<< 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 INTRODUCTION (Chapter 1):


Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

no wolves in washington

eldon riggle,  clarkston WA

Save Washington's Wildlife. Limit wolf populations.

Kirk Alexander,  Seattle WA

It strikes me as odd that we should now appease the descendants of those Euro-American settlers who “aggressively killed” the wolves off in the first place. We should correct this ignorant mistake of the past now that the opportunity has availed itself and place the self-interested voice of the ranching community in a tiny little place at the very back of the priority line. It seems clear that the tide of popular opinion in Washington would like to see the wolves return, i.e. 75% in favor versus 17% in opposition – a rather decisive contrast. With that said, the intimation of “compromise between biological and social values,” as the culprit for the preferred, watered down, Alternative 2, is again an undeserved overweighting to the economic interests of the few – a dangerous few. Wolves may very well be “generalist” in respect to their ranging habitat, but what of their prey? They are two and the same, the predator and the prey, if there are land use considerations for one, there should be for the other. You answer the question later in the draft without being explicit with an expressed conclusion, but where is the greater revenue opportunity for Washington, increased wolf-related tourism or hunting? Again, the latter is a small minority, exercising, for the most part, a redundant form of food collection, offering little in the form of revenue when compared to the potential of the former (a shame that financial gain, whether through the look-and-see mentality of the tourist or the license paying hunter, should be an issue of consideration at all in this matter and not just a focused empathy for the wolf’s optimal return). I am in favor of minimizing the hunting harvests, which are already excessive, as evidenced by the ungulate population summaries outlined later in the draft, and encourage revenue through respectful wolf tourism; but please, no helicoptors.

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

My wife, two year old son and I enjoy hiking in the woods of Washington state. I will be afraid for the safety of my family if you introduce these wolfs into our state. I will keep enjoying the outdoors, but will take the necessary precautions to protect my family. You will also be responsible for keeping these wolfs away from my pets and livestock, and off of my property.



Duane Bernard,  Rainier OR

15 breeding pairs is to many.


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 whole plan is crap!!!! DON'T DO IT!!!!!


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



Think long and hard about what threats this makes to todays survival of demestic and wild species. Learn from the mistakes of Wyoming and Idaho before you allow other species to be killed by wolves.

Tom Freeman,  Tonasket WA

Wolves should not be introduced and spread out all over the state where their managment becomes more difficult.

Charles Oueis,  Spokane 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


Do not release any more wolves into this state.

Kevin Wolf,  Lacey WA


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

Great ....about time

Gary Hemenway,  Hoquiam WA

A mistake, big time.

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA