■*;. 



recreationists would -consist of such duties as issuing permission slips, responding to inquiries, and 

 other duties negotiated in agreements. This would increase indirect economic benefits to local 

 businesses both from participating landowners and wildlife-related recreationists. 



Access Through Lease, Purchase, or Easement--T\ns alternative's emphasis on resource protection 

 over access in HM projects might not significantly increase access to land under FWP's control. 

 FWP would expect income to local businesses as a result of management of land under its control 

 under this alternative to remain essentially imchanged from alternative 1 . 



Interaction with Other Agencies— The effect of FWP's response to land management proposals by 

 other agencies under this alternative would be the same as under alternative 1 . Land use decisions 

 affecting public lands that are based on FWP's concerns could contribute to maintaining a stable 

 economic situation for local businesses that rely on income from wildlife-related recreation. If FWP 

 influences land management decisions to increase emphasis on habitat protection, income might be 

 reduced for businesses relying on other activities on public land such as ranching and logging. 



Closure of Large Private 5/oc^s~Individuals and businesses that rely on public recreation for income ja 

 might experience a loss of revenue where closures of private land occur. FWP programs under this 

 alternative that increase public access to private land with increased local involvement might increase 

 benefits from alternative 1 to the range of retail businesses that serve a hunter clientele. 



Access Fees—Fees paid to local landowners by hunters also would benefit local economies, but the 

 relative few participants would not provide the level of benefits to the local economy that would 

 result from public access. Landowners participating in fee or leased hunting could expect higher 

 levels of income than if they participate in HEP. The effect FWP programs have on local economies 

 under this alternative would remain unchanged from alternative 1. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity /Effects on Economic Values 



Providing Hunter Opportunities-HxmteT expenditures among some hunter groups could increase 

 under this alternative if opportunity for persons with disabilities were expanded above present levels. 

 Local businesses and economies would benefit correspondingly. The outfitting industry would have 

 an opportimity to expand its services to provide for hunters with disabilities or nonhunting 

 recreationists wanting to view wildlife. 



Emphasizing Conservation While Providing Recreation— This alternative's continued emphasis on 

 hunting and frapping as management tools would continue to benefit businesses that provide goods 

 and services to these groups. Increased emphasis on nonhunting recreation through I&E efforts could 

 provide offsetting economic benefits to local communities through equipment and travel expenditures 

 by viewers and other recreationists. 



Trophy Hunting— VroViding opportimity to take large mature males under the present hunting season 

 fi"amework and application of regulations specifically to increase age class diversity in designated 



39 



