relationships between FWP and landowners, provide additional access for sportsmen, and reinforce 

 the landowner's role as a neighbor in the community. 



FWP would encourage increased landowner involvement in providing opportunities for hunting and 

 associated socializing for persons with disabilities, youth and senior citizens. The general public 

 might view this as equitable, but some himters might contend that this would reduce their 

 opportunities. 



Emphasizing Conservation While Providing Recreation-Continued emphasis on hunting and 

 trapping as tools to manage wildlife would maintain the current relationships between FWP and a 

 traditional constituency. Increased I&E efforts directed at nonhunters could broaden FWP's 

 constituency base from that vmder alternative 1 and increase support for its wildlife programs. 



Increased emphasis from alternative 1 on T&E species conservation and recovery could improve a 

 relationship between T&E advocates and FWP. Individuals and groups adamantly opposed to the 

 goals of the Endangered Species Act, however, might view FWP actions as a threat to their lifestyle. 

 Some landowners with this opinion might deny access to hunters as a backlash against FWP. 



Trophy Hunting-Msdntzdmng diversity of hunting opportxmity under this alternative, which includes 

 opportunity to harvest mature animals, has evolved through public involvement. The general hunter 

 population would continue to favor such diversity over specific types of hunts and would view this as 

 a beneficial influence on social opportimities and traditions associated with hunting. FWP would 

 expect participation in hunting by Montana residents to continue at a rate higher than the nation as 

 whole (USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. 1997b - see bibliography in Draft EIS). Among Montana deer 

 hunters, less than 25 percent cite the opportunity to bag a trophy animal as their primary motivation 

 for hunting (Duffield and Neher 1990, Anderson 1995). 



Most animal rights groups oppose trophy himting. Any expansion of trophy himting opportunities 

 might draw increasing attention to the state. 



Hunter Participation— Many Montana residents would continue to view programs involving women 

 and youth in hunting as fostering family-oriented traditions and broadening the hunter constituency. 

 This alternative's provision of programs to develop or improve skills, mentoring, and opportunities 

 for first-time hunters would help remove social barriers to participation in hunting beyond what could 

 be accomplished imder alternative 1 . Some nonhunters might view these actions as serving the 

 traditional hunter constituency while limiting emphasis on other wildlife-oriented recreation and 

 values. 



Resident Hunter Opportunity— The current license and fee structure favoring resident over 

 nonresident hvmters and providing opportunities for residents to hunt would remain essentially 

 unchanged from alternative 1 . Emphasis under this alternative would continue to provide benefits to 

 both residents and nonresidents associated with himting, although at a higher cost for nonresidents. 



35 



