<< 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

Comments on Agricultural Crops-Livestock (Section 4.2.4):


Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

i will be afraid to have any as i live close to the park

john gilbertson,  port angeles WA

Compensation is deserved to a limited extent. People have encroached on wildlife habitat and need to accept some losses.

Ann Soule,  

Experience has shown that reintroduction of wolves to an area with livestock present will result in some depredation but that this is not large enough to have any serious economic impact and can be controlled and managed in a responsible manner.

Joseph Pullara,  Port Angeles WA

The collective stability of wolf populations should not hinge on "individual producers." I find it offensive that 24% of all national forests are allocated to grazing and that this mass-feeding of a domestic animal would come at the expense of the natural ecosystem health and sustainability.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

I would hope the WDFW gets a compensation plan funded before they send the final EIS to the Commission. I believe livestock producers face some real big challenges, as have been witnessed in Montana and Idaho. I hope the pressures from wolves won't be used as a reason to buy more ranches and take them out of the working landscape. I don't see WDFW having the funding or manpower to manage wolves and pay compensation.


Ungulates will be forced onto private lands causing crop and livestock losses,wolves will fallow their food source.


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

Give ample compensation to livestock owners that suffer any loss to wolves.


The Olympic Penninsula is largely devoid of livestock herding, making it prime location for reintroduction of the Gray Wolf if alternative 3 is implemented (the Pacific Coast Recovery Plan).

Ronald Pearson,  Seattle WA

Manipulated information that is misleading, a sales pitch for wolves.

dale denney,  colville WA

I do not want them around My livestock Ihope you have money to pay for any damage,wdfw is short money now!

Gerald W Guhlke,  Reardan WA

Look at other states we do not need to reinvent the wheel, wolves harm livestock produation in a very grousem way. They are terrible killers and will literally torture the stock. Is that what we want to bring back? There are laws for animal rights, is the way a wolf kills really legal?

AnonymousClarkston WA

How much of a right do ranchers have to protect their livestock? Ranchers need to have the right to protect livestock, if a wolve kills a cow or calf that's money out of a ranchers pocket. If ranchers aren't able to protect their livestock they must be compensated.

Jay Renwick,  Ellensburg WA

I absolutley feel the letal kill option is too strong and not adequetyly monitorable

Diane Sonntag,  Tenino WA

I am more sympathetic to stockmen than I am toward hunters. However, many ranchers run their stock on public land for a very low fee. I know most of them aren't making a bunch of money so I'm OK with compensating them. I do think Alternative 2 is better than 3 in this sense because wolves cover so much ground.

Matt Dahlgreen,  Wenatchee WA

The moer wolves in an area, the more livstock fatality there will be. Tis not opinion it is proven fact from Oregon and Idaho.

Jess Kayser,  Centerville WA

Wolves will wreak havoc on cattle, once they are established in WA state.

Keith Olson,  Quinault WA

They take the easiest, meaning cows, dogs sheep, fawns etc.

Duane Bernard,  Rainier OR

We support non-lethal deterrent methods and the provision of a fair compensation package for losses. The stray cattle from USFS range land do a lot of damage to our land. We prefer the wolves.

Kathleen Fisher,  Shoreline WA

We support non-lethal deterrent methods and the provision of a fair compensation package for losses. The stray cattle from USFS range land do a lot of damage to our land. We prefer the wolves.

Frank Fisher,  Shoreline WA

killing of domestic animals on public and private lands should be reimburseable in full, but not with tax payers money since the general taxpayers had no say in whether the wolves should be here or not.

Gary Nielsen,  Colville WA

wolves kill sheep just to be killing and will take cattle too it takes a lot of meat to keep wolves going

gary Ryan,  sekiu WA

Livestock producers need to be compensated for wolf depredation on stock. Livestock producers also need compensation to develop alternative grazing strategies - ie: funding for stock protecting dogs and/or riders to spend more time with the stock.

Jennifer Molesworth,  Twisp WA

There is not much livestock on the peninsula, but I would try to appease any nervous landowner.

Charles LeBer,  Port Angeles WA

Livestock is easy picking for a wolf pack and is the main reason rural/early America fought the wolves. This plan grossly underestimates the wolf impacts and is way to conservative in response and protection allowed to livestock growers.

Wayne Vinyard,  Glenwood WA

It is difficult to paint a true picture of the financial and emotional effects that wolf reintroduction poses for those affected operators in the livestock industry. Proposals for compensation are somehow supposed to mollify the livestock operators, but I am wondering where the monies will continue to come from when the wolf populations are built up to levels likely to occur under this plan. Recent news articles from Montana tell of one-night killings of over 100 sheep by a pack of wolves. These events are likely to be mirrored in WA as well.

Nathan Putnam,  Glenwood WA

you are asking for huge amounts of trouble and expense(who'sgoing to bear the costs?) adding wolves to the mess.

James Schleusner,  Glenwood WA

Cost in other states have gone up each year and if all livestock kills by wolves were compensated for the cost would be even higher!!!!


You can be sure of wolf depradation on livestock from past history of 100 years.

John Eaton,  Ellensburg WA

I believe the presence of wolves in Washington State will have a very positive economic impact on the areas involved. This positive economic impact will eclipse the impact of any loss of livestock from wolf depredation.

James R Salkas,  Oak Lawn IL

we will lose live stock

scott fowler,  burlington WA

think our livestock producers will take a hit ?

bruce oergel,  ellensburg WA





If hunting is allowed to be used as a means of controlling wolf populations then it would also allow ranchers to shoot problem wolves that are killing livestock, without having to go through so much red tape.

Mark Olis,  

See above comment.

James D King,  Omak WA

Serious threat to both. The state should be held accountible because of supporting the threat of this new existance to be sponed by protection of the wolf.

Tom Freeman,  Tonasket WA

If you want to eat food that is produced in south america, by workers that are paid a dollar a day, keep up the good work.


Wolfs love nothing better than calf and lamb.


See above comments on agriculture and livestock. I am not unsympathetic to claims but believe they are overstated and given undue preference over those of other citizens.

Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman WA

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


Non lethal ways of discouraging wolves from livestock is key. Take lessons from other states that have already developed successfuly ways of doing this. Be creative yourselves and discover new ways. But in every way, protection of wolves is paramount over cattle. It's important to provide incentives for cattle ranchers to protect wolves and severe penalties for killing of wolves. Your greatest challenge will be to educate cattle ranchers on how to respect and understand the importance of wildlife in our state.

Kristi Hendrickson,  Seattle WA

Any rancher or farmer has the right to kill a wolf that is on his property or threating his lively hood.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

Wolves should be shot if they depredate on livestock. Put this in the plan.

Raymond Borbon,  Kirkland WA

Livestock growers know what has happened in Montana and Idaho.....They LOSE!

Jay Arment,  Spokane WA

It is terrible that livestock are always more important than wildlife. It is time to make room for wildlife!

Kevin O'Halloran,  Seattle WA

The farmers will take care of the wolves their way..........................................

Joe Headley,  Yakima WA

Wolves keying in on winter elk feeding stations will cause breeches of elk fencing and cause additional damage to agricultural lands. This has been proven in Wyoming.

Lee Davis,  Ellensburg WA

wolves and livestock DO NOT mix

Jim Lamb,  Spokane WA

More Wolves would put more people at risk partaking in this activity, and threaten their livleyhood.

Kenneth Nilson,  Silverdale WA

The state will compensate ranchers for loss of livestock and besides how many cattle are killed by wolves in Idaho and Montana every year?

Roger Wallace,  Leavenworth WA

There are and well be wolf / livestock conflicts. With the wolves reintroducing themselves to Washington this conflict will not go away, unless the State allowwed all the wolves to be driven from the State again, action or inaction. I am sure many ranchers are passionate about this issue, and their passion does not help the compromise, but it needs to happen.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

Ther will be more conflicts with livestock producers than the department hinks and the livestock producers will not be properly compensated for thier losses because of poor follow-up by department personel

Warren D Gimlin,  East Wenatchee WA

Wolves have the potential to affect apple orchards in Eastern Wa by moving Elk into the orchards

Rick Lind,  Tonasket WA

Groups such as Defenders of Wildlife provides technical assistance to ranchers and funding for fencing and other deterrents. This program helps to reduce the source of likely wolf/livestock conflict before it occurs and helps to resolve other conflicts through the use of non-lethal preventative methods.

elizabeth archambault,  Seattle WA

Great summary.

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver 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

If wolves were to stay only on USFS land, then that would be one thing but they won't. Wolves will affect all people in the livestock industry in a negative economic way.

Mark Timmerman,  Tonasket WA

a wild burro in the pasture with your animals will keep wolves away

Gary Hemenway,  Hoquiam WA

I feel the pain of the farmer, in the loss of livestock. However, I don't feel the taxpayer should be responsible. The conservation groups that brought back the wolf should pay for the farmers loss.

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

A very generous payment program in case of predation.


Livestock will have watch and is Governmental reimbusment.

Micheal Pacholski,  Toledo OH

What about western Washington livestock? The requirement for training before someone can harass wolves is STUPID. And will ultimately hurt wolves. Anyone should be allowed to scare off wolves that are attacking domestic animals at any time in any non-lethal means possible.

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA

Any predation should requre immediate retaliation(death).

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA

Excellent here.

Thomas F McLaughlin,  Spokane WA