Access would remain the prerogative of the landowner under any alternative though FWP programs 

 available for landowner participation might vary among alternatives. Thus, private property rights 

 would remain protected and outside the management authority of FWP. Relationships between FWP 

 and landowners choosing to keep their land closed to hunting might be strained where game damage 

 is an issue. 



Private landowners would have the choice of allowing public access without any FWP involvement, 

 participate in FWP programs, close their land to all himting, or charge hunters an access fee. In some 

 cases, landowners might charge fees to hunt some types of game while allowing free access to other 

 hunters for other types. Groups of adjacent landowners might act in concert to open or close their 

 land to himters. 



' tUii ' 



Incentives provided through FWP programs could benefit relationships between commimities and 

 landowners by allowing local residents to hunt on private land and providing a hunter clientele for 

 businesses. 



Access Fees—F'W? would use game damage assistance and incentive payments through BM/HEP 

 programs to maintain public access to private land where landowners might otherwise limit access to 

 those paying a fee. As under alternative 1 , hunters would perceive FWP as acting in their interest to 

 protect social values associated with hunting. 



Landowners would retain the choice to allow free public access, participate in FWP programs that 

 provide access, or limit access to hunters paying an access fee. Some landowners might not charge 

 access fees to remain eligible for preference for some types of licenses if such a system were 

 developed. Relationships between landowners who charge for himting and those who do not might 

 become sfrained. Relationships also might deteriorate between local sportsmen and landowners who 

 charge access fees for hunting (Swenson 1983 - see bibliography in Draft EIS). Traditional 

 opposition to access fees among resident hunters is demonstrated by legislative action to fimd access 

 initiatives, such as BM/HEP, and reluctance by the Legislature to defer these costs to resident hunters 

 through their license fees. 



Private property rights would remain protected and outside the management authority of FWP. !&mA 

 Relationships between FWP and landowners who choose to charge an access fee for himting might be 

 strained where game damage is an issue. Incentives provided through FWP programs could benefit 

 relationships between communities and landowners by providing recreational opportunity to local 

 residents and a hunter clientele for local businesses. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity /Effects on Social Values 



Providing Hunter Opportunities— FWP would maintain opportunities for hunting and the socializing 

 that goes with it while achieving some parity in opportunity for special groups of hunters as proposed 

 under alternative 1. Granting preferences to landowners for some types of licenses could improve 



34 



