Two bills seeking to roughly halve Montana’s wolf population pass out of committee
HB 222 and HB 176 seek to reduce Montana’s wolf population by expanding the hunting season and lifting hunting and trapping limits
By Amanda Eggert for Montana Free Press
The House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee this week advanced a pair of bills that aim to aggressively reduce wolf populations in Montana.
As originally proposed — it was later revised by the committee — House Bill 222 would establish an open season for wolf hunting and trapping until the population reaches 600 animals.
Many commenters on HB 222 Tuesday also offered testimony on House Bill 176, a proposal by Shannon Maness, a Republican representative from Dillon, that removes bag limits for wolves until the state’s wolf population, currently estimated by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks around 1,100 animals, has been cut in half.
Proponents of the two measures argued that attempts to use other methods to bring down wolf numbers — i.e., hunting them at night and using bait and neck snares — have failed to achieve their purpose. The Montana Legislature should provide the Fish and Wildlife Commission, the governor-appointed body charged with setting quotas and seasons for game animals, with stronger direction, the proponents argued.
Opponents of the two bills countered that the proposals are unscientific and will insert politics into the season-setting process. They also argued that they would give Montana a “black eye” for its predator policies and that such wildlife management decisions properly rest with the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
RELATED
Environmentalists challenge Montana wolf regulations in state court
In the October 27 lawsuit, the groups argue that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission have violated the Montana Constitution as well as state and federal laws in their management of gray wolves.
by Amanda Eggert 10.28.2022
Testimony on the two measures continued into the evening Tuesday. Organizations testifying in favor of one or both bills included the Rocky Mountain Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Trappers Association, the Outdoor Heritage Coalition and the Foundation for Wildlife Management.
Justin Webb with the Foundation for Wildlife Management, which partners with the Idaho Fish and Game to reimburse hunters and trappers for the wolves they kill there, argued that neighboring states have only been able to reduce wolf numbers by drastically increasing season length and the methods that can be used to kill them.
“Idaho has year-round hunting season, no quotas, far more liberal trapping and snaring seasons, no lynx or grizzly protection zones, and continues to manage wolves,” said Webb, whose organization has recently established a presence in Montana. “You’ve directed FWP to reduce numbers in years past, yet those populations have not fluctuated more than 60 wolves up or down in the last 10 years.”
Other proponents referenced a familiar debate, that wolves reduce elk numbers, thereby limiting hunting opportunities.
“In 1995, the elk population in Yellowstone was around 17,000. In 2024, that number has dropped around 4,000,” Maness argued during his bill introduction. “Elk and moose are suffering.”
Proponents countered, and FWP Conservation Chief Quentin Kujala confirmed, that most hunting units across the state currently have more elk than wildlife managers would prefer.
During opponent testimony, Eric Clewis with Defenders of Wildlife argued that HB 176 represented “legislative overreach” that could threaten the long-term viability of a Montana wolf population.
“Requiring an unlimited quota when the wolf population is above 450 individuals removes the science from wildlife management. The feedback loop from biologists to the Fish and Wildlife Commission is effectively severed by this bill and any chance for adaptive management based on real-life conditions is lost,” Clewis told committee members.
Cara McGary, a Gardiner-based wildlife-watching business owner with the Wild Livelihoods Business Coalition, argued that without quotas or spatial structuring in the season-setting process, wolves just outside of Yellowstone National Park would be particularly vulnerable.
“The wolves that are harvested there are almost exclusively wolves who are denning and spending most of their lives in the park. They’re the ones that I show to my tourists, that [support] a half-a-billion-dollar economy in Park County,” McGary said. “It is our everything, and these bills would have a major impact on us here in Gardiner.”
After speaking with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks about some concerns they had around the target population, HB 222 sponsor Representative Lukas Schubert, R-Kalispell, successfully amended the measure to lift the target population from 600 wolves to 650 wolves and allow the commission to “close the season in only May and June for the consideration of denning and whelping.” Similarly, the identified population target in HB 176 was successfully increased by 100 wolves to 550 wolves.
RELATED
Environmental groups sue USFWS over its decision not to restore federal protections for Northern Rockies wolves
Environmental organizations have filed two lawsuits challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision not to restore federal protections for Northern Rockies wolves. Both lawsuits argue that USFWS relied on flawed population models and underestimated the impact of aggressive wolf-reduction measures in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming when it deemed a restoration of Endangered Species Act protections for Northern Rockies wolves unwarranted in February 2024.
by Amanda Eggert 04.08.2024
During committee discussion on the bills, Representative Jill Cohenour, D-Helena, warned that measures like HB 222 and HB 176 could result in a loss of state management of wolves by encouraging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency to step in and reassume authority over their management.
Representative France, D-Missoula, argued that the measures are overkill given that there was no testimony from agricultural interests suggesting there are issues with a long-standing program that reimburses livestock producers for sheep and cattle losses attributed to wolves.
“Wolf numbers have been stable at around 1,000 to 1,200 for at least 10 years, and a little before that, and livestock depredations over that period have been stable, too. So, where’s the emergency?” France said.
Schubert answered that it was “very possible” that livestock loss numbers have been higher than thought due to underreporting.
HB 222 and HB 176 are similar to a series of bills that the Legislature passed in 2021. During that session, lawmakers lengthened the wolf trapping season, authorized the use of neck snares and allowed hunters to receive reimbursement — characterized by critics as a “bounty” — for their efforts. Those laws sparked a lawsuit centering on the “public trust doctrine” of state wildlife management that’s still in state court and an unsuccessful petition by wildlife advocates to restore Endangered Species Act protections to wolves.
Anti-wolf hysteria is yet another way the legislature is distracting us from the fact they are not doing work on real problems facing Montana. Of course, much more livestock are lost to disease, and ranching is much more likely to be adversely impacted by subdivisions eating up ranch land, and climate change.