“It is also sad that folk on the other side, the kill em all ones, dont realize that if we do just that we risk a major ecological disaster.”
There are no wolves in 99% of the country despite the fact wolves roamed and killed from border to border and sea to sea. What kind of ecological disaster now exists in those areas due to lack of wolves? I will grant you that a couple of packs would probably clean up Central Park pretty fast and those of us being dictated to by wolf huggers are more than willing to give you all you want.
There is a large body of scientific literature documenting the ecological ramifications of predator extirpation. Suffice to say that it’s proven that ungulate disease rates (and therefore domesticated herd disease rates) are higher when natural predators are removed, not to mention that flora (i.e., forest cover) and therefore avian species are substantially reduced, as well. Most responsible hunters will tell you that prey health is better when controlled numbers of natural predators are allowed to exist...long story short, it makes for nicer trophies on the wall. :)
These are all ecological ramifications. Let them continue into perpetuity, and we could see more widespread problems. Bottom line is that responsible hunters and wildlife managers agree that wolves can coexist with other species in North America. It’s the same mindset that saved bison (and a bunch of other species) from extinction.
Also, as far as I’m aware, wolves did not populate much of either coast and were essentially absent in the southeast. Not to say that they weren’t much more abundant in earlier times, but they simply did not populate 99% of North America.