<< 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 Conservation/Recovery Objectives for Washington (Chapter 3.B):

KEEP THEM OUT

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

Need to include the Pacific Coast recovery region as an area wolves must be present before delisting.

Ann Soule,  

The recovery objective numbers of breeding pairs needed for downlisting and eventual delisting of wolves is too low to ensure a viable population in WA

Gail V Wengerd,  Puyallup WA

If the state is serious about wolf conservation and recovery in Washington state, wolves should be translocated to the Olympic Mountains since this area will provide the greatest "source" habitat needed to sustain the population over the long term, through periods of depopulation due to human caused or environmental factors. Please see Figure 7, page 43 for the demonstration of why Olympic National park has the best "source" habitat. Natural dispersal to the Olympics would be difficult. Translocation should be done.

Joseph Pullara,  Port Angeles WA

Wolf biologists and wildlife scientists believe that the current target number of 15 breeding pairs as a threshhold for delisting from the state endangered species list is too low. I support the opinion of experts from US Fish & Wildlife Service that there should be at least 500 wolves established in the state before delisting is considered.

Patricia Willits,  Port Angeles WA

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.

Kaitlin Krhounek,  Seattle WA

I do not agree on the number of breeding pairs that are thought to be adequate to reestablish this animal. This is not enough to ensure a stable population. I support a much higher number of breeding pairs.

Hollie Kaufman,  Sequim WA

"This plan's conservation/recovery objectives for Washington are below those thought to be needed for long-term persistence of an isolated population." Then it is too low, plain and simple. Why contradict the essence of your original intentions. Although delisting "is not a population cap," would it not be wise to have delisting associated with a truly healthy and viable population? Otherwise, when that catastrophic event occurs or when things do not go according to plan, the wolf will again be endangered and we return to this place of departure once again. Do it right the first time, for the sake of the wolf and the greater ecosystem that ails with the wolf's absence. Again, use higher delisting figures for the regional areas outlined in alternative two and then use the method of translocation to give life to the Olympics.

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

Washington does not have the resources to handle that many wolves

Ross MacArthur,  Cusick WA

We don't need a recovery plan, we need a harvest stradegy.

Ty Brown,  Naches WA

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

dale denney,  colville WA

Plan is too long, we will have to many after three years and there will be no way to manage them.

AnonymousClarkston WA

Translocation of healthy wolves outside of the area of population is an important way to speed up recovery and the delisting process

Diane Sonntag,  Tenino WA

Absurd. We do not need wolf populations wall to wall across the state.

Wayne Vinyard,  Glenwood WA

Too many breeding pairs are allowed for the southern Cascades and NW Coast regions. The 3-year period is unnecessary for recovery.

Nathan Putnam,  Glenwood WA

Very dumb....

Anonymous

SEE above!!!!

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

We don't need wolves in this state. Re-introducing them was a very, very bad idea.

Ronald Riedasch,  Anacortes WA

NO WOLVES

Anonymous

THERE IS NO NEED FOR RECOVERY THEY HAVE NOT BEEN LARGELY POPULATED IN WASHINGTON FOR YEARS AND EVERYTHING IS JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS

RYAN JERLES,  RAYMOND WA

Believe that recovery objectives need to be revised so as to require a larger population of animals (#'s of breeding pairs) prior to delisting.

Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman WA

The objectives should be clear numbers. It is now not clear when they can be managed or hunted.

Raymond Borbon,  Kirkland WA

15 breeding pairs are to many for this sate considering our available land, human population and ungulate population

Warren D Gimlin,  East Wenatchee WA

There needs to be more breeding pairs.

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

The Conservation and/or Recovery efforts for Washington need to be stopped. The objectives are wrong and misguided.

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

Why would you conserve an animal that is not native to this State. This Canadian Wolf has not worked out in any State that has tried it.

Larry Hill,  Brush Prairie WA

Keep the numbers low, because they are essentially only a starting point for lawsuits. If delisting began today, we would have hundreds of wolves by the time the enviro's got done suing.

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA

none

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA