licenses would be anall under any alternative. Increased landowner commitment to maintaining 

 habitats on private land influenced by landowner preference for licenses might benefit conservation of 

 biodiversity. 



Emphasizing Conservation While Providing Recreation-Increased emphasis on recovery of T&E 

 species could increase rates of recovery of protected species and reduce the need to list other species, 

 thereby benefitting biodiversity. 



Trophy Hunting-Harvest regulations applied in designated geographical areas (e.g., antler point ^, 

 restrictions or quotas and permits) as proposed under this alternative could increase representation of 

 mature males and thereby further reduce the effects of hunting on the male segment of the population 

 in those areas. FWP maintains that any purported long-term implications for biodiversity, such as the 

 argument that emphasis on managing big game is at the expense of reduced diversity of other species, 

 are speculative and inconclusive. 



Hunter Participation— Expanded hunter education efforts under this alternative could increase the 

 support base between hunters and nonhunters interested in wildlife-related recreation. Programs 

 aimed at adults would increase their appreciation of wildlife and the role regulations play in wildlife 

 protection and maintenance of biodiversity. ^ 



Resident Hunter Opportunity— No effect. 



Issue: Species and Habitat Management /EfTects on Biodiversity 



Wildlife Introductions— Intioductions and natural dispersal of wildlife affect biodiversity by 

 influencing local wildlife populations and genetic diversity within species. By expanding the range of 

 species affected to include nongame and T&E species and administered through a consistent 

 statewide policy, FWP could benefit biodiversity in the state. 



Nongame and T&E Species— This alternative could increase benefits to biodiversity over those imder 

 alternative 1 by more intensively monitoring game and nongame wildlife, emphasizing ecosystem 

 structure and function in habitat projects, and more aggressive oversight of T&E species on both 

 private and public land. This could reduce the rate of listing species in Montana for endangered .^j 

 species protection. 



Integrating Habitat Management with Species Management— By increasing habitat protection under 

 this alternative, FWP could address habitat fragmentation, which is often associated with loss of 

 biodiversity, better than under alternative 1 . FWP actions would not be expected to reverse the trend 

 toward habitat fragmentation, but could mitigate some effects through specific acquisitions and 

 habitat enhancement projects. These projects would help provide linkage between fi-agmented habitat 

 patches. 



Compensating Local Governments for Lost Tax Revenue— No effect. 



23 



