purposes are discussed in the environmental effects portion of the draft EIS and are 

 not expected to increase vulnerability of any species. 



ISSUE #2 

 Access/Private Land - 2 comments 



Summary 



Public comment indicated additional access was needed on federal land in order to reduce 

 recreational pressures on private land and that additional incentives should be considered for private 

 landowners.. 



Sample of Comments 



• The plan must address how management of state and federal land will be changed so that 

 current pressures for hunting and recreation opportunities on private land will be reduced. 



Response: FWP does not regulate travel on public lands under either federal or state 

 jurisdiction. FWP does make recommendations on travel management to these 

 agencies, who in turn may or may not follow those recommendations. 



Under the preferred alternative FWP would continue to emphasize block management 

 and hunter enhancement programs with monetary compensation for participating 

 landowners as well as the opportunity to obtain fi^ee sportsmen licenses. 



ISSUE #3 



Lands Program/Access - 2 comments 



Summary 



Public comment did not differ substantially from those received on the Draft EIS. 

 Sample of Comments: 



• We feel that public access should be mandatory, not merely encouraged on a case by case 

 basis. 



• Outright purchase within the Habitat Montana program should not be a first choice of the 

 department. Easements provide a much more acceptable method of conserving habitat on 

 private lands. 



Response: By statute the Habitat Montana Program cannot make access a mandatory 



