require a new funding source. Priorities would be aimed at filling information gaps related to high 

 profile, harvest-related issues. Hunters and trappers would remain the primary beneficiaries. '^ 



Required staff time would continue at current levels. 



Issue: Commercial Uses /Effects on Priorities, Funding, and Staffing ^, , -^ , riiia 



FWP would seek authority under this alternative to charge commercial operators for inspecting and , :^ 

 licensing commercial facilities, develop new criteria to base permitting decisions, and clarify existing 

 law regulating importation of wildlife and exporting animal parts. Monitoring and inspecting game 

 farms, shooting preserves, and other commercial facilities would remain a high program priority. 

 Staff time and expenses could increase from alternative 1 . Passing the expenses of licensing and 

 aimual inspections to the operators would significantly reduce reliance on license revenue from 

 alternative 1. 



Issue: Landowner Relations /Effects on Priorities, Funding, and Staffing 



Predator Control-PTcdatoT control would remain a low funding priority. FWP would continue to 

 contribute to DOL's predator programs but would redirect the effort to address predation on both 

 wildlife and livestock. General license revenue and matching federal dollars would continue to fund a 

 the program. Direct benefits to recreationists (in abundance of wildlife) would increase locally, 

 whereas benefits to landowners could experience a small decline from alternative 1 . 



stain! 

 Game Damage— The effects of FWP's response to game damage on priorities, fimding, and staffing 

 imder this alternative would not change from alternative 1 . General license revenue would continue to . 

 fund game damage control. Overall program cost would remain low because public himting would ;. 

 remain the primary tool to reduce depredations. License revenue could partially offset administrative o 

 costs generated by the program. FWP would base program priorities on levels of landowner .r. 



complaints and populations of big game on private land. The program would continue to stress both o 

 abatement and prevention and would benefit hunters through increased opportunity. Landowners x& 

 would benefit through reduced crop losses. Staff time to administer the program would continue at 

 current levels. >«>'•■ j 



Weed Control— License dollars would continue to support the control of noxious weeds on FWP land 

 under this alternative. Fimding levels and priorities would be established on the basis of statutory 

 requirements for weed treatment and the 6-year weed plans of each FWP region. Under HEP 

 agreements, landowners would continue to determine their own priorities for expenditures on weeds, v 

 Requirements for staff time might not change from alternative 1 , but additional skills in biological 

 control might be required. 



Urban Wildlife-This alternative would decrease reliance on license revenue to manage urban wildlife - 

 issues from alternative 1 if new sources of fimding are developed, and by increasing reliance on other 

 entities to address conflicts involving nuisance wildlife. Priorities would be directed toward 

 comprehensive land use decisions at the local level and maintaining public safety. Local 



49 



