DRAFT KIS AKPENDIX 1 



wardens will have increased public outreach responsibilities where wolves are established. Additional resources 

 will be required to implement these new responsibilities because existing budget and personnel resources cannot 

 absorb this expansion. 



A draft budget is presented in Appendix 3. The budget outlines the personnel and financial resources necessary to 

 fulfill the need for enhanced ungulate monitoring where wolf packs become established, for the programmatic 

 integration of ungulate-carnivore management, and for the associated public outreach. It also reflects the 

 comprehensive nature of designing and implementing a wolf management program. While this budget represents 

 our best projection of the resources required, we cannot assess its accuracy until Mf-^VP actually assumes 

 management authority and begins implementation. Some components of managing prey populations to sustain a 

 regulated hunting season for a wide variety of ungulates in a wide variety of circumstances and predation by wolves 

 may not be fully captured by this draft budget. There may also be costs that could not be predicted at this time or 

 were unforeseen. This budget will be refined in the future as MFWP gams more experience. MFWP will pursue all 

 possible funding sources including, but not limited to public/private foundations, federal or state appropriations, and 

 other private sources. Adequate funding will be necessary to fully implement the provisions of this Chapter. 



WOLF - LIVESTOCK CONFLICTS 



Introduction 



Agricultural roots in Montana run deep. The earliest European settlers brought farming traditions and livestock with 

 them. Montanans have been raising livestock for at least four generations. Agricultural heritage is woven through 

 Montana's cultural fabric, just like our wildlife heritage. The rural characteristics of one affirm the other. 



Farming and ranching in Montana maintains open space and helps people experience a "Big Sky" feeling. That 

 open space is also habitat for a diversity of wildlife species. Maintaining the land base for agriculture and wildUfe 

 habitat is an increasing challenge, given broader trends inresource and agricultural economics, human population 

 demographics, and development of the "New West" (Riebsame 1997). Sixty-nine percent of the human population 

 growth in Montana from 1990 to 1997 was attributed to immigration (MFWP 1999). There arc secondary benefits 

 to a vigorous agricultural industry in Montana, including sustained economic activity in small rural communities, 

 decreased rates of land conversion for subdivision and development, and maintenance of rural lifestyles. 



Agricultural producers are usually interested in, proud of, and enjoy the wildlife associated with their profwrties, 

 despite the occasional conflicts. The State of Montana acknowledges that wolves can create problems for some 

 livestock producers. Financial losses may result directly from wolf depredation. Indirect costs may accumulate 

 because of increased management activities or changes to agricultural operations. These financial hardships accrue 

 to individual farmers and ranchers and may be significant to them. What makes wolf-livestock conflicts unique 

 from other wildlife-livestock conflicts are the changes in the legal status of wolves. Historically, farmers and 

 ranchers had the latitude to take care of problem wolves themselves. Since 1973, wolves have been legally 

 protected. Regardless of historical events and how present circumstances came to be, the State of Montana 

 acknowledges that tolerance for wolves on private property is fundamental to wolf recovery and maintenance. This 

 is highlighted by the mixed land ownership patterns, geography, and wolf ecology. 



Addressing wolf-livestock conflicts will entail two separate, but parallel elements. One element is the wolf 

 management activities to minimize the potential for wolf-livestock conflicts and to resolve the conflicts where and 

 when they develop. The management element primarily concerns the actions of state and federal agencies. 

 Examples are providing technical assistance to producers, investigating complaints, and taking actions that reduce 

 the probability that the offending wolf or wolves will be involved in another depredation incident. The management 

 programs will be funded, administered, and implemented by the cooperating agencies. The second element 

 addresses the economic losses when livestock are killed or injured by wolves or the proactive changes to husbandry 

 practices that could be made if financial resources arc available to help underwrite the changes. This element will 

 be funded, administered, and implemented by a private party or otherwise independently of state and federal 

 agencies. 



36 



