Cleanup bill to allow third‑party reimbursements for 'lawfully harvested' wolves draws sharp opposition from tribes and advocates

Representative Lucas Schubert presented House Bill 219 as a narrow technical correction to prior wolf‑management law, saying the bill would align statute with the original legislative intent to allow third‑party reimbursements for "lawfully harvested" wolves, including instances when landowners or agents remove wolves to protect livestock.

Proponents included trappers, outfitters and the Foundation for Wildlife Management, who said the provision corrects an oversight and facilitates reimbursements previously envisioned by legislation. Justin Webb of the Foundation for Wildlife Management said the change was intended to permit reimbursement for all lawfully harvested wolves and described the practice as part of neighboring states' management where it has been used to address overabundance in targeted areas.

Opponents told the committee they viewed the amendment as effectively creating a bounty system that could increase incentives to kill wolves, raise animal welfare and environmental concerns and bypass required consultation with tribes. Patrick Yawaki, representing the Blackfeet, Fort Belknap Indian Community and Chippewa Cree tribe, urged a do‑not‑pass and said the bill "takes no consideration [of] environmental assessments or environmental impact statements" and argued tribes were not consulted as required. Kim Bean of Wolf and Wildlife Advocates said the change "is fundamentally a bounty bill," asserting it would reduce accountability and enable killing contests.

Fish, Wildlife & Parks' chief of conservation policy, Quentin Kudjula, appeared as an informational witness and described current verification procedures: quotas and drawing for season permits, call‑in reporting of harvests, subsequent carcass inspection and form‑based documentation used to verify lawfully harvested wolves, and department visits when wolves are taken under defensive or Senate Bill 200 authority. Kudjula said the department has administered these processes and that the bill, as the sponsor described it, would not use taxpayer funds because reimbursements would come from third parties.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and FWP on how reimbursements would be documented and verified, whether the bill would change incentives, and whether adequate tribal consultation had occurred. The hearing record shows no final committee vote on HB 219 during this session.