<< 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 Selection of the Preferred Alternative (Section 3.3):

NO WOLFS

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

Although I appreciate why Alternative 2 is the "preferred alternative" and it tries to accommodate a variety of concerns about wolf recovery - I support Alternative 3.

Kristin Mitchell,  Seattle WA

The preferred alternative may achieve defensive litigation objectives for the unnatural scope of this project. However, it is a recommendation to create a base wolf population which is for practical purposes impossible to manage. Nor accurate method to determine when the minimum population has been achieved.

David Willson,  North Bend 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

I believe that the issue of wolf-livestock conflict is given too much precedence in the decision process. Livestock depredation should be expected and designed as a given within the business plans of the ranchers. Provide tax incentives so that the ranchers can modify their business practice, but do not let them squander this opportunity.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

Too many BP's for delisting. I don't beleive that WDFW will having the funding or man power to mange 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

Alternative 3 is my Preferred Alternative. I want to watch wolves in Olympic National Park. Alternative 3 provides the best protections for wolves, including restoring them to the vitally important Pacific coastal range, and will give these animals the best chance for long-term survival in wild lands in Washington. I Support Alternative 3

Pavel Reich,  Prerov country unkn

Dismantle Wildlife services. They seem to enjoy their jobs too much in the helicopters

Ginny Clerget,  Lacey WA

If the preferred alternative would prevent wolf reintroduction it should be selected. If another alternative prohibits their introduction it should be the preferred alternative.

Rich James,  Port Angeles WA

NO WOLVES

Chris Herres,  Pomeroy WA

and almost the most 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

Verbiage is too complicated

Al Sherman,  Wenatchee WA

NO WOLVES

Anonymous

inadequate numbers

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

Anonymous

ALternative 4 should be the perferred alternative.

Jim Rubert,  Puyallup WA

Please select alternative 4 as preferred.

Jay Arment,  Spokane WA

no action needed

Anonymous

I agree "Alterantive 3 places the greatest emphasis on the protection and resortation of wolves in Washington..." I disagree the making of four Recovery Regions has less emphases on wolf-livestock conflicts. The Olympic Pennisula and the greater St. Helens area have the greats populations of ungulates. I am farely sure the National Forest Services and National Park Services area in these Recovering Regions do not allow grassing of livestock. Also the scientific studies I have seen show wolves improve the health of ungulant populations

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

I beieve that this is the plan that the state should use for wolf management

Warren D Gimlin,  East Wenatchee 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

Seems to take care to balance restoration of wolves with the people living in those areas. I agree that putting the Pacific Coast region in with the South Cascades. I think it will take a long time for wolves to re-populate that region (barring re-introduction)

Anonymous

No translocation!!! The goal of each plan should be to make wolves big game animals under state management ASAP. The economic impacts are laughably low. The economic impact section of this plan needs updated annually as data comes in from other states.

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA