groups and individuals might believe that this approach would prevent the need for listing additional 

 species for protection under state and federal endangered species laws. 



Compensating Local Governments for Lost Tax Revenue-FWP's policy of making payments to 

 counties in lieu of taxes on real property under this alternative would remain unchanged from 

 alternative 1 . Local residents would continue to view these payments as partial compensation for 

 public ownership of land in their counties. The relationship between FWP and county governments -k? 

 would not change nor would tax burdens on other landowners and residents change as a result of 

 FWP's land acquisitions. Loss of personal property tax revenues might still cause some coimties to 

 oppose FWP purchases of land. 



Setting Future Research Agenda-Research directed at regional and statewide priorities toward 

 harvest and habitat issues, as proposed under this alternative, would provide a basis for decisions that m 

 maintain the social traditions of hunting and wildlife viewing. Those concerned about a wider variety 

 of species, would view FWP's research as more broadly focused than alternative 1 . FWP would 

 remain part of a larger research community, including universities and other research organizations in 

 which all parties benefit from an exchange of information and technology. 



Issue: Commercial Uses /Effects on Social Values 



This alternative would continue to review applications for a permit to construct and operate 

 commercial game operations, such as game farms and shooting preserves. A reduced rate of growth 

 would affect social values associated with many outdoor recreational activities. FWP's relationships 'n 

 with recreationists probably would be strengthened through new permitting criteria and clarification 

 of existing laws to protect public wildlife. Community concerns about the effect of wildlife-borne 

 diseases on humans and livestock might remain although the probability of their occurrence might A 

 decline. -stt 



ri tsiU > ii 



Issue: Landowner Relations /Effects on Social Values ^/iidztl 



Predator Control— HxmteTS and frappers might view a redirection of emphasis of the monetary t r 



contribution to DOL as beneficial to preserving Montana's hunting and trapping traditions. Himters 

 and livestock producers might view FWP's contribution to predator control as benefitting both ^<t5v<> 

 Montana's livestock industry and himting traditions. Some livestock producers might perceive any 

 change in the use of these ftmds as a minor threat to their livelihood and lifestyle. t._ 



Some nonhunting groups, particularly animal rights groups, would oppose any systematic harvest of 

 predatory species. However, conservationists would support educational efforts that emphasize the 

 role of predators in natural systems. ^ 



Game Damage— VW?"" s game damage policy would remain essentially unchanged from alternative 1. 

 Continued emphasis on hunting and public access to address game damage problems would be 



3T 



