CHAPTER 4: KNVIRONMENTAI, CONSEQUENCES 



Economics / Livelihoods 



Livestock Depredation. This alternative predicts that there will be about 42 1 - 1 . 1 67 wolves in Montana in 

 2015. FWP expects that a greater emphasis on proactive strategies would reduce the historic depredation 

 rate by 25*^, although this is a smaller percentage than Alternative 2 (Updated council) because not all 

 liberal tools would be available. Approximately 49-135 cattle and 55-153 sheep would be lost to 

 confirmed depredation (Table 41 ). About 29-81 cattle and 5-13 sheep could be lost to probable 

 depredation. The predicted economic loss for confirmed depredation is $46,820 - $129,132. Economic 

 loss due to probable depredation is $25,120 - $70,072. Economic losses for other domestic animals could 

 be $5,849 -$16,195 (Table 41). 



Livestock producers may incur other costs, including increased management costs due to changes in 

 husbandry practices or materials to improve the physical security of animals. These costs are difficult to 

 estimate and have not been quantified. Presumably livestock producers already incur some management 

 costs to mitigate for predator loss. 



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 live.stock producers, depending 

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

 producers have some assurance that Defenders of Wildlife would still provide compensation because the 

 gray wolf would still be listed. However, because the Defenders of Wildlife program is voluntary and 

 funded by private donation, it could be discontinued at any time. FWP would not seek out or develop a 

 substitute, so these losses could go uncompensated if Defenders of Wildlife no longer paid compensation. 



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 1 (No Action), but localized impacts expected to be less. 



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



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 could be expected to vary by $220,313 annually, the same as for all 

 alternatives. FWP's projected budget to implement this alternative is $699,046. An additional amount is 

 shown for compensation, but that would be provided independently. FWP would implement this 

 alternative through a combination of federal, private, and state funding. Ninety percent of the total budget 

 would be covered by federal sources. No new FWP revenue would be derived from a regulated wolf 

 harvest. 



144 



