CHAPTEK 4: KNVIKONMENTAt ( ONSKQI KNCF.S 



At the regional and statewide scale, prey populations will fluctuate through time due to all causes of 

 mortality (predation, natural mortality, human hunting, habitat conditions, and weather events) similar to 

 the historical patterns described in Chapter 2 (Existing Environment). Across broad geographic areas, 

 wolf predation alone is not expected to influence prey populations in the absence of more significant 

 environmental events. But at a localized level, prey populations may be more influenced by wolf 

 predation, particularly in combination with predation by other large carnivores and/or human hunting. 

 Predation pressure may exaggerate a population decline initiated by unfavorable weather events or even 

 slow population recovery, particularly if human harvest rates of antlerless animals are too high. 

 Localized prey populations may even stabilize at a smaller level. Wolf predation on small ungulate 

 populations, even if infrequent, may be more influential on population trend than for larger ungulate 

 population because predation may remove a greater proportion of animals. In the absence of a state wolf 

 management plan, USFWS would not consider mitigating those impacts to localized big game 

 populations through reductions in pack size. Therefore, FWP may decrease hunter opportunity, 

 particularly for antlerless animals in some hunting districts, since FWP is only able to manage the prey 

 side of the equation. At this time, FWP cannot predict if, when, or how significant those changes might 

 be. It is also possible that hunter opportunity for antlerless animals may increase in the future to meet 

 other management objectives. 



Other Wildlife. Some wildlife species would benefit from implementation of this alternative because the 

 gray wolf is an important link in the food chain. In addition, wolf predation tends to remove old, sick, or 

 debilitated animals from the population, although this is not always the case because wolves also kill 

 young and healthy animals. Wolf kills are visited by a wide variety of scavenging species which directly 

 benefit from this food source on a year round basis. The presence of wolves is also thought to enhance 

 ecosystem functioning by changing ungulate habitat use patterns. Other wildlife species may be impacted 

 directly thiough predation or indirectly through competition for food resources or space. For example, 

 some local mountain lion populations may decline in the general vicinity of wolf pack territories. The 

 magnitude of these positive and negative consequences are difficult to predict, but are expected to occur 

 on a localized level where wolves become established. Nonetheless, FWP would have limited influence 

 to mitigate or enhance impacts to other wildlife because it would not be the lead agency managing the 

 wolf population. 



ESA also directs the USFWS wolf program to consult with other USFWS recovery programs to be sure 

 that recovery of one species is not jeopardizing recovei^ of another. Under this alternative, these internal 

 consultations must continue because the wolf is still listed. 



Human Environment 



Social Factors. Wolf restoration has been a divisive issue among Montanans. While some Montanans 

 supported recovery, others opposed it. People in northwestern Montana are becoming accustomed to 

 wolves since they have been present going back to the mid 1980s. Elsewhere in Montana, citizens are 

 still adjusting to the presence of a newly introduced population. This alternative would lead to the largest 

 estimated wolf population of the five considered. For those individuals opposed to the presence of 

 wolves in Montana and/or their management by USFWS, this alternative represents the largest negative 

 impact on social and cultural values. Conversely, individuals supportive of wolf presence in higher 

 numbers and conservative management philosophies would receive the greatest positive social benefit. 



Because USFWS administers the program, the diverse interests and needs of all Montanans would not 

 necessarily be taken into consideration or addressed in a proactive fashion. Nonetheless, USFWS would 

 take action to alleviate conflicts between wolves and people or livestock v,here and when they develop. 



113 



