• How well does it meet the expectations of the MOU? 



• Is it an area where all three States have a problem with the 

 proposal? Is it an area where all three States will have to agree? 



• To what degree do local, state, and federal agencies agree/disagree? 



• Is the issue considered high priority by a large number of 



Roundtable members or all the Roundtable members of a particular state or 

 interest group? 



• Do the States consider it feasible to implement in its present form? 



• Can the States afford it? 



At their second meeting, the roundtable reached agreement on a list of the most 

 important issues to address. They formulated a statement that outlined key elements of 

 the issue and agreed on guiding principles for resolution of the issue. They identified 

 what interests were affected by the issue and what the affected interests needed to be 

 satisfied with resolution. They developed potential recommendations related to the issue 

 and agreed to network within their states during the interim between their second and 

 fmal meeting. 



Issues 



Clarity of the plan; management of the process (roles; decision 



authorities; citizen involvement in the management process/committee; peer 



review; guidance for nuisance bears). 



Issue Statement 



This proposal is based on the aissumption that the grizzly bear has been 

 de-listed and that federal and state agencies will fulfill and fund the 

 Conservation Strategy responsibilities assigned to them. Idaho, Montana and 

 Wyoming are deemed to have management plans in place that are satisfactory 

 to carry out the Conservation Strategy. The issue is: How do we develop and 

 implement a state management plan that: 



• Utilizes existing state processes and is adapted to reflect issues 

 related to grizzly bears; 



• Integrates with the federal Conservation Strategy; 



• Coordinates with other agencies and jurisdictions (federal and all 3 

 states); 



Guiding Principles 



• The likelihood of success is increased by involvement of local 

 citizenry. 



• It is critical to recognize realistic budget constraints. 



• The plans must be flexible to respond to biological, social and 

 political change. 



74 



