privatization of wdldlife and allowing private landowners and outfitters too much influence over 

 resource decisions that could adversely affect public enjoyment of the resource. 



Sample of Comments -jji.\ 



• Alternative 4 will take much ofthe "public" out of the hunting picture. 



.•«•■^«« (>«»■,■ 



• This alternative causes some concern about the viewpoint held by some that market forces 

 direct natural resource management. It seems to open the door for privatization of public 

 wildlife resources. This alternative includes an emphasis for programs on public lands, with ^^ 

 the agency making only a minimal effort to discourage leasing and charging of access fees. -> 

 This alternative would also reduce the agency's emphasis on habitat conservation. 



• I object to Alternative IV because its central premise of reliance on "markets" to manage 

 wildlife is anathema to the principle of public trust ownership of wildlife. It would eventually 

 create a "European System" of wildlife management in Montana. This I consider to be a mild 

 form of treason. .1 f >v.n.^.'st'l/^ 



Alternative 5— 8 comments -u.^^eauu , j:r:i hm- 1 - rterrafk 



Summary ^' - 



Public response to this alternative was mixed although comment focused on issues addressed in a way 

 that individuals commenting on the alternative seemed to favor. Those opposed to implementing the 

 alternative disagreed with the increased emphasis on management of wildlife for increased hunting 

 opportimity. 



Sample of Comments 



• Again the wildlife program should not be in the "recreation business" (infer that FWP is in the 

 business of game management for hunting). .„ . .^^^ 



• I prefer Alternative V in the Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic EIS dated March 1998. 

 My first reaction was to choose Alternative I, the no action alternative, because I would prefer 

 to continue hunting just as I have in the past. However, we should accept and accommodate 

 change, and plan for a realistic, desirable fiature. 



• 



• I have to assimie that alternative 5, is the preferred alternative ofthe department. I come to 

 this assumption, because this alternative combines several ofthe most important issues that 

 are being considered, and allows for the dept. to maintain many ofthe programs that are 

 currently in effect. 



• The potential expansion and promotion of wildlife-related recreational opportunities (both 

 consvmiptive and non-consumptive) on private lands is attractive. User preferences would be 

 a driving force. Whereas, this alternative would broaden the support base for the agency and 



73 



