As Pandora just alluded to, have we figured out yet why it's logical to have to sanitize every square foot of earth in order to live without fear of teeth and claws?
Every animal has a need to propagate and spread, so I won't dwell too much on the "they were here first" argument, though there is an element of truth to that as well. My primary point is simply to ask why we must live so far outside of rational need.
We don't HAVE to eliminate all predators from state parks, though you want to just in case. There simply isn't that much of a threat. I can't count the number of state parks I've been to in my life, and I've never been threatened once. Bear encounters, a badger or two, even a wolverine. The moose that got all huffy was Norwegian and probably drunk, so it doesn't count.
I'm not discounting your opinions or your life accounts, nor am I discounting those of people you know. I'm simply saying that per capita there isn't a "problem" with predators, but merely a nuisance. And I don't think that extinction is a logical response to nuisance.
I absolutely choose to live in a land where there is a broad range of natural wonder to experience and enjoy, even if it means that some of it could kill me. And that's really the only point that need be considered. People WANT predators around, whether other people lose pets or livestock to them or not. I understand the financial stress predators cause. I think everyone does. I am able to empathize with the ranchers and farmers and their way of life, I truly am. I simply choose to ignore it. Why? Because I place more value on a species of creature that everyone should be able to observe and enjoy than I do on money.
And in all fairness to Wonko you HAVE changed your stance. Initially it was wipe out all predators everywhere, and lately it seems to be wipe out all predators in state parks. Which to me is also illogical, due to the ranges of the animals in question. Animals don't observe park boundaries. I'm not saying that to patronize you, I'm saying it for the sake of elaborating on a point. How do you keep predators out of the parks in question? You would have to eliminate vast numbers of them in surrounding territories too, which takes me back to my original point.
Why bother if they simply aren't that much of a threat? It is a well known fact that North American predators do not routinely stalk people. Will they on occasion? Yes, but as I've said before so will herbivores, which kill people daily across the globe. It's a matter of simple animal behavior.
But we, as logical cognitive creatures, are capable of realizing that the benefits of the species we share the world with far outweigh the hindrances. You are clearly biased towards the animals in question, and bias doesn't effectively play into objective, logical considerations.
Here's what I propose. Instead of telling us why they should be eliminated, tell us instead why they should be preserved. Examine the other side and do the research. If your response is that it isn't necessary because you know that they contribute nothing but unnecessary peril to everything around them, then you clearly haven't done the research. They are highly beneficial, I assure you. But don't take my word for it.