Your local municipality outsourced their tax collection to a private company, which is what that is. So yes, you need to file your local taxes with them.

> amount of livestock and pets killed would be staggering

It's common sense that you shouldn't be letting your pets roam around unsupervised. We still have bears and coyotes. Wolves aren't going to change that factor significantly.

As for livestock, well, I don't believe we should be breeding livestock. Ranchers are a big problem with conservation efforts because they continuously put demands on state governments to cull predators. Not to mention that on a global scale, ranching is the #1 reason why the amazon rainforest is being destroyed. It's also unethical because, like with hunting, you're killing something unnecessarily just because it "tastes good".

> Not to mention the human attacks.

Wolf attacks are rare. Unless you're encroaching on their space by destroying habitats or removing their food, they're generally wary of people. You're far more likely to be attacked by the neighbor's dog.

Fatal dog attacks from 2005-2017 is 430. Average of 36 deaths per year.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2018/09/20180914_Deadly_Dogs_Forbes.jpg

Fatal wild animal attacks from 1970 is 299. Average of 6 per year.

https://outforia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Anima-attacks-fatal-wild-by-species-0821.jpg

Wolves account for only two of those over a span of 51 years.

Usually fatal attacks from wild animals are either because of rabies or because the wild animals (bears especially) got too comfortable with people because they were being fed.

So much for "managing the herd". Thanks for proving my point.

> Deer is far superior to any beef you but at the grocery store.

Or you just not eat either.

> Me shooting a deer is far cleaner death than getting eaten or starving to death.

Every hunter claims they can insta-kill any deer they see. We all know that's a lie. Particularly cruel are the hunters that use crossbows which cause the animal to painfully bleed out over many days if they miss.

> Someone has to manage the herd, if hunters don't the govt will and dispose of the animals.

Re-introducing natural predators is a much more effective way of managing deer. This is what they've been more or less doing in Yellowstone because hunters killed off all the wolves by the 1920s.

Hunters also don't manage anything. They just lust after the biggest buck they can find. Somehow, I doubt that fits in the idea with "conservation".

Deer have fewer natural predators because humans have been culling them (particularly wolves) due to conflicts of interest from ranchers, developers, etc. I don't think the deer population needed to be "managed" before Europeans set foot on American soil.

> Hunting is a crucial part of conservation efforts and population control.

Hunting was responsible for the extinction of the passenger pigeon and the almost extinction of the American bison. Several species of wolves no longer exist due to hunters. The great 'nittany lion' that used to roam PA no longer exist because they've been killed off. The conservation angle was forced upon hunters because some people with common sense realized that killing everything off was going to have negative consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_animals_extinct_in_the_Holocene#Recent

As someone who grew up in rural PA, no hunter I've ever talked to gave a rat's ass about conservation. All they cared about was bagging the biggest buck. If the state govt didn't regulate it, we'd have no deer left.

I tried telling someone that once. Their excuse was, "Well, dogs are pets and deer aren't." As if that makes any difference from a biological perspective. The reality is, there's a lot of people out there that find great joy in killing things even though none of them will directly admit it.

And as we know from studies, there's a high correlation between violence against animals and violence against people.