Not specifically with regards to Idaho but a lot of the anti wolf attitude seems to me to be a competitive thing. Wolves eat game - deer, moose - and also domestic livestock.

Reduce the availability or numbers for man, whether game or livestock.

Wolves on appearance as predators are no different to lion, leopard, tiger etc in their effect on game and human interaction. Except a lion, tiger or leopard is more likely to also kill humans.

I still think the world is lesser if there were not populations, indeed huntable populations of all these predators.

***

With regards to the Indian and tiger example given above, but what if as is mostly likely the man killing a tiger in defence or in defence of his cow, is actually encroaching on a national park? ie illegal grazing in a small area of what was originally habitat for the tiger?

Also the historic decimation of tigers in the wild was not by shotgun or rifle, but more by poisoned bait or carcases. Similar to what is described for the treatment of wolves.

Australia's predator is the wild dingo. Dingos do not have the same capacity for killing as a wolf. However among a sheep flock they can kill dramatic numbers for no sustenance reasons. So as a result in more settled areas they are eliminated and generally kept North of the Dog Fence in areas of cattle stations. ie keeping at risk domestic stock separate from their range.