through recreationists' purchase of goods and services. Individual landowners offering land or 

 easements for sale to FWP also could benefit economically. 



Compensating Local Governments for Lost Tax Revenue—BeneGXs to local governments from 

 payments from FWP in lieu of taxes on real property to which FWP holds fee title would remain 

 unchanged from alternative 1 . These payments would not compensate for revenues that would be 

 paid to local governments for taxes on personal property if such land were in private ownership. 

 FWP would expect the in-lieu payments to increase only slightly under this alternative because of 

 heavy emphasis on conservation easements over outright piu-chase. 



Setting Future Research Agenda—FWP's research program under this alternative would have a small , 

 effect within the state's economy. Overall benefits would remain xmchanged from alternative 1. '-^'* 



Research focused primarily on harvest and habitat issues could indirectly increase or decrease 

 revenues associated with hunting on a statewide basis through its influence on policy decisions. 

 University communities funded by FWP's research efforts would continue to benefit. Some local 

 economies would benefit from researchers' salaries. 



Issue: Commercial Uses /Effect on Economic Values 



Regulation of commercial facilities imder this alternative, such as game farms and shooting preserves, 

 might control proliferation of these operations from that which might occur imder alternative 1 . This 

 could reduce the rate of growth in the workforce of these businesses which also could affect the 

 economic base of local communities. The long-range protection of wildlife habitats and the public 

 recreational opportunities it offers, however, might offset this potential loss of income. ^ 



Issue: Landowner Relations /EfTect on Economic Values 



Predator Control—Under this alternative, FWP would continue its contribution to DOL for predator 

 control to address predation on both wildlife and livestock. The program would continue to provide 

 minimal localized income to predator control contractors. Economic benefits to producers from 

 reduced livestock losses as a result of control efforts would remain essentially unchanged from 

 alternative 1 . The amount of FWP's contribution probably would remain stable or increase slightly 

 over the next decade. 



.£• DC.; 

 Game Damage— The mix of economic benefits resulting from FWP's response to game damage on 

 private land would remain unchanged from alternative 1. Harvest regulations designed to address r-i^in' 

 game damage problems would benefit local service industries such as motels and restaurants. 

 Actions to reduce game damage also would benefit agricultural producers. Purchases of materials 

 such as fencing to reduce damage would benefit the local economy. 



Weed Control— By increasing its involvement in weed control under this alternative, FWP could ^ 



increase economic benefits to agriculture and local communities from alternative 1 . Suppliers of 

 weed control services and materials would benefit economically to some extent imder all alternatives 



41 



