I guess nothing with your logic. Nevermind, game and fish, just ignore it for the next 20 years. We don't want to waste your time monitoring the wildlife within your own state.
I just dont understand your "waste of time" argument. Most things the government does is a waste of time. But when you have people getting paid to do that specific job, then why not let them investigate. Might as well stop counting all wildlife, it's a waste of time. They could make population estimates based on average percent winter kill, tags filled, etc. Boom, I just saved the state thousands of dollars, probably hundreds of thousands over 10 years.
How valid are eyewitness reports in a court?
It's a waste of time to confirm an eyewitness reports because eyewitness reports are incredibly unreliable and biased. If they chased every eyewitness report they'd spend more time hunting ghosts than focusing on the work that is more important until better evidence exists.
It seems all you want to do is present strawman arguments without ever answering my questions.
What specific benefit is there from investing time, money, and resources into confirming that there is indeed a wolf in the Black Hills?
Does the presence of one, or even a few wolves really change your wildlife management?
Where did I say they should stop counting wildlife?
Which is more important for season settings, the presences of one or several wolves, or your fawn to doe and buck to doe ratios both before and after the season?
Which is more beneficial, confirming one or several wolves, or doing habitat restoration and improvement?
Which benefits hunters more, confirming one or several wolves, or working to increase public access to wildlife on private land?
Note that I never said it had to be either or. But, when you consider this in the grand scheme of things, it's really worth nothing more than appeasing folks who for some reason or other think that GFP has some hidden agenda to deliberately deceive folks about the presence of wolves.