t IIAPTKK 3: AKTKRNATIVES 



How Does this Alternative Address the Major Issues? 



Wolf Management, Numbers and Distribution. Under this alternative, FWP would recognize the gray 

 wolf as a native species and its management would be integrated within the wildlife program, as 

 described for Allemative 2 (Updated Council). However, the adaptive management framework described 

 for Alternative 2 would be modified to increase from 15 to 20, the number of breeding pairs (by the 

 federal recovery definition) required to transition from conservative to liberal management tools. All 

 other aspects of Table 22 remain the same. 



Social Factors. This alternative uses Alternative 2 (Updated Council) as a baseline, yet presents a 

 different management scenario in which greater numbers of breeding pairs would be required prior to 

 implementing liberal management tools. The social factors underlying this alternative originate in public 

 comments expressing general support for FWP to manage the gray wolf similar to other large carnivores, 

 but to do so conservatively and with greater numbers of wolves on the landscape. 



Administration, Delisting. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council), with one exception. Under this 

 alternative. FWP would organize an annual workshop and interagency coordination meeting instead of 

 working with a "standing" advisory council. The emphasis would be on citizen input and participation in 

 the .spirit of problem .solving and on agency accountability back to the public. Participation by diver.se 

 interests would be encouraged. Montanans and agency personnel would have the opportunity to identify 

 and discuss issues as well as brainstorm solutions in an informal, non-confrontational atmosphere. 

 Technical experts and decision makers would be present to listen, answer questions, provide information, 

 as well as to formulate strategies for addressing the issues raised. Because other agencies have authority 

 and jurisdiction to address the issues identified by the public, such as the federal land management 

 agencies, their participation is strongly encouraged. The overall emphasis would be program evaluation, 

 refinement of policy, and on the initial stages of establishing new policy or management direction in 

 response to unforeseen developments. Potential outcomes of these coordination meetings include 

 potential changes in FWP management strategies (hat could involve the FWP Commission or the 

 Montana Legislature at a later time. Other outcomes may be enhanced understanding, improved 

 communication, and continued involvement by all Montanans, not just a representative council. 



The FWP Commission fulfills some of the same functions as an advisory council in that it is comprised of 

 citizens, discusses issues and sets policy direction. FWP Commissioners would be encouraged to attend 

 the workshop and interagency meelings. 



Prey Populations. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). See Table 23. 



Funding. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council), with one exception. Under this alternative, the State 

 of Montana would not find or create an entity to administer an independent compensation program (see 

 below) and that line item would not be renecled in the budget. The estimated FWP budget for this 

 Alternative is $799, 046. Compared to Alteniative 2, this alternative increases the budgeted amount for 

 enhanced ungulate monitoring (from $50,000 to $75,000). A detailed budget is presented in Chapter 4. 



Livestock I Compensation. Under this alternative, FWP would address wolf-livestock conflicts as 

 recommended by the council in Alternative 2, using the same management framework and tools. 

 Landowners would still be able to contact a management specialist (FWP or WS) for help with assessing 

 risk from wolves and identifying ways to minimize tho.se risks — while still acknowledging that the risk of 

 livest(Kk depredation by wolves will never be zero. In addition, FWP would work to develop programs 

 that provide livestock operations with additional benefits if they implement preventive approaches and 

 maintain opportunities for wildlife, including gray wolves, on private lands and associated public grazing 

 allotments. It may also involve state and federal land management agencies. 



88 



