URAFr i;iS VPt'ENIMX I 



Public opinions in Montana vary greatly. We have a dispersed rural population, an urban population concentrated in 

 a few populous counties, an economy in which agriculture ranks among the top 3 industries, and expanses of public 

 land that could support wolves. The spectrum of human values and attitudes about wolves ranges from total 

 protection of the species to total elimination. These values are highlighted by urban and rural differences, by 

 differences between residents of Montana. Idaho, and Wyoming and the national public, and by differences in the 

 knowledge and understanding of wolf biology and the education of individual respondents (USFWS 1994a). These 

 differences in values, attitudes, and opinions create a challenging environment in which to manage a controversial 

 species. 



Economic 



One economic challenge of wolf presence in Montana stems from the real and perceived imbalance between the 

 economic and social costs experienced by individuals, businesses, organizations, or agencies most directly affected 

 by wolves and the economic and social benefits that accrue to those less directly affected. The costs and benefits do 

 not accrue equitably to the same individuals, businesses, organizations, or agencies. 



The USFWS predicted that some segments of the economy would be negatively affected and others would be 

 positively affected by wolf restoration in the GYA and central Idaho (USFWS 1994a). Negative costs were 

 predicted for livestock producers who experienced wolf-related livestock losses and for hunting-related businesses. 

 Positive economic benefits were expected for businesses related to tourism, outdoor recreation, and national park 

 visitation. 



Individual producers may experience significant direct and/or indirect economic impacts due to wolf presence or 

 depredation (Bangs et al. 1998). In the GYA and central Idaho recovery areas to date, confirmed wolf-caused 

 livestock losses have been less than predicted (Bangs et al. 1998). Predictions were not made for the Northwestern 

 Montana Recovery Area, although there has been at least one depredation event in every year except one, from 

 1987-2000. Producers could have other losses beyond what is confirmed and documented. Since 1987, a privately 

 funded program paid a total of $150,000 for confirmed or highly probable wolf-caused Uvestock losses in Montana, 

 Wyoming, and Idaho (Bangs and Shivik 2001 ). It is difficult to estimate the economic losses due to unconfirmed 

 livestock losses or the indirect economic costs associated with wolf presence or depredation. 



For hunting-related businesses such as outfitting, economic losses may be associated with decreased hunter 

 opportunity or fewer recreational days afield, which ultimately may reduce hunter expenditures or participation 

 rates. Ultimately hunter opportunity will probably fluctuate as predator and prey populations change through time. 

 In northwestern Montana, prey populations declined in one hunting district on the western border of GNP after 

 wolves established. This was due to the combination of predation by all carnivores in the area, intermittently low 

 recruitment of fawns and calves, possible overharvest of antlerless elk, and natural mortality caused by severe 

 winters (Kunkel et al. 1999, T. Thier pers. comm.). Similar decreases were observed in the elk population in the 

 South Fork of the Flathead River, an area devoid of wolves during most of the same period (J. Vore pers. comm.). 

 In that drainage, overharvest of antlerless elk was a contributing factor. 



Although ecotourism is touted as a viable, sustainable way of generating economic activity through "low-impact" 

 use of natural resources, ecotourism has potentially negative consequences. Risks to resources include increased 

 infrastructure development, habitat degradation, wildlife disturbance, increased demands, and an erroneous 

 perception that ecotourism leads to long-term protection of environmental assets (Isaacs 2000). 



The State of Montana must also secure adequate financial and personnel resources to implement a wolf conservation 

 and management program. While many aspects of this program fall within existing duties and activities already 

 carried out by MFWP, some components clearly add to existing responsibilities and workloads. Existing budget and 

 personnel resources cannot absorb this expansion. Other state and federal agencies will be similarly affected. The 

 responsibility to address the economic challenges of wolf conservation and management resides with all interests. 



15 



