I would submit for consideration that we do not have a 'wolf' problem any more than we have a wild horse problem here in the US. Wolves kill. It is a big part of what they do and they are good at it. Horses eat and they are very good at what they do. The problem stems from having or allowing unregulated growth of some animal populations in an ecosystem where the growth of other animal species is heavily regulated. Too many horses or wolves can shift the balance in the ecosystem to the detriment of the other species. Different people or groups desire different things from nature and our wild lands. Finding a compromise is key to finding that new balance. As hunters and conservationists, we agreed upon a compromise with the reintroduction of wolves and what we were willing to sacrifice. When those objectives were reached, the other side (pro-wolf coalition? - not sure what to call them) suddenly decided to try and force a new compromise with us by hauling everyone back into court and starting the negotiations all over again. To my mind, the other side was negotiating in bad faith. Hence, the people problem. The wolves are simply stuck in the middle - doing what they always do. Predators kill. I have no problem with any of them. However, I do have a problem with them when their numbers are allowed to go uncheked.
Regarding the poisoning of wolves, I must admit that it troubles me. From what little I know about poison, it is a painful, terrible way to die. Shooting them would probably be more humane. But if we embrace such ideas, then just like poisoning, we find ourselves advocating for taking action outside of the law. We cannot condemn so-called animal rights activists for doing illegal things (examples: liberating animals from lab facilities or interrupting legal hunts) and then grin and pat ourselves on the back for doing the same - feeling that our actions are justified and theirs are not. In the public eye (which this forum is), we need to rise above such conduct by supporting the laws of the land. If we disagree with the law, then we work to change it. It is painful for me to watch how slowly the wheels of justice turn and how the pro-wolf coalition uses the courts to tie up state governments from carrying out good game management programs. But it is the system I have agreed to live under.
At the turn of the last century (1900's), my great-grandfather was a forest ranger living in eastern AZ with his family. Hunting was simply a part of life for them. It's what you did to feed the family. Part of his duties as a forest ranger included assisting/hosting workers from other government agencies coming to that part of the country. His son (my grandfather) was a pre-teenager when a young man came to stay with them. This man's job was to remove the last of the wolves left in AZ. He was very good at his job and my grandfather was very taken with him. His knowledge of nature seemed to be encyclopedic. The name of the contract wolf killer was Aldo Leupold. Through the years, my grandfather followed his career from contract killer, to associate member of the Boone & Crocket Club to professor of Game Management at the University of Wisconsin. Because of his dealings with Aldo, my grandfather came to understand that being a conservationist and a hunter were not mutually exclusive. In turn, he taught me that everything has it's place and removing or adding anything to the ecosystem upsets a delicate balance.
I believe we need wolves, coyotes, grizzly bears and wild horses. The only real question is where and how many. That determination must be made by people. Hence, we have a people problem. A conflict among humans. Let's keep the blame with us (or the other side - depending on your point of view) and not direct our vitriol and anger at the poor animals that seem to get caught up in the middle for being nothing more than what God made them.