CHAPTF.R 4: KWIKONMKNT At CONSKQl KNCES 



understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the slate and federal agencies because the state would be 

 assuming management of a listed species. While there are some limitations to what FWP could do, FWP 

 would still have latitude to implement much of the program, especially the proactive elements. In so 

 doing, the program is more responsive both in the short and long term. Wolf numbers will probably 

 increase and so will wolf distribution. Localized impacts to prey populations, individual outfitters, or 

 individual businesses may also develop in the short term. Hunter opportunity will still continue to 

 fluctuate for a variety of reasons, which may include wolf predation. Livestock losses will still affect 

 individual producers. 



In a cumulative sense, FWP would be stepping into a controversial arena. For some citizens, wolf 

 acceptance would be improved because management would be through a state agency, adaptive principles 

 would make for a more flexible program than currently exists, and the program would balance the needs 

 of people and wolves. For other citizens, wolf acceptance may even decrease because the state would 

 manage a listed species that had achieved the biological recovery requirements but was still listed under 

 ESA. Public debate surrounding wolf conservation will probably remain conflicted because the national 

 scope will be maintained because the species would still be listed. 



Mitigation 



Mitigation measures for this alternative are similar to Alternative 2 (Updated Council). An increased 

 public outreach effort can mitigate public confusion over agency roles and responsibilities, the 

 management framework, and uncertainty about the laws and regulations. 



Irretrievable Commitments 



Wolves will be present in Montana. Under this alternative, FWP would make a commitment to conserve 

 and manage the species and integrate it within the wildlife program. In the short term, that integration 

 may not be complete since federal regulations guide some elements of the program. However, in the long 

 term once the wolf is delisted, FWP's commitment would be irretrievable in the sense that FWP does not 

 intend to default on its legal responsibilities to maintain a secure viable population in the future. 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. FWP would be taking the risk that federal funding would be secure, adequate, and would 

 not diminish prior to full delisting. FWP would also make the commitment to conserve and manage the 

 gray wolf, no matter the outcome of the delisting process - whether delays are short term or long term. 



The adaptive management tools within this alternative will mitigate many potentially irretrievable 

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

 those losses are irretrievable. 



147 



