<< Back to all DEIS Comments

Public Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Online Comments on DEIS: Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington

<< Back to DEIS Online Comments list

General comments:


Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

we do not want wolf introduction in washington state

eldon riggle,  clarkston WA

I support alternative 1A and will work to have the Game Commission to accept it.

Jim Sizemore,  Centerville WA

I have 5 dogs to prevent other-than-wolf predator losses. ( We had 2 confirmed cougar losses when we only had one dog.) Suppose the neighboring "Blue Mountain" wolves kill one or more of my dogs. Is this a livestock loss compensation? Do the wolves get "credit" for further livestock losses, by other predators, without my dogs' protection?

John P Nordheim,  Waitsburg WA

SHould be as strong as possible and agree with alternative 3.

Lisa Dabek,  Seattle WA

Although this is a very complex issue - addressing the recovery of wolves in Washington State - the primary focus should be the recovery of the wolf and Alternative 3 has the strongest provisions.

Kristin Mitchell,  Seattle WA

No rights should be granted to private citizens to kill wolves that are not in the middle of an active attack, especially on public lands. In all suggested alternatives, the number standards for changes to listed status are too low. Wolves should not be delisted from each level unless the suggested numbers are at a minimum doubled, and at an optimum, tripled.


the preferred alternative and the other alternatives provide for too many wolves in WA. The minority opinion should be an alternative for us to choose.


I can find nothing in the document that addresses unintended consequenses, such as wolved eating fishers back to extinction, funding, criteria or protocols for WDFW issuing permits to mitigate Wolf-Livestock Conflicts. Thank you for taking public comment, I look forward to seeing your response to my concerns. Also, I have been unable to make a copy of these comments. I would be pleased to know they have been received by having them sent back by email to jpsmmra@olypen.com.

J Pete Schroeder,  Sequim WA

Alternative 3 is clearly and highly preferable. Alternatives 1 and 4 are totally unacceptable and not consistent with conservation and intelligent management of wolves in Washington state.

Charles Wilkinson,  Seattle WA

The best option offered in this plan is the miniorty opinion Alternative 1A which correctly recognizes our state's smaller size, the impracticality of our political boundary verses the wolf's domain, and the need to manage the wolf population closely and carefully as determined by biologists rather than the courts.

David Willson,  North Bend WA

alternative 2 provides a good balance between the needs of ranchers and wolves.


The Olympic Peninsula has a relatively healthy Elk herd. The Deer population is in serious low numbers from where it once was. Bringing in another predator will destroy both populations. All you have to do is look to the mountain states and the problems they are having with Wolves slaughtering there once abundant Deer and Elk populations! I have friends and family in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho and they say do not let Wolves back in at any cost. This is coming from people that live on the land and know how it was before Wolves and how it is after Wolves. Deer and Elk on the Peninsula already have enough pressure from Tribal Hunters August 1st - Feb 28th. Archery season in September and Nov/Dec, Muzzleloader October and Nov/Dec, and Modern Rifle in October/November. On top of this you have poachers hunting year round and illegal immigrants feeding their families. I've never seen an illegal immigrant in the store buying meat, only the fixings. Makes you wonder where they get their meat. There is a lot more than brush and people in those overloaded vans and trucks. On top of this you have Bears and Cougars getting their fill. These two animals were once under control with Hound Hunting but since this was banned by the I-5 vote they are both more than healthy. There is also livestock in the area that will take a hit. This State already has enough financial worries without the added burden of payouts to Ranchers and Farmers for livestock loss from Wolves. The Grey Wolf that they are wanting to import is not what was supposedly here in the early 1900's. It is a hybrid and at least 50 pounds bigger and hungrier. Same thing in the Mountain States, they used to have the Timber Wolf which was 100 pounds max, they import the Canadian Grey Wolf which can grow to 200 pounds. This makes no sense to put more pressure and a 200 pound predator that kills for thrill on the limited animals currently on the Peninsula. The Wolf does not only hunt the weak, they are Hunters/Killers of opportunity. Please don't make the same mistake the Mountain States have, learn from their lesson. Not from the city dweller but from the people that live on the land! Unfortunately the people that live on the land have the smallest voice, but please listen.

Eric Shields,  Forks WA

who's going to keep track of all these wolves and whos going to pay for the tracking of them??? Let me guess Washington Hunters......Kind of Ironic beings that most hunters don't care to have wolves introduced at all.

Johnny Rebel,  East Wenatchee WA

I hope you will reconsider the alternative 2 selection and include wolves in the entire state, including the Olympic Peninsula and the west coast of Washington.

Hollie Kaufman,  Sequim WA

No comment.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

The goal of wolf recovery should not be desisting, but rather an healthy and free ranging wolf population in Washington. The requirements of all the alternatives are too low.

Tristan Higgins,  Seattle WA

The three year waiting period after each step in breeding pairs is to long.


I strongly oppose any plans to introduce wolves anywhere in Washington. Yes, I know they are already here. They will spread on on their own and will do great damage to wildlife eventually, and this should not be aided by the department.

Gregory R Field,  Seattle WA

Seen my earlier summary comments.

Bruce Moorhead,  Port Angeles WA

eastern washington needs to start controling wolf numbers immediatly!I've witnessed how fast wolves have taken over big game herds in Idaho & Montana and it is not good

Ross MacArthur,  Cusick WA

The ony exceptable alternative is to take NO ACTION and let the wolves either come into washington naturally or not at all. Secondly, if they do come into Washington, open a selective season on them like any other game animal. There are many more animals than the game department is aware of already, so de-listing should not be a problem.

Ty Brown,  Naches WA

I prefer the minority position from the wolf working group. All the other options put too many wolves in Washington.

dale denney,  colville WA

Wolves are an over grown mean dog that we do not want here harming our livelyhood. We do not want to have to defend our families, pets and livestock. There is no way that all the wolves can be counted so we will end up with more then the plan states and the plan is for more then the state can handle. The WDFW is setting this up for failure by wanting to many and that will cause them to cause more problems and spread to a larger area then were they are "wanted".

AnonymousClarkston WA

I would would like to see the breeding pairs on the wolves to be lower than what the original wolf plan states.

Jay Renwick,  Ellensburg WA

There is no benefit for having wolves on the Olympic Peninsula or the state and the cost to the state (which is already facing a 2 Billion Dollar Deficit!!) is prohibitive.

Jerry Doyle,  Port Angeles WA

Do not lease any forest land to ranchers at all. If so, charge them enough to cover damages.

Ginny Clerget,  Lacey WA

I think all alternatives are unacceptable.

Kenneth G Matney,  Ellensburg WA

Our game population cannot take the hit that the wolves will kill. Wolves kill just to kill and not just to maintain themselves. I understand (but do not agree with) that we have to have a minimum population of mated pairs of wolves. We should be able to remove all the wolves above that number, with special permits as the population grows over the minimum. The reduction of hunters buying licenses due to the poor hunting and the cost of reimbursing the ranchers for the loss of sheep, cattle, goats, chickens, etc. the state will take a big loss in revenue. It will not be a "Yellowstone" situation here to draw tourist to see wolves. What park would that be??? I work in a sporting goods store and have not heard one customer that was in favor of wolves coming into Washington. Since the hunters are the ones that PAY for most of the Wildlife bill, you would think that we would have a bigger say in what happens or how the money is spent. Seattle will not have to put up with the loss of income from lost livestock or have their pets eaten and killed due to the increase in predators in the state, the rural communities will. They are not afraid to go on outings without a gun to protect themselves from predators, as we do now. We sell lots of guns to people that live or recreate in the rural communities that have had close calls with dangerous wild animals. Why add more??? Hal Snively

Hal Snively,  Pasco WA

The preservation of wolves is critical to the environment. They add to the beauty of nature and the world with their contributions and magnificence as God's creatures. Man needs help on this planet, and nature provides it. Nature needs help, too, so we should work with it to maintain a good balance. Thank you.

Jane Hoffman,  Rye NH

The recovery objective numbers of breeding pairs needed for down-listing and eventual delisting of wolves is too low to ensure a viable wolf population in WA. The lethal kill provisions for livestock owners and private citizens whose livestock or domestic dogs are attacked by wolves while wolves are in threatened or sensitive status are too liberal during the critical early phases of wolf recovery and could slow recovery. Translocation of wolves from areas within WA with healthy wolf populations to other areas to establish new populations is an important tool and will speed up the recovery and delisting process.

Wendy Young,  Bellevue WA

You don'y need or want wolves in Washington

Duane Bernard,  Rainier OR

Must stay with Alternative #4.

Bob Hester,  Yakima WA

the wolf management group had a minority report that I can agree with

Gary Nielsen,  Colville WA

in General the reason our for fathers shoot wolves was because the damage wolves do to the wild herds and as well as domestic animals

gary Ryan,  sekiu WA

I feel none of the proposed Alternatives are acceptable forms of Wolf Management for the state of Washington.

Daniel Haydon,  Creston WA

no water for stevens county fish and wildlife department go away

roger mcmillan,  colville WA

What difference does it matter if a rancher loses livestock and there fore kills a culprit wolf if the landowner owns or leases 100 acres or more? A dead cow is a dead cow. I would think the impact of a wolf/livestock predation would have greater financial impacts on smaller ranchers whose available grazing lands are under 100 acres.

Dave Mack,  Renton WA

Playing "God" doesn't work. We played "God" when we killed the wolves off and now see that it didn't work in the long term. We need to leave things alone.

AnonymousSequim WA

We need wolf populations to help maintain the health and vitality of ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula.

julie Jaman,  Port Townsend WA

I did not have time to read the very lengthy document. However, I do know that wolves are causing huge problems with wildlife in the state of Idaho. Why would we want wolves here?

Jeff Frederick,  Moses Lake WA

I am adamantly opposed to the plan as written. To pass it must consider and resolve the issues identified in Appendix D. Wolves have serious impacts on livestock, wildlife, the economy and human interactions. For real life examples talk to the citizens within the wolf recovery efforts in Arizona and New Mexico and their reactions to not being able to do anything except watch as wolves rip the guts out of their livestock while still alive. Check with impacts in Idaho and what the wolves have done to wildlife populations. Coyotes are gone, elk herds desimated. Idaho sells 30,000 out of state hunting licenses each year and is a big part of the economy. In 2009, 10,000 tags went unsold and the state lost 1/3 of the normal income from sales of these licenses due to drop in game populations from wolf predations. Recover wolves, but you don't need them wall to wall across the state! Make sure the plan considers all the points in Appendix D and especially a quick reaction to wolf problems and population numbers. Finally, don't be stupid and ignore history. A tremendous effort was made to stop wolves in early America because of their predation and impacts to human populations. This was done for fun but out of necessity to stop a serious problem. Do not pretend that we can now have the wolf back without the serious problems the have caused in history!

Wayne Vinyard,  Glenwood WA

Send 'em back to Montana and Idaho.


We have spent the last 100 years managing game species (deer and elk) to provide viable huntable herds in this state and now you want to throw uncontrolled wolves into the equation? I have never heard of anything so absurd and just plain ridiculous. This state should be lobbying hard with the US fish and Wildlife Agency to be allowed to do everything possible to eliminate all wolves from the state.

James Schleusner,  Glenwood WA


Chris Herres,  Pomeroy WA

and now, the ultimate of stupid.


I feel that every Licence buying person in the State should be notified by mail and a vote should determine if Wolves should be allowed to be reintroduced. I personaly feel that the Wolves that are trying to reistablish are an invasive species (not the original native wolf) and should be treated as an invasive species and they should be eliminated before they get established.

John Evans,  Longview WA

The fact that this is even being considered is crazy. Between the cost of this DEIS and the future payments for damages and staff, these will be million dollar wolves if not billion dollar wolves. You should be ashamed of yourselves for wasting so much of our tax dollars chasing upobtainable goals that will result in people taking the law into their own hands to protect their property (livestock). Every EIS I have seen had to have better accounting of future costs. You should do better.

Corey Watson,  Auburn WA

KEEP IT SIMPLE.Keep the public behind you,we will help if we are not mad.

Al Sherman,  Wenatchee WA

Am opposed to the introduction of wolves in a state where the number of hunters afield are competing for ever diminishing numbers of big game.

Robert E Daharsh,  Woodinville WA

The wolf will makes its own come back and should be left to do so on its own.

John Eaton,  Ellensburg WA

How does the WDFW propose to pay the compensation packages, if most of the money they receive comes from hunters and hunters are the most impacted by this plan.

Charles Olney,  Yakima WA

What work will be done to educate local communities about the importance of this speices' function to restore balance in the larger eco-system? I think this community based educational approach must have a huge priority in any plan selected.. Especially as we think about the importance that predators have for scavangers such as condors, that may also fly free over Washignton skies one day. This is a very big picture plan to restore ecosystem health in the region and it must be bold.

David Moen,  Oregon City OR

You wrote it "there are no federal or state plans to reintroduce wolves into washington"

dylan peterson,  federal way WA

I see alternative 4 as the best plan,both economically and feasibly

bruce oergel,  ellensburg WA

The wolve population does need to be managed and it should be taken off the state endangered list as soonas possible so hunting and more lethal mangement practices can be used. We don't want them to ever become unafraid of humans, like the bears and cougar and cougar populations have done, by taking a huge hunting pressure off of them.

Hans Hurlbutt,  Sedro Woolley WA



Keep the Wolves out of our state!

Robert Mears,  Mead WA

Get rid of the wolfs in this state.

leon Chmielewski,  spanaway WA

I am a life long resident of Washington State since 1960. I am an avid hunter of deer and elk, and am strongly supportive of wolf recovery. Translocation to the Olympics is sorely missing in the mgmt. plan.

Scott Nicolai,  Ellensburg WA

Bring back wolves to balance the predation...If you wanted only 70 or so wolves in Yellowstone why didn't you plant sterile wolves like the sterile tiger muskies that serve to control our squawfish (Northern Pike Minnow for the PC crowd) population? That program seems to be working well and didn't kill half a million elk,deer, moose, etc... Nice balance...NOT!!!

Brian Welch,  Kent WA

Please for the sake of our economy, livestock, wild game, and public safety, do not encourage and spend any of our limited funds on growing or keeping wolves in Washington.

John Dunn,  Olympia WA

Suggest that wolves may be an asset to the Olympic Peninsula in controlling Elk populations.

Garry Blankenship,  Monroe WA

We oppose introducing any predators to our state or allow the population of any to increase, that will decrease the number of game animals we now have.

Mike Trout,  White Salmon WA

We oppose introducing any predators to our state or allow the population of any to increase, that will decrease the number of game animals we now have.

Laura Trout,  White Salmon WA

Having witnessed the balance that was restored to Yellowstone's eco-system in the re-intro program. It is apparant that Wa. will only benefit when the Gray Wolf once again roams a signifigant portion of their former range.

Bill Liggett,  Eatonville WA

washington obviously isnt that great of a state if its inflicting minors to hate its government already. us kids arent stupid im 15 and i know how the whole government of washington works and it pisses me off.kill every damn wolf in washington idaho and montana. its devastating the elk and deer populations already in tremendous amounts. hunters keep the populations of elk and deer at a good rate anyhow theres no need in destroy all of the deer and elk. soon there wont be any. i hate this state and its government. i hate washington state. all the stupid ass hippies and the stupid wolf lovers.


There is no reason to adopt this plan. And if you do, you need to look more into Idahos Wolf recovery. At least they know how to manage it. But like everything else in this state that the WDFW has its hands in, you will do what you will do, and not what NEEDS to be done. I am becomming more and more ashamed about being a lifetime Washington resident soley on the fact that we continue to piss away our natural recources. WAKE UP WDFW!!!!


15 breeding pairs is far too few. At least 50 breeding pairs per isolated area is scientifically sound.

Kristi Hendrickson,  Seattle WA

I was very disappointed in the lack of respect that was shown at the REI store when my opinion was booed and the Fish and Game representatives did nothing. You will ruin the big game hunting in this state. Idaho figured this out and so the Montana. When Washington's hunting dollars go out of state you will regret you let the wolf in this state.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

I do not support wolves unless they are managed like all other species. This state cannot support wolves like Idaho,Montana or Wyoming due to our population densities in the west. Ranchers should be legal to shoot any wolf in the act of depradation on site. Anything less is illegal.

Raymond Borbon,  Kirkland WA

Please make wolf conservation and habitat preservation the highest prioritities.

Kevin O'Halloran,  Seattle WA

I believe Washington can accomodate 12 wolf packs.

Steve Solberg,  Spokane Valley WA

lISTEN TO THE HUNTERS WE DO NOT WANT THE WOLVES HERE ......................................

Joe Headley,  Yakima WA

Absolutely no wolf reintroduction or protection

thomas Linde,  Carson WA

With regard to the prefered alternative, I'm concerned that there are not enouch successful (define successful better!) breeding pairs to ensure moving status to threatened and then sensitive and then de-listing.

Marcia avajas,  Bainbridge Island WA

I hunted in Idaho in 2008 on loon creek, the wplf pop. has all but wiped out the deer,in one canyon I walked down it looked like a killing field deer bones everywhere,we also found two cow elk that were killed and left laying in the river by this pack of 12 wolves,two days before we landed these wolves were harasing the outfitters livestock.What deer that were still around were so scared would run from timber patch timber patch.We had eight tags in the party and only filled two because of the lack of deer,so if wolves are going to be here keep them under control by allowing them to be hunted and have a fear of humans,DON'T BE LIKE IDAHO


All option are at a great cost, to thriving wildlife, tax payers, ranchers, resources and people who feed their families wild game. Eviromentally, the lowest number of wolves benfits all people and animals.

Kenneth Nilson,  Silverdale WA

I am fully in favor of reintroducing wolves. Thank you for all the work that you have done.


Please consider alternatives for wolf reintroduction.

Mark Reblitz,  Woodinville WA

I do not support wolf introduction back into the state of washington. There is already huge issues with the cougar population in washington with the outlawing of cougar hounding and the state is not healthy enough for another alpha predator. I am also extremely concerned of the public safety issue this represents.

Michael Korenko,  Carson WA

A alternative to no wolves I think should still be a option, we should look closely at why we poisoned and trapped and hunted them to extinction in the early 1900's. they are a top predator, trying to compete with human beings.


While I whole heartedly support the highest level of protection and encouragement for the wolves, I am also sympathetic to the plight of ranchers who see their livelihood threatened. I think it is good that appropriate compensation is included in the options here considered. I hope that in turn ranchers will be co-operative as well.

Ted Grudowski,  Seattle WA

Peer reviewers in some cases believe 10 pairs would meet delisting requirements. It seems exceptional support for wolf recovery at 15 BP. It appears that the main measure for the Alternative developement was livestock depredation. This may work well for Mt but I do not beleive that it is the best measure for Wa. There is not enough variasion in alteritives for the decision maker. Example BPs set at 15 Yet peer review sugest 10 and is not in alt.

Rick Lind,  Tonasket WA

I favor Alternative 3

Andrew Reding,  Port Townsend WA

I support a wolf management plan that is strong enough to ensure wolves fully recover—to a population healthy enough to effectively resume their role as top predators in our state's ecosystems. We need a plan that provides guidelines for managing wolf populations in our state, dictates how and when wolves may be scared off or killed, and outlines how the state will balance the wolves' needs with hunters and owners of livestock.

elizabeth archambault,  Seattle WA

Keep wolves out of Washington!

Florence Wheeler,  Vancouver WA

Double the number of successful breeding pairs, from 15 to 30.

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

Elk restoration needed.

Eric Burr,  Mazama WA

I urge the WDFW to support a wolf management plan that is strong enough to ensure wolves fully recover—to a population healthy enough to effectively resume their role as top predators in our state's ecosystems.

Diane Shaughnessy,  Auburn WA

As a member online of the League of Women Voters and also having a sister who is a chairperson of the League of Women Voters in Virginia who works parttime for a Senator who support the conservation of God's breathing creations, not for man's purpose, but for His.

MB ,   FL

I'm glad to see that all the alternatives include education specialists - that is imperative! Hopefully, their solutions will be cost-effective and easy to implement.

Gayle Janzen,   WA

I support a wolf management plan that is strong enough to ensure wolves fully recover—to a population healthy enough to effectively resume their role as top predators in our state's ecosystems.

Pamela King,  Shoreline WA

3 - 4 breeding pair seems to be ample. Even then I'm convinced we would see a negative impact on deer and elk. We have already seen an impact with the mountain lion and bear population. Why would we want to increase numbers of another predator - especially one that will kill more than it consumes!!! Please think about why the people of WA State controlled them in the first place. Do you really want these numbers as proposed in the Plan? I haven't heard anything positive from the folks in Idaho regarding the numbers of wolves they have!

Verne Bakker,  Yakima WA

Place a high bounty on the pelts as they do in Canada or Alaska, to improve woldf free conditions.

Ed Vivian,  Clarkston WA

wolves need all the help they can get

Gary Hemenway,  Hoquiam WA

Washington State needs to learn from the mistakes of other states. I support Lethal control (Alternative 1.). Allowing these predatory animals to continue to multiply and spread is a huge mistake. Who will protect the hiker in the National Parks or the skier on the slopes? Not to mention the elk, moose,deer and bear. Let the groups like Ted Turner, (Endangered Species Fund) pay the compensation to the farmers of the loss of livestock. Don't expect the taxpayer to carry that cost. These wolves were NOT natives species to the lower 48, they were originally from Canada, thus the original name the Canadian Gray Wolf. And Canada has tried lethal control and even sterilization to control the wolf populations, without success. Washington State should definitely not transport nor transplant wolves to areas within our state that currently have low populations. They already multiply at an alarming rate and we don't need to assist in that. Lethal force is the only alternative. If these wolves are allowed in Eastern or Western Washington I assure you the loss of life will be far greater than just livestock.

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

no action would be the worst thing we could do. their population will boom because they have been absent from the ecosystem for so long. the introduction needs to be slow so elk, deer, and others can become used to this new preditor

Kurtis Vaagen,  

No translocation. No importation of wolves. Make wolves big game asap. Keep required recovery numbers as low as possible in anticipation of lawsuits that will delay for years each delisting step. Does this plan actually require training before a farmer/owner can legally "harass" a wolf that is in the process of killing his livestock/pets in front of him???? That is CRAZY. How would you "adjust" harvest levels by hunters when tribes are the reason many populations are supressed currently. This plan doesn't address tribal/wolf interactions nor does it have any teeth to force tribes to reduce hunting to benefit wolves. How is an "at-risk" ungulate population defined?

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA

Wolves need management just as deer, elk, etc. A management plan that employs sound science is what is needed here.

Thomas F McLaughlin,  Spokane WA