You know a lot more than I do.
But the longtime locals here call it the “introduction” of the recent wolves, as they are not the same species as the wolves native to the area.
The native wolves, Northern Rocky Mountain Timber wolves (Canis Lupus Irremotus, so say the locals) were smaller and tended to hunt singly or in pairs.
The transplanted wolves, Canadian Grays (Canis Lupus Occidentalis) are big beasts, as you know, and like to hunt—or shall we say slaughter—in packs.
All this, at least, is my understanding.
Actually, they may be wrong there, although I am sympathetic with the argument ecologically, but do not agree genetically. A "species" is defined by all that is capable of producing viable hybrids. Hence, horses and donkeys are separate species because mules are sterile. On the other hand, dogs and wolves may not be because they do interbreed and bear viable progeny capable of reproducing (which really crashes the greenie "endangered species" argument, BTW). Look at the differences among domestic dogs. That is but one species; i.e., they can interbreed. Hence, they are not different species although they do possess heritable differences.
The Canadian wolf and the US domestic variety are functionally different in that the larger size of the former is far more capable of taking down their prey in this system, which they have done. Yet they are not genetically different. They may be epigenetically different, in that their habitat has impressed upon them tendency toward larger size because of the larger prey they have up there. In fact, depending upon food, a canid such as the American wolf can scale upwards to twice its size in but five generations under sufficiently favorable conditions.
I know that throws a monkey wrench into the argument, but truth does come first. The point as far as I am concerned is that if elk were overpopulated (which they were) the states should have issued more cow tags instead of bringing in wolves.