The actual study is more forgiving, haven't found it to read yet and I'll need some time to digest it when I do find it.
The article, linked to here, is more of an exercise in poor choice of words. What it sounds like, when you get to the part about the actual dispute, is that some calculations included some expectation about the unknown. The first study by Ripple (along with a Dr. Bechta) was that if wolves had recovered the Lamar Valley as they had in a short period of less than ten years, the whole park could see benefits throughout in a matter of decades. That didn't happen homogeneously because of terrain and humans in a lot of the areas where wolves could have made an impact sooner. It took almost two decades for wolf packs to establish on the west side of the park which is extremely busy for most of the year. Not for lack of elk to feed on.
I have to read the study to gather more but I find it odd that one researcher would outright dispute other researchers' work in the way presented in the article. I have worked with one of the authors and I know that he knows the researchers of the other studies. Somethings doesn't seem right about the way in which this article about the research is presented.
= new reply since forum marked as read