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 Alternative 4 (No-action Alternative)(Section 3.2.5):

NO WOLFS

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

please think of the deer and elk

john gilbertson,  port angeles WA

Not acceptable at all.

Lisa Dabek,  Seattle WA

This alternative is the 2nd to worst choice. It should not be considered.

JULIAN RUSSELL,  BRISTOW VA

This is unnacceptable.

Joseph Pullara,  Port Angeles WA

No

Sue Nattinger,  Port Angeles WA

No action is not an option, our wolves need protection.

Kaitlin Krhounek,  Seattle 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

No comment, as alternative 4 does not hold any merit as a viable solution.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

There must be a plan in place. Look at Alt. 1A, as presented by Washington Cattlemen's Association.

Anonymous

This alternative is the most likely to cause failure of wolf recovery in washington state.

Art Swannack,  Lamont 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

Should not be considered

Joe Sheeran,  Ellensburg WA

no good

dale denney,  colville WA

Wish radio-collars would not be worn. They are death sentences for wolf by "Wildlife Service".

Ginny Clerget,  Lacey WA

The only obvious choice, but can have minor enhancements in the wolves 'range' area.

Bob Hester,  Yakima WA

THIS IS THE BEST PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE. THESE ANIMALS WERE REMOVED YEARS AGO FOR A REASON. WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH THE SPIKE IN THE COUGAR POPULATION AFTER THE REMOVAL OF DOG HUNTING (OF WHICH YOU HAD TO REMOVE 2 COUGAR FROM OUR LAND A FEW YEARS BACK DUE TO LIVESTOCK LOSS AND LACK OF FEAR OF HUMANS) SO IN SHORT THE SAME ISSUES WILL COME UP WITH THE WOLVES. I THINK IT IS A POOR JUDGEMENT CALL TO PUT ME AS A SMALL PARCEL RANCHER AND THE GENERAL RECREATING PUBLIC AT RISK AS WELL AS OUR FRAGILE WILDLIFE POPULATIONS THAT ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE LEVELS YOU CLAIM THEM TO BE. THE REVENUE SPENT AND WASTED ON JUST THE TIME TO DRAFT THIS PLAN UP COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER SPENT ELSEWHERE PERHAPS ON RESEARCH AND BIOLOGIST THAT HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHY THE DEPARTMENT SEEMS HELL-BENT ON KNOCKING DEER AND ELK POPULATIONS INTO THE BASEMENT BY ALLOWING OVER HUNTING IN HIGHLY COVETED PERMIT AREAS AND GENERAL DEER AND ELK UNITS. NOW YOU WANT TO PUT WOLVES IN THESE AREAS??? SORRY FELLAS BUT THIS SOUNDS JUST LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR PISS POOR MANAGEMENT IDEAS PROPOSED SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND IN YOUR NICE DRY OFFICES INSTEAD OF STRAPPING ON YOUR BOOTS AND GOING OUT TO FIND OUT HOW DETRIMENTAL THIS WOULD BE!!! THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ALTHOUGH I FEAR YOU WILL CAVE TO THE PRESSURE OF A FEW AND CARRY OUT YET ANOTHER BAD IDEA... [Posted by 216.227.103.59 via http://algart.net/ww This is added while posting a message to avoid misuse. Try: http://webwarper.net/webwarper.exe Example of viewing: http://www.webwarper.net/ww/www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=%2b0vnE3WLkHBoFZolPT9rsA%3d%3d ]

taylor ,  

NO WOLVES

Chris Herres,  Pomeroy WA

even more 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

Not ACCETTABLE

Al Sherman,  Wenatchee WA

Alternative 4 merely puts off making decisions about wolf recovery until conflicts occur. It is better to be proactive.

Jana Hobbs,  Kirkland WA

I do not agree with a non-active, passive approach.

David Moen,  Oregon City OR

I strongly believe this to be the best plan

bruce oergel,  ellensburg WA

Not an option, the wolves need to be managed and livestock producers need to be able to use letahl action as needed

Hans Hurlbutt,  Sedro Woolley WA

NO WOLVES

Anonymous

We definitely cannot just do nothing. Wolves are a reality today in our back yards and need to be managed and accounted for.

Charles Oueis,  Spokane WA

Such an alternative is unacceptable and is inconsistent with appropriate carrying out of the agencies concerned duty to the public to perform in a sound manner.

Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman 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

Anonymous

Provide tags as a method for revenue generation.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

I would favor no action as the most natural alternative.

Steve Hanson,  Wenatchee WA

Alternative 4 presents the least harmful of the 4 alternatives presented.

Jay Arment,  Spokane WA

Glad it's not preferred.

Marcia avajas,  Bainbridge Island WA

Because your down listing and delisting numbers are too high this is my prefered choice.

Lee Davis,  Ellensburg WA

This is, at this time, the only option worth considering.

Kenneth Nilson,  Silverdale WA

no good

Rick Turvey,  Yakima WA

No-action is not a politically resondsable alternative, since the gray wolf is already returning.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

Opposed to this

Andrew Reding,  Port Townsend WA

I most certainly would agree with alternative 4, and let nature and nature migration deal with the wolf issue.

Jim Mason,  Montesano WA

None

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

Not good enough

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

I 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

Frank Deering,  Seattle WA

Action is very important.

Teresa Selby,  Bonney Lake WA

The standard no-action. I like how the wolves remain listed as endangered, but not useful for forming a proactive wolf management plan.

Anonymous

Absolutely unacceptable

Joyce L Francis,  Port Townsend WA