Agreed that nature will find a balance its own way.
However, that way may not be best for humans. Direct impact is the sport and tourism money for elk hunts. And once the weaker elk are gone, or the elk population brought so low, then the wolves will either die, or start eating more sheep (and probably also die from a gun or poison).
I believe that at the Kabob they also did not allow hunting - so the deer without any predators (wolves or human) did suffer a huge loss and environmental devastation. But still - nature found it’s balance - enough deer finally died.
It is just that in nature the balance can swing too far in either direction to be good for what us humans need or want. (Should we not interfere with a natural wildfire in a residential area?).
What I am amazed at is the rapid population increase in the wolves. I was in central Idaho for awhile in 1994 and they had just introduced 2 pairs of wolves to the area (and I thought it was for the entire state?) Although I imagine they brought in many wolves over the years.
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.