Relationships between landowners and sportsmen would remain unchanged. New relationships 

 between landowners and nonhunting recreationists would result from expanded access. The net effect 

 would be increased interaction of landowners and the public. Access agreements would not affect 

 private property rights. Landowners allowing access to the public would continue to be seen as 

 benefactors of wildlife recreation. 



Access Through Lease, Purchase, or Easement—This alternative's proposal to encourage access in 

 HM projects on a case by case basis would provide for continued hunting and nonhunting 

 opportunities on land imder FWP's management control. The relationship between hunters and FWP 

 would remain unchanged. Nonhunters who enjoy wildlife also would continue to benefit from access 

 to FWP land. 



This program would affect landowners to the extent that landowners choose to participate. 

 Participation in FWP's habitat programs would remain voluntary and private property rights would 

 not be directly affected. 



Large purchases of land for wildlife might affect communities by polarizing public opinion. Some 

 people would favor continued private ownership and that this land remains primarily in agricultural 

 production or be open for development; others might favor protection of wildlife and recreational 

 values through public ownership or involvement. 



Interaction with Other Agencies— FV/?'s response to land management proposals on public land 

 managed by other agencies would continue to be a part of FWP's management responsibility and 

 would be favorably perceived by hunters as helping to maintain game populations and hunter 

 opportunities. Nonhunting recreationists, such as wildlife viewers, might not believe they are 

 receiving adequate benefits from FWP actions. 



Responses to other agencies' proposed management actions on public land imder this alternative 

 would affect relations among FWP, landowners, and local commimities about the same as under 

 alternative 1. Landowners might welcome FWP's influence on land management decisions that 

 lessen the potential for damage. On the other hand, landowners might perceive FWP's involvement 

 as a threat to private property rights if management decisions were to increase the potential for game 

 damage. 



Local commimities could perceive working relationships between FWP and land management 

 agencies as benefitting land use decisions, unless such decisions were unpopular. In that case, 

 cooperation between agencies could be seen as jeopardizing the ability of local people to influence 

 resource decisions in their area. 



Closure of Large Private Blocks— FWP would use incentive programs to gain hunter access to some 

 private land previoiisly closed to hunting. Although there could still be a net loss of land open for 

 himting, hunters would perceive FWP as acting in their interest. Other wildlife recreationists would 

 see less benefit than hunters from these programs. "• ^tte . , ■• 



33 



