4. ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED AND CONSIDERED 



This chapter presents a discussion of the issues identified from the scoping process, and follow-up 

 meetings, described earlier. Within each section the issue is discussed along with FWPs preferred 

 approach (identified by the statements preceded by a > at the head of each section) and any anticipated 

 impacts and alternatives considered. Some issues presented here do not warrant specific actions. For 

 those issues, no preferred or alternative approaches will be offered, and there will be no impacts 

 described. This will be followed, in Chapter 5, by a discussion of alternahve future program direction for 

 each recovery zone as well as FWPs preferred program in each area. 



FWP considered a "No Action" alternative for western Montana beyond continuing existing programs 

 and approaches to grizzly bear management. Although a "No Action" alternative was selected as FWPs 

 preferred approach for the NCDE, because the bear population will continue to expand under existing 

 programs, we rejected this alternative for both the Cabinet- Yaak and Bitterroot ecosystems (see Chapter 

 5). Full recovery in the CYE would take too long and existing programs in the Bitterroot would fail to 

 ensure adequate preparation should bears occupy this area in the future. Thus, failure to modify these 

 two programs would reduce the opportunity for fuhire bear population increases and result in 

 unnecessary conflicts and elevated risks to grizzly bears and to the people of Montana and its visitors. 



While FWP recognizes that this approach deviates from formats used in many environmental impact 

 statements, it is the agency's belief that the chosen format makes the document more useful to the public 

 and those interested in grizzly bear conservation. Before discussing the different issues and alternatives 

 this plan addresses, it is important to keep the following overall perspectives in mind. 



• The grizzly bear is currently listed as a threatened species and covered under the Endangered Species 

 Act. As such, recovery of the grizzly bear is directed by the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and 

 implemented by the IGBC. FWPs implementation of the management outlined in this state plan will 

 be complimentary to, and coordinated with, the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and the IGBC. Programs 

 will be cooperative in nature and FWP intends to continue working with other agencies, tribal 

 authorities and private organizations during development and implementation. 



• The plan must respond to changes as they occur and be open to public scrutiny and input. 



• Public support and tolerance for grizzlies is the key to their long-term recovery and re-occupation of 

 suitable habitats. This support is conHngent upon local involvement and active local participation in 

 plan development and implementation. 



• Biological and social issues are interrelated, and no one part of the plan can function effectively 

 without the others. For example, intentionally feeding bears is against the law and people who do so 

 create enforcement problems, unnecessary bear mortalities, risks to human safety and property 

 damage. 



• This plan does not presuppose habitat problems exist with bear re-occupation, but instead 

 approaches the issues with the perspecHve of making sure agencies and local people are involved 

 and given sufficient tools to respond to management changes as the need arises. 



• The key to a broader recovery lies in bears utilizing lands that are not managed solely for them but in 

 which their needs are adequately considered along with other uses. The plan also recognizes the 

 pivotal role private-landowner support will play in a broader recovery. 



• Preventative measures are much better than simply responding to problems; however, a great deal is 

 unknown regarding how bears will utilize some of the available habitats. Consequently, adequate 

 responses must be available. 



29 



