address interest of some nonhunters. Program implementation would continue with current levels of 

 staffing. Hunters would benefit the most from these programs although nonhunting participants also 

 would benefit by acquiring knowledge about wildlife and hunting traditions. 



Resident Hunter Opportunity— Rs\ermes from the sale of resident and nonresident licenses would 

 continue to fund programs related to hunting under this alternative. Hunters would pay for and 

 benefit most from these programs. Priorities would continue to emphasize resident hunting 

 opportunities for big game. Staffing needs would not change from alternative 1 . 



Issue: Species and Habitat Management /Effects on Priorities, Funding, and Staffing 



Wildlife Introductions-General license revenue and matching federal dollars would continue to fund 

 introduction of harvested wildlife under this altemative. New funding sources would be developed to 

 cover costs of introducing nongame and T&E species. Recreational opportunity and minimizing 

 conflicts with private landowners would carry a high priority under this altemative. Primary 

 beneficiaries include hunters and nonhunting recreationists. Staff time would not change from 

 altemative 1, 



Nongame and T&E Species-Generai license revenue and matching federal dollars would continue to 

 support the nongame and T&E programs. FWP would need additional sources of funding to expand 

 its efforts to delist species currently protected and to provide technical assistance to private 

 landowners. T&E wildlife would receive a higher priority than under altemative 1 . Viewers would 

 be the primary beneficiaries of the additional emphasis on nongame and T&E species. Priority of 

 these programs could increase slightly among FWP programs from altemative 1 if altemative funding 

 is developed. Required staff time might also experience a very small increase. 



Integrating Habitat Management with Species Management-License revenue and matching federal 

 dollars would continue to fund FWP's habitat and wildlife management programs. Harvestable 

 wildlife would continue to carry a high priority imder this altemative. Habitat programs would carry 

 a higher priority than under altemative 1 . Hunters would continue to benefit, although landowners 

 with property or easements to sell also could benefit. Staff requirements would continue at about 

 current levels. -i' 



Compensating Local Governments for Lost Tax Revenue— General license revenue would continue to 

 fund in-lieu of tax payments to local governments as under altemative 1 . Costs of administering the 

 program would increase only slightly over the next several years because of high emphasis on 

 conservation easements over outright purchase. Priorities for this funding would vary among FWP 

 regions based on the amount of FWP-controIled land. Staff time to administer these payments would 

 not change from current levels. This program would primarily benefit local governments and 

 communities. 



Setting Future Research Agenda-Genera[ license revenue and matching federal dollars would 

 continue to fund research on harvestable wildlife. Research on nongame and T&E species would - ■ ^^ 



4S^ 



