alternative 1 . However, opportunity to participate would remain less restricted than in areas managed 

 to increase representation of mature males. 



Hunter Participation— An expanded hunter education program imder this alternative, which would 

 also target adults, probably would maintain participation by resident hunters at current levels. At the 

 same time, these programs might increase appreciation for nonhunting recreation such as viewing, 

 feeding, or photographing. If participation in hunting increases substantially, overall quality of ar:'r;| 

 himting opportimity could decline because of increased competition among hunters. Expanded 

 habitat and access programs could mitigate these impacts. 



Resident Hunter Opportunity—This alternative's provision of invoking Montana statute 87-1-301 

 (4)(b), which gives the Commission authority to regulate harvest by nonresident himters, at times 

 would limit opportunity for holders of nonresident big game combination licenses. Invoking such >« 

 rules would not directly impact opportunity for resident hunters. An allocation method for 

 nonresident licenses consistent with biological goals for managing big game would sustain 

 opportunity for hunting, viewing and other wildlife-related recreation. 



Issue: Species and Habitat Management /Effects on Recreational Opportunity 



.•0.4 



Wildlife Introductions— Increasing both numbers and distribution of species through a consistent 

 statewide policy, over time, could increase opportimities for many forms of wildlife-related 

 recreation. ' an^j^s 



Nongame and T&E Species— Tins alternative's integration of management of nongame and T&E 

 species into habitat programs could increase opportunity for nonhunting wildlife recreation. This 

 alternative's aggressive approach to managing nongame and T&E species could ease access 

 restrictions on some pubUc land over the long term and thereby increase opportimity for wildlife- as 

 related recreation. This could be accomplished both through successful recovery of some species and ib 

 through preventing others from needing special protection. 



Integrating Habitat Management with Species Management— Increased emphasis on habitat > r 



protection from that proposed under alternative 1 could increase opportunity for all forms of wildlife- 

 related recreation, yji ,ij, 



Compensating Local Governments for Lost Tax /?evewwe~Continuing payments to coimties in lieu of 

 taxes on real property, as proposed under alternative 1 , would increase the likelihood that FWP land 

 acquisitions would be acceptable to local governments and might result in a net increase in the imtl 

 opportunity afforded outdoor recreationists. 



Setting Future Research Agenda— Research under this alternative would emphasize harvest and 

 habitat issues, but with an expanded funding base, would expand effort to develop new knowledge to 

 manage nongame and T&E wildlife for public enjoyment. Knowledge generated through FWP isfvah 

 research projects would provide a basis for policy decisions that allocate recreational opportunity. 



29 



