CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AM) M.l D l OK \( 1 11 1^ 



Other Wildlife. These comments address wolf interactions with other, non-ungulate wildlife species 

 (e.g. ESA-listed species, other carnivores). Wolves could function as "keystone species" which exist at 

 relatively low abundance, whose effect on the ecosy.stem is relatively large and involves multiple trophic 

 levels (Power et al. 1996, Estes 1996). A wide vaiiety of scavengers and other carnivores benefit from 

 the year-round availability of carrion. Wolves may directly or indirectly compete for food with other 

 carnivores by selecting similar prey or by usurping kills (Kunkel et al. 1999). Some non-ungulate 

 species, such as the beaver, are also prey items for the gray wolf in Montana. 



Private Property. These comments address "private property rights", referring to wolf presence on 

 private property, protection of private property, etc. Some comments assert a landowner's "right" to 

 allow wolves on his or her property, while others assert a landowner's "right" to control or manage 

 wolves on his or her property. While wildlife are publicly owned resources and managed in trust for this 

 and future generations of Montanans, peipetuation of Montana's wildlife also depends on the habitats 

 found on private lands. 



Hybrids. These comments identify a concern about whether captive wolves or wolf-dog hybrids 

 jeopardize human safety if they are released or escape from their owners, erode public tolerance for wild 

 wolves if someone has an encounter with an escapee, whether hybrids or captive wolves pose a risk to a 

 recovered wolf population, and whether stricter laws need to be passed to further regulate or ban 

 ownership. Wolf-dog hybrids have been responsible for human attacks, maulings, dismemberments, and 

 deaths. 



Wildlife Management Areas. These comments address wolf presence on FWP Wildlife Management 

 Areas (WMAs). FWP manages a network of WMAs across the state to benefit wildlife, particularly 

 wintering ungulates in western Montana. These purchases were made with revenues generated through 

 sales of hunting and fishing licenses and matching federal funds. They are also used for outdoor 

 recreational pursuits other than hunting, such as bird watching, wildlife viewing, fishing, or camping. 



Issues not Evaluated in the EIS 



FWP received a number of comments identifying issues or concerns that are beyond the sideboards of the 

 federal wolf recovery program, beyond the statutoiy authority of the State of Montana, not relevant to the 

 decisions being made, or otherwise outside the scope of the proposed action. These issues, and the 

 rationale for their exclusion, are described below. 



1. Comments about the federal effort to reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central 

 Idaho. 



Some comments questioned the wisdom, legality, or methods by which wolves were reintroduced to 

 these areas. This was a federal effort directed and funded by the U.S. Congress to hasten the overall 

 pace of wolf recovery in the northern Rockies under the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 

 Plan. Federal actions were ultimately carried out and found to be legal and in compliance with the 

 authority and scope of USFWS and ESA provisions. All legal challenges have been exhausted. 

 Because wolves will remain in the Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho recovery areas, these 

 comments were not analyzed further. 



