CR\PTF.R 4: KNV IKO.VMENTAL CO.NSEOrENCF.S 



complex environment. The management tools could be applied locally or across a larger area. Wolf 

 numbers and distribution can be adjusted locally to address specific needs, mitigate impacts, or resolve 

 chronic conflicts. Concerns about ungulate populations can also be addressed through the tools identified 

 in this alternative, including enhanced monitoring effort where wolves are established. 



Mitigation for the economic losses to individual livestock producers would be enhanced by the increased 

 flexibility and innovative approaches to deter livestock depredations. Providing producers with the 

 flexibility to defend their livestock if a wolf is attacking it, or to receive a special kill permit to resolve a 

 conflict themselves mitigates livestock losses to some degree, but does not eliminate them entirely. 

 Economic losses would still be mitigated to some extent because the State of Montana would create an 

 entity to administrator a compensation program, although it would be funded and independent from FWP. 

 In addition. Defenders of Wildlife or a livestock insurance program could also help address economic 

 costs to individual livestock producers for losses or increased management costs. Adequate funding from 

 outside sources should alleviate most potential FWP fiscal impacts. 



Irretrievable Commitments 



Under this alternative, FWP would make a commitment to conserve and manage the gray wolf and 

 integrate it within the wildlife program. That commitment would be irretrievable in the sense that I^WP 

 does not intend to default on its legal responsibilities to maintain a secure viable population in the future. 

 By assuming the leadership role for wolf management, FWP would be committing staff and financial 

 resources to fulfill the needs of the program. Those resources would be partially unavailable to other 

 program areas to the extent that responsibilities and activities don't overlap. 



The adaptive management tools within this alternative will mitigate to a large degree many potentially 

 irretrievable commitments of resources or changes in resource status. However, some wolves will kill 

 livestock. Even though wolves are not expected to have a significant effect on the livestock industry, a 

 few 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. 



Alternative 3. Additional Wolf 



For comparison, the environmental consequences of this and all the alternatives are presented in a 

 suimnary at the end of this chapter (Table 43). 



Biological Environment 



Wolf Management . Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council), but FWP's adaptive management 

 approach increases from 15 to 20 the number of breeding pairs (according to the federal recovery 

 definition) that would signal a change from conservative to liberal management tools and vice versa. 

 Because the trigger is raised to 20 breeding pairs under this alternative, it will take longer for the wolf 

 population to reach the trigger compared to Alternative 2 (Updated Council). If the wolf population 

 increases at the low rate, liberal management tools could be implemented starting in 2008. If the 

 population grew at the higher rate, liberal management tools could be implemented in 2006. 



131 



