<< 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 Alternative 1 (Section 3.2.3):

NO WOLFS

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

This is woefully inadequate

Lisa Dabek,  Seattle WA

The Section 'Lethal control by livestock owners (including family members and authorized employees) of wolves involved in repeated livestock depredations' is unacceptable in ANY alternative, especially on public lands. Private citizens are not in a position to determine the origin of livestock deaths. You can't just guess or assert that a wolf is responsible and then kill a wolf, or a pack.

JULIAN RUSSELL,  BRISTOW VA

too many wolves for recovery

Anonymous

I strongly prefer this alternative for two reasons: (1) the inclusion of the requirement that wolves be present in the Pacific Coast Recovery Region before the species can be downlisted and delisted, and (2) the more generous and reasonable compensation package provided for cases of confirmed and probable depradation. The latter provision is likely to make the overall plan more acceptable to those individuals who oppose reintroduction.

Charles Wilkinson,  Seattle WA

This is unnacceptable.

Joseph Pullara,  Port Angeles WA

No

Sue Nattinger,  Port Angeles WA

If I had to pick one, this would be the one. But I still don't like it.

Johnny Rebel,  East Wenatchee WA

Completely useless in regards to the downlisting criteria, however I tend to prefer alternative 3's stringent approach toward livestock depredation. Why pay more than market value and encourage economic abuse. Surely the rancher would be warm, even ecstatic to the notion of a quick doubling of his investment.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

This alternative dose not provide for healthy self sustaining population of wolves in Washington. The compensation part is poor and dose not try to fix the problem of wolf predation on live Stock. The management section of this alternative has no focus on coexisting with wolves.

Tristan Higgins,  Seattle WA

This alternative will be a more viable option,there will be more unknown pairs than taken into account.I also believe that the compensation should be written the same as alt 2.

AL SHERMAN,  WENATCHEE 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

the best option next to the minority position.

dale denney,  colville WA

If I must vote for a plan, it is Plan #1, but I feel wolves are not needed in the state or on the Olympic Peninsula in particular.

Jerry Doyle,  Port Angeles WA

Never ever lethal killings by chasing wolves and shooting them from helicopters. Use hiking

Ginny Clerget,  Lacey WA

This is the alternative that looks the best out of the four, but would prefer no wolves introduced into Washington State.

Brad Cameron,  Centerville WA

I support Alternative one.

Stephanie George,  Newport WA

We prefer this alternative because we believe the wolves need this lever of protection to assure recovery.

Kathleen Fisher,  Shoreline WA

We prefer this alternative because we believe the wolves need this lever of protection to assure recovery.

Frank Fisher,  Shoreline WA

Alternative 1 should be used to manage these animals

Anonymous

Of any of the "preferred" alternatives this would be the least of all evils.

Nathan Putnam,  Glenwood WA

NO WOLVES

Chris Herres,  Pomeroy WA

stupidest

Anonymous

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

On the 15 pairs to delist I believe it should be left at 6 pairs with a two consecutive year history. On compensation I think it should be the same as Alt 3.

Al Sherman,  Wenatchee WA

Alternative 1 is not a wolf recovery plan, it is a varmint control plan. Wolves are a necessary component in a healthy ecosystem, not just an annoying varmint.

Jana Hobbs,  Kirkland WA

I do not agree with this approach.

David Moen,  Oregon City OR

This is the most sensible of the four alternatives. I disagree with requiring 15 pairs to delist. it is well known that the counting of breeding pairs ALWAYS under counts the actual number of wolves in a given area. These animals should be delisted when the count gets to 6 breeding pairs as there will actually be from 10 to 15 pairs actually in the region. Regasrding proactive measures. First, WDFW staff will be increasingly unavialable going forward as this is nota high priority and reduced staff will insure very little help will be available. Additionally, the proactive measures are not effective. A simple review of the recent experience in eastern Oregon should make this conclusion obvious. Lethal control by livestock owners should be allowed in all listed statuses. Wolf-ungulate conflict management. Allowed for all statuses.

John Roscoe,  Brush Prairie WA

I believe this is the best plan...However I think that given a wolf pack can have more than one breeding pair 15 BPs are too many. There were 2 different litters born from the same "pack" but only the Alfa BP counts. Wolves will spread in the face of lethal control. Idaho's hunting season is nearly over and they have only killed approximately 100 for the 200 wolves they have allotted. Using lethal force early on to protect livestock and pets will keep wolves in the woods and help prevent human conflict, by "TRAINING" wolves to stay away.

jason bolser,  

this is the one to use, but let livestock producers use lethal action as needed, not once or twice then take the right to protect their assets away.

Hans Hurlbutt,  Sedro Woolley 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

The objective should only be one recovery zone not four.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

Glad it's not preferred!

Marcia avajas,  Bainbridge Island WA

Against it

Lee Davis,  Ellensburg WA

needs 4 regions due to habitat and human population differerences

Rick Turvey,  Yakima WA

Alternative 1 is biologically poor for gray wolves.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

Opposed to this

Andrew Reding,  Port Townsend WA

None

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

Not good enough, counter-productive.

Richard Hernandez,  Kirkland 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

Am against lethal control of wolves

Gayle Janzen,   WA

I support Lethal Control and Sterilization

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

Too restrictive

Anonymous

This is almost as bad as doing nothing.

Joyce L Francis,  Port Townsend WA

This should be the preferred alternative. Keep required recovery numbers as low as possible, because this is just a Starting Point for the inevitable lawsuits that follow. Look at the Rocky Mtn states. They have had excess wolves for years, but all the lawsuits have delayed delisting. The goal should be make wolves big game animals asap.

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA