CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVKS 



Therefore, wolves in Montana would continue to be managed by USFWS. This alternative represents the 

 existing situation. 



Implementation of this Alterative 



Implementation of this alternative would involve FWP completing this EIS process and signing a Record 

 of Decision indicating that it will not take any further action. 



How Does this Alternative Address the Major Issues? 



Wolf Management, Numbers and Distribution . USFWS and its cooperating partners carry out all 

 management, monitoring, public outreach, and technical assistance to landowners. Wolves occurring 

 within the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area are currently managed as "endangered" while wolves 

 occurring elsewhere in Montana are managed as "experimental, non-essential" according to the final rules 

 adopted for the reintroduction effort (USFWS 1994a). 



USFWS decision-making is guided by ESA, the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan (USFWS 1987) 

 and its amendments, the Northwestern Montana and Central Idaho Interim Wolf Control Flan (USFWS 

 1999), the Final EIS on Reintroductions of Gray Wolves to YNP and Central Idaho, and the experimental 

 rules (USFWS 1994a). The USFWS could adopt or amend management policies or regulations at any 

 time in the future, so long as the changes were consistent with ESA requirements to recover the species 

 and the proper procedural steps are followed. In 2000, USFWS proposed to reclassify wolves in 

 northwestern Montana from "endangered" to "threatened" and to implement new rules that increase 

 management flexibility for the agencies and landowners (USFWS 2000). USFWS has not announced a 

 final decision on that proposal. 



Wolf management on behalf of other interests is somewhat limited under the existing federal recovery 

 program. The primary focus of the federal program is on recovery of the species — increase wolf numbers 

 and distribution so that protection under ESA is not longer warranted. USFWS may or may not be able to 

 address certain issues, depending on the legality or consistency with existing federal regulations. The 

 federal program emphasizes conflict resolution for livestock and human safety concerns rather than 

 proactive management of wolf abundance or distribution per se. USFWS has limited management 

 flexibility under ESA. 



Social Factors. This alternative represents the most conservative because federal law and regulations, 

 most notably ESA, guide the program not state laws. This alternative was created to most closely reflect 

 public comments that expressed protectionist philosophies, a distrust of state wildlife agencies, and that 

 supported permanent protection of the gray wolf under ESA. Ironically, this alternative also reflects some 

 public comments that did not support the State of Montana developing a program because wolf 

 management would then stay with USFWS, the agency "responsible for creating a problem for Montana 

 residents." 



Administration, Delisting. USFWS would not propose to delist the gray wolf in the northern Rockies in 

 the absence of conservation and management plans from Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Therefore, the 

 species remains listed and managed by USFWS and the cooperating partners in all aspects. The State of 

 Montana would not be involved in day to day management activities. 



Under the Montana Endangered Species Protection Act, the gray wolf would still remain listed as 

 "endangered" throughout Montana because SB 163 would not take effect. FWP will .still have some 

 obligations under the state law to assist the federal recovery effort under Montana's Section 6 agreement 



66 



