<HAI>-rER 4: KNVIRONMENI Al. CONSEQIBNCKS 



Whenever the adaptive management trigger of 15 breeding pairs is exceeded, FWP intends to implement 

 a variety of more liberal management tools. These include regulated harvest to help proactively manage 

 total wolf numbers in the population (and the number of wolves per pack by default) and removal of 

 problem animals. These tools are paired with the increased work by FWP, WS, and others to provide 

 technical assistance to private landowners to minimize their risks to the extent possible. These strategies 

 combined reduced depredation by at least 70% and decreased economic losses in a computer simulation 

 model examining a variety of animal damage control strategies for wolves in the Great Lakes (Haight et 

 al. 2002). FWP does not believe that field results in Montana would mimic computer-generated results. 

 However, the results of the study did suggest that the combination of voluntary proactive changes to 

 agricultural practices, in combination with proactive agency management of the number of wolves in the 

 population, and removal of depredating wolves would reduce depredation losses significantly. 



Montana Agricultural Statistics Service (2002) reports that, as of January 1, 2001, the average value of all 

 cattle in Montana was $850 per head. Sheep averaged $94 per head. Purebred lines may, in fact, have a 

 significantly higher value, while other animals may have a significantly lower value. The predicted 

 economic loss for confirmed livestock depredation, probable depredation, and loss of other domestic 

 animals is $40,935 - $81,770 (Table 35). This is less than the predicted economic losses for Alternative 1 

 (No Action). Adaptive management of the overall wolf population, combined with removal of problem 

 wolves, should decrease economic losses (see Haight et al. 2002). Livestock producers may incur other 

 expenses, including increased management costs due to changes in husbandry practices or materials to 

 improve the physical security of animals (e.g. night pens). These costs are difficult to estimate and have 

 not been quantified. Presumably, livestock producers already incur some management costs to mitigate 

 for predator losses. 



The estimated annual livestock 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 the losses may, in fact, be significant in proportion to the size of the operation. 

 And, these losses represent a new, added risk to some individual livestock producers, depending on where 

 they are geographically in relation to wolf pack territories. Under this alternative, livestock producers are 

 assured that FWP will work toward securing a source of compensation funding or livestock insurance. 



Big Game Hunting. Same as Alternative 1 (No Action), but localized impacts expected to be less 

 significant. 



Regional Economic Activity . Same as Alternative 1 (No Action), but localized changes expected to be 

 less. 



Outfitting Industry . Same as Alternative 1 (No Action), but localized impacts expected to be less 

 significant. 



Recreational Values 



Hunting Values . Same as Alternative I (No Action), but localized impacts expected to be less significant. 

 Wildlife Viewing and Recreational Trip Values . Same as Alternative 1 (No Action). 



127 



