Senate Fish and Game committee advances three wolf-related measures to the floor

The Montana Senate Fish and Game Committee on 2025-02-01 in Helena voted to advance three wolf-related measures — House Bill 176, House Bill 219 and House Bill 258 — to the full Senate floor, with each measure passing committee by an 8–4 margin.

The measures moved forward would (1) pass the proposal identified as House Bill 176 (details not specified in the committee record), (2) amend criminal provisions in Title 87 to allow reimbursements for costs incurred related to hunting or trapping wolves and (3) require that a wolf hunting season end in concurrence with the spring bear season while allowing the Fish and Wildlife Commission to adjust dates for specific wolf management units. Committee roll calls show each bill passed the committee 8 to 4.

The bills prompted debate about depredation, recreation and the potential for renewed public conflict around wolves. A committee member who identified himself as being from eastern Montana said he supported control measures because he did not want wolves to repopulate his region; the transcript records: “I am from Eastern Montana … I think they need to be controlled, and so that’s why I’m a yes.” Another committee member described the bills as “throwing a grenade in the middle of the room” and urged colleagues to vote no, citing experience with past controversy after wolves were introduced.

House Bill 219 modifies a provision in the Fish and Wildlife criminal code (Title 87, chapters 1 and 2) so that reimbursements may be provided for costs incurred related to hunting or trapping wolves by persons authorized under state law. Sponsors and staff described the change as targeting subsection (d) that deals with reimbursements; committee discussion noted the change strikes or edits language at a specific line in the bill text to include the lawful harvest authorities under Title 87.

House Bill 258, as amended, directs that a wolf season end in concurrence with the spring bear season but preserves commission authority to adjust dates for specific management units based on regional recommendations. Opponents warned the change could affect tourism near parks and could increase the risk of federal relisting if state management were judged excessive; one member said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “will come in and relist” if state action is “rash.” Supporters said giving the commission the ability to make regional adjustments preserves some flexibility.

Committee members also referenced livestock producer concerns and testimony from wool growers, who told the committee they worried about revenue loss tied to expanded wolf take or tagging. At least one senator said hunters and some tourism interests value wolves and that those economic and recreational benefits should be considered.

Votes at a glance - House Bill 176 — Committee vote: 8 yes, 4 no; outcome: passed out of committee to the floor. - House Bill 219 — Committee vote: 8 yes, 4 no; outcome: passed out of committee to the floor. The bill revises reimbursement language in Title 87 related to lawful harvest of wolves. - House Bill 258 — Committee vote on amendment and final bill: 8 yes, 4 no; outcome: amendment passed and bill passed out of committee to the floor.

What the committee directed and what remains The committee advanced the bills to the floor; the record shows committee debate but no committee-level changes that remove commission discretion for unit-level season adjustments in HB 258. Several senators urged attention to Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ expressed concerns and warned the governor could veto measures the department strongly opposes.

Context and next steps All three bills will appear before the full Senate. The committee record shows both supporters and opponents raising species-management, economic and public-safety considerations; several speakers referenced past conflicts after wolf reintroduction. The committee roll calls are recorded in the transcript and were the basis for the 8–4 tally on each bill.