I’m agreeing with you that humans should not interfere with the balance of nature. It basically comes down to what is good for nature vs what is good for humans. If humans encroach on nature why should nature (in this case the wolves) be the one to suffer? Just saying.
Well, my recollection was off, it was 1995 and it looks like they introduced 15 wolves into Idaho. No significant populations of wolves prior to that. (An odd sighting here and there, no packs).
The following I found on the net. Only goes to 2004, with a wolf population of 454.
The point is, humans are in nature - so we aren’t “interfering” when we try to manage it. We can either try to take it over (like wiping out the wolves when we first settled), or living with it and trying to manage it to fit our needs. One “need” perhaps is to have native species in their former areas to fill perhaps a natural urge to have “wilderness” areas available - if not to actually enjoy, at least to know that they are there. (Yes - it makes me feel good to know that there are wolves and bears and cougars roaming in the woods a few hundred miles from where I live, even if I rarely get to them, and have yet to seen a wild wolf.)
I imagine that the wolves that were reintroduced could care less if they lived in Idaho or Canada. I don’t know if the wolves were brought in to manage elk or deer herds. I imagine that is more easily managed by issuing more licenses, increasing hunting limits, etc.
From the net:
*****************************
Growth of the Wolf Population in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area-
My best estimates for the growth of the Idaho wolf population follow.
1995- 15 wolves (including one “native” wolf not identified as such until 1997).
1996- 41 (including one “native” wolf).
1997- 74 (including one “native” wolf and two more likely “native” wolves)
1998- 121-123
1999- 176-180 (late spring 1999)
1999- 141 (official minimum est. end of 1999)
2000- 192 (official minimum est. end of 2000)
2001- 261 (official minimum est. end of 2001)
2002- 284 (official minimum est. end of 2002)
2003- 368 (official minimum est. end of 2003)
2004- 454 (official minimum est. end of 2004)
From the article:
“Biologists said the biggest problem was a long-term change in the habitat...”
I wonder if that change has anything to do with the downturn in the logging industry? Elk and deer do much better in areas with some trees for more protection, and some open areas for grazing. With no logging those pastures aren’t being created and the old ones the trees are only getting bigger.