Setting Future Research Agenda-This alternative would broaden the focus of research from that 

 under alternative 1 by expanding the overall effort to include nongame and T&E wildlife. Such a 

 focus would benefit biodiversity by providing the decision maker with scientific knowledge to 

 increase predictability of outcomes. 



Issue: Commercial Uses /Effects on Biodiversity 



Commercial uses of game animals on private land favors species with high market value over others 

 and can adversely affect biodiversity through competition with native species, habitat loss, genetic 

 degradation, or introduction of disease. Regulations and enforcement imposing strict standards on 

 facilities holding game animals brought into the state, stringent health inspection of imported animals, 

 and limits on importation of certain species would continue to minimize these risks. Under no 

 alternative would FWP advocate that the level of regulations affecting importation or sale of game or 

 exotic species be lowered from current standards. .« 



Issue: Landowner Relations /Effects on Biodiversity 



Predator Control-PredatoT control efforts would continue to focus on coyotes but, as under 

 alternative 1, would remain controversial. FWP's contribution to predator control through DOL 

 under this alternative would be directed at protecting domestic livestock and wildlife. Predator 

 control could increase survival among some local wildlife populations while control efforts are 

 conducted. Reductions of coyotes would not threaten the continued existence of the species in 

 Montana although control might affect sex and age composition of local populations of coyotes. h '- 



Limiting lethal techniques to aerial gunning would appreciably reduce the risk of taking nontarget '' 

 wildlife such as birds of prey or other small predatory animals. Given all factors that affect survival 

 and distribution of wildlife, FWP's contribution to predator control probably would have a negligible 

 effect on biodiversity under any alternative. :.i». 



Game Damage— Thxo\x^ himting, FWP would continue to affect sex and age structure of some game 

 populations. Efforts directed at reducing game damage on private land under this alternative would 

 focus primarily on the female (or antlerless) segment of big game populations to effectively reduce 

 total numbers of animals over large areas. These efforts also would affect sex and age composition a 

 and reproductive potential in some big game populations. Any effect on biodiversity probably would 

 be negligible over the short term (e.g., less than 50 yrs). 



Weed Control— W^\\& invasions of noxious weeds reduce biological diversity, actions to control 

 weeds, which includes application of chemicals, would locally affect biodiversity by altering or 

 removing vegetation. The level of effects would depend on the extent to which chemical control is 

 used. These effects also would vary with the level of manual or biological control methods integrated 

 into overall control efforts. 



2C 



