I'm sorry you didn't get an elk in the Bob marshall wilderness. To blame predators is cop out. Historically ungulate populations go up and down.
Maybe read my post a little closer.
"During that hunt, across 8 hunters and 4 guides, we glassed thousands of acres. There was exactly 1 elk
seen during that hunt, and
I was blessed to have an opportunity to kill it. The "re-introduction" of wolves (they were already there), increase in grizz numbers, existing lions, and black bears,
coupled with overly liberal seasons, have decimated the Bob and surrounding areas. Yes, there are still elk and deer back there, but only a fraction of once were, and predators are a huge part of the problem." This outfitter has hunted the same areas in the Bob for 30+ years. As a result, he has a better understanding of the population of elk, changes to the dynamics, and impacts than you or me.
But feel free to find an article of that rancher complaining about their compensation after the fact. It's been a couple years, should be something out there...
I'll do you one better, if your game, take the time to read the linked research study on these topics. It's from the University of Montana in 2003, but quite well done and EXTREMELY detailed. I can't imagine attitudes have changed much since then, and if they have, please feel free to provide your own support. I pasted some highlights below.
https://files.cfc.umt.edu/cesu/NPS/UMT/2001/01Patterson_predator compensation_frpt.pdf
"Design of Study
Three research initiatives were utilized for gathering data. The first approach consisted of in-depth interviews with livestock producers in four communities: Augusta, MT; Salmon, ID; Dubois, WY; and Kaycee, WY. A total of 79 interviews with 104 individuals were conducted. The second approach consisted of mail surveys sent to randomly selected livestock owners in 12 communities in each state. A total of 1200 surveys were sent out with an overall response rate of 51.1%. The third approach consisted of a general public mail survey sent to a randomly selected state-wide sample in each of the three states (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming). A total of 1959 general public surveys were sent out and the overall response rate was 43.9%.
Specifically, the results suggest that among those who find a compensation program desirable there is an expectation that when a predator has been reintroduced or livestock owner’s ability to deal with predators has been restricted, society at large has a responsibility to compensate those whose livelihood has been impacted. That is, if the public determines that predators are valuable then the public should have to share the responsibility for associated costs.
For the majority of respondents, livestock losses caused by predators are not seen as a normal cost of doing business and ranching is recognized as producing societal benefits (e.g. wildlife habitat and open space).
However, livestock owners tend to view compensation programs as a limited tool because they address the costs of predation but not the cause. Lethal control, giving those affected by predator losses the power to solve the problem by eliminating the offending animal, is therefore an important part of the equation in the minds of many the livestock owners.
Under the current system of predator management, the livestock owner's inability to remove problem predators and protect livestock is equated with a loss of private property rights."
"Even though there is widespread support for compensation, this support comes with qualifications. It is a cautious endorsement, one in which
many of the livestock owners believe compensation helps, but it is not, by itself, an adequate solution. Although there was widespread support for compensation, that does not mean that the interviewees did not also see the need for other management techniques, such as control and hunting. In addition, those interviewees that did not support compensation clearly preferred other management options. Control issues, meaning either giving livestock owners the ability to kill problem animals and having hunting seasons, was one of the most discussed issues in the interviews.
Issues of control are seen by many of the interviewees, both those that do and do not find compensation desirable, as preferable solutions because it is a way of actually solving the problem by removing the offending animal."