<< 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 Compensation Programs for Wolf-Related Losses and Deterrence in Other States (Chapter 4.C):

NO WOLFS

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

i told you so

john gilbertson,  port angeles WA

Use of guns should be prohibited.

Ann Soule,  

These are well established and successful in other states.

Joseph Pullara,  Port Angeles WA

Depredation should be viewed by the ranchers as a necessary cost of doing business, an ethical standard and requirement, therefore they should not be reward with an immediate doubling of their investment in the event that a livestock loss occurs - this represents a potential for economic abuse with an incentive for making false claims or tyring to be overly clever in their beguiling.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

Not enough money.

dale denney,  colville WA

How do you think this will get funded in this economic state?

AnonymousClarkston WA

There should be a compensation program for ranchers

Diane Sonntag,  Tenino WA

way, way too expensive just so some eco-freak can say he saw a wolf

Duane Bernard,  Rainier OR

These programs must be funded.

Jennifer Molesworth,  Twisp WA

I believe that if wolves are to be shoved down our throats, then the Defenders of Wildlife should be expected to bear the entire cost of loss livestock losses, at the 2:1 level. To do otherwise would take already limited resources from wildlife management coffers.

Anonymous

More jobs for the relatives....

Anonymous

THEY MISS THE MARK BY A LONG WAY. AND FARMERS IN STATES WITH WOLVES ARE NOT HAPPY!!!!!

FRED S Chapman, Jr,  RAYMOND WA

Groups like the defenders of wildlife should cover 100 percent of the loss.

Anonymous

Why introduce a predator if losses are to be expected?

Robert E Daharsh,  Woodinville WA

I believe we should also be looking into the models that other nations provide on this issue, (eg: Isreal), as well as what tribal perspectives are about it since they have lived here much longer and in a different way with the wolf than we have.

David Moen,  Oregon City OR

big money

bruce oergel,  ellensburg WA

NO WOLVES

Anonymous

THERE IS NO COMPENSTION ENOUGH FOR LOSS OF LIVESTOCK OR DOMESTIC ANIMALS TO A WOLF

RYAN JERLES,  RAYMOND WA

Take care of problem wolves by allowing the rancher to remove them by means of hunting. Paying the rancher only gives immediate assistance, but doesn't take care of the problem when it arises. Deterrents are a waste of time and money and animals become used to such "scare-crow" tactics.

Mark Olis,  

LIBILITY OF THE STATE AND WOLVE SUPPORT GROUPS. Tax and licences for the individuals that want support for the return of the wolves Build a fund to pay damages for losses incured.

Tom Freeman,  Tonasket WA

The game department does not need to pay out any more money for dammage caused by wolfs.

Anonymous

In favor so long as sufficient evidence is produced from an impartial source that the loss was in fact wolf inflicted.

Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman WA

Underfunded and ineffective for most losses.

Jay Arment,  Spokane WA

Fair

Marcia avajas,  Bainbridge Island WA

Alternative 3 is fair

Jack Hirsch,  bellevue WA

washington state should disperse the same amount of money spent on wolf management to the victims of wolf killed animals

Anonymous

Good information.

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

what about the loss wild life Dont thy have a voice? as a hunter I will speak

doug carney,  ellensburg WA

Not by the Taxpayer.

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

Hmmm Missed this part

Anonymous

Be Ready to Pay and Pay. It hasn't worked in other states as the Funds run out and you have to reduces the population.

Larry Hill,  Brush Prairie WA

Give me a break. You have the resources to do the determination?

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA

Excellent

Thomas F McLaughlin,  Spokane WA