WDFW LogoWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife
  HELP | EMPLOYMENT | NEWS | CONTACT  
WDFW LogoConservation

Washington Department of
Fish & Wildlife

Main Office
Natural Resources Building
1111 Washington St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501
360-902-2200
Get Directions

Mailing Address
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Phil Anderson
Director

 

 

<< 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 alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis (Section 3.1):

NO WOLFS

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

I support alternative 1A.

Jim Sizemore,  Centerville WA

I support the minority opinion.

Anonymous

who's going to keep track of all these wolves and whos going to pay for the tracking of them??? Let me guess Washington Hunters......Kind of Ironic beings that most hunters don't care to have wolves introduced at all.

Johnny Rebel,  East Wenatchee WA

No comment.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

Please see comments from Washington Cattlemen's Association. I agree with them. Reconsider Alt. 1A, presented by WCA and others signing the minority opinion from the WWG. Will WDFW have enough funding to study wolves and know when the threshold of BP's is reached or will we end up with more than enough BP's ahead of delisting and not have the necessary means to manage wolves through compensation to livestock producers from depredation? Will WDFW have the funds to manage another large carnivore?

Anonymous

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

The minority position was not included as an option.

dale denney,  colville WA

Ranchers should never be allowed to send their livestock out to feed for months, unattended.

Ginny Clerget,  Lacey WA

The only alternative worth considering is document 1A

Jess Kayser,  Centerville WA

why bring wolves back to this state we have plenty of cats and bears to keep elk and deer heards in check

gary Ryan,  sekiu WA

I think wolf reintroduction should be put to a vote of the people in the areas where they will likely re-establish themselves. Why is it mandatory that we have them here?

Anonymous

What is the difference between "translocation" into a new area vs. importing wolves from another state...who cares where they come from...a reintroduction is a reintroduction. Why not just let the wolves do in WA what they have done in Wyo, Montana and Idaho...expand naturally, but monitor what is going on with the populations.

Dave Mack,  Renton WA

Self-serving list. It appears that the staff wants lots of funding from now into who knows when to"baby-sit" wolves to ensure they reach "sustainable" levels. Who REALLY knows what that takes? We have other priorities -- HUMANS

AnonymousSequim WA

Alternatives 2 and 4, regarding lower target number and fewer years to achieve recovery objectives should certainly not have been eliminated

Nathan Putnam,  Glenwood WA

NO WOLVES

Chris Herres,  Pomeroy WA

stupid

Anonymous

Nowhere is there a quantity assigned to how many wolves constitute a self sustaining population. When I met with the biologist in Idaho they stated that the alpha pair were the breeding pair in a pack of wolves. That being the case, then "15 breeding pairs" as stipulated in the alternatives section of the background is an unacceptably high number since essentially that would translate to 15 packs. Another issue of concern to me is when I met with management officials in Montana's Bitterroot Mtns they stipulated that they had no real way to accurately count the amount of wolves they had other than doing some "howl surveys", trail cams, and aerial counts none of which were very accurate and depended upon the liberal use of formulas, etc to determine "possible" or "probable" populations. I submit based upon my own personal observations that the Selkirks, Blue Mtns and Sawtooth Wilderness area of Chelan all ready have a sustaining population, that the state could de-list them statewide and deal with the conflicts as they have all ready proposed and/or open a limited opportunity (permit season) on them to manage their numbers. Restoring wolves to "historic" populations is an absurd concept in that today biologist cannot accurately count the amount of wolves in Idaho, Montana, Canada, Alaska, etc... how do we really know what they were years ago? And what constitutes "historic" levels? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years ago? What was the amount of undeveloped land within Washington at any of those times? What was the human population? It makes no sense to generate a wolf population to a supposed "historic level" unless somehow you are going to also set aside the amount of land "historically available" or reduce the human population to that same "historic" time period. It is an absurd alternative.

Al Schultz,  Port Orchard 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

"there are no federal or state plans to reintroduce wolves into washington"

dylan peterson,  federal way WA

NO WOLVES

Anonymous

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

Anonymous

Do not release any more wolves into this state.

Kevin Wolf,  Lacey WA

no longer taking deposits from hunters because the wolves have reduced the Northern Yellowstone elk herd to the point that Jake can not in clear conscience take the hunters money. Washington State only produces marginal opportunity for sportsmen today. I am a native of this state. My father was a logger. I have hunted in Washington since the age of 12, that is 48 years total. I am now 60 years old. The WDFG has in the last 10 years started in the right direction with management of the elk herds. This state is returning to the point it was when I was young. I would just as soon spend the thousands if dollars that I spend annually on elk hunting in the state of Washington. Why would this initiative even be considered ? Is it to support those that never enter the back country ? Is it being considered because it's the politically correct thing to do ? If the plan is implemented it has only one outcome, decimation of our elk herds by a predator that cannot be controlled. Selective management through sport hunting can be controlled ... depredation by wolves cannot. I am reaching the end of my hunting life but I would like to see the opportunity passed on to the generations that follow. I wish this form allowed for the review and editing of my comments, but it doesn't. Hopefully you have gotten my point, Sincerely, Don Rose

L. Don Rose Jr,  Enumclaw WA

Do not allow the wolves to recover. Wolves are very distructive to the other big game species of this state. Do not bring any wolves from any other state. THe existing wolves should be hunted like Idaho. THis will provide another set of tags as a revenue generation for the State of Washington.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

If you send me a full copy of your proposal--I believe that you stated that you had a disk copy- perhaps then I could comment, I cannot comment when I do not have the information in front of me. Please send a disk copy to Lorraine Kile 11604 Highway 97a, Wenatchee, Wa. 98801

Lorraine Kile,  Wenatchee WA

If you send me a full copy of your proposal--I believe that you stated that you had a disk copy- perhaps then I could comment, I cannot comment when I do not have the information in front of me. Please send a disk copy to Lorraine Kile 11604 Highway 97a, Wenatchee, Wa. 98801

Lorraine Kile,  Wenatchee WA

Page 14, Line 26 Setting targets for delisting at some level lower than 15 successful pairs breeding pairs is irrespondsible. Area like Yellowstone National Park shows that entire packs can vanish in less than a year. Lesser numbers of successful pairs of breeding pairs in each area would not ensure the States stated in the Draft's purpose.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

None

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

I believe killing wolves for the sake of boosting ungulate numbers to satisfy sport hunters should not be allowed. Ranchers should be reinbursed for any wolf kills but should take better measures to co-exist with wolves such as: burying their dead livestock deeper and more efficiently, hiring ranch rider or guard dog, red flagtry, "noise" stations, and building better fences.

Michael Heath,  Whitestown IN

I support Alternative 1, Lethal Control

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

Agree that those alternative should be eliminated.

Anonymous

No wolves! Please!

Mark D Smith,  Battle Ground WA

No reason to delay, bring back 1080!!

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA