<< 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

General comments (Chapter 3):


Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

I support the protection of growing wolf populations within our state and the translocation of wolf packs into areas where they used to live, especially on the Olympic Peninsula.

Patricia Willits,  Port Angeles WA

No comment.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

Why not train selected sportsmen/outdoorsman to be representatives for WDFW in the process of wolf sighting confirmation. This would be more cost-efficient to Washington State, and reduce the necessary WDFW resources required.


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

wolves are a very elusive animal and will not be seen easily allow people to purchase tags at a cost equal to that of other predatory animals tags in the state .theywill be nothing more than a target of opportunity anyway don't make it more difficult than it needs to be.... Sam

Sam Schneider,  Soaplake 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. 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

I didn't mention this in my overall general comments, but it is worthwhile to note that wolves account comparatively for a very low number of livestock losses.

Dawne Adam,  Seattle 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

I agree with the minority report, Appendix D. The data and logic presented in this report is valid, logical, and appropriate. It should have received full recognition in the analysis and final decisions that were made. Instead it appears to have been the victim of a political process.

Nathan Putnam,  Glenwood WA

How dumb do we really have to go here...I think the "scientist" can figure out where I'm going with this?????




I do not believe that we have a critical wolf extinction situation in the Northwestern states and I do not believe that they should be listed as endangered in WA. They are migrating in from the "source populations" in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, and British Columbia and I do not see a need to build up a large wolf population and disperse statewide in Washington. However, the political facts are that they have been listed in Washington as endangered and we do have to address the issue. I think that we should at least minimize the potential disruptions and conflicts that will most certainly arise if large populations result from the preferred plan. (Alternative 2.) Therefore it seems that the minority proposal shown in Appendix D is a reasonable solution and meets all of the requirements to delist while giving the Department of Fish and Wildlife the ablility to manage the wolf population before they are out of control. Please do not let "political correctnes" over ride sound , scientifically based decisions.

Charles Dougherty,  Ellensburg 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

Don't introduce them, then they wouldn't have to be delisted.

Robert E Daharsh,  Woodinville WA

by the time they are delisted after all the law suits,it will be to late for our elk and deer herds,than what?

bruce oergel,  ellensburg WA

Wolves are a readily manageable species, but what's going to happen is they'll blow past recovery objectives in short order. The protest industry will block delisting for years, regardless of recovery objectives being met, surpassed, and then surpassed to great excess. The rural residents who will have to live with the wolves will be denied the ability to cope with them on in the scope and scale that will be needed because of the steel trap ban that's been imposed on the rest of the state by Seattle and the animal protest industry.

Fred Fouse,  Cusick WA



Pleased with the decision to maintain a population of wolves in Washington State however I am concerned over the numbers sought after and what influence economic interests may have had in their selection.

Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman WA

Lethal methods of control should be banned out right.

Kristi Hendrickson,  Seattle WA

I predict you will mismanage wolves just like cougars.

Raymond Borbon,  Kirkland WA

There is no room for wolves in washington. Please consider the loss of habitat, loss of revenue to decreased hunting opportunities, and public safety.

Michael Korenko,  Carson WA

again I ask why did we eradicate them years ago??


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


Keep wolves out of Washington!

Florence Wheeler,  Vancouver WA

Good information, presented very well.

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

native americans say "that when man destroys themselfs that the wolf will run free"

Gary Hemenway,  Hoquiam WA

I support the "Delisting" of the wolves and I think that a controlled hunt is good.

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

If you want to kill Children you are on the right track!

Larry Hill,  Brush Prairie WA

Anticipate the time all this will take including lawsuits. Wolf need to be big game and a hunting plan needs to be laid out now in anticipation of a long and expensive legal process (as is happening in Id, MT, etc)

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA

The WDFW is interested in maximum kill (unlimited tags) over a quality hunt. If you let wolves go, you will decrease your gross revenues at a time of major fiscal challenge.

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA