Other Issues Raised: 



Concern over SB163: We received comment that suggested that Senate Bill 163 

 (SB 163) would require the elimination of grizzly bears by the state. This is not the case. 

 The statute and the legislative record of the bill indicate it is intended to deal with 

 individual animals that prey on livestock. These animals would be subject to control as 

 specified in the plan. The USFWS and Interior Department Solicitor's Office reviewed 

 this language and found it adequate for long-term management of the species. 



Game Status Animal: There is opposition to having the grizzly bear's status changed to 

 a "game species". The grizzly bear is currently listed as a game species in Montana. This 

 would not change based on the program developed. 



Grizzly Bears in Other Ecosystems: Some commentors discussed the status of grizzly 

 bears in other ecosystems or recommended programs outside southwestern Montana. 

 Other documents and processes cover programs in these areas. 



Keep People Out of Bear Habitat: There were suggestions that FWP work to keep 

 people out of bear habitats. This is not possible and, in fact, bears are expanding their 

 distribution into previously unoccupied areas. Trying to remove people as grizzlies 

 expand is unworkable and would limit future expansion of the population. A program to 

 manage both people and bears is a more productive approach to long-term conservation. 

 This is the only implementable course of action. 



Feed the Bears: It was suggested that FWP consider feeding bears during bad food 

 years and in response to declines in natural foods. FWP believes this is unworkable at 

 the ecosystem scale. While we do consider programs such as redistribution of livestock 

 carcasses to minimize conflicts while still allowing bear use of this food source, we do 

 not see large-scale feeding as workable or desirable. A better approach is to promote an 

 increased distribution of bears to access a variety of areas and habitats to accommodate 

 environmental change. 



FWP Should be Responsible for Grizzly Bear/Livestock Conflict Management — 

 Not Wildlife Services: Some people stated that they would prefer FWP to handle 

 livestock/bear conflicts. They felt that federal Wildlife Services failed to emphasize non- 

 lethal or preventative control programs. Because Wildlife Services is often the first 

 agency called on to address a bear-livestock conflict, FWP will continue to involve 

 Wildlife Services. The two agencies have a current cooperative agreement and both 

 agencies expect the cooperation to continue. Hopefully, as Montana gains more 

 experience with the ongoing implementation of the plan, we will come to expect better 

 prevention and non-lethal management of conflicts. FWP will continue to work with 

 Wildlife Services in these efforts. 



Wildlife Over Livestock or Commercial Use on Public Lands: Some say that public 

 wildlife should always take precedence over livestock or commercial use on public lands 

 in southwestern Montana. Wildlife, however, needs private lands as well as public lands 



23 



