( lIAinEK 4: KNVIKONMENTAL (ONSEQCENCKS 



considered. If there are more than 15 breeding pair, FWP will reduce pack size through liberal 

 management tools, which could include regulated hunting or trapping. Wolf management actions would 

 be paired with other corrective measures to reduce ungulate mortality or enhance recruitment such as 

 decreasing hunter opportunity for antlerless animals. 



FWP would not significantly change the principles and philosophies guiding ungulate population 

 management in response to the added management authority for the gray wolf. Ungulate management 

 will continue to be based on the best available scientific information and the established management 

 objectives. FWP actions under this alternative would improve how ungulate and carnivore populations 

 are managed overall because monitoring programs would be improved and FWP would have management 

 authority for both an important predator species and its prey. 



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 young and healthy 

 animals are also vulnerable to wolf predation. 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 through 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. By having management 

 authority for the gray wolf, FWP could more thoroughly integrate and account for the needs of the other 

 wildlife species that it is charged to manage and conserve. 



Human Environment 



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

 are supportive of wolf presence, others are totally opposed. . Still others are supportive so long as the 

 needs of those most affected by wolf presence are addressed and as long as the program balances the 

 needs of wolves and people. There are also differing opinions about who should be the lead agency and 

 whether wolves should stay listed in perpetuity. People in northwestern Montana have largely adjusted to 

 wolf presence since wolves have been in the area going back to the mid 1980s. Elsewhere in Montana, 

 citizens are still adjusting to the presence of a newly introduced population. The adaptive approach 

 outlined in this alternative would allow FWP to meet the differing management expectations and needs 

 that exist across the spectrum of social values. It incorporates fiexibility for landowners, livestock 

 producers, FWP, and provides for a secure wolf population into the future. Most importantly, Montana 

 citizens would have a stronger voice in wolf conservation and management in their state because the 

 program would be administered from a local perspective, rather than a national perspective. 



By FWP assuming management responsibility, citizens that perceive wolves as a "cost" are negatively 

 impacted in the sense that FWT would "have to" manage wolves in order to get the species delisted. On 

 the other hand, citizens that perceive wolves as "neutral" or as a "benefit" could be positively affected by 

 the implementation of a proactive, responsive program at the state level. Either way, the alternative calls 

 on the public to accept the legitimacy of FWP to manage gray wolves and that wolf conservation and 

 management will be integrated within the context of modem scientific wildlife management. 



Public Outreach. FWP would be able to increase public outreach activities beyond what is possible 

 under Alternative 1 (No Action) because FWP has dedicated personnel to fulfill public information and 

 educational needs. These personnel are also distributed throughout the state. Public awareness and 

 improved understanding about the conservation and management program should decrease the emotional 



125 



