CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMKN lAL t:<)NSKQlJKN(.:E.S 



Administration, Funding, and Legal Status 



Under this alternative. FWP would be the lead agency, and WS would still be an important cooperator. A 

 great deal of coordination would be required between FWP and WS. Idaho, Wyoming, tribal authorities, 

 NPS, and USFWS. Private landowners would be administering a significant aspect of the program in that 

 their actions will help manage wolf numbers and distribution. This would require greater effort on their 

 part. Individual landowners would make more decisions on how management is implemented in local 

 situations. To that end, landowners' discretionary decisions would significantly influence outcomes. For 

 FWP and WS, many new wolf management activities fall within existing duties and responsibilities 

 already carried out. However, .some activities would clearly add to existing responsibilities and 

 workloads. Existing resources would not be adequate. 



State laws and FWP administrative rules would guide management and establish the legal framework. 

 The gray wolf would be removed from the state's endangered species list and reclassified as a "species in 

 need of management." Management regulations would be drafted to reflect the aggressive management 

 philosophies described. Even though the gray wolf would be legally protected from an "open season", 

 wolves would be treated differently from how other large carnivores are managed in that the inherent 

 value is not recognized. 



Physical Environment 



Same as Alternative 1 (No Action). 



Short Term, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 



FWP will implement the program, in conjunction with WS, but will be closely supervised by USFWS. 

 Overall, agency flexibility to respond to anticipated and unanticipated situations would be con.strained to 

 a large degree because every wolf and pack is a valuable contribution to the Montana population. FWP 

 and WS would also be closely scrutinized by Idaho and Wyoming authorities to ensure that a drop in 

 Montana wolf numbers would not jeopardize the tri-state population. 



Wolf numbers will probably increase and so will wolf distribution in the first few years, until control 

 activities bring numbers back down to the delisting level. Localized impacts to prey populations, 

 individual outfitters, or individual businesses may also develop in the short term but are expected to 

 diminish with time. Hunter opportunity will continue to fluctuate. Livestock losses to wolves will still be 

 documented and affect individual producers, but those impacts will be minimal. Landowners and 

 livestock producers would be more closely scrutinized because their participation is a significant part of 

 the program. Licensed hunters and trappers would not be able to regularly participate in wolf 

 conservation and management in Montana. 



In the long run, it may not actually be possible to effectively cap wolf numbers and limit wolf 

 distribution. A significant amount of mortality may be required and that level may not be completely 

 achievable or socially acceptable. On the other hand, Montana's portion of the tri-state population could 

 drop below the minimum level, thereby risking the po.ssibility that the species would be li.sted again and 

 once again managed by USFWS in Montana. In the absence of a proactive program that responds to 

 people and wolves, management efforts may not be efficiently focused or effective. Because the program 

 would be funded strictly by federal money, it may be held to a higher standard and more .stringent 

 accountability during USFWS oversight of FWP's federal aid program. All of f^P's matching federal 

 funds could be jeopardized if those standards were not met. 



140 



