ISSUE #17 



Commercial Operations - 5 comment; 



Summary 



Public comment indicated FWP has more than a legal obligation to fulfill concerning this issue, 

 called for the prohibition of game farming in Montana and supported passing on costs incurred by 

 FWP in dealing with game farms to the owners. 



Sample of Comments 



• Despite a stated intention to meet legal obligations, the FWP response to game farming 

 remains the weakest, least defensible, and most disappointing responses to all wildlife issues 

 in Montana. What about moral obligations to the wildlife resources of this state? 



• One answer - ban game farms. 



• All costs relating to game farms must be borne by game farm owners. 



Response: FWP 's mission statement declared we will "... provide for the stewardship 

 offish, wildlife, parks and recreational resources of Montana.. ", by statute we are 

 also obligated to abide by and uphold the laws of the state of Montana, which regulate 

 the existence of game farming in the state. The preferred alternative would also seek 

 authority to charge commercial operators for expenses incurred for inspecting and 

 licensing facilities. TnV t ■■ 



ISSUE #18 



Predator Control - 8 comments 



Summary 



Public comment ranged fi-om opposition to FWP contributing to DOL for predator control to support 

 for the program where it involved primarily protection of livestock as well as wildlife. 



Sample of Comments 



• We remain opposed to the contribution of hunter dollars to Montana DOL for coyote control 

 under the guise of benefits to game populations and Montana himters. 



• Many of us remain pretty much imconvinced that DOL is in the predator control business to 

 "...address wildlife goals...", but I assume there must be some situations that justify whatever 



83 



