Yeah, I realize timber wolves were not driven to extinction worldwide. I was busily hunting and trapping them in Alaska prior to their re-introduction out west. But they were exterminated in the western states. Which is why they were re-introduced. They weren't introduced as a non-native species. They were re-introduced to lands they'd inhabited long before the white man arrived. Even within this thread there's the claim they're an invading non-native species in these western States. They were abundant until they were trapped, hunted, and poisoned to extermination.
I'm not heavily invested in the matter of western states wolves one way or the other. It doesn't surprise me that the States' management of the wolves is lacking, since there's little history of managing wolves in current times, and the dust hasn't yet settled in the fight between wolf lovers and the wolf haters. That political fight must still be played out, and then eventually some balance of management will be achieved.
I am primarily noting my observation of how resistant people, including hunters, are to change. Wipe out the western timber wolf and after a generation or two they're considered an invasive, non-native species? The Indians managed to survive with wolves competing for the available game species. With modern wildlife management, we can often minimize the wild swings in populations of predator/prey species that commonly occur when simply left to mother nature. And hunting is ofter a primary tool of wildlife management, especially so after native predators are exterminated.
Alaska manages wolves very aggressively, when required, even though it's a political hot potato. They're common here like they were in the western States long ago. We'll track them in the winter snow from the air and shoot them from planes when necessary to rebuild the depleted prey species (caribou and moose). Or should they attack and kill a school teacher, as the two wolves in Chignik, Alaska did last winter.