Most nature-loving people care for the preservation of wolves, too; however, many people are totally mystified by what comes across as "wolf concern" carried so far as to ignore the well-being of other Idaho animals. By all means, this is not a rant against those who are generally categorized as "wolf lovers," but rather a genuine desire to better understand their position.
Where wolves are thriving in Canada and Alaska, they have thousands of acres of wilderness that is generally free of human activity. In addition, the areas are so vast that a healthy population of most native animals remains in balance. However, in Idaho, even the wilderness areas are not that remote in that people live and work not too many miles from any point one would designate as wilderness.
Please understand that it is the perception of the attitude that suggests that all the other animals such as deer and elk can be killed by wolves in untold thousands and no one will give a hoot that is fueling the present debate.
Allow me to note that even Idaho Fish and Game has said that due to wolves, elk populations are in serious decline, while wolves are even beginning to kill each other.
Considering all the grim evidence, such as the killing of elk mothers just for the unborn while leaving the mother to die from her wounds, and many other facts that clearly point to a predator out of control—then pray tell me—how do they justify their position of defending wolves from any reasonable population control? What is it that the rest of us are missing?
While I and many others would sincerely like honest answers to these questions, I also ask that we not be told that wolves have not or do not attack humans as we very well know better—and I only say this because too many of their persuasion have already tried in an effort to dispel such realistic fears.
Tommy Bryan
Elizabethtown, N.C.
