<< 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


Yes I have hunted in this state all my life.I am 57 and have never seen or heard of a wolf in this state.I have read several comments from other states the lack of game because of wolf population.They kill farmers cattle and other domestic animals.Make it short.I am totally against wolfs in Washington and if this becomes a threat to my hunting area I will hunt the wolf to and quit buying a license in my home state.What a fool thing to do asking for trouble.

Jim Steveson,  Vader WA

We need to look at better way of inhancing wildlife, introducing wolves is a step in the wrong direction! Talk to Idaho and they will tell you what a mistake it is.

Rick ,  Centralia WA

The Executive Summary is a balanced summary but does not clearly indicate differences between alternatives 2 and 3. I am pleased that translocation is included in the preferred alternative (2) but feel strongly that that tool is absolutely necessary for establishment of a wolf population on the Olympic peninsula, and that the inclusion of the Pacific Coast Recovery Region must be part of the plan.

Charles Wilkinson,  Seattle WA

There appears to be an inconsistent relationship between building tolerance and permitting liberal lethal managment options.

Sean V Owen,  Seattle WA

Please consider Alt 1A, as presented by the Washington Cattlemen's Association.


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

Having only 15 pairs of mating gray wolves is too small and should be increased to 30 pairs.

Joe Sheeran,  Ellensburg WA


Ty Brown,  Naches WA

Lethal removal should be allowed at any time for depredating wolves.

dale denney,  colville WA

We all know that wolves are in Washington State and more will be coming. Dealing with the wolves is just something that we'll have to deal with. My concern is with managing the wolves. We need to keep the breeding pairs to a lower number so that the wolves may be managed. I'm worried that if we get to many wolves wild game such as deer and elk will be decimated. After deer and elk numbers are to low wolves will be going after livestock. Plus if the deer and elk populations are low will hunters still have a hunting season? This could mean the state will be losing money from hunters who won't want to hunt anymore because deer and elk populations will be to low for hunting.

Jay Renwick,  Ellensburg WA

Please do not use the "3 strikes and you are out program", ruined Mexican wolves survival.

Ginny Clerget,  Lacey WA

I strongly support efforts to fully restore wolves to Washington State. It is heartbreaking that the Emerald State has been deprived of wolves since the extensive wolf extermination campaigns of the late 1800s eliminated these magnificent animals from Washington, and I was very happy to learn that two packs have made their way back to eastern Washington. These packs -- and the wolves that may someday follow -- represent a golden opportunity for Washington to fully restore wolves to their rightful place in the beautiful wild spaces of Washington, including the coastal range. Historically, wolves have not only played an important role in balancing ecosystems in Washington, they also figure prominently in Washington's rich cultural heritage, particularly in the creation stories of the Quileute Native American tribe of coastal Washington. 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. Wolves have just returned to Washington. This is not the time to contemplate killing them off again. As the state considers the fate of wolves in Washington, I strongly urge you to recognize the important value -- not to mention potential tourism dollars from wolf enthusiasts like myself -- that wolf restoration efforts will bring to the state of Washington if these magnificent animals are allowed to return to their former home. Thank you for considering my comments.

Eileen Hennessy,  Melrose MA

We should not be handcuffed by the four alternatives. Additional flexibilty and adaptive management would be helpful for state managers making decisions with wolf management.

Stephanie George,  Newport 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

it is biased

Duane Bernard,  Rainier OR

See previous general comments on DEIS.

Bob Hester,  Yakima WA

I will support the minority report and urge the commission to strongly consider it.

Gary Nielsen,  Colville WA

dont like anything to do with wold recovery or introducing them to the state or olympics

gary Ryan,  sekiu WA

Dog- wolf interactions: Wolves that defend themselves from domestic dogs on public lands should not be punished.

Jennifer Molesworth,  Twisp WA

I have been hunting the dayton unit 162 during the late hunt for cow elk on non national forest land area 1010. The wolves have moved in and every day I have hunted I have cut their tracks. With such a limited winter range these animals are in great danger. What are we as hunter, and you, as people choosen to manage our game going to do about this problem? If we don't act now and manage the wolf we will see the end of the Blue Mt. elk herd in a matter of 10 yrs. Act now or it's going to be to late.


None of the alternatives are agressive enough to control wolf populations to tolerable levels.

Daniel Haydon,  Creston WA


roger mcmillan,  colville WA

I do not believe the state of Washington needs wolves. We are loosing a lot of land to development. Our deer and elk can not stand another preditor. Thank You David Thompson

David W Thompson,  Cle Elum WA


AnonymousSequim WA

Option #3 should be the preferred option to assure success in establishing needed wolf populations

julie Jaman,  Port Townsend 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

Translocation of wolves for the purpose of establishing new populations is the last thing that the WDFW should be promoting. If it was "broadly supported" by members of the Working Group it was only through a vast amount of arm twisting.

Nathan Putnam,  Glenwood WA

Stupid Stupid Stupid. I can't believe tax money is being wasted this way.


Re: "Improved habitat management" is a vague term with no substance. Currently elk populations are in decline in the Mashel Unit, and starving in the St Helens area even without the introduction of wolves. Same can be said of the Olympic elk herd. I would like to see in writing specifics for how WDFW intends to "improve habitat management". At the public hearings and in the executive summary these catch phrases are tossed about with no specifics. Additionally, "habitat management" often translates into reduced access for sportsmen, permit only areas, reduced seasons, etc, this is unacceptable coming from a state that all ready manages its big game seasons to provide less opportunities and more restrictions than neighboring states and provinces. At this juncture there does not appear to be any evidence that elk, deer and other ungulate populations can support the increased predation when herd sizes have not significantly increased in the past decade in any region due to winter kill, habitat loss, hunting, predation, disease, etc... prior to the addtion of a self sustaining wolf population.

Al Schultz,  Port Orchard WA

I didn't read anything in this summary about hunting wolves. These animals need to be hunted just like any other species.


If the goal of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife is to protect and preserve wildlife for the benefit of current and future generations, specifically focusing on the issue of wolves native to Washington State, the only plan that makes sense is plan #3.

Daniel Lavin,  Seattle WA

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

Who gets to pick the purpose? Why must we do this? And what is the number of wolves that the state ultimately wants to call this a success. The number of breeding pairs to get delisted is one thing, but how many must we have? Is it a pair per 1000 acres of habitat? 2 pairs? You aren't telling the whole story unless you provide that.

Corey Watson,  Auburn WA

see previous answer

Chris Heitstuman,  Uniontown WA

The idea that there is an environmental impact statement when WDFW is saying that no wolves will be relocated has no merit. The only reason for an environmental impact statement would be if WDFW has intentions of impacting the environment as it is today.

Charles Olney,  Yakima WA

I would prefer the most protection possible for wolves in the state (alt. 3) as well as an education and community component to handle livestock issues. I would prefer models built on the community based models that exist for farmers and wolves in states that have been working out this balance for many years (eg: MN, MI).

David Moen,  Oregon City OR

Lines 30-43 about trans location. I believe that wolves are here to stay in washington. I do NOT think trans location is a good idea, yet it is a part of every plan. wolves travel great distances up to 700 miles according to an Idaho study... Since they currently exist in the north cascades they have the ability to travel south through wild areas unimpeded.

jason bolser,  

This does seem acceptable

Dennis Merritt,  Newport WA



no wolfs in this state

leon Chmielewski,  spanaway WA

Tyrannosaurus Rex was here before any of us. Maybe we could re-introduce them into their native environment as well as the wolf and grizzly bear. Then the Rex could eat the griz and wolf to equalize the delicate balance - oh by the way, the rex might also eat people. If that matters to you please consider the consaquences this time.

Brian Welch,  Kent WA

Well writen.


We oppose introducing any predators to our state or allow the population of any to increase, that will decrease the number of game animals we now have.

Mike Trout,  White Salmon WA

We oppose introducing any predators to our state or allow the population of any to increase, that will decrease the number of game animals we now have.

Laura Trout,  White Salmon WA

The Executive Summary I find discomforting as in the Management Plan itself I am uncertain that the amount of emphasis assigned to the concerns of private interests is not reflective or supportive of the overall public one. Private interests while important remain private, the purpose of this statement and the Management plan are to manage any future populations in the manner most consistant with the public interest. I do not find that what is best for the the public is necessarily the same as what is best for private interests especially when it comes to livestock interests and their access to state and federal land in Washington State. Public land needs to be managed as such and not with minority interests such as livestock usurping that of the public.

Ryan Alexander Sparks,  Pullman WA

I wish to support Alternative 2: the draft wolf conservation and management plan developed by the Washington Wolf Working Group Thank you! Christopher Ensor

Christopher Ensor,  Kent 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


Do not introduce wolves.


Do not release any more wolves into this state.

Kevin Wolf,  Lacey WA

how about someone other than the "behind the desk" pencil pushers"


The areas that I am familiar with in Idaho are Clearwater River Drainage in Idaho where the reintroduction of wolves has all but eliminated this area as a viable elk hunting area.

L. Don Rose Jr,  Enumclaw WA

Plan 4 (NO ACTION) is the most prudent plan.

Jay Arment,  Spokane WA

We need to make room for the wolves.

Kevin O'Halloran,  Seattle WA

Your stupid to consider this period and not listen to the hunters

Joe Headley,  Yakima WA

Protecting Wolves is a Joke and a waste of state funding


I am strongly in favor of efforts to actively help rebuild wolf populations in WA. State and to maintain their protected status at the State level; at the same time it's only fair that compensation be provided for livestock losses from wolf depredation.

Steve Eichelberger,  Tacoma WA

No other comments at this time

Richard A Aksamit,  Sequim WA

This summary states "The purpose of the plan is to ensure the reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington ..." The problem is the the State seem to be conflicting with itself. During the public meeting I attended the State gave its purpose to be "delisting". The conflict is that the purpose in the Draft Paln is stated as a biological goal, and the purpose stated at the public meetings and with the State picking its "Preferred Alternaive - Arternative 2" are more political goals.

Ed Wilson,  Enumclaw WA

I do not support wolf introduction back into the state of washington. There is already huge issues with the cougar population in washington with the outlawing of cougar hounding and the state is not healthy enough for another alpha predator. I am also extremely concerned of the public safety issue this represents.

Michael Korenko,  Carson WA

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. We must manage any conflicts between people and wolves with a balance that takes into consideration the needs of our communities, the needs of the ecologically important Gray Wolf, and the future our wild lands.

elizabeth archambault,  Seattle WA

Keep wolves out of Washington!

Florence Wheeler,  Vancouver WA


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

Wolves play an integral part in restoring our ecosystem. Please do not weaken protections on these beautiful, valuable animals.

Patricia Murphy,  Seattle WA

As a resident of Yakima, Washington, I was not able to be at the WDFW forum in Yakima, but want to make sure that other perspectives on wolf conservation are heard. I strongly feel that the sentiments expressed at this meeting reflect general ignorance and misconceptions regarding wolves. As your summary suggests, there are other avenues for preserving ungulate populations. I support the EIS plan especially efforts to reach out to hunters, ranchers etc... to address their concerns through education.

sara cate,  Yakima WA


Paul Lindholdt,  Spokane WA

See earlier comments.

Mark D Smith,  Battle Ground WA


Teresa Fox,  Bremerton WA


Micheal Pacholski,  Toledo OH

Translocation is the key controversial factor in this plan and it is burried. The economic losses are underestimated and weak.

Darcy Mitchem,  Toutle Wa WA

Kill them all!

Larry Zalaznik,  Walla Walla WA

Quite good.

Thomas F McLaughlin,  Spokane WA