.'Letters and Public Hearings in Response to Draft EIS 



Of 354 comments submitted in letters and recorded at public hearings, 182 (51%) were related to 

 issues addressed among the five altematives analyzed in the draft EIS. Another 90 comments were 

 related to one or more of the altematives. The process used to develop the EIS, fimding and staffing 

 for FWP wildlife programs, and the environment affected by implementing the altematives received 

 another 64 comments. Eighteen comments were outside the scope of the decision. 



Issues receiving the most comment fi-om letters submitted to FWP were policy and role of FWP in 

 licensing and inspecting game farms and policies and actions that affect resident and nonresident 

 hunter opportunity. The issue regarding commercial operations (e.g., game farms) public comment 

 overwhelmingly favored FWP's continued involvement in regulation of commercial operations. 

 FWP's involvement in predator control and hunter participation also were very important to the 

 public. 



Several parts of the draft EIS received significant scrutiny fi-om the public including the process that 

 FWP used to develop the document. These include: 



• The respective roles of FWP and the Commission with respect to the decision and 

 implementing it once it's made; 



• Policies and actions that affect access and recreational opportunity; 



• Impacts of FWP policies and actions on rural lifestyles; and, 



• FWP's fimding source— who pays and who benefits. 



SAMPLES OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIS AND FWP'S 

 RESPONSE 



ISSUE #1 

 Overall Access 8 comments. 



Summary ^^ 



Public comment overwhelmingly favors FWP involvement in obtaining public access for recreation 

 on both public and private lands. Most comment on the issue advocates increased access for hunters. 

 Those who would accommodate FWP securing access for nonhunting recreation desire that it be 

 fimded by a source other than license revenue. 



Samples of Comments 



• You must redeem your responsibility to allocate harvest opportunities. When any game 

 population becomes so inaccessible that private owners are actually dictating who harvests 

 animals, your agency must adjust the license structure so that the harvest allocation is done by 

 your agency in a fair and equitable manner. This will often require large male animals being 



55 



