decisions affecting year-long distribution of recreationists and otiier users, including motorized travel. 

 FWP primarily would look to benefit wildlife by protecting important habitats. 



Closure of Large Private Blocks— Closure of large tracts of private land to public hunting would 

 concentrate hunters on public land and tracts of private land open for public himting. This 

 concentrated use by hunters could lead to excessive harvest and temporary displacement of game 

 animals from this land. Closures might allow game populations to increase to levels that create a 

 potential for game damage both on closed land and land that is open to public hunting. 



This alternative's aggressive application of incentives under BM/HEP, and the current policy 

 requiring landowners to allow public hunting to be eligible for game damage assistance, could 

 improve distribution of hunters and harvests of game. Local increases in game harvest might reduce 

 those populations, but such reductions would not measurably affect their distribution and abundance 

 statewide. 



Considering access on a case by case basis through HM projects might somewhat reduce the 

 effectiveness of harvests in keeping local game populations at desired levels. Increased public access 

 to private land also might force some game animals to land that remains closed to hunting, limiting 

 the overall effectiveness of hunting in reducing populations. 



Access Fees— The acreage of private land where landowners charge hunters fees for access would not 

 appreciably change from that expected under alternative 1 . As a consequence, FWP would continue 

 to expect a lower harvest of game and more game damage complaints on private land where fees limit 

 access than where the public can obtain access through FWP programs. 



Increased access and reduction of populations in response to game damage would be only temporary 

 if the affected land closes again after resolution of damage problems. Redistribution of game 

 animals from land open to public hunting to land that remains closed could limit the effectiveness of 

 hunting to reduce game damage. Any decreased emphasis on access in HM projects might enhance 

 habitat security for wildlife on land with FWP oversight but could aggravate game damage on 

 adjoining private land. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity /Effects on Wildlife 



Providing Hunter Opportunities— FWP would continue offering services for special constituent 

 groups under this alternative. Increased access for hunters resulting from landowner preferences 

 might locally increase harvests of both big game and upland game. Increased motorized access for 

 persons with disabilities could reduce habitat security and temporarily shift distribution of harvested 

 wildlife away from roads. Levels of motorized traffic and densities of open roads affect harvest rates 

 and distribution of big game. Still, the overall effect on wildlife would be minor statewide as long as 



18 



