geographical areas would not change the mix of economic benefits from alternative 1. Hunting- 

 related expenditures resulting from diverse hunting opportunity probably would increase over time 

 and with a corresponding increase in expenditures by frophy hunters. 



Expenditures by himters in designated geographical areas in which special regulations are 

 implemented might decline because regulations intended to increase representation of older and larger 

 animals could restrict hunter participation. However, such a reduction in expenditures might be small 

 because "frophy" hunters tend to make larger expenditures than generalists or "meat" hunters 

 (Duffield and Neher 1990 - see bibliography in Draft EIS). 



Hunter Participation-FW? actions that maintain or increase participation in hunting, such as 

 reducing barriers to participation, would maintain current economic benefits to businesses providing 

 hunting-related goods and services. Expanded hunter education programs under this alternative 

 probably would not affect local businesses any differently than under alternative 1. 



Resident Hunter Opportunity-Boih resident and nonresident hunter numbers probably would remain 

 stable over time. Numbers of resident hunters might fluctuate slightly with changes in big game 

 populations, and nonresident numbers would adjust to market-based licenses. Although total 

 numbers of nonresident hunters would not change from alternative 1, invoking Montana statute 87-1- 

 301 (4) (b) imder this alternative could temporarily affect their geographical distribution. This might 

 affect local economies while these rules were in force. Communities that receive decreased numbers 

 of nonresident hunters would experience decreased hunter-related income. 



Issue: Species and Habitat Management /Effect on Economic Values 



Wildlife Introductions—Any increased recreational opportunity resulting from new or augmented 

 populations of game and nongame would benefit local economies through increased demand for 

 recreation-related services. Under this alternative, FWP would expect little change in economic 

 benefits to local commxmities from alternative 1 . 



Nongame and T&E Species— IxvXQ^zWon of nongame and T&E species into habitat management 

 programs could benefit local economies through sale of goods and services as a result of more 

 viewing and hunting opportunities. FWP would expect a small gain in economic benefits from this 

 alternative beyond those of alternative 1. 



Expanded efforts to recover and delist T&E species and instate leadership in T&E species 

 management could reduce the overall economic burden that T&E species protection carries under 

 state and federal statutes. Participating private landowners also could benefit from technical , 

 assistance and economic incentives under this alternative. 



Integrating Habitat Management with Species Management-This alternative's increased emphasis on 

 habitat protection could increase overall recreation opportunity. Such emphasis along with 

 maintaining a focus on harvested wildlife would continue to benefit local communities economically 



40 



