Uhh, unlike SOME people apparently, I don't *live* on this board. I also don't hunt (I fish), so I don't pay attention to this board unless I see the thread pop up as the most recent post on the title page.

As for my answers, I have nothing against shooting animals that are causing problems. Not all animals become problem animals, though. Would I agree to killing wolves that are running around Olympic National Park minding their own business? No. As stated in your article, Idaho has a population of 300 wolves, and they've had problems with a few individuals, and Oregon cattlemen are already pissing their pants even though they haven't confirmed a single wolf living in the state. Guess you'd be for killing all the bears, since they sometimes prey on livestock, and they've been known to kill people too. As for the figures given, $160K to $200K is a drop in the bucket, provided that it even costs nearly that much. Montana is a much more rural state, and more people live out in the boonies there.

As for funding, I agree that it should not rest only sportsmen/women. IMHO, the state could find some creative ways to fund control projects, such as vanity license plates, memorobelia, lotteries, ect. They certianly justified those two huge boondoggles sitting right next to each other in downtown Seattle, and even at the most expensive figures, you could manage wolves for 5000 years for what we paid for those things.