arAP-IKR 4: KNMRONMKNTAr. CONSEQliENCKS 



especially if there is more than one large predator. During a series of mild winters, wolf predation may 

 not significantly influence ungulate populations. 



All prey populations vary through time, across a diversity of habitats, and in response to ever changing 

 environmental factors. The cause and effect relationships that make populations go up or down are often 

 not known, yet widely debated. FWP's ungulate management program is designed to provide an 

 opportunity for regulated harvest, while balancing population status, other mortality factors, habitat 

 condition, landowner tolerance, hunter opportunity, previous hunter success, and an array of 

 environmental factors known to influence populations. In general, Montana big game populations are 

 robust and hunters enjoy greater opportunity now than even 20 years ago (see Chapter 2). Statewide 

 harvest trends reflect that. At the regional level, similar trends are apparent, but more variable. At the 

 hunting district level, harvest sometimes varies even more—and so do the factors influencing hunter 

 success. 



Changes in ungulate population dynamics or hunter participation may or may not be directly influenced 

 by wolf presence. For example, in one northwestern Montana hunting district having established wolf 

 packs since the mid- 1 980s, the number of elk hunters declined by 22% and the number of elk hunter days 

 declined by 15% between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s. Declines in white-tailed deer and elk 

 populations were attributed to additive predation pressures by wild carnivores (wolf, black and grizzly 

 bear, coyote, mountain lion) and human hunting during those same years (Kunkel and Pletscher 1999). In 

 a district to the south with similar habitat and snow regimes, the number of elk hunters and elk hunter 

 days also declined, but in the absence of resident wolf packs. But in adjacent districts to the west having 

 resident wolf packs at a lower density, the number of elk hunters and elk hunter days did not decline 

 during that time. FWP does not fully understand why hunter effort changes at the hunting district level, 

 but perceived or real changes in prey abundance due to a variety of factors may influence the decisions of 

 individual hunters. Hunters may also be influenced by changes in hunting regulations for harvesting 

 particular age or sex classes of big game. 



This EIS must assess each alternative's potential impact on prey populations and hunter opportunity due 

 to all factors, including the presence of a recovered wolf population. FWP relies on the combination of 

 biological information, results from the telephone harvest survey, changes in the environmental, weather 

 events, and time to interpret ungulate population trends. Ultimately, all sources of data must be taken 

 together to respond to changes in the population status of either wolves or their prey. This EIS considers 

 future changes in ungulate populations due to implementation of each of the five alternatives in relation to 

 historical trends at the statewide level. 



Economics 



Four specific areas of economic impacts were addressed: 1 ) wolf depredation on livestock, 2) big game 

 hunting (primarily elk, deer, and moose) and the big game outfitting industry, 3) recreational values, and 

 4) the fiscal resources of FWP. Historical data were used to calculate some economic impacts. Other 

 economic impacts are less clear due to future uncertainty and to the variation in historical data. Impacts 

 to recreational and social values are also difficult to determine. 



Because all the alternatives maintain a recovered wolf population in Montana, the estimated 

 socioeconomic impacts across the five alternatives are similar. In fact, those impacts which can be 

 calculated and estimated with some reliability and that do vary with each alternative, are limited to 

 livestock losses and agency management costs. The lack of differences in impacts across the spectrum of 

 alternatives does not mean that the alternatives have equal impacts. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that 

 in light of all the potential ways that wolves, prey, the environment, human hunting, and recreation 



109 



