all animals need to be safely and humanely decreased for our benefit and theirs. I love wolves too but they don't have the space they used to have so I am on the animal lovers and hunter's side when i say hunting these non- endangered animals should be allowed.

Which is true to an extent. Currnetly deer populations are the highest they've ever been. So over population of wolves would hurt the deer population, so evently the weakest wolves would starve. Then the deer population would rebound. And the cycle would start again, this is how nature works, basicly. It is most likely that wolf hunting would be reinstated with strict harvest limits, just as with deer hunting.

I think that there should be a season for wolves. While I believe that it is a good thing that they are back, their numbers need to be controlled. Opening a hunting season is the easiest and cheapest method of controlling the population, and money for tags can be used to fund research and population counts to better benefit both wolf and prey populations.

I think people should have the right to protect their livestock and pets from predators. That includes wolves. Additionally wolves have decimated the Yellowstone elk and deer herds (which are protected from hunting). Therefore wolf populations need to be controlled and problem wolves terminated.

of course not.

scientific reason:the population control myth is a biased opinion based upon statistics, it is not scientific and have no scientific evidence supporting it

human hunting for population control is entirely useless as far as science is concerned. nature is resiliant, the animals that cannot obtain enough food dies, leaving the ones with better hunting genes live, thus passing it on.

and for moral reasons too:

consider this: what is i take a shotgun, and go to the slums of some poor place in the world and started killing humans because i believe that they will starve is i do not kill them?????

it's best to leave nature as it is