consistent with social traditions of hunting, and landowners would continue to be viewed as good 

 neighbors and benefactors of wildlife recreation by the community. 



By using hunting as a primary means of controlling game populations on private land and through 

 coordination of harvest regulations with other jurisdictions, FWP would continue to maintain a 

 working relationship with private landowners. Landowners that view unacceptably high game 

 populations on their property as an infringement of private property rights might respond to assistance 

 from FWP by allowing some public access for hunting. Others, however, would continue to view 

 granting public access as a condition for FWP assistance as an infringement of private property rights. 



Weed Control— This alternative's increased emphasis on weed control from alternative 1, which 

 would incorporate weed control into all HM projects and explore collaborative opportunities to 

 control weeds, could improve relationships among FWP, weed districts, and private landowners. 

 FWP's assuming a leadership role in the control of weeds might increase tolerance of hunters by 

 landowners who are concerned about hunters spreading weeds. Groups and individuals who oppose 

 the use of chemicals to treat weeds would support this alternative's increased reliance on biological 

 control but probably would still be dissatisfied with FWP's continuing use of chemicals. 



Urban Wildlife— FWP would continue meeting its mandate to advise local governments about wildlife 

 and habitat issues relative to local land use decisions and address wildlife conflicts on the urban 

 interface that maintains public safety. Most local governments would view FWP as a resource for 

 planning decisions and seek FWP participation. Urban residents would view FWP as concerned ro:* 

 about wildlife problems and responsive to their needs. >\v 



This alternative's increased reliance on other entities to address wildlife/human conflicts and looking 

 for alternative sources of funding to address urban wdldlife issues could lead to more efficient 

 resolution of conflicts. Most residents would welcome the services, but might resent having to pay 

 for services that have traditionally been fiinded by revenue generated from the sale of hunting and 

 fishing licenses. 



Issue: Access /Effects on Economic Values 



Overall Access— FWP's overall access policy would benefit participating landowners and local 

 businesses that provide goods and services to recreationists. These benefits would increase with 

 increased access to private land. If a new fiinding source is developed to provide access to private 

 land for nonhunting recreation, economic benefits to local communities could increase from 

 alternative 1. 



Block Management Policy— AcTcage under BM/HEP agreements probably would increase over time 

 as FWP enrolls new cooperators. Landowners enrolled in BM/HEP would benefit economically from 

 reduced game damage and incentive payments for allowing hunting and managing himters on their 

 property. If FWP develops a fimding source for nonhimting access, landowners would receive 

 increased direct compensation for managing hunters and viewers on their property. Managing 



3r 



