Issue: Access /Effects on Priorities, Funding, and Staffing 



Overall Access— This alternative would continue to base priorities for funding on access needs and 

 opportunities, landowner participation, and wildlife abundance. Earmarked and general license 

 revenue and matching federal dollars would continue to fund hunter access programs. Overall 

 funding for access-related programs, however, would be increased by a new fianding source for 

 nonhunting recreational access. Habitat sensitivity would determine program priorities. Viewers, 

 hunters, and landowners would benefit from these programs. Any increases in the number of 

 cooperators would require additional staff time to track and issue payments to landowners. 



Block Management Policy-License fees and matching federal dollars would continue to fund 

 BM/HEP for hunter access to private land under this alternative. FWP would seek new funding 

 sources to develop a similar program for nonhunting recreation. Overall funding for access-related 

 programs would increase from alternative 1 as additional funding becomes available. Habitat 

 sensitivity would determine program priorities. Beneficiaries would include hunters, viewers, and 

 landowners. Increases in numbers of cooperators and development ofa funding source for 

 nonhunting recreational access would require redirection or increases in staff to track and issue 

 payments to landowners. Program implementation would continue to be carried out by field 

 personnel, and additional staff would be added or redirected as needed if legislative funding authority 

 is granted. 



Access Through Lease, Purchase, or Easement-HM projects would continue with funding from 

 earmarked license revenue. Habitat protection would carry a high priority under this alternative with 

 access acquired only on a case by case basis. The overall priority of access on FWP land might 

 decrease from alternative 1 . Any increased access resulting from expanded habitat programs under 

 this alternative would primarily benefit nonhunters. FWP would not expect staffing needs to 

 appreciably change from alternative 1 . 



Interaction with Other Agencies— General license revenue and matching federal dollars would 

 continue to fund responses to land management agencies. Priority of responses to other agencies' 

 travel management and habitat alteration proposals would vary with the scope of the proposal and the 

 potential long-term effect of agency decisions. These efforts would affect recreationists and other 

 users of public land. The responsibility for responding under this alternative would continue to fall 

 on regional wildlife staff as part of its routine duties. Staff time required under this alternative would 

 not change from alternative 1 . 



Closure of Large Private Blocks— The funding for actions to discourage closures of private land 

 would remain unchanged from alternative 1. General and earmarked license revenue would continue 

 to fund game damage, habitat, and access programs. Continued closure of large blocks of private 

 land to hunting could appreciably decrease FWP's funding base over the long term through 

 decreased resident license sales. 



iit 



Ai 



