You have done a magnificent job of presenting every aspect of roaming wolves vs. established cattle herds.
You new editorial says ranchers must learn methods and manage cattle around wolves — that is backwards. The four environmental groups involved in the initial release and non-control of expanding wolfpacks must learn to keep all wolves at least 10 miles away from from any and all sheep and cattle. If they do not do this, they are guilty of animal cruelty — killing of cattle and hazing of wildlife.
We all know about the existing perfect packs, which are in wilderness without any access to cattle. They are the only ones worthy of tourist observation. CBS' "60 Minutes" suggested falsely that wolves are wonderful in all their existence and are serving to attract many tourists for observation. These comments come at the same moment wolves were eating sheep and cattle alive!
One legislator suggests moving wolves to an island off Seattle. That is one perfect solution. If a lot of wolves are humanely confined, they could be fed the many elk from herds which you correctly report are menacing farmlands and towns.
Wolves are not deserving of "endangered" status because they are multiplying at frightening rates, partly due to alphas being shot so that subordinates, which otherwise would not be breeding, are doing so.
So much of this is caught up in the courts that it will never be solved. The alternative I chose to initiate as a solution was to alert Deputy Solicitor of the Interior Department Karen Budd-Falen, as introduced to me via your Oct. 28 issue.
It was after I wrote her that you presented the intelligent plan of letting wolves live on their own island, complete with natural borders to enclose them. This is the most excellent idea presented so far.
Morro Bay, Calif.