CHAFFER M ALTERNATIVES 



This alternative clarifies wording from the original Council Planning Document pertaining to defense of 

 life, property, or domestic dogs that could inadvertently mislead the reader. As a clarification of the 

 language in this statute (MCA 87-3-130), FWP notes that any citizen may take a wolf protected by state 

 law if it is attacking, killing, or threatening to kill a person or livestock, not just livestock producers or 

 their agents. Furthermore, the only two legally classified wildlife .species that can be injured or killed by a 

 person defending a domestic dog without a special kill permit is the mountain lion or the gray wolf. A 

 permit would be required for nuisance black bears or even deer. And, the mountain lion or gray wolf 

 must be "attacking or killing" a domestic dog before a person could legally take the lion or wolf. The 

 phrase "threatening to kill" does not apply in the context of defending domestic dogs. Human 

 intervention in those situations must be non-injurious. Formal definitions of these terms may be adopted 

 during subsequent administrative rule-making through the FWP Commission. 



This altemafive also clarifies the definition of "livestock" to mean cattle, sheep, horses, mules, pigs, 

 goats, emu, ostrich, poultry, and herding or guarding animals (llama, donkeys, and certain special-use 

 breeds of dogs commonly used for guarding or herding of livestock) for the purposes of addressing wolf- 

 livestock conflicts. Dogs used for other purposes such as hunting or as pets are not covered under this 

 definition. The defense of hunting dogs or dogs as pets is addressed under Hunuin Safety^ This 

 alternative clarifies the term "non-lethal harassment" to refer to situations in which a wolf is discovered 

 testing or chasing livestock and the owner attempts to scare or discourage the wolf in a non-injurious 

 manner and without prior attempts to search out, track, attract or wait for the wolf. A special permit 

 would be required to actually injure or kill the wolf or if a person purposefully attracted, tracked, or 

 searched for the wolf. 



This alternative would maintain and enhance the benefits of a compensation program. See Table 25. The 

 State of Montana intends to find or create an entity to administer a compensation program. But 

 compensation payments would not be made from FWP funds, matching federal funds intended for FWP 

 programs, or from state revenue sources (e.g. taxes or the general fund). Defenders of Wildlife could be a 

 partner. The entity or non-governmental organization would be independent of FWP to retain impartiality 

 and negotiations would take place between the livestock owner and the independent administrator. 

 Agency decision-making on the disposition of the problem animal is independent of the outcomes of the 

 compensation negotiations. Upon receipt of a WS investigative report confirming wolf-caused losses. 

 Defenders of Wildlife or some other independent entity would negotiate directly with the other to 

 determine compensation. Producers would be compensated for confirmed and probable livestock losses 

 at fair market value at the time of death and at fall value for young of the year. Livestock eligible for 

 compensation include cattle, calves, hogs, pigs, horses, mules, sheep, lambs, goats, and guarding animals. 

 Domestic pets or hunting dogs would not be covered. Despite the present uncertainty of how a 

 compensation program would be designed and administered, securing adequate funding for compensation 

 is of equal priority as securing funding to implement the other state and federal agency management 

 activities. 



Compensation programs are appealing and may in fact contribute to long-term conservation goals. A 

 group of private non-profit organizations, livestock organizations, the University of Montana, and 

 multiple state and federal agencies have been working on a comprehensive analysis of compensation 

 programs. Final results are expected in April 2003. These results, along with future input from the public 

 or the Wolf Management Advisory Council, could be used to determine more specific details of a 

 compensation program. 



81 



