CHAPTJ:K 4: KNVIRONMENTAI- CONSKQUKNCKS 



The average value of all cattle in Montana was $850 per head, and the average value of all sheep was $94 

 per head as of January 1, 2001 (Montana Agricultural Statistics Service 2002). Purebred lines may, in 

 fact, have a significantly higher value, while other animals may have a significantly lower value than this 

 average. While value per animal has declined recently, over the last 10 years it has remained relatively 

 stable in real dollar terms. These values are projected to remain stable in real dollar terms (corrected for 

 inflation) out to 2015. These values are similar, but differ slightly from actual payments from the 

 Defender's of Wildlife Compensation Fund because the latter are individually negotiated. 



FWP predicts that in 2015, gray wolves in Montana would be responsible for about $210,499 in total 

 livestock depredation losses per year (confirmed, probable, and other) (Table 31). The total costs 

 associated with wolf depredation losses are likely to be smaller during the early years of implementation 

 due to a smaller wolf population. Other expenses of livestock industry include increased management 

 costs due to changes in husbandry practices or materials associated with improving the physical security 

 of animals such as night pens or electric fencing. These costs are difficult to estimate and have not been 

 quantified. Presumably ranchers already incur some management costs to mitigate for predator losses. 



The estimated annual Uvestock depredation losses for this alternative are small compared to either the 

 statewide value of annual sheep and cattle production or to the level of annual livestock losses to 

 predators other than wolves and to natural causes. But wolf losses are not spread evenly among all 

 Montana livestock producers or shared by the industry as a whole. These losses are borne by individual 

 livestock producers and in fact, the losses may be significant in proportion to the size of the operation. 

 Additionally, these losses represent new, added risk to some livestock producers because of where they 

 are located geographically with respect to wolf distribution. 



Under this alternative, livestock producers have some assurance that Defenders of Wildlife will continue 

 to pay for confirmed losses since the gray wolf stays listed. However, this program is provided 

 voluntarily and is sustained through private donations. It could be discontinued at any time. If Defenders 

 of Wildlife were to cover the predicted confirmed cattle and sheep losses in 2015, the cost would be about 

 $126,300. Other economic costs, such as probable losses or expenses from enhanced husbandry, would 

 still be borne by the individual livestock producer. 



This alternative predicts some of the highest future cattle and sheep losses of any alternative. There may 

 be more wolf-livestock conflicts in the absence of a proactive management program which fine-tunes 

 wolf numbers and distribution. Individual livestock producers and USFWS will incur higher direct and 

 indirect management costs to avoid and resolve wolf-livestock conflicts. This alternative could also 

 foster the expectation that there should be radio collars present in every pack so they can be easily found. 

 Under this alternative, landowners could have a greater risk of losses in the absence of changes on their 

 part as wolves increase in number and distribution. 



Big Game Hunting. At the statewide level, wolf management under this alternative is not expected to 

 cause significant changes in hunting activity beyond the increases and decreases observed since 1990. 

 Greater changes at the local hunting district level are more likely, but will probably be caused by a suite 

 of factors that includes the presence of wolves. FWP cannot predict the magnitude of local impacts. 

 Table 32 shows the historical variability in elk, deer, and moose hunting participation from 1990-2001 at 

 the statewide level. Changes between 2003 and 2015 should not exceed what is shown. Note that hunter 

 participation could also increase because of changes in regulations to increase harvest, thereby reducing 

 populations to accomplish other management goals. 



115 



