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

 to increase representation of mature males. 



i - jasf 

 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 

 hunting 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 hunters, at times 

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

 rules would not directly impact opportimity 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. 



•>!. • U. 



t 



Issue: Species and Habitat Management /Effects on Recreational Opportunity 



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

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

 recreation. 



Nongame and T&E Species— VcAs 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 public land over the long term and thereby increase opportunity for wildlife- 

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

 through preventing others from needing special protection. 



Integrating Habitat Management with Species Management— Increased emphasis on habitat jt 



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

 related recreation, ijiuiu 



Compensating Local Governments for Lost Tax J?eve/jwe— Continuing payments to counties 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 smel 

 opportunity afforded outdoor recreationists. 



Setting Future Research Agenda— Reseaich 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 jt 



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



