I admit that it's an interesting interim measure, but it's important to understand the cascade of events.
Let me put it another way that's easy to understand. Imagine you and I are fishing in a small boat. The boat takes on some water. I hand you a bailer. You bail the water out of the boat, and imagine that in doing so, you are removing predators. If I plug the hole at the bottom of the boat, I'll keep predators from getting in. If I enlarge the hole or make new holes, I'm creating the conditions for more predators to get in.
Therefore, if we don't slow the pace of forest rejuvenation and forest road deployment, it's like we're trying to solve the problem in the boat before it happens by enlarging the hole. You will keep on bailing. You will be bailing for the rest of your life.
We have a good example of this in Canada. A predator control measure has been in place for 30 years around Gaspésie National Park. It only worked for the first five years. Since then, 60% of the old forest around the park has been harvested.
So predator control is an effective interim measure, but it has to be very intensive; it has to remove over 80% of predators, which raises some ethical questions.
Be that as it may, growth in predator numbers is fuelled by forest rejuvenation and the road network.