If the wolves reside within privately owned land, then it should only be illegal to hunt them if the owner of the land doesn't allow it.
Wildlife are not the property of individuals, but belong to themselves. We may be more intelligent than them in some ways but this, per se, does not give us the right to wipe out other species either gradually or swiftly.
If the wolves reside within publicly owned land, well then you have a problem. And the State should attempt to choose laws which both respect the wishes of the people as well as those that produce the highest usable value from that land. That may or may not include banning the hunt of wolves.
The trouble arises when, as usual, the wishes of the people interfere with the wishes of the wolves, as well as interfering with the ultimate welfare of all humans. As an example of the latter, wiping out wildlife has led to dire climate-change in the past(I previously mentioned a theory which states that evidence shows that Australian Aborigines wiped out the Australian megafauna, and, as a result, causing widespread desertification).
Wolves probably attack their herds all the time, so they see them as a plague. They're probably doing a good thing by hunting them down.
Even from a paleo perspective, wolves almost necessarily cut down on the amount of available wild game, and possibly pose a threat to humans as well. They're cool to watch in a documentary and whatnot, but they're not my friends, and I see no reason why I should respect them any more than herbivores, in fact the opposite is the case.
Wolves do NOT pose a threat to humans. Farmers wildly exaggerate such claims. Even other wildlife avoid humans like the plague - generally, attacks involve females(mostly bears?) with cubs most often and only becaus thoughtless humans posed a threat to the cubs etc - or because there are just too many humans around. Also, wolves are far more useful for reducing wild deer, for example, as they prefer to kill the weak and the old, whereas many foolish human hunters thoughtlessly shoot any old deer, whether via legal hunting or poaching, thus interfering with the process of natural selection. Wolves are more intelligent than humans on this matter.
I find it bizarre that you're quoting Mises in your signatures, post all of Ron Paul's articles, and at the same time you espouse all kinds of progressive, leftist and socialist views. And this one in particular seems to be in accord with what vegans and other anti-human radical environmentalists would say.
I am an individualist anarchist , specifically a follower of Max Stirner, which means I do not adhere to any particular political group, technically, but follow my own conscience, and in accordance with my own lifetime experiences etc. .This means I am sometimes capable of accepting views from people belonging to other political viewpoints, provided they benefit me as an individual. This, of course, makes things difficult for me sometimes, as most people stick to just one political stance and just parrot the various mantras of the group.
In the case of Mises, well, I do sometimes post quotations from people I disagree with or do not like for variety's sake, but, yes, he is someone I admire.
As regards environmentalism being solely an ultra-Socialist concept, a property of only the Green movement, that is pure nonsense. All other political viewpoints have also favoured environmentalism at some stage, such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_conservatism. Then there were the Nazis with their "Blood and Soil" concept. Monarchs also played a role in environmentalism in the past such as by maintaining royal parks and preventing poaching. And there is the "anarchoprimitivism movement. Come to think of it, some theocratic/religious societies, such as the Hindus, even venerate some animal species above humans.
When people think of individualist anarchism, they usually think of just the crazies such as Louis XV("Apres moi, le deluge") or Ayn Rand, who variously advocated doing whatever took ones' fancy in the short-term, regardless of the consequences in the long-term. The Stirnerite version of individualist anarchism is a lot more intelligent than that, even allowing a "Union of Egoists", as a compromise, and being able to accept that individual desires also apply to the far distant future. In my own case, I have seen how my own quality of life has been far more enhanced by wild Nature than it ever was by human-dominated areas. One only has to look at the area around Czernobyl these days as to what a blessing it is for wildlife when humans mostly leave the formers' regions.
