<< 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 3 (Section 3.2.4):


Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

Agree with this alternative. Allowed with an issued permit on private lands they own or lease when wolves reach sensitive status. Agree that this should only happen on private land.

Lisa Dabek,  Seattle WA

This is the alternative I favor.

James Raskob,  Everett WA

I support Alternative 3 in the plan because it provides the highest likelihood that wolves will be fully recovered in Washington State. The Department should increase the number of established breeding pairs before a delisting is proposed or provide a stronger evaluation of what measures can be taken to ensure that wolves will be able to move safely from northeast Washington to the Cascades.

Kristin Mitchell,  Seattle WA

I recommend this alternative.

Ann Soule,  

Alternative 3 is the BEST alternative. It should be selected over the preferred alternative, and all other proposals. 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. Also, all lethal options should be removed from alternative 3. Change it to provide more non-lethal technologies (which are available, btw) and a "better fence building" program for livestock owners and private citizens who own large groups of animals.


too many wolves for recovery


This should be the preferred alternative.

Joseph Pullara,  Port Angeles WA

Prefer this one

Sue Nattinger,  Port Angeles WA

As stated in the general comments, this is my preferred because it allows for the management of a more viable population of wolves and still takes into account the managment of cattle and ungulate populations. Integrating wolves into the State is going to cause some adjustment to our management of public lands. However I do not understand why the public needs to compensate for twice the value of kills nor for suspected loss without evidence of actual wolve kills. It is the responsibilty of the cattle owner to protect their cattle on public land-not the public. In order for wolves to survive in the state, it is necessary to have the cattle owners cooperation, but we do not have to manage the cattle allottments to guarantee the survivability of the cattle. They have to adapt their mangement of their cattle to land uses of the lands determined by the public.

Ray DePuydt,  Kettle Falls WA

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

This is the only really viable alternative for the state of Washington if you are trying to establish wolves in their historical environments. There is no way wolves will manage to move to the area without help due to the I-5 corridor. The Olympic peninsula is ideal. Adequate prey, small human population (relatively speaking), scant numbers of livestock, perfect habitat, especially in the Olympic national forest areas.

Hollie Kaufman,  Sequim WA

This if far and away my preference. I recongize the difficulty, as a result of modern development, for natural relocation to occur in the Olympics, so perhaps the target numbers in other regions should be set artificially high with the intention of translocating burgeoning populations within the State to the isolated verdure of the peninsula, where the wolves dearly belong.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

This is the Best alternative, for wolves and people. this plan will bring greater ecological benefits to the state. The compensation part strongly addresses the problem of wolf predation on live stock in a positive way. Because this alternative requires wolves on the Olympic peninsula it will provide ecological benefits to a greater portion of the state, as well as economic benefits through wolf watching.

Tristan Higgins,  Seattle WA

Will not work


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

I support Alternative 3, in that it is the most beneficial to the wolves. It provides for livestock depredation without lethal force and shows the most promise for wolf-human harmony while still promoting wolf recovery. Lethal use should be used only in extreme circumstances. Alternative 3 seems to acknowledge that the herds of large ungulates will not suffer seriously from increased wolf populations, as nature balances predator and prey numbers. Again, lethal force must not be used unless there is absolutely no other way to deal with the problem. While livestock protection is a goal, lethal force is certainly not the answer. The only downside I read was that it would take longer to re-establish viable wolf populations. Since the goal is long-term viability, hopefully throughout the state, I do not see this as a major problem. I support Alternative 3's plan to see wolf recovery throughout the state.


If the Olympic Peninsula is also included, this is clearly the Preferred Alternative--if creating and maintaining a sustainable wolf population across Washington is the overarching goal of the Conservation Plan.

Bruce Moorhead,  Port Angeles WA

This is my preferred alternative. Please consider implementing a Pacific Coast Recovery Region which would involve artificial relocation/reintroduction. The wolves of Vancouver Island would be prime candidates.

Ronald Pearson,  Seattle WA

no good

dale denney,  colville WA

Please choose Alternative 3 for the final plan. It is highly important that a long-term viable wolf population be established in Olympic N.P. in order to restore the ecoystem to it original and proper functioning and will help to ensure that the wolf population can be delisted. I support wolf translocation to the Olympic Peninsula as crucial to the delisting effort. The goal of 15 breeding pairs needed to delist the wolf from federal and state protections is too low. Scientists suggest 30 to 60 breeding pairs as a more realistic minimum number. By taking reintroduction (from out-of-state wolf populations) off the table, the draft plan severely limits the chances for recovering wolves on the Olympic Peninsula and in Olympic National Park. Naturally dispersing wolves from the Cascades will not survive crossing the I-5 population corridor. Only non-lethal methods, including translocation, should be used in dealing with "problem wolves" that interfere with livestock operations. Olympic National Park offers the best habitat, the largest unmanaged elk population, and the least chances for wolf-human conflicts in the state. Returning the park's keystone predator -- the only species missing from Olympic -- would benefit the entire ecosystem, from endemic Olympic marmots to streamside forests. And the presence of wolves would bring lasting economic benefits to surrounding Olympic Peninsula communities.

Margaret Woodward,  Port Angeles WA

I vote for this one. It seems a bit more kinder to helping wolves try to live here again.

Ginny Clerget,  Lacey WA

I support Alternative 3 because: 1) it has 4 recovery areas, not 3 (as in the "preferred alternative," Alternative 2. With 4 recovery areas, there will be a greater possibility of wolves being restored to Olympic National Park, a place that once had wolves, a place that is missing this one last predator (the fisher was recently re-introduced), a place where the wolf's recovery could be monitored, encouraged, and managed (as in Yellowstone National Park since 1995), a place where interactions with local cattle and sheep ranchers would be minimized compared with other parts of the state, and a place where the general public would have the opportunity to view wolves and thereby increase travel and tourism in gateway communities like Forks and Port Angeles; 2) it would result in more successful breeding pairs than other Alternatives; 3) it addresses landscape connectivity issues -- something that would be extremely important if wolves were relocated into Olympic National Park. Because of the "island" characteristics of Olympic National Park, the likelihood of wolves being able to migrate ion their own nto the Park is limited. Constant management would be needed to ensure that a healthy population of wolves could survive in the Park (healthy meaning that instances of inbreeding be minimized); 3) it encourages non-lethal management strategies to detur wolves from interacting with cattle, sheep, or domestic dogs; 4) it has the most generous compensation program for owners of cattle or sheep in the event wolf depridation occurs -- this will encourage greater public acceptance of wolf presence; 5) it would implement more options (as compared with Alternative 2) for wolf-ungulate interactions; and, 6) it places greater emphasis on public education than Alterantive 2. Public education will be vitally important to increase the possibility of public acceptance of wolves.

Ron Good,  Port Townsend WA

I think this alternative has the best chance of allowing wolves to have the ecological effect that I desire, e.g. altering the behavior of elk and perhaps allowing restoration of vegetation on the Naches Ranger District west of Yakima.

Matt Dahlgreen,  Wenatchee WA

I support Alternative 3 as more effective in getting wolf populations going on the Olympic Peninsula, and for the creation of a Pacific Coast recovery region as a requirement.

Liam Antrim,  Sequim WA

This is the best one, but needs to be improved as described in my introductory comments. I urge the managers to chose Alternative 3. Though the best plan, it needs to be improved by increasing the current goal of 15 breeding pairs to 30 to 60, as wolf experts have recommended. Furthermore, it should allow reintroduction of wolves from other states. Problem wolves that interfere with livestock should be managed by non-lethgal methods such as translocation.

Doris Cellarius,  Prescott AZ

I recommend choosing this Alternative, with the following comments: Boost the number of breeding pairs from 15 pairs to 60 pairs. Do not rely on natural dispersion of wolves from the Cascades; they are unlikely to survive crossing the heavily populated I-5 corridor. Use only non-lethal means to deal with any "problem" wolves.

Fred J Goebel,  Sheboygan WI

I support Alternative no.3. I would like to see wolves reintroduced to Olympic National Park. This is probably the best place for them. I could go on...

Charles LeBer,  Port Angeles WA

Preferred alternative -see general comments in previous section.

Dawne Adam,  Seattle WA

This alternative will best meet the needs of the Olympic, Pacific Coast region and will most assure success.

julie Jaman,  Port Townsend WA


Chris Herres,  Pomeroy WA

more stupidest


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

Too many regions and wolves.

Al Sherman,  Wenatchee WA

Alternative 3 is the most likely to achieve the objective of a viable wolf population reestablishing itsself in Washington State.

Jana Hobbs,  Kirkland WA

I want the most protection that the state can offer wolves as possible.

David Moen,  Oregon City OR

This one is my preferred alternative.

Jetta Hurst,  Auburn WA

wants the population levels to be to high and restircts the livestockk owners too much

Hans Hurlbutt,  Sedro Woolley WA



This appears to be the best alternative for Washington State, in that it would treat the Pacific Coastal area as a distinct recovery region. Specific translocation to the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest should be included in the preferred alternative. The lack of a vibrant cattle/sheep industry and abundant prey base (including exotic mt. goats) supports this position. Problem wolves from other states/areas should be translocated to the Olympics, because the wild game prey base is robust.

Scott Nicolai,  Ellensburg WA

I would like this alternative plan to be instated.

Charles Oueis,  Spokane WA

This alternative is the one with a greater chance of fulfilling the states objective. The numbers increase the diversity needed. I'd like this alternative be revisited.

Bill Liggett,  Eatonville WA

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


The rancher or farmer should have the right to kill any wolf that is on his land.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

I prefer the numbe of successful breeding pairs noted in this sectioon for progressing towards de listing.

Marcia avajas,  Bainbridge Island WA

I believe that this is the preferred alternative. WDFW needs to be on the leading edge when looking at conservation and either take a hard-line approach to this issue or none at all.

Karl Schulke,  Republic WA

Against it

Lee Davis,  Ellensburg WA

I prefer this alternative as the best of the options for the wolf population and the best reimbursement for wolf related predation to livestock

Jack Hirsch,  bellevue WA

I strongly support this alternative.

Mark Reblitz,  Woodinville WA

Alternative 3 would break the Southern Cascade area into two districts. These two districts; the Southern Cascade Recovery Region and the Pacific Coast Recovery Region each by themselves have more "suitable wolf habitat" as shown on map on Chapter 3, page 42. I believe this Alternative 3 better ensures self-sustaining populatons of gray wolves. The States proposal of 15 successuful breeding pairs or 5 successful breeding pairs per Recovery Region would need to be upgrade with four Recovering Regions to 20 successful breeding pair in the State. I also feel to help ensure the health populations the State should consider bringing in at least one reintroduced bleeding pair for each region. This means these pairs should come from outside the gene pool that is coming into the State through Idaho and British Columbia. This act of reindroduction should broaden the gene pool and so help ensure a self sustaining population of gray wolves.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

I support Alternative 3, in providing maximum support and protection to the gray wolf population in Washington state.

Ted Grudowski,  Seattle WA

Seems like the best alternative to me. Providing protection for the wolves is critical and having a 4th designated area is important.

Ann Christianson,  Bellingham WA

This is the Alternative I favor

Andrew Reding,  Port Townsend WA


Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

Best so far.

Eric Burr,  Mazama WA

This is the best alternative.

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

Agree with Alternative 3

Gayle Janzen,   WA

My personal preferred alternative, but likely to be perceived as unfreindly to ranchers/farmers/hunters/ etc.


This is my preferred alternative. I live on the Peninsula, and I want a focus on wolf reintroduction on the Peninsula

Joyce L Francis,  Port Townsend WA

No. Wolf recovery numbers are essentially meaningless, since they are just a starting point for lawsuits. Even if we had a goal of 1,000 wolves, the enviro's would still sue, and by the time the smoke cleared we would have 3,000 wolves, no elk or deer or cattle.

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA