<< 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 Scientific Basis for Conservation Planning (Chapter 3.A):


Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

I still have yet to see a scientific basis that makes sense. Again hunters have taken the role of preditor/carnivore. I am all for wolves if they keep to a quota of only killing 1 elk and 1 deer annually.

Johnny Rebel,  East Wenatchee WA

Prudence would suggest that we should assume a catastrophic event will occur and therefore our population targets should necessitate this potentiality. Perhaps the interested parties of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia should convene for the purpose of quantifying a sustainable metapopulation that spans over state and national boundaries. If 10 breeding pairs will lose genetic variation, according to vonHoldt et al. (2008), than clearly we will need more than 10 breeding pairs. In fact, given the figures within the same paragraphy, it seems that even 17 breeding pairs would not be sufficient. Road densities have indeed increased, but perhaps we can incorporate more wildlife under and overpasses, permitting a pathway through the dangerous barriers to natures traditional migration routes. The Olympic Peninsula is stated time and time again as one of the more viable locations for sustaining a wolf population, so please, do not dismiss the science, the natural significance, and the cultural importance of reintroducing wolves to the Olympics - a perfect justification for translocation. Actually to neglect the Olympics in the overall scheme of this plan seems completely idiotic. Conservation needs to be a multi-national effort so as to avoid the fickle whims and limitations of localized politics and special interests.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

I realize a need for planning and recognize we will have wolves again. See Alt 1A for my preferred planning alternative.


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

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

dale denney,  colville WA

Lots of BS and personal agenda that ignores history and what is happening with wolf impacts in areas such as Idaho and Arizona.

Wayne Vinyard,  Glenwood WA



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

I'd like to suggest a minor correction to the text on p .41-44. On p. 44, you state that Carroll et al. 2006 predicts 41,500 sq mi of suitable habitat, and Carroll et al. 2007 predicts 16,900 sq mi. However, these are predictions/evaluations of two different types. The larger one (41,500 sq mi) attempts to predict the extent of habitat in the absence of human-induced "threat factors" (road density, etc.). One would expect this habitat extent to be similar to the extent of historic habitat. The smaller habitat figure estimates currently available habitat (given current human use of the landscape). Inserting a clause to differentiate these two predictions might help readers understand why the two habitat area predictions span such a large range. Also you state that Carroll et al. 2006 predicts the Puget Sound lowlands as potential habitat, that makes sense as a predictor of potential/historic habitat, but not current habitat, so without that context the statement is confusing. In endangered species recovery planning, it is informative to assess how threat factors limit habitat, so a comparison of the two habitat predictions can be informative rather than confusing if seen in the right context. The distinction we make between "suitable" (in the absence of human impacts) and "occupiable" (given current human impacts eg, road density) is crucial to implementation of the federal ESA, which requires that habitat quality be assessed in relation to threats (listing factors). Thus limiting consideration of "suitable" habitat to that currently "occupiable" given current levels of the "listing factors" (as does the Northern Rockies delisting rule) would be contrary to the intent of the federal ESA.

Carlos Carroll,  Orleans CA

I appreciate the sceintific bases of the proposal. I would also like to see a cultural bases for preserving wolves established. How can wolf recovery contribute to the cultural revitalization of tribal communities in WA for example? How can they be included as partners in the program?

David Moen,  Oregon City OR




Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman WA

Do not release any more wolves into this state.

Kevin Wolf,  Lacey WA

Dont listen to the people that don't go out in the woods. they aren't going to see a wolf any way.

Rick Turvey,  Yakima WA

Well stated.

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

Seems reasonable to me.


No Scientist is so Idiotic to be proud to watch a Non-native Wolf be introduced in a State and know his child or others is at risk. We were supposed to move forward from our Barbaric Past. We are not Neanderthalls.

Larry Hill,  Brush Prairie WA

No basis.

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA


Thomas F McLaughlin,  Spokane WA