The same old problem of conservation of wild animals is economics because their impact on human territory by wandering causes trouble.

It is not reasonable to say to a farmer in e.g. the Bale mountains Ethiopia to not use fertile land for farming that can save his families life. Again it is not reasonable that a farmer in Ethiopia should sit and watch and tolerate Wolves being produced and re-supplied to a frivolously declared land space that is in a war zone where the motto is .."if it moves shoot it or Aerial bomb it"... while he and his family starve to death.
That is a rude action upon human life.

These particualar animals are Canidae and through history have even had appointed wild dog keepers in ancient civilisations, not merely handlers.
However if you wish to dig that out of old ancient text you will find that the keepers earned a wage and there is no escape from economics at any turn.

What we do not have, (as human boundaries encroach on wilderness and less tolerence of wild creatures becomes greater because of difficulties they incurr) is a way of caring for them and "housing them"(not literal , as a figure of speech) so they can be continued in purity while we adjust to being able to manage our earth and natural resources.

In the US the difficulties of managing wild canidae are no different to Bale mountains Ethiopia for the point of not or suffering lost production as a farmer. In the US economic system two types of insurance can be obtained for lost production life insurance and direct loss to production (the latter really being the applicable in this context) but that itself to have, commits a heavy cost, and many in farming really are not allowed(granted) logistically such cover by insurance companies because there is no substantive measurement of whether a season would succeed whether agronomic or livestock.

However, in the case of loss of livestock or crops to wild animals, by damage, or attack, it can be proven to insurance companies that reduction to acceptable risk levels for allowance of insurance cover can be attained if a campaign of population control against incidence is committed.
The trouble is that is only ensurable to the insurance company by, the destruction of the wild animals by butchering them, by either poisonous baiting(e.g. 1080 , strychnine), or continual barages of cull shooting and hunting.
The farmer provides receipts to the insurance company of mercenary assigned trapping and shooting bounty tally of a registered pest extermination company and the alike as for poison chemicals aquired and used in accordance with government poison baiting permits and their approved methods of enaction for primary production.
Unfortunately, if either method is unsuccessful in weight of numbers against population or incidence occurrence(thus no insurance granted), it can result in illegal chemical usage or illegal hunting.

Canidae at least have some management points large Cats do not, wild canidae are partially omnivorous and they do form obvious groups with a hierarchy making it possible to perform simple inter-species communication that is more effective and less dangerous than the felidae hyper-carnivore.

This point is where they become more able to be managed , saved , conserved either temporarily or permanently.

If people whom either have the experience, or money to learn to keep these animals can be picked on to be keepers at a more personal and/or sponsored level then there is a resource of keepers for any of these wild canidae in requirement.

In Australia, there are many experienced seasonal workers whom could shift across from doing roundups with pack canidae(Kelpies and Heelers/Cattle Dogs, of is their only activity for most in that work by having their own dogs) to wolf or wild dog keeping, not unalike in the US there are many hunters who use hounds whom may see that as an alternative job handling pack canidae(re: A national Geographic article where one hunter much of his life kept more than fifty bloodhounds for hunting and hunting was his only job).

Some would say that its the domain of a scientific major in environmental science of canidae keeping e.g. a National Park and Wildlife officer,No!(there is obviously an alike). Or, if they do recognise the pure hands on requirement of direct social relationship with the animals, then as usual a governament would try to stretch each personal keepers arms accross to the next piece of territory from where his official location station is for economics sake.This last point about a government assigning a person as a resource gets worse, if there is a downturn of funding economically it simply drops the position of the resource then attempts some force of handing it to another assigned employee not dissimilar to the stretched resource arrangement previously mentioned.
Governements are known perfectly, so are business and big business(reasonably exempt from attempting to ply a responsibility here because the territories they use are either granted or is not for statement to imply or impart as existent entity).

Winning by luck against time and few resources is one thing, but it does not justify being a loser if "that" occurs, a loser cannot win because it's over, it's finnished.