Question 2: which three [of the 21 issues] are the most important to consider within the 



Wildlife Program? 



Of the 21 issues addressed in the alternatives, commercial uses of wildlife (e.g., game farms and 

 shooting preserves) was cited more than any other single issue (see Appendix D). Eighty-six (51%) of 

 166 respondents indicated that this was an important issue but again largely reflected the sentiments 

 of those responding to a local issue in Flathead County. Other issues of high relevance to the public 

 included overall access, resident hunting opportunity, protecting wildlife while providing recreational 

 opportunity, and integrating habitat management with species management. 



Individuals favoring alternative 1 indicated that issues dealing with access and resident hunting 

 opportunity were most important (seeAppendix D). Those favoring alternative 3 were most 

 concerned about commercial uses of wildlife and how FWP would protect the resource while 

 providing recreational opportunity. Individuals urging FWP to develop a sixth alternative also were 

 concerned about access, integrating habitat with species management, and commercial uses of 

 wildlife. 



Question 3: do you think anything is missing? 



Of 166 individuals returning the comment form, 61 (37%) responded to question 3 indicating what 

 they felt was missing from the document or what issues had not been emphasized to their satisfaction 

 (see Appendix E). Of these comments, 14 were related to regulation of commercial activities such as 

 game farms, 7 addressed recreational access, 5 dealt with relations between FWP and 

 landovmers/managers, and 16 comments were outside the scope of the decision. These comments did 

 not raise any issues that were not already addressed in Chapters II and IV of the draft EIS. 



Question 4: additional comments. 



Additional comments were offered by 155 of 166 individuals returning the comment form {see 

 Appendix F). Of those, 69 restated their opposition to game farms and shooting preserves primarily 

 out of concern for public safety and for ethical reasons. Others expressed concerns about access (17), 

 relationships between FWP and its traditional constituencies (10), management of wildlife and habitat 

 (6), and recreation (13). Nineteen comments centered on the process to develop the draft EIS and 

 public involvement in the process. Eight comments were outside the scope of the decision. Here 

 again, FWP believes that it addressed all concerns that were relevant to the decision. 





54 



