• Also assessing homeowners in rural subdivisions to pay for FWP services is an excellent idea. 

 In that FWP is responsible for managing all wildlife, they cannot stick their heads in the sand 

 and expect others to manage wildlife problems. Educating landowners about proper 

 management of their subdivision properties is important. 



Response: FWP would take a more active role in providing information to decision- 

 makers involved in land use planning under its preferred alternative. FWP would 

 focus its effort on maintaining public safety and increase reliance on other entities to 

 reduce other human/wildlife conflicts. 



Alternative! — 10 comments 



Summary 



Alternative 1 received substantial public support because of the familiarity of most actions identified 

 under that alternative and many public comments expressed some satisfaction with the way things are 

 now. Others believe that while many actions currently taken by FWP are satisfactory, some areas, 

 such as nongame and T&E management need more emphasis than they currently receive, or, believe 

 that FWP may not be meeting its mandates in those areas. 



Sample of Comments 



• Do not support as changes are needed. Only strong point of this alternative is game damage 

 assistance. 



• From the limited time I have had to read the Wildlife Environmental Impact Statement, I feel 

 that if the present program isn't broken, there is nothing to fix, in need of, or to change. 



• It is not clear as to what extent the existing program meets the mandates. Given the language 

 in the Introduction on page one, one must ask whether FWP is meeting its mandate for 

 nongame and threatened and endangered species management when it directs most of its 

 emphasis and financial and personnel resources to a limited ntomber of game species, in 

 comparison with the large number of nongame species that occur in the state. Alternative 1 

 seems to fall somewhat short of the agency' s stated mission and goals of conservation and 

 enhancement of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. 



Alternative 2 — 5 comments 



Summary 



Public comment suggested strong opposition to alternative 2. Nearly all these comments favored a 

 stronger leadership role for FWP in managing the states wildlife resource than what actions proposed 

 under this alternative would imply. 



71 



