Interaction with Other Agencies--FW? -would continue to respond to other agencies' land 

 management proposals affecting wildlife but increase emphasis on the ethical use of recreational 

 vehicles on public land. Such responses would maintain current working relationships with agencies 

 that manage public land. FWP responses could lead to decisions that favor wildlife conservation and 

 recreation on public land over the long term. 



Closure of Large Private Blocks—FWP programs that provide public access for hunting, such as HM, 

 BM/HEP, and game damage assistance all have broadly different objectives, but their combined 

 effect could increase the amount of private land that remains open for recreation especially with 

 increased reliance on local involvement to implement these programs. Enrolling high priority land in 

 BM agreements under this alternative would require increased internal coordination from alternative 

 1 between those who administer these programs at the statewide level and those who implement 

 projects at the regional and field level. Actions to reduce the rate of closure of private land would 

 require increased involvement of landowners, conservation groups and public land managers. 

 Overall, these actions would result in a more focused approach to addressing public access to private 

 land. 



Access Fees— Efforts to maintain the current level of access to private land in light of some 

 landowners charging fees would require increased cooperation from landowners and coordination 

 with public land managers, sportsman groups, and local governments. FWP would continue to use 

 programs, such as BM/HEP and game damage assistance, to discourage private landowners from 

 charging recreationists a fee for access. These programs have broadly different objectives, but when 

 implemented collectively, they could increase access to private land. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity /Effect on Other Agencies and Staff 



Providing Hunter Opportunities-FWP would continue to offer special privileges to some groups of 

 himters although this alternative's proposal to encourage landowners to allow access for persons with 

 disabilities, youth, and senior citizens would require increased coordination with landowners and 

 other private organizations. Continuing to grant landowners preference for certain licenses could 

 maintain a willingness to help provide opportunity for the public. Continued coordination with 

 federal land management agencies would be necessary for access to federal land by persons with 

 disabilities. 



Emphasizing Conservation While Providing Recreation— Continued emphasis on himting and 

 trapping would require FWP to maintain, or even expand, coordination v^th private landowners, 

 sportsmen, other public agencies, and conservation groups to manage both wildlife and habitats on 

 public and some private land. Efforts to recover and delist T&E wildlife by emphasizing habitat 

 protection, while continuing to provide recreational opportunity, would require increased involvement 

 with sportsman and conservation organizations to minimize conflicts. 



Trophy Hunting— The overall effect of FWP actions and policies under this alternative would not 

 change from alternative 1 . Special regulations under this alternative to increase representation of 



43 



