CHAFrKR 4: KNVm()NMIi:N'rAI, < onsequrncks 



Wildlife Viewing and Recreational Trip Values. FWP expects wolf-viewing opportunities to have a 

 positive impact on recreational values in Montana. But at this point, the impact can't be quantified due to 

 a lack of data. For example, it's unknown how changes in the number of wolves affects the odds of 

 seeing wolves or how increasing or decreasing viewing opportunities affect expenditures or net benefits. 

 The addition of wolf viewing should positively impact the recreational values of many citizens and 

 visitors to Montana. The size of the wolf population should be directly related to the positive value 

 accruing to the individuals who value and would seek out wolf viewing or hearing opportunities. As the 

 alternative specifying the lowest recovered population, it would also likely have the least potential to 

 positively impact recreational values of the five alternatives examined. 



FWP Fiscal Impacts 



Fiscal impacts describe the changes in revenue from license sales, the cost of implementing the program, 

 and the potential sources of revenue to fund it. License revenue from antlerless elk permits, deer B 

 licenses, and moose permits would vary by $220,313 annually, the same as for the other alternatives. 

 FWP's projected budget to implement this alternative is $821,925. FWP would implement this 

 alternative through special federal appropriations, which would be the sole funding source. 



Table 40 represents a budget to implement this alternative. It illustrates increased costs to FWT for an 

 intensive wolf monitoring program, the higher administrative costs for increased coordination with 

 adjacent states and USFWS, and increased costs to administer the special kill permit system, and 

 landowner contact. Ungulate monitoring would not be enhanced because so few wolves would be 

 present. WS funding would decrease because private landowners would carry more responsibility. There 

 would be no compensation program. While this budget is FWP's best projection of the resources 

 required, FWP cannot assess its accuracy until the agency actually assumes management authority and 

 implements this alternative. Some components may not be captured fully by this budget. There may also 

 be costs that could not be predicted at this time or were unforeseen. 



Table 39. Estimated livestock losses (confirmed and probable) and the economic value of livestock and 

 domestic animal losses in the year 2015 for Alternative 4 (Minimum Wolf). The number of 

 animals is rounded to the nearest whole number. 



^ Average value of all sheep and lambs and all cattle, 2001 Montana Agricultural Statistics. 



^ Historically, Defenders of Wildlife compensation payments for other domestic animals (guarding dogs, 



horses, or llamas) was 8.13% of the total payments for cattle and sheep. 



139 



