CHAHTKR 4: ENVIRONMKNTAl. CONSKQUENCES 



Short Term, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 



In the short icmi, this alternative represents the status quo. Impacts are primarily associated with 

 livestock losses due to wolf depredation. Localized impacts to prey populations, individual outfitters, or 

 individual businesses may also develop in the short term. Wolf numbers and distribution would increase 

 in the absence of more proactive strategies. Hunter opportunity will continue to fluctuate through time 

 for a variety of reasons, which may include wolf predation. The fluctuations may be more significant in 

 localized areas due to locally high densities of wolves. The public and political debate over wolf 

 restoration and subsequent management may become even more conflicted because wolves would still be 

 listed under ESA, even though the northern Rockies population had achieved the biological recovery goal. 

 Wolf recovery issues in the northern Rockies would still maintain their national scope and controversy. 

 Federal resources utilized by the northern Rockies program would not be available for recovery efforts of 

 other rare or more imperiled species. Social tolerance may decline in Montana and illegal killings may 

 increase. The confusion over agency jurisdiction and management responsibility of an expanding 

 population may continue. The cumulative impacts of I^WP not preparing a management plan are borne 

 by the Montana citizens more so than FWP. Some citizens' interests and needs may not be met as 

 responsively or proactively as desired. 



Mitigation 



Because FWP would have very little participation in wolf management, there is little that FWP could do 

 to mitigate the negative impacts of this alternative directly, except to encourage USFWS to adjust the 

 program. Examples would be to request that USFWS increase the Montana-based staff and increase the 

 budget to maintain effective monitoring of the expanding population and to respond to conflicts. FWP 

 could also encourage USFWS to adopt more flexible regulations both for agencies and livestock 

 producers. Livestock producers themselves could decrease their risk of wolf depredation by adapting 

 certain management practices, although the risk can never be fully eliminated. USFWS and WS could 

 devote more effort proactively towards preventing wolf depredation on livestock. Livestock losses would 

 be partially mitigated by compensation payments made by Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife 

 may also cost-share a portion of the expenses associated with changes in husbandry. 



FWP could more directly mitigate for localized impacts to ungulate populations by decreasing hunter 

 opportunity, particularly for antlerless animals. In so doing, FWP would attempt to dampen a population 

 decline or hasten a population increase. FWP could also augment ungulate populations from other 

 sources. 



Irretrievable Commitments 



Wolves will be present in Montana, and under this alternative, USFWS retains management authority. 

 That commitment is irretrievable until FWP restarts the planning process. In the mean time. USFWS 

 commits resources that could have otherwise been allocated to recovering other imperiled species. FWP 

 would commit some administrative staff time to informal consultations with USFWS that could otherwise 

 be devoted to other activities. 



Some wolves will kill livestock. Even though wolves are not expected to have a significant effect on the 

 livestock industry as a whole, some livestock producers could sustain substantial losses in a given year. 

 The number of depredations will likely vary widely among years, but over the long term some livestock 

 losses will be an irreversible commitment of resources. Any compensation paid by private groups to 

 livestock operators will be irretrievable by the group paying the compensation. 



122 



