<< 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 the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

NO WOLFS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR A KILLING ANIMAL TO BE ADDED TO A GOOD STATE.ARE YOU TRYING TO TURN HUNTERS AGAINST THE STATE. THIS WILL SURE DO THE TRICK.

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

don't do it

john gilbertson,  port angeles WA

The DEIS is multifaceted and thoroughly researched, however I do not concur with the preferred alternative, as the priorities that would guide my view would greatly diminish the voice of the ranchers and hunters, who are in my opinion overly represented, while augmenting the importance for the repair of ecological harm, done at the hands of white settlers who now hold their ground with an undeserved sense of privilege, and cultural apologies for the native Americans whose histories are offended by the wolf’s absence, again at the eradicating hand of the same white settlers.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

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

Only 15 breeding pairs of wolves across a state with the size and diversity of Washington does not jibe with the weight of the scientific evidence available about the number of animals needed to sustain a healthy wolf population here, or elsewhere. At minimum 20-30 breeding pairs would seem a more reasonably defensible goal. Moreover, not including the Olympic Peninsula amid these Alternatives, is to critically omit the largest, contiguous natural prey base that remains in the state. The Draft Plan ably gathers and assesses available scientific information about the associated requirements of wolves and humans. Yet, the Preferred Alternative, in balance, weighs all too heavily on the side of protecting human needs at all costs over those of the wolf and its related natural ecosystem processes. Such a strategy, therefore, is unlikely to accomplish the goal of enabling a sustainably healthy wolf population in Washington, nor the longer term benefit—to the citizens and nation—of having a major large predator that co-evolved with humans in these ecosystems persist on into the future.

Bruce Moorhead,  Port Angeles WA

I appreciate the State addressing this issue. I prefer Alternative 3, of the choices given. I request that you include translocation and re-introduction of wolves to the Olympic NP.

Anonymous

We don't need or want them, we got rid of them once and the ecosystem is doing just fine without them. What do they offer to bring to the system?

AnonymousClarkston WA

well done

James Maves,  Pomeroy WA

I strongly support efforts to fully restore wolves to Washington State. It is heartbreaking that the Emerald State has been deprived of wolves since the extensive wolf extermination campaigns of the late 1800s eliminated these magnificent animals from Washington, and I was very happy to learn that two packs have made their way back to eastern Washington. These packs -- and the wolves that may someday follow -- represent a golden opportunity for Washington to fully restore wolves to their rightful place in the beautiful wild spaces of Washington, including the coastal range. Historically, wolves have not only played an important role in balancing ecosystems in Washington, they also figure prominently in Washington's rich cultural heritage, particularly in the creation stories of the Quileute Native American tribe of coastal Washington. 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. Wolves have just returned to Washington. This is not the time to contemplate killing them off again. As the state considers the fate of wolves in Washington, I strongly urge you to recognize the important value -- not to mention potential tourism dollars from wolf enthusiasts like myself -- that wolf restoration efforts will bring to the state of Washington if these magnificent animals are allowed to return to their former home. Thank you for considering my comments.

Eileen Hennessy,  Melrose MA

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

OK

Duane Bernard,  Rainier OR

See general comments on DEIS.

Bob Hester,  Yakima WA

not very well thought out looks like peta and other aniamal rights groups are involved

gary Ryan,  sekiu WA

Oppose use of tax payer dollars

Ken Phillips,  Tacoma WA

not worth 300 million by 1500 state union workers--go away

roger mcmillan,  colville 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

The Draft plan paints a rosey picture of all the parties being in agreement, but downplays the very real concerns and objections of many of the group members.

Nathan Putnam,  Glenwood WA

Stupid Stupid Stupid. I can't believe tax money was used for this study.

Anonymous

lots of missing facts and science!!!!! Don't do it !!!!

FRED S Chapman, Jr,  RAYMOND WA

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

This DEIS doesn't go far enough to explain the costs of this decision to the taxpayer. Isn't that a SEPA requirement?

Corey Watson,  Auburn WA

The idea behind the summary appears sound, but the plan itself will become underfunded within a very short time. The number of hunters will reduce dramatically and therefore the funding will decline.

Charles Olney,  Yakima WA

Flexibilty in harvest strateges means less permits and shorter seasons. How will an already streatched departmental budget and few if any agents in the field deter illegal hunting?

Randy Fischer,  Ellensburg WA

listen to the hunters and livestock point of view

bruce oergel,  ellensburg WA

NO WOLVES

Anonymous

Again, this entire section is very thorough and informative.

Karen Goodrowe Beck,  Gig Harbor 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

As with the EIS I believe that the executive summary for the draft plan is adequate with the exception that it seems to assign unnecessary value to the concerns of livestock owners when compared to the concerns of the rest of the citizens in the state. Overall I believe that it provides adequate information concerning the current state of affairs as well as the planning process that occurred.

Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman WA

I wish to support Alternative 2: the draft wolf conservation and management plan developed by the Washington Wolf Working Group Thank you! Christopher Ensor

Christopher Ensor,  Kent 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

Anonymous

Do not release any more wolves into this state.

Kevin Wolf,  Lacey WA

I do think that alternative 2 is not the correct answer. There needs to be provisions for rancher and farmers to shoot wolves on their property.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

Please learn from the mistakes that have occurred in Idaho and Montana. We DON'T NEED THIS PROGRAM in Washington State.

Jay Arment,  Spokane WA

Wolf preservation should be a very high priority.

Kevin O'Halloran,  Seattle WA

It's filled with LIES and you should feel stupid for producing it.

Joe Headley,  Yakima WA

I will hope that the State of Washington will work to finalize its "Wolf Conservation and Management Plan" for a long term self-sustaining gray wolf population through out the State. Wolves are generalist and it is clear that large portions of their historic range will never be openned to them, example metropolitan areas. I know it will be difficult to keep political goals out of "The Plan" but please try.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

My comments regarding Washington wolves reintroduction plan. As a long time conservationist, zookeeper, and citizen, I strongly 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. This insures a natural balance in our fragile and damaged ecosystem. There are quite a few non lethal and extremely affective options that would deter wolves from livestock. These options would require cooperation from the local ranchers and in this way that helps them to be aware and involved in wildlife management. As we all should be. Thank you so much,

stacey cooper,  seattle WA

None

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

Do not succumb to the "holistic ecosystem" BS. I have seen the results of wolves and it is not pretty.

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA