Priorities for HM acquisitions, such as easements and leases, would be based primarily on habitat 

 protection, but in such cases, the priority given access would increase. Efforts initiated to offset 

 effects of land closures through both HEP and game damage programs at the FWP regional level 

 might increase with time. Any increase in game damage associated with closures would increase 

 staffing needs. Hunters would continue to receive most of the benefit from these actions as under 

 alternative 1. 



Access Fees—The funding for actions to discourage landowners from charging access fees would 

 remain imchanged from alternative 1 . Loss of public access to private land through fee hunting could 

 adversely affect funding for these programs statewide through loss of license revenue. 



Efforts initiated at the FWP regional level to offset effects of access fees through both game damage 

 and access programs might increase with time. Any increase in game damage would increase staffmg 

 needs. Hunters would continue to receive most of the benefit from these actions as under 

 alternative 1. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity /Effects on Priorities, Funding, and Staffing 



Providing Hunter Opportunities— YW? does not expect priorities to change from those under 

 alternative 1 . Granting landowners preference for licenses or granting access exemptions and 

 discounted licenses for persons with disabilities would not affect earmarked sources or general 

 revenue from license sales. Granting discounted license fees to persons 62 years and older could 

 adversely affect funding as an increasing number of hunters qualify for the discounts. Recreational 

 opportimity and landowner willingness to provide access for special constituent groups of hunters 

 would drive priorities. These special constituent groups would continue to benefit from these actions. 

 Staffing needs would remain stable and unchanged from alternative 1 . 



Emphasizing Conservation While Providing Recreation--Re\ermes generated from license sales and 

 matching federal dollars would continue to fund most conservation, recreation, and education 

 programs as imder alternative 1 . FWP would maintain its program emphasis on hunting and trapping 

 with anticipated periodic increases in license fees to meet rising program costs. Benefits to 

 nonhunting recreationists might increase from alternative 1, while those to hunters would remain 

 unchanged. Staffing levels would increase slightly to implement new programs. 



Trophy Hunting— FWP would continue a policy to increase representation of mature animals in big 

 game populations in designated geographical areas. Such a policy would maintain a stable source of 

 funding for FWP programs that depend on license revenue. Offering a diversity of hunting 

 opportimity would continue to carry a high priority under this alternative. Staffing needs would 

 remain unchanged from alternative 1 . 



Hunter Participation— General license revenue and matching federal funds would continue to ftmd 

 I&E efforts and this alternative's expanded hunter education program. Hunter education for youth 

 and adults would carry a high priority under this alternative although these programs also would 



47 



