Because that isn't how [highly polarized] democracies work. The fact that environmentalists are aghast is a bonus for those in favor of wolf culls. But, even those politicians think with their wallets. Wolves aren't going to get out the vote. In reality, this is going to come down to how politicians personally feel about wolves, and how persuasive rancher, livestock insurance and car insurance lobbies are in making their respective cases.
But committees sit around and think, "here's a way we can further justify and generate some press."
How much human effort is wasted by group politics and general shrugging?
evidently not, otherwise there wouldn't be endangered species.
>Why do we need to point to the economics of it? Are they not worth conserving unless they help the bottom line?
to get all the non-conservationists on board.
Of course, we live in an age where the nominally "fiscally responsible" people show declining interest in intellectual consistency and coherence, so maybe this argument is moving into the "elegant weapon for a more civilized age" category.