Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wolf Hunting Seasons topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Schubert proposes HB222 to expand hunting opportunity and increase harvest pace; committee hears overlapping testimony with HB176
Summary
Representative Lucas Schubert introduced House Bill 222, asking the committee to expand hunting/trapping opportunity and accelerate reductions to Montana’s wolf population based on delisting guidance and recent population estimates.
Representative Lucas Schubert opened the hearing on House Bill 222 by recounting the federal delisting guidance and saying the bill is a “science‑based solution” to address what he and proponents view as a wolf overpopulation. He said the delisting rule had anticipated Montana managing a population that would fluctuate “around 400 wolves” and that the current statewide estimate (cited at about 1,100 during the hearings) justified more aggressive harvest measures.
Proponents — largely the same coalition heard on HB176 — urged the committee to give FWP and hunters more tools (longer seasons, broader methods and fewer regionally constrained quotas). Witnesses said seasons and quotas as currently implemented have not produced the reductions intended by the 2021 legislative direction. Several trappers and hunting‑support organizations argued that states with more liberal seasons or fewer quota constraints had greater success reducing numbers when needed.
Opponents again urged caution: scientists and FWP critics repeated concerns about the Integrated Patch Occupancy Model (IPAM) used to estimate wolves, noting IPAM’s intended function as a distribution estimator and urging genetic capture–recapture or other methods for abundance estimates. Business owners who run wildlife‑watching services said HB222 risks concentrated harvests on Yellowstone‑associated packs and would harm local economies that rely on nonconsumptive wildlife viewing. Tribal representatives reiterated concerns that tribes had not been consulted and warned of treaty and cultural effects.
Committee members questioned witnesses and department staff about implementation, monitoring intervals, and whether district‑level management could be preserved under a statewide harvest approach. FWP staff said the department uses IPAM, captures uncertainty through credible intervals, and is exploring additional genetic and survey methods but indicated that immediate, large statutory changes could create short‑term monitoring and management challenges.
Ending: The committee closed the HB222 hearing after hearing wide, deeply divided testimony and technical questions. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.
