CHAKTER I: PIJKPOSK AM) NKEU lOK ACTION 



and are thus irreconcilable. Nonetheless, opposing points-of-view are incorporated in the EIS. The 

 fundamental issues of wolf conservation and management, associated social factors, state and federal 

 administrative responsibilities, prey populations and their management, and concerns about livestock and 

 compensation for wolf-caused losses were significant enough to drive the creation of specific alternatives. 

 The lack of strongly conflicting public comments on issues like human safety, the need for information 

 outreach and education, or wolf population monitoring for example, allowed FWP to address several 

 issues in different ways within the spectrum of alternatives created based on the major issues. 

 The intent of a scoping period is for the agency to gather information from the public. Thus, the 

 community work sessions were not designed to answer questions or to provide specific information on 

 what would be in Montana's plan. Nonetheless, many questions emerged which can also be a measure of 

 public concerns and issues. A separate summary, which FWP will use to address specific needs and 

 target future public outreach efforts, captures the questions raised during the scoping period. While some 

 questions can be answered directly, others are rhetorical, beyond the scope of the EIS, or beyond the 

 jurisdiction of FWP. Many questions, however, can only be answered through the development of this 

 EIS and the final decision. 



The following is a comprehensive list of issues addressed in this EIS. See Table 1. 



Wolf Management, Numbers, Distribution, and Conservation Strategies. These public comments 

 describe many different philosophies, tools, and strategies for how wolves could be managed; comments 

 also address how many wolves would be in the Montana population and where they will be distributed. 

 Wolves were managed as a bounty animal up until about 70 years ago when they were thought to be 

 extinct in Montana. Wolves in Montana became protected as an endangered species in the early 1970s. 



Social Factors: These comments reflect the differing philosophical, value-based opinions, and the 

 human dimensions surrounding wolves, wolf management, prey populations, etc. The social, cultural, 

 and aesthetic values people assign to the gray wolf today grow out of a long, colorful history of 

 interactions between wolves and people. Public opinions about wolves vary greatly. A successful 

 conservation and management program for wolves ultimately depends on people and their attitudes. The 

 social factors that shape public interest in or tolerance for wolf presence and how conflicts are resolved 

 are equally important components of any wolf management program. 



Administration and Delisting. These comments address state and federal responsibilities, the current 

 legal status of wolves, their recovery, the federal and state delisting processes and the progress of 

 planning efforts in Idaho and Wyoming. While the restoration of wolves in Montana occurred through 

 the combination of natural wolf recolonization and reintroduction, the population in the tri-state area has 

 attained the biological benchmarks of species recovery. The question at hand is how a recovered wolf 

 population will be managed and by what agency or jurisdiction. Many comments also identified concerns 

 about potential delays in delisting due the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms and/or management 

 plans in Idaho or Wyoming or litigation, which would delay or block transfer of management authority to 

 Montana. 



Prey Populations. These comments address wolf-prey interactions, potential impacts of wolf predation 

 on Montana big game populations, how wolves and ungulates will be managed, how other predators and 

 other wildlife will be managed, and Montana's hunting heritage. Because of their long-term financial 

 investments and willingness to restrict themselves when necessary, Montanans enjoy relatively liberal 

 hunting seasons for more ungulate species than other western states. The financial investments and 

 sacrifices made by the hunting public to restore ungulate populations are significant. 



Funding. These comments address wolf management costs, sources of funding, and the reliability of 

 funding in the future. FWP has actively restored, perpetuated, and managed the fish and wildlife 



