Hunting is a practice as old as mankind itself. And in many parts of the world, it's a tradition that's been handed down from from parents to children even today.

It also helps keep the various wild herds/packs from exploding in size, reducing the number of wild animals that die from starvation.

(Bias disclaimer: I don't hunt, but I live in a state where I'm a minority)

The purpose of hunting is to acquire food. Wolves are not food animals, nor are they any longer competition for us.

There's no evidence that wolf populations would explode if not managed by humans, so controlling them seems premature. There is plenty of evidence though that wolves help manage ruminant populations which do explode out of control without their natural predator, which just so happens to do a better job at it than us (see deer populations in eastern US).

> The purpose of hunting is to acquire food.

Not solely. Humans have been hunting non-food targets for about as long as they've hunted food targets.

> There's no evidence that wolf populations would explode if not managed by humans

They (and other predaceous species) currently being managed by humans, just by the government and not hunters at large. The bureau of Fish, Wildlife, and Game has long set poison traps for the express purpose of killing wolves, coyotes, and wild dogs.

Wolves are at the top of the food chain. They would manage deer population down to a certain level, which would stop their own population growth, except, they would then start going after cattle, which is how we got where we are now. Hunting is the final critical piece of management that will keep them thriving.

Ive been hunting my whole life. I've still yet to encounter someone who did it for the 'killing'. It's about fresh food, cultural traditions, and conservation. The modern hunter does more for the environment than most who sit behind a computer all day. You should take a intro course on hunting and understanding the carrying capacity of an environment impacts how tags are issued.

Sidenote => I also love to fish. I find it odd how much flak hunting gets over fishing. I guess people feel a stronger bond to an animal vs a tuna.

> It's about fresh food, cultural traditions, and conservation.

You don't eat wolves. No one you know grew up hunting them. Killing a (still) endangered species is not about conservation, in fact, it's closer to the opposite based on everything we know.

I'm talking about killing for sport, which is what wolf hunting is all about on an individual level (on a government level, it's about the political showmanship of protecting rancher interests).

And as a sidenote, I live in Montana; I am very familiar with hunting. To generalize hunting without considering the animal being hunted is disingenuous and entirely self-serving. Should we talk about hunting horses and dogs in the same breath?

Fair point. Ive never hunted wolves, nor do I plan on it. I subscribe to the eat what you kill mentality. However, I will not judge someone for the 'trophy kill' if the environment allows for it. If there is a tag for it, I trust the people in charge of regulation to make the correct decisions on issuing tags. I will also not judge a rancher protecting their livestock which is their food/source of income

I enjoy hunting to eat deer, but yeah, I also don't get why you'd kill just to kill.

>I also don't get why you'd kill just to kill.

Hunting is an important part of modern conservation, and human hunters are the only controllable element in the predation cycle. Hunting wolves in the way the gp is referring to would be a set season with a specific number of wolves of a certain sex and size in a specific area. These numbers are determined by conservationists in the USFS among others, in order to keep a reasonable and sustainable number of wolves.

In my experience the killing part is not what hunters enjoy. There is a lot more to hunting then pulling the trigger...

I could enjoy the research, stalking, and viewing parts of the experience, but I'd personally rather do it with a camera than a rifle.

Do it! Though it ends up being far easier with a camera as you aren't restricted by seasons and locations. I think part of the fun in hunting is that most of the time you turn up empty handed, so the one time you get it is special. Certain tags can take decades to acquire, then you have to actually kill the animal in the right (potentially quite small) location, in the right (potentially quite narrow) time frame, using a single shot from potentially hundreds of meters out. Compared to with a camera you can walk onto a wildlife preserve, find a watering hole, and shoot away all year round.

100,000 years of human history would disagree on your pathology diagnosis. Humans have been killing for sport, for food, and for war, since before we were humans.

We are literally the best hunters in the known universe. Its not a pathology.

By what metric are we the best hunters? I'm no animal expert, but eagles, sharks, lions, etc. seem pretty good it!

Humans could hunt any of them to extinction. The reverse could not occur.

They are good. We are just better. And I'm sure there are many other civilizations in this galaxy that are much better than we are.

all the metrics. saying otherwise is just foolishness.

hunting laws are actually designed to limit our ability to hunt because we are TOO good at it. There are limits on ammo size, on weapon types, on times of year you're allowed to hunt, etc.