(HA^rKR 3: .Vr.TERNATlVUS 



objectives based on biological and social considerations. As recommended by the council, the gray wolf 

 will be incorporated into ungulate management and future planning efforts. 



Funding. FWP acknowledges that existing financial resources are not adequate. FWP will seek 

 additional funding from a diversity of sources, including special state or federal appropriations, private 

 foundations, or other private sources. The states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming are still investigating 

 the idea of a gri/./.ly bear/gray wolf trusl lund that could be created through a special federal appropriation 

 to fund the conservation and management of these two species of national significance. FWP will use 

 state license money and matching federal funds to conserve and manage this native species on equal 

 standing with other carnivores like mountain lions or black bears. License revenue will be used to 

 partially fund the program since FWP intends to u.se regulated harvest as a management tool. The FWP 

 personnel and financial resources necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of wolf conservation and 

 management, law enforcement, human safety, public outreach, resolution of wolf-livestock conflicts, 

 compensation, and program administration is an estimated $774,046 annually. The FWP budget reflects 

 the comprehensive nature of designing and implementing a wolf program. It also reflects an extra 

 $50,000 to fund increased efforts to reduce the risk of depredation and implement more proactive 

 management strategies. Compensation program costs would be in addition to this amount. 

 Compensation for livestock losses would be funded independently and not require the use of state funds. 

 A detailed budget is presented in Chapter 4. Adequate funding from supplemental sources is required to 

 implement all elements of this alternative. 



Livestock I Compensation. Livestock producers and other landowners provide many benefits to the long- 

 term conservation of gray wolves, not the least of which is the maintenance of open space and habitats 

 that support a wide variety of wildlife, including deer and elk. At the same time, livestock producers may 

 experience financial losses due to wolves. These losses tend to be sheep and young cattle, although 

 occasionally llamas, guarding dogs or other livestock are lost. Some losses can be documented reliably 

 but others cannot. Other financial hardships may be caused by livestock becoming stressed, injured, or 

 trampling newborn young or by changes in husbandry or management practices to reduce risk of 

 depredation. 



FWP and MDOL will work together, along with WS, to address and resolve wolf-livestock conflicts 

 through a MOU. FWP, in cooperation with MDOL, will contract WS to respond to landowner 

 complaints, to conduct field investigations, and to carry out control activities for problem wolves. FWP 

 has the ultimate responsibility for determining the disposition of wolves. See Table 24. 



Addressing wolf-livestock conflicts will entail two separate, but parallel elements. One element will be 

 management activities by WS and FWP to minimize the potential for wolf-livestock conflicts and to 

 resolve the conflicts where and when they occur. Examples are providing technical assistance and taking 

 actions that reduce the probability that the offending wolf or wolves will be involved in another 

 depredation incident. This would be funded, administered, and implemented by the cooperating agencies. 

 The second element addresses the economic losses of individual livestock producers through a 

 compensation program when livestock are injured or killed by wolves. The two elements, management 

 and compensation, arc funded, administered, and implemented separately and independently of one 

 anolher-bul parallel one another, united in the goal of maintaining a viable wolf population and 

 addressing economic losses. 



76 



