the Canadian situation is hardly comparable to that of the lower 48 . We don't don't have hundreds of miles of deep wilderness and big game habitat.....
our game animals subsist on islands of habitat in the midst of a sea of humans.......
That's not true, in Montana and Idaho we have the habitat. That's why the WS put them here after many years of comments. There's more wild land mass areas here than in much of BC and Alberta.
I'd call bull on that . You might have habitat where wolves can survive alright , and Montana and Idaho might be fairly wild by lower 48 standards alright , but still not comparable to BC or Alberta .
Elk habitat is really limted to parts of the national forest in lower 48 for the most part , with the winter ranges particularly limited .
Take a look at a map of BC sometime , and then realize there is no place in the lower 48 farther than 20 miles from a road .
