YAKIMA, Wash. -- As spectators clad in camouflage caps and jackets filed into a conference room at Yakima's Red Lion Hotel on Thursday to hear state wildlife officials roll out their proposed wolf management plan, Jeff Tayer uttered what turned out to be a prescient thought.

"It does seem like the 80 percent of the people in this state who are supposedly for the wolves coming back are not the ones coming to the meetings," said Tayer, the regional director of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.

During a public-comment session in which the bulk of speakers among the audience of about 100 identified themselves as hunters, it sounded like a far more popular plan would be not to manage wolves, but to hunt them -- before they start hunting the elk, the deer and, perhaps, us.

"We're no longer the hunter, we're the huntee. And now you want to bring in wolves," said Joe Headley of Yakima, noting that many backcountry recreationists have taken to carrying a pistol because of cougars.

"They're going to be maneaters. They're not fuzzy little kittens ... these things eat you."

Wolves were bounty-hunted virtually out of existence in the state 70 years ago because "historically, wolves have been a problem," Bernard Sauvé of Selah said. "History proves you don't learn from history. Our ancestors were smart enough to figure out what the problem was. ... Now we want to reintroduce these animals?"

The state plan, written over 21/2 years by a 17-member citizen working group, doesn't actually call for reintroducing wolves, just managing them. "The facts are the wolves are here," said state wildlife director Phil Anderson. "Is doing nothing an option?"

The state plan's preferred alternative sets wolf population and distribution standards for downlisting and delisting wolves; calls for compensating livestock owners who have lost animals to wolves; and establishes strategies for balancing a genetically viable wolf population with strong elk and deer herds.

The impacts on the latter were a primary concern for many Thursday speakers. Neal Houser of Ellensburg talked not only about how wolves would affect Kittitas County elk, but also "an endangered species up in the northeast corner of the state, which is now going to be greatly endangered -- woodland caribou. All of a sudden we're going to bring in something that's going to eat them all? It doesn't make sense."

The part of the plan calling for 15 breeding pairs around the state before delisting wolves was a primary target. Jim Huckabay of Ellensburg said Washington has too little wildlife habitat and too many people for that many wolves -- which, at 10 or more in a pack with a single breeding pair, could mean 150-plus wolves.

Once the state finally decides to delist, Huckabay said, it would be followed by years of lawsuits and injunctions, "and the wolves will be at 500 before the smoke clears."

At the other end of the spectrum was David Graves of the National Parks Conservation Association. He said his organization was "concerned that the target number of 15 breeding pairs is too low." He suggested tourism benefits might offset some of the economic impacts to the livestock industry.

Most commenters, though, echoed the sentiment of Duane Sandin of Yakima.

When he was growing up in Minnesota, Sandin said, "We had lots of wolves. We killed them on sight and there was a good reason for that."

Until there was an actual hunting season for wolves, he said, there was apt to be a very unofficial one.

"It's a thing called 'Shoot, shovel and shut up,'" Sandin said. "And that's what's going to happen. So knock yourselves out, folks."