Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management Wolves topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves three wolf-management bills after heated debate over population targets, methods and tourism impacts
Summary
The Senate concurred in House Bill 176 (26-24), House Bill 258 (31-19) and House Bill 259 (32-18). Debate split between lawmakers who said wolf numbers in parts of western Montana and impacts on elk and livestock justify state-level management changes, and others who warned of relisting risk, modeling accuracy and effects on tourism.
The Montana Senate on second reading voted to concur in three related wolf-management bills after extended floor debate.
Senator Hertz, the carrier for all three measures, argued the bills respond to population changes since delisting and aim to give the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission additional authority to manage wolves, reduce populations where necessary and align hunting seasons with other seasons. "We just have to balance between the two," Hertz said, pointing to maps and federal materials distributed to members showing wolf distribution and elk-population differences across the state.
House Bill 176 directs the commission to set hunting and trapping seasons with the intent of reducing the statewide wolf population to 450 animals where appropriate, while allowing exclusions near Yellowstone National Park. The Senate concurred in HB 176 by a 26-24 vote.
House Bill 258 extends wolf season timing so that wolf hunting aligns with the spring bear season in some areas; the Senate concurred 31-19. House Bill 259 authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Commission to apply different regional management techniques and clarifies that infrared and thermal devices fall under existing allowances for night-vision devices used on private property; the Senate concurred 32-18.
Supporters — including senators who represent rural and western districts — said the bills address ongoing depredations, declining elk numbers in some western areas and local concerns. "When wolves begin to reduce the food supply that grizzly bears can use and both of them are opportunistic hunters...this is a reasonable approach," said Senator Fuller, who supported limits to reduce local impacts.
Opponents warned that the measures risk undermining long-term conservation status and could complicate federal delisting. Senator Gillespie and others said reducing protections or widening harvest could increase the chance that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would relist wolves. Senator Flowers and others noted FWP had opposed one bill, citing concerns about population-estimate models (the integrated patch occupancy model, or IPOM/IPAM) and the difficulty of accounting for pup mortality after adult harvest.
Tourism and reputational concerns also surfaced. Senator Pope recounted inquiries from international tour operators, saying Montana’s wildlife are a draw for visitors and that aggressive harvest policies could affect visitor perceptions.
Each bill passed on the floor with the tallies recorded by the clerk: HB 176 (26-24), HB 258 (31-19) and HB 259 (32-18). All three measures will return to the House for further action.
