I understand and support introducing some species into different environments because I see a benefit to it. Kodiak Island for example, only has 6 species of land mammals native to the island. The introduced species include Sitka Blacktail deer, Caribou, Mountain Goats, Elk (on Afognak island) all of which are thriving and heavily used by residents and non-residents alike. People are managing the animals thru well regulated hunting seasons and doing just fine at it. And I'm very happy to help!
Introducing wolves there, or any other apex predator, would not benefit anyone or anything. (No one is suggesting wolves be brought there: example only.)
I fail to see any benefit in introducing or re-introducing any major predator to environments that they don't already inhabit. We don't need them to help us manage other species. Hunters are fully capable and willing to do the management under well reasoned and science based season and bag limits. Fish and Game departments usually do a pretty good job of it...not perfect, but pretty good generally.
Some people argue the "natural balance" as an issue and point towards our National parks as their examples.. I argue back that there has not been a "natural balance" since whenever humans over-populated the environment. Parks take one apex predator that can be managed... humans, out of the equation, and replace them (us) with a predator that can't easily be managed, (wolves).
I do accept a natural expansion of predators into new areas, wolves included, but active management has to be on them too. For these groups that file lawsuits to put wolves on landscape that they don't already inhabit, and then fight against well-regulated management of them, is simply ludicrous, in my opinion. Who or what benefits, other than the wolves who have unsuspecting prey?