affect habitats and opportunities to harvest or view wildlife. FWP's response might discourage 

 actions that adversely affect recreational opportunity over the long term. 



Closure of Large Private Blocks—FW? programs would work to expand public access and 

 recreational opportunity on private land as proposed under alternative 1 . Under this alternative, 

 however, the mix of opportunity on private land would change with increased emphasis on wildlife 

 viewing. This alternative's increased emphasis on partnerships and local involvement in access 

 issues could reduce the rate at which lands accessible to the public are lost as a result of closures and 

 leasing to outfitters. 



Access Fees— On a statewide basis, access provided through FWP programs imder this alternative 

 might not completely offset acreage lost to the public as a result of landowners charging fees to hunt 

 on their land. The mix of opportunity for hunting, trapping, and viewing on private land probably 

 would not significantly change from that of alternative 1 although some landowners might not charge 

 access fees to remain eligible for landowner preference for some types of licenses. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity /Effects on Recreational Opportunity 



Providing Hunter Opportunities-The current himting season framework would continue to offer a 

 range of himting opportunities for many user groups, including special constituent groups. Special 

 privileges offered to persons with disabilities, senior citizens, and youth might provide some parity 

 with the general hunter population as under alternative 1 . Exemptions for persons with disabilities 

 might sometimes conflict with motorized travel restrictions that apply to the general hunter 

 population. 



Granting landowners preference for some types of big game licenses might predispose them to allow 

 hunters access to their land and thus, maintain or improve quantity and quality of recreational 

 opportvmity for the general hunter population. 



Emphasizing Conservation While Providing Recreation—lncveased emphasis on T&E recovery, 

 habitat protection and expanded I&E programs under this alternative could maintain or increase 

 opportunity for hunting above what would occur under alternative 1 . Nonhunting opportunities for 

 the public would increase under this alternative through expanded education programs. 



Trophy Hunting— A policy under this alternative to increase representation of mature males in big 

 game populations in designated geographical aieas might increase opportunities to harvest or view 

 mature animals. However, harvest regulations in those areas would reduce overall himting 

 opportunity. Opportunities for viewers and other nonhunting recreationists might be less restricted in 

 these areas than for hunters. 



Continued emphasis on diversity of hunting opportunity throughout the remainder of the state might 

 result in fewer large mature males available to hunters and viewers, which also would occur under 



2i<. 



