DRAI'I EIS APPENDIX 1 



Funding 



Compensation has been an important companion to federal agency wolf management activities with respect to wolf- 

 livestock conllicts. Under state management authority, similar needs will exist. Montana would like to maintain 

 and enhance the benefits of the compensation program. But the state is prohibited from financially compensating 

 citizens for damages caused by wildlife. We do not foresee any changes in this regard. Instead, MFWP and MDOL 

 offer technical assistance, consult with WS, or use other management tools to address damage caused by wildlife. 

 Since compensation payments cannot be made from MFWP funds or matching federal monies intended for wildlife 

 or habitat programs, securing alternative funding is crucial to program success. Nonetheless. MFWP is exploring 

 alternative funding sources, including: a surcharge to national parks entrance fees to be earmarked for wolf 

 conservation and management activities in the tri-state area, a livestock insurance program through USDA, a 

 national wolf management trust fund, and private donations or non-governmental organizational support. 



MFWP is also looking into the feasibility of a livestock insurance program for producers, which is modeled after the 

 crop insurance program. Producers would pay a subsidized premium to insure livestock for losses due to wolves. 

 Loss payments would come from premiums collected over all producers and from private donations. WS would 

 verify losses. 



Despite the present uncertainty of how a compensation program would be designed and administered, funding this 

 element of the overall wolf management program is essential to its successful implementation. The State of 

 Montana will pursue all possible funding sources including, but not limited to public/private foundations, federal or 

 state appropriations, and other private sources. Securing adequate funding for compensation is of equal priority as 

 securing funding to implement the state and federal agency management activities. A later chapter also discusses 

 funding possibilities for a compensation program. 



Procedures 



Although many of the details about funding, administration, or relationship to management actions by agencies or 

 livestock producers are still unknown at this time, WS will investigate cases of suspected wolf depredation, just as 

 they do for other wildlife species causing damage to livestock. If WS confirms that a wolf was responsible, the 

 producer would be eligible for compensation, regardless of whether the incident occurred on public or private lands. 

 If the field investigation concludes that wolf depredation was probable, the producer would also be eligible for 

 compensation. Additional research is required to examine the question of undocumented livestock losses. 



Producers would be compensated for livestock losses at fair market value at the time of death and at fall value for 

 young of the year. Eligible livestock include cattle, calves, hogs, pigs, horses, mules, sheep, lambs, goats, and 

 guarding animals. The Council recommended that losses of household domestic pets should not be compensated, 

 but acknowledged the significant emotional loss. The Council also recommended that losses at alternative livestock 

 (game farm) facilities should not be compensated. Wolf ingress into a poorly secured facility is the responsibility of 

 the operator. The fact that many alternative livestock facilities confine native prey species, which may naturally 

 attract wolf activity, further precludes payments for these los.ses. In the same vein, recreationists take responsibility 

 for their pets when recreating in occupied wolf habitat. 



Implementation 



Table 3 summarizes a spectrum of state, federal, or private management strategies to minimize the potential for 

 wolf-livestock conflicts and to resolve conflicts where and when they develop. Many activities fall within existing 

 duties and responsibilities already carried out by WS or MFWP, but some activities clearly add to existing 

 responsibilities and/or workloads. For example, WS may respond to increasing numbers of wolf-livestock 

 complaints as wolf numbers and distribution expand. WS has been actively involved during the federal wolf 

 recovery phase. From I995-20(K), WS spent an average of $90,086 per year for wolf-related work, including half of 

 the yearly expenses of a Wolf Management Specialist position (L. Handegard, pcrs. comm.). Montana will also 

 contract with WS for assistance with wolf depredation activities. WS will assist with wolf capture, control actions, 

 research and development of non-lethal methods, and also technical assistance to producers. Expenditures for wolf 

 management by WS could increase in the future as wolves increase in number and distribution. Experience in 

 Minnesota indicates that as wolf numbers and distribution increase into agricultural areas, wolf-livestock conflict 



44 



