• Weed control is a good use of wildlife management money. Money should be spent where 

 long-term success is greatest. Biological control is the long-term answer. Annually spraying 

 for weeds, year after year after year appears to be a waste of money. 



• As a landowner and licensed outfitter, I am concerned about wildlife and habitat weeds 



are of major concern to the landowner community We simply must stop the slow but 



persistent infestation of noxious weeds. Weeds are now commonly used as a reason (and 

 justifiably so) for landowners to deny access to the hunting public. FWP must become a 

 major statewide partner in weed control and eradication. . ^^ 



Response: FWP would continue to control weeds on its land at a level consistent with 

 state law. Under the preferred alternative, FWP would increase emphasis on 

 biological control of weeds and explore collaborative opportunities at the local level 

 to control infestations of noxious weeds. 



ISSUE #21 

 Urban Wildlife — 11 comments 



Summary 



This is one of the most contentious issues addressed in the draft EIS. A broad cross section of public 

 comment, including recreationists and conservationists from across the state support increased 

 involvement by FWP in local land use planning and reducing human/wildlife conflicts on the urban 

 interface. 



The source of opposition to any FWP involvement in land use planning and managing wdldlife on the 

 urban interface came from Lincoln County. Many Lincoln County residents opposed the proposal 

 under alternative 5 that would fiind FWP's response to wildlife problems in residential areas with 

 fimds derived from a source other than with license dollars. , ^ 



Sample of Comments 



• The document says that FWP may propose legal changes to gain involvement in more issues 

 such as subdivision review. If you go for legal changes, let local governmental officials 

 know, mayors and coimty commissioners across the state. We need to know early in the 

 process to provide an opporttmity for informed input to state legislators before they vote. 

 Public and local govenmient officials are not at the table when it comes to these efforts for 

 change. 



• At a state level, the FWP needs to support the recommendations of its field staff. Urban 

 wildlife control should NOT be paid with himter dollars. 



• Active participation in land use planning with an emphasis on reducing wildlife/human 

 conflicts and habitat preservation. I think it's fair to charge impact fees to developers and/or 

 homeowners. 



TOj 



