statewide scale. Development of new criteria for licensing commercial facilities could increase 

 FWP's effectiveness in maintaining the quality of the state's wildlife and habitats. 



Issue: Landowner Relations /Effects on Wildlife 



Predator Control— Actions proposed imder this alternative would broaden the scope of aerial 

 gunning of coyotes from alternative 1 . FWP funds would continue to address depredations by 

 coyotes on livestock as under alternative 1, but also would address predation on wildlife. Predator 

 control activities might result in increased survival of some wildlife in control areas as long as control 

 efforts continue. 



Aerial gunning of coyotes would minimize taking nontarget wildlife species that might be taken by 

 alternate methods, such as poisoning. FWP's contribution to DOL for predator control would not 

 measurably affect wildlife statewide and would not threaten the existence of coyote populations in 

 Montana. 



Game Damage-Under this alternative, FWP would continue to implement harvest regulations to 

 minimize game damage over broad areas as described for alternative 1. This would maintain big 

 game populations at levels lower than might otherwise occur. This broad-based approach on private 

 land and adjoining public land would have greater impact on game populations than a more localized 

 response, such as hunters removing problem animals on individual ranches. Special damage hunts 

 that address individual problems would resuh in temporary reductions in game populations although 

 such actions would carry a low priority under this alternative. 



Weed Control—By increasing reliance on biological control, providing landowner incentives, 

 broadening control efforts to include leases and easements, and collaborative efforts at the local level 

 as proposed under this alternative, FWP could help reduce infestation of noxious weeds on some 

 private land. Increased dependence on biological control would reduce the potential for adverse 

 effects of chemicals on wildlife. Integration of control techniques in sensitive areas could better 

 preserve native vegetation and integrity of wildlife habitats than if options were more restricted to the 

 use of herbicides as in alternative 1. This alternative would increase FWP's overall effectiveness in 

 maintaining the quality of wildlife habitats across the state. 



Urban Wildlife-¥W? would continue responding to urban wildlife issues through direct intervention 

 in conflicts to maintain public safety and providing comment on proposed subdivisions to local 

 decision makers in a timely manner. Capturing and translocating nuisance animals, such as bears, 

 probably would continue to reduce local populations, as described for alternative 1, although 

 informational brochures such as "Living with Grizzlies" or "Living with Lions" could reduce some of 

 these conflicts. 



Timely response to proposed subdivisions by FWP under this alternative could lead to local decisions 

 that minimize habitat loss and reduce human/ wildlife conflicts. Increased reliance on other entities 



21 



