Although resident hunters might favor this ahemative's emphasis on the Commission invoking 

 Montana statute 87-1-301 (4) (b), which would allocate hunter opportunity for biological reasons, 

 nonresident hunters might view it as further restricting their opportunity to hunt in Montana. 

 Resident hunters also would continue to have more influence on the process of establishing hunting 

 seasons and regulations than noiu"esidents. This would allow residents to influence the aspects of 

 hunting that they value. 



Harvesting wildlife would continue to present a fundamental clash of values between most Montana 

 residents and advocates of animal rights. None of the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS would , ' 

 eliminate that conflict. 



Issue: Species and Habitat Management /Effects on Social Values 



Wildlife Introductions-Many Montanans might favor the expanded program of wildlife introductions 

 under this alternative because of increased potential for recreation. Many hunters would perceive 

 introductions of game animals as a means of preserving the social traditions of hunting. While 

 maintaining its relationship with hvmters, FWP would improve its image among nonhunters. 



Private landowners with a potential to experience game damage or transmission of diseases from 

 wildlife to domestic livestock might oppose introductions. Some might view introductions as a threat 

 to private property rights. These opposing views could strain relationships between FWP and 

 agricultural producers. The overall effect of wildlife introductions on FWP/landovmer relationships 

 probably would be small imder this alternative. xs 



Nongame and T&E Species-This alternative's increased emphasis on T&E species conservation and 

 recovery would improve the relationship between conservation organizations and FWP. Both 

 conservationists and states' rights advocates would support FWP asserting a leadership role in 

 managing T&E wildlife. 



Landowners might support this alternative's emphasis on economic incentives and technical 

 assistance for habitat protection. Some landowners and local communities opposed to T&E 

 legislation, however, might still view FWP's involvement as another threat to their lifestyle, ofc 



economic pursuits, and property rights and express their concerns through the legislative or legal .T 

 process. ■>"> 



Integrating Habitat Management with Species Management-FWP would expect support between 

 conservation groups and nonhunters for this alternative's increased emphasis on ecosystem-based 

 habitat management from alternative 1. Relationships between FWP and hvmters would continue as 

 they are currently with a continued focus on individual species or species groups among harvested 

 vdldlife. 



Advocates for an ecosystem approach and those supporting aggressive management of T&E species 

 and conservation of their habitats would embrace the ecosystem-based habitat management. These 



3o ' 



