<< 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

General comments (Chapter 14):

Overall I believe that allowing Gray Wolf introduction, without being able to protect our property, will cost much more economically to our county and state, than any wildlife tourism will ever generate.

John P Nordheim,  Waitsburg WA

Thank you to all those who have worked on putting this plan together.

Kristin Mitchell,  Seattle WA

I believe bringing back wolves to the Olympic Mountains will bring balance to the environment and increase tourism for the ONP.

Jack Geer,  Port Angeles WA

We need to manage Washington regionally. Slow recovery in some areas should not slow management of quickly establishing (or overpopulating) in another area. Do not handcuff one region due to slow recovery in another!


Our state is broke. We shouldn't be spending any money on re-introducing wolves.


I cant see anything positive about wolves and the impact they will have in our state.


I feel that wolves have no place in our state. We are the smallest western state with regards to land mass and have the second highest human population. Our wildlife we all know and love will suffer by predatation from wolves. We already are seeing this increase from cougars. And there will be many confrontations from people and livestock owners. As a Washington resident all of my 51 years and a taxpayer, I do not want them here. Or at the very least they need to be managed from a biological standpoint and not from animal activists !!

Greg Hammond,  Camas WA

No comment.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

It appears a great deal of effort has been expended in reviewing options for wolf recovery. It is however distressing to have the comment meeting here in Sequim two days prior to modern rifle season for elk when most elk hunters including myself were out in the field. Several years ago Olympic penninsula residents voted NO Reintroduction of wolves. So you trumped up a new title. Trans-locate. Do you actually think these voters care where the wolves come from? I'm not a farmer but I am an elk hunter. Even translocating will probably not effect my hunting opportunity since I'm 66. I would support wolf recovery if it occurred naturally. I've seen what pressure does to elk herds on the penninsula. They gravitate into population areas. These conflicts with people will increase as wolves put more pressure on elk. Cougar this year killed several goats and sheep on the north penninsula, including seven of my neighbor sheep less than 1 mile from downtown Sequim. Preditor competition will further drive the elk into population centers. In addition, in this area if wolves do not locate naturally they will not maintain the diversity required to avoid inbreeding. Option 4 with no translocation is the best option for the Olympic Peninsula.

Michael P Shaw,  Sequim WA

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Again please reconsider changing the preferred plan and consider implementation of alternative 3.

Ronald Pearson,  Seattle WA

I support Alt 2 as the best pan to manage the wolves and protect our wild pop. and livestock. As a hunter I feel that hunting must be an option to control the wolf numbers.

Dave Harder,  Buckley WA

This plan is a joke and is forced upon Washhington in an unfair manner, the federal requirements do not require this many wolves in Washington.

dale denney,  colville WA

With the economy, goverment, costs, distruction of game & safe woods & agriculture. Are we absolutely NUTS ????

Gerald W Guhlke,  Reardan WA

This is a big plan with big ideas for management but the funding will not promit for compensation, or enough management to keep a close handle on the population. Get an economic statement for each county, they will hurt more then they will ever help.

AnonymousClarkston WA

I am your boss speaking . I pay your salary thru my taxes and by purchasing hunting and fishing licenses. YOUR FIRED! I cannot and will not support any introduction or reintroduction of wolves into my state. My hunting and fishing opportunities are steadily under attack from license fee hikes, loss of areas to recreate in, closed gates, closed roads, and now Wolves. I give up!

Robert Nelson,  Brush Prairie WA

My comments do not have to do with individual chapters. We have a cow/calf operation in the shadows of Mt. Spokane. We have been here since 1976. We share this area with deer, turkeys and elk and coyotes and cougar that the game department manages now. We have not been impressed in this management. Deer and turkeys are constant pests and especially in the winter. They damage crops and invade gardens and yards. When there are 30 to 40 deer in the alfalfa fields in March and April eating the emerging shoots it does critical damage to the stand and the current year's crop, too. We are not convinced the proposed management plan will protect us from wolf packs. We are also concerned that the parks department may use them as an excuse to close off more land in the park to public use and access.

Kathy Olmstead,  Chattaroy WA

Panel does an overall great job

James Maves,  Pomeroy WA

The recovery objective numbers of breeding pairs needed for down-listing and eventual delisting of wolves is too low to ensure a viable wolf population in WA. The lethal kill provisions for livestock owners and private citizens whose livestock or domestic dogs are attacked by wolves while wolves are in threatened or sensitive status are too liberal during the critical early phases of wolf recovery and could slow recovery. Translocation of wolves from areas within WA with healthy wolf populations to other areas to establish new populations is an important tool and will speed up the recovery and delisting process.

Wendy Young,  Bellevue WA

Wolf introduction - a total joke!

Keith Olson,  Quinault WA

In the depressed economy with no areas for potential for assistance in monies - lets just keep Alternative #4. Thank you / Bob Hester

Bob Hester,  Yakima WA

If we do have to have wolves like you say, then do favor the minority report...three pairs is better than 15.

Gary Nielsen,  Colville WA

Common Sense-Statewide, Open Season with No Bag Limit.

Daniel Haydon,  Creston WA

To bad you want to listen to the people that havent a clue, Should listen to the people that pay your wage,well we know we arent smart enough we are your lemming's of your world.


Collaborative efforts with Defenders of Wildlife and Conservation Northwest should be encouraged.

Dawne Adam,  Seattle WA

I am adamantly opposed to the plan as written. To pass it must consider and resolve the issues identified in Appendix D. Wolves have serious impacts on livestock, wildlife, the economy and human interactions. For real life examples talk to the citizens within the wolf recovery efforts in Arizona and New Mexico and their reactions to not being able to do anything except watch as wolves rip the guts out of their livestock while still alive. Check with impacts in Idaho and what the wolves have done to wildlife populations. Coyotes are gone, elk herds desimated. Idaho sells 30,000 out of state hunting licenses each year and is a big part of the economy. In 2009, 10,000 tags went unsold and the state lost 1/3 of the normal income from sales of these licenses due to drop in game populations from wolf predations. Recover wolves, but you don't need them wall to wall across the state! Make sure the plan considers all the points in Appendix D and especially a quick reaction to wolf problems and population numbers. Finally, don't be stupid and ignore history. A tremendous effort was made to stop wolves in early America because of their predation and impacts to human populations. This was done for fun but out of necessity to stop a serious problem. Do not pretend that we can now have the wolf back without the serious problems the have caused in history!

Wayne Vinyard,  Glenwood WA

I don't know what this is costing the tax payers, but i do know that it is a TOTAL waste of money.


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

This is the most ill conceived plan I have seen in a long time.How can you propose 15 breeding pairs in a time when alot of our big game herds are struggling. For instance the Blue mountain eik herd. We have just started a good come back and you want to let wolves take them down. I thought the WDFW and hunter were partners in game management .This is a slap in the face of hunters.


We have no room for wolfs, there was a reason why our fore fathers trapped and hunted them out. If nothing is done to keep them out, it will only be a matter of time before a human and heaven forbid a child is taken. Have you even seen how wolfs attach and eat their pray. CHECK IT OUT. NO WOLVES!!!!!!!


I believe if you look at all the negativity wolves bring to our beautiful state, it far out weighs the pros.

bruce oergel,  ellensburg WA

I understand that wolves were once a small part of our natural ecosystem here in the Willapa Hills. But at that time, our landscape constisted of old growth forest, few natural openings, and salt water marshes. Introducing wolves to our totally man-managed systems of farmland, dairy farming, clearcuts, and urban sprawl is too much of an unknown at this time. The costs to hunters, farmers, tax payers, and the WDFW budget are too great.

Darren Manlow,  South Bend WA





This "comment web link" is a perfect example the govenrment making things more complicated than the average person or businessman has time to or wants to take the time to complete. A comment for each line or paragraph? Do you really care what we want?


I am unlike 99.90% of your responders providing comment in that I have hunted, and annually trek north to Canada to hunt Timber Wolves in January and February of each year, and have done so for the last 7 years. The area I currently hunt with an outfitter is in two sections, which coincidentally cover the pack territory of the two packs which were LIVE TRAPPED for the Yellowstone introduction. Therefore, I hunt the SAME bloodline that is now coming to our state in increasing numbers. I am most concerned about two very important details - the failure of the Federal Govt. to live up to it's promises re: de-listing when the target populations are achieved (and providing timely, honest information to the public about true population estimates); and the ultimate impact on big game and some non game species. In the area I hunt in Alberta, there are endangered Woodland Caribou. The wolf predation (despite virtually unlimited hunting PLUS the large live trapping program in the mid 1980's) is poised to crash and anniliate this local population. The bug stuffers (biologists) have engineered the following program to deal with this problem: 1. The issued enough cow moose permits in the units to completely "crash" the moose population within 3 years; 2. They believe that they can starve wolf populations low enough by removing the primary food supply, and that will result in a "crash" of wolf numbers shortly thereafter. Here's the problem; its NOT WORKING. Yes, they destroyed a valued resource, and did crash the moose populations in any accessable areas hunters could reach - not not in any degree elsewhere. Wolves simply moved as they are programmed to do and found a new prey base. I do not want to see similar foolishness here, linked either to the woodland caribou which are mostly and Idaho issue, but frankly I don't want to endanger our moose or any other population by exposing them to wolf predation. Take a look at current harvest stats in Idaho and Montana and you will see the wolf hunting is being well managed by area, but not until AFTER the complete destruction of the valued elk migration hunt out of the Gallatin/Yellowstone. It is almost certain that those local herds will remain at or below biological goals and historic numbers (typically 1/3 of what was there a dozen years back)....I am not willing to make this trade off and would like smaller population targets and a faster, more streamlined approach to lethal control, or more preferrably selective permit based or general season (with harvest limit/triggers) hunting. Please take a little advise from somebody who has been down this road before and do not commit to making the same mistakes Fish & Wildlife did with the Montana, Wyoming and Idaho wolf "management". I am all for the concept of allowing and even encouraging the natural repopulation, maybe with tight controls some very limited re-introduction of wolves. But not without lower triggers on control/hunting and a full and honest accouting of what this is all going cost in terms of not just $ expense, not just depredation losses (+compensation) but also in terms of LOST HUNTING OPPORTUNITY. Please consider these comments from the heart based on a reality approach. No more intellectual dishonesty and manipulation driven by politics please!

Stuart Turner,  West Richland WA

I was hunting Elk during moder rifle (2009) . One night about 1:00am thw wolfes came to my camp and tryed to run off my horse . I was able to come him down and I did not shoot at them . If he would of ran off and they were to use him for pry . What is a person to do ?

Frank Mcintyre,  Deer Park WA

This is not about pleasing people... it is about protecting wildlife... DO NOT INTRODUCE WOLVES.


Who wrote this thing? Evidently not anyone who truely cares about the future of our wildlife. You belong in Washington DC!


I do not support actively re-establishing wolves in Washington State. I would favor Alternative 4 and let nature take its course within the existing environment and existing land uses without intervention.

Steve Hanson,  Wenatchee WA

Hunters pay for the bulk of the Game Dept programs and personnel funding. Kill off the wildlife by introducing more wolves, and funding will CRASH!

Jay Arment,  Spokane WA

I look forward to the day when I can actually hear a wolf (or pack) howling in the wild. I own some recreation property near Ione Washington, I hope it is just a matter of years before this might be a reality!

Steve Solberg,  Spokane Valley WA

If the truth could be learned, which I dought I would guess wolves will have very little to no economic impact on the the State of Washington. Yes they will change what ungulates do and how ranchers manage their livestock.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

Again the information that you are using for Idaho on Wolf impacts is dated, incorrect and inaccurate. Significant changes have occurred in 2009 and will continue for years. Just pull up the IDFG website and you will see. What you have printed are falsehoods. I really think you have done somewhat of a disservice to the Washington public. You have deemphasized or stated incorrectly the tremendous negative impacts of wolf introduction. I have already stated it before I will one last time the wolves will significantly alter negatively the future of hunting in Washington it is has in Idaho and will here to


NO wolves on the Olympic Peninsula. NO wolves in Washington State. You folks are wasting valuable resources wrangling about this insane proposal. You have FAR BETTER things you could be focusing on. Like salmon enhancement. The LAST thing we need is wolves in our backyards, for God's sake!!!!!!

Ken Henshaw,  Sequim WA

WA wolf plan needs to complement & extend OR's wolf plan- as your habitat is prime & public support is good! Extirpated in the 1930's- 2 present breeding pairs (is great call for celebration! )- key improvements are vital to ensure recovery- where #'s are stable & populations enough to ensure wolf's to play top predator role- for ecosystem balance & health & ^ economy ( & all your comments above ). 15 breeding pairs is way too low for this. Pacific Coast needs it's separate recovery goals. Eliminate "caught in the act" killing provision for livestock owners ( esp. during endangered & threatened phas of recovery)- ^ history of poaching/misuse ("shovel & shut-up"). Invest in non-lethal deterrent methods & compensation (effective) approaches in the arly stages. Support translocation of wolves to speed recovery by establishing implementaion mechanisms & funding scedule in the plan. Your attention to this most urgent matter would be much appreciated by all present & future generations of all species! Remember- you work for widlife- not cows!- Do your job! Thank you

Lydia Garvey,  Clinton OK

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


INFORMATION AND EDUCATION are not enough!!!!!!!!We should mobilize every one to help wolves!help wolves!don't be selfish,,they're lives! MAKE LITTLE EFFOERT WILL CREATE BIG DIFFERENCE! JUST STAND OUT AND COMMENT! THE WOLVES NEED OUR HELPS! Although I am a Chinese.I am Hong Kong people,I still care abou animals and wolves! How about people living in America,in Washington ? Help! Hope? Hurry!

kun chi lam aileen,  hong kong

PLEASE....keep wolves out of Washington!

Florence Wheeler,  Vancouver WA

My comments regarding Washington wolves reintroduction plan. As a long time conservationist, zookeeper, and citizen, I strongly 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. This insures a natural balance in our fragile and damaged ecosystem. There are quite a few non lethal and extremely affective options that would deter wolves from livestock. These options would require cooperation from the local ranchers and in this way that helps them to be aware and involved in wildlife management. As we all should be. Thank you so much, Stacey Cooper

stacey cooper,  seattle WA

Things I sure never thought about.

Lois Neuman,  Vancouver WA

I do not want wolves to inhabit the Okanogan National Forest or any other areas in Washington State.

Mark Timmerman,  Tonasket WA

Reintroduction--the sooner the better

Barbara Keevil Parker,  Everett WA

One other thing... I guess I would say 15 breeding pairs seems to be too little for full de-listing. What about 20 pairs?


Eliminate them as they are non-native species and are a dangerous creature at best. Look at the states that got duped into trying to introducing these grey wolves. It doesn't work!

Larry Hill,  Brush Prairie WA

Leave the wolves alone. Get the State out of the wildlife management business. Taxpayers can not afford it. Wolves should be allowed to rehabitate their land which we have taken from them. They should not be delisted until such time as they have thoroughly re-established themselves throughout the state. Years should be given for ecosystems to adjust to their presence. The ecosystems will self-regulate themselves and adjust to their presence. Leave the humans alone to deal with it. Wildlife and their ecosystems are too important to all of our continued existence on the planet to regulate in such a manner. Our current civilization is far afield to what our earth and people need. Get back to basics.

Teresa Fox,  Bremerton WA

Update economic impacts annually as info comes in from other states.

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA