There is a large body of scientific literature documenting the ecological ramifications of predator extirpation. Suffice to say that it’s proven that ungulate disease rates (and therefore domesticated herd disease rates) are higher when natural predators are removed, not to mention that flora (i.e., forest cover) and therefore avian species are substantially reduced, as well. Most responsible hunters will tell you that prey health is better when controlled numbers of natural predators are allowed to exist...long story short, it makes for nicer trophies on the wall. :)
These are all ecological ramifications. Let them continue into perpetuity, and we could see more widespread problems. Bottom line is that responsible hunters and wildlife managers agree that wolves can coexist with other species in North America. It’s the same mindset that saved bison (and a bunch of other species) from extinction.
Also, as far as I’m aware, wolves did not populate much of either coast and were essentially absent in the southeast. Not to say that they weren’t much more abundant in earlier times, but they simply did not populate 99% of North America.
Actually yes there were wolves on the coast, one of Daniel Boone’s neighbors was killed by wolves. Body fluids, including blood is the way many diseases, including brucellosis. Pretty hard to insist that wolves prevent the spread of disease when the incidence in both wild and domestic animals has increased so dramatically. There are tons of fresh bloody tissue lying around in the Yellowstone area every day. The raven and crow populations have increased hugely, brucellosis has exploded in the area. CWD is spreading further and further from the Colorado research center where it was accidently released, and deeper into Wyoming. Neither increasing populations of lions nor wolves has stopped it.