CHAPTER 3: AI.TERNATIVE,S 



Funding. Under this alternative, the wolf program would be funded entirely by special federal 

 appropriations, since the role of licensed hunters and trappers is expected to be minimal and the gray wolf 

 would not be integrated into the broader context of a scientific wildlife management program. This 

 alternative is the most expensive alternative to implement. 



The estimated FWP budget for this alternative is $821 ,925. It requires increased FWP personnel and 

 operations money to do the necessary wolf monitoring because the population would be managed so 

 closely to the minimum required. Because each individual wolf becomes more "valuable" to the overall 

 population, a high degree of precision is necessary to ensure that management decisions do not jeopardize 

 the population and trigger a relisting. Additional personnel and operations money would be required for 

 administration of the special kill permit program through the FWP Enforcement Division since wolf 

 management on private lands is expected to be so aggressive. Additional funding would also be needed 

 to inform private landowners when wolves are in the area. Because of the high degree and frequency of 

 coordination required between FWP regions, between Montana and the other states, and likely with 

 USFWS, administrative costs are expected to increase. The budgeted amount for WS would decrease 

 because there would be fewer wolves in Montana, and landowners could be responsible for most conflict 

 resolution on private lands. The budget would not include compensation (see below). 



Livestock I Compensation. Under this alternative, there is little tolerance for wolves on private property. 

 FWP would be as liberal as possible in the number of special kill permits issued to livestock producers 

 and other private property owners in the vicinity, while maintaining the minimum number of wolves 

 required (Table 28). Livestock producers could still kill wolves caught "attacking, killing, or threatening 

 to kill" their livestock and the FWP Enforcement Division would still investigate defense of property 

 incidents. Because of the underlying premise of liberal, aggressive wolf management to limit wolf 

 numbers and distribution, with landowner participation, livestock losses would be minimized to the extent 

 possible. Therefore, a compensation program is not included under this alternative. 



Wolf Habitat, Connectivity, and Land Management. Under this alternative, Montana's connectivity 

 requirement would be met through a trapping/relocation program to artificially simulate the natural 

 dispersal events required to ensure long-term genetic viability. Survival of relocated wolves has not been 

 empirically determined for Montana wolves. Therefore, a strong reliance on the core habitats provided by 

 national parks would be necessary because these packs could more reliably provide dispersing 

 individuals. In addition, these packs would be managed more conservatively than other packs. No 

 specific habitat corridors, travel restrictions, or area closures are incorporated in this alternative. 



Economics / Livelihoods. This alternative favors the economic interests of livestock producers and the 

 interests of big game hunters because aggressive management would limit wolf numbers and 

 distribution — and presumably the impact of wolves on livestock and ungulate populations. However, 

 some landowners may incur some expenses in carrying out wolf management activities on their private 

 properties. YNP would still be a prime wolf-viewing destination. But, outside YNP, ecotourism and 

 wildlife-viewing interests would not be given much consideration under this alternative. 



Information /Public Outreach. The alternative expands the outreach efforts in Alternatives 2 (Updated 

 Council) and 3 (Additional Wolf) to include significantly greater FWP communication and coordination 

 with individual landowners due to the high number of special kill permits available. Under this 

 alternative more so than any other, FWP would also notify landowners when wolves are known to be in 

 the area. Frequent notification is added to this alternative in response to public comment gathered during 

 scoping. 



93 



