WILDLIFE PROGRAM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 



NOVEMBER 30, 1998 



After giving carefiil consideration to public comment on the five alternatives analyzed in the 

 draft EIS, FWP offers a sixth alternative that it believes to be the most reasonable integration of 

 public expectations and sound wildlife stewardship. FWP recognizes that its current package of 

 actions and policies is not "broken," but there remain opportunities for improvement. These 

 opportunities have been highlighted through both public comment and internal dialogue. While 

 this alternative will not go far enough to satisfy the expectations of some individuals and groups, 

 all comments and suggestions were given full consideration. What has become apparent through 

 the process of examining FWP's wildlife programs is that Montana residents take their wildlife 

 resource very seriously. 



Proposed Action 



FWP proposes to implement a long-term wildlife management program that will provide j 



direction over the next ten years, consider all its collective actions related to wildlife, and meet 

 its legal mandate in a manner that allows FWP to adapt to a changing future. 



Alternative 6 (Preferred alternative) | 



This alternative will continue many of the actions and policies cited under alternative 1 in the 

 draft EIS and incorporate others, primarily from alternative 3 and to a lesser extent from 

 alternative 5. j ^ 



In offering this alternative, FWP assumes that forces influencing its operating environment will 

 continue, including increases in the cost of delivering the present level of services. FWP also 

 assumed that a growing human population and increased demand for services and opportunities 

 to enjoy the resource will place increasing pressure on FWP to protect Montana's rich wildlife 

 resources. These forces will also bring an increased demand for new services that go beyond the 

 traditional activities ofhimting and trapping. FWP believes this blend of alternatives, while j 

 continuing to retain much of our current program, will move the wildlife program toward the 

 more comprehensive approach to resource stewardship that was embodied in alternative 3. It 

 would also seek to decrease the burden on hunters and anglers to fund all wildlife-related j 



programs by seeking new funding for some programs, while identifying some in which I ,?f i 

 collaborative or private sector effort would best meet public expectations, as proposed under ( 

 alternatives 4 and 5. 



