CHAPTKR 4: KNVIRONMENTAL CONSKOUKNCKS 



less than 50%. FWP and WS would work even more proactively than outhned for Alternative 2 to 

 minimize the potential risk of depredations through technical assistance. Losses are likely to be less than 

 this amount during the early years of implementation because the wolf population would be smaller. 



The predicted economic loss for confirmed losses, probable losses and the loss of other domestic animals 

 is $44,917-599,736 (Table 37). This is less than Alternative 1 (No Action), but more than Alternative 2 

 (Updated Council). Adaptive management of the overall wolf population, combined with removal of 

 problem wolves, should decrease the number of livestock killed and the resulting economic losses (see 

 Haight et al. 2002). The increased emphasis on working with landowners proactively to nunimize the risk 

 of depredation is intended to decrease the overall losses. 



Whenever the adaptive management trigger of 20 breeding pairs is exceeded, FWP intends to implement 

 a variety of 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 management of the number of wolves in the 

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



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

 statewide value of annual cattle and sheep 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. 

 Furthermore, these losses represent a new added risk to some individual livestock producers, depending 

 on where they are geographically with respect to wolf pack territories. 



Under this alternative, FWP would not actively promote or facilitate creation of an entity to fund and 

 administer a compensation program should the private programs be discontinued. Defenders of Wildlife, 

 another private organization, or even a livestock insurance program may still compensate livestock 

 producers for their losses. Therefore, economic losses to individual producers would only decrease to the 

 extent that FWP's management program decreased the number of depredation incidents or decreased 

 other expenses incurred by changing husbandry practices. 



Big Game Hunting. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 

 Regional Economic Activity . Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 

 Outfitting Industry . Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 



Recreational Values. 



Hunting Values . Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 



Wildlife Viewing and Recreational Trip Values . Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council) 



133 



