mature animals in designated geographical areas would continue to affect all major groups with 

 which FWP must deal to set big game seasons. These groups include landowners, sportsmen's 

 groups, guides and outfitters, and public land management agencies. Locally, sportsmen might 

 sacrifice some himting opportunity to increase numbers of matiu-e males. This would continue to 

 require compromise by the affected groups to reach an appropriate mix of benefits. 



FWP would direct internal coordination at maintaining a diversity of himter opportunity under this 

 alternative. Education efforts would be required to inform affected parties of local regulation 

 changes. Any local regulation change also would require enforcement effort to reduce any adverse 

 impacts over a larger area than the area subject to the regulation change. 



Hunter Participation-Effort to reduce barriers to participation would require substantial coordination 

 of staff resources within FWP. Reduction of barriers, expanded educational programs, and working 

 with communities to establish shooting ranges would require increased staff time to meet demands. 



Resident Hunter Opportunity-The complex process of marketing and distributing nonresident 

 licenses would continue to require continued coordination among divisions under this alternative. 

 External coordination with private and public land managers would be required to maintain hunting 

 opportunities. Issuing nonresident licenses under Commission rules if it invokes statute 87-1-301 (4) 

 (b) as proposed in this alternative would require increased coordination between divisions and wdth 

 administrative regions. Under those rules, FWP would issue licenses by allocation determined by the 

 Conmiission. 



Issue: Species and Habitat Management /EfTects on Other Agencies and Staff 



Wildlife Introductions—By developing a consistent statewide policy and expanding current effort to 

 include T&E species under this alternative, FWP would increase coordination with private 

 landowners, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and federal land management agencies. FWP would 

 continue to work with private conservation groups, such as the Foimdation for North American Wild 

 Sheep, but imder this alternative, also might collaborate with advocates of nongame and T&E 

 wildlife. 



Nongame and T&E Species— Tlias alternative would require increased internal and external 

 coordination fi-om ahemative 1. FWP would coordinate with Canada, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, and federal land management agencies that manage habitat for T&E species. These 

 alternatives propose technical assistance and incentives which would increase cooperation with 

 private landowners and conservation organizations. Efforts to delist species or prevent new listings 

 would increase the cooperation and coordination needed fi-om both the public and the media. 



Integrating Habitat Management with Species Management— YViP's coordination with federal 

 agencies to protect habitat would increase from alternative 1 . Coordination would be required with 

 private landowners and conservation organizations to protect and acquire high priority habitats. 



W^ 



