Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wolf Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hours of testimony as HB 554 draws sharp opposition and support over wolf management
Summary
HB 554, which would change statutory classification and management pathways for wolves, prompted an extended hearing with dozens of opponents (conservation organizations, tribes, scientists and members of the public) and proponents who argued for clearer statutory direction. Opponents warned it would undermine science‑based management, tribal consultation and could pave the way for reclassification that decreases protections for wolves.
Representative Brandon Lear introduced House Bill 554, which would alter statutory language relating to wolf classification and management. The bill prompted a large public response: conservation organizations, tribal representatives, researchers and many citizens registered opposition; a smaller number testified in favor.
Opponents argued HB 554 removes statutory sideboards and could enable future reclassification of wolves as predators or non‑game species, which they said would undermine scientific management and jeopardize population monitoring. Jessica Kargela of Bold Visions Conservation warned the bill “sets a dangerous precedent by allowing wolves to be eradicated without scientific justification,” while Peter Dudley (Montana Audubon), Art Compton (Footloose Montana) and representatives from the Blackfeet Tribe highlighted cultural, ecological and long‑term management risks. Testimony included concerns such as potential litigation, impacts on delisting agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and effects on tourism and ecosystem health.
Proponents (including some hunting and outdoor groups) argued that the bill clarifies legislative intent and would prevent the commission from unilaterally reclassifying wolves in ways the legislature finds undesirable; some proponents framed the bill as a tool to preserve legislative authority over classification.
The committee accepted extensive oral testimony and questions of informational witnesses from FWP (Quentin Kujala). No committee vote was recorded in the transcript; the hearing concluded with the sponsor closing and the committee adjourned for other business.
Next steps: The hearing closed and the committee will consider the record; strong public engagement suggests this bill will return with significant floor and media interest.
