FWIW, the condition of the habitat has no bearing on a parcels ability to be wilderness or not.
Though I feel it's a tough balancing act, the protections provided by WSA or Wilderness status also make it hard for the agency to improve (ie vegetation treatments) those same areas.
I absolutely agree with your first point.
Second point, it's interesting to compare herd populations of elk in places with high wilderness components to areas with heavy development. Places like the Scapegoat, Bob, Beartooth, etc wildernesses seem to have more resilient elk herds (with the exception of the Selway, but that can be attributed to loss of habitat by conifer encroachment and habitat degredation 100 years after the great burn as much as wolves or other factors).
Sun River elk spend the majority of their time in protected landscapes:
Summer and calving grounds are in wilderness/Sun River Game Preserve
Migration routes are through Inventoried Roadless
Winter grounds are protected by FWP or USFWS Conservation easements.
That herd has incredibly high densities of predators including Grizz, Black bear, wolves, and lions. But it has incredible habitat security.
In fact, the key component to elk survivability seems to be linked to secure habitat rather than any other factor. BLM ground requires more mechanized treatments because of more soil disturbance from past grazing practices, loss of sagebrush, aspen, etc, road density, weeds, O&G development and drought.
I'd be interested to hear your point of view, 1 pointer, on the necessity for wilderness treatments v/multiple use land treatment.
