Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Year Round Hunt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Year‑round hunt proposal draws sharp opposition over Yellowstone and tourism impacts
Summary
HB222 would authorize a year‑round unlimited quota when the wolf population is above a threshold (sponsor used 600) to accelerate reductions. Supporters argued the measure is needed to achieve statutory objectives; opponents — including tribal leaders, conservation groups and tourism operators — warned it would disproportionately affect transboundary Yellowstone packs and damage winter tourism.
Representative Lucas Schubert sponsored House Bill 222, a proposal to create a year‑round unlimited wolf hunt when statewide population exceeds 600. Schubert told the committee he drafted the bill to give FWP and the legislature an ability to reduce numbers more aggressively and said Montana’s wolf population (testimony cited ~1,100) has not declined quickly enough under existing season structures.
Proponents reiterated arguments heard in earlier hearings: regional quotas and litigation have limited harvest opportunity, and a year‑round or expanded set of tools (thermal optics, electronic calls, unlimited tags) have reduced populations faster in other jurisdictions like Idaho. Supporters argued a larger statutory framework would give the state clear authority and deliverable outcomes.
Opponents included tribal representatives, Yellowstone‑area tourism operators, conservation NGOs and wildlife scientists. They warned an unlimited, year‑round quota would allow harvest during denning and pup‑rearing seasons, could disproportionately remove wolves associated with Yellowstone (transboundary packs that spend most time inside park boundaries), and imperil the winter wildlife‑viewing economy. Scientists testified that IPAM and other models have uncertainty, and cautioned that uncalibrated, large‑scale harvest risks overshoot of minimum viable thresholds.
FWP’s Quentin Kujala reiterated the department’s opposition in part because the bill would remove management flexibility; he noted IPAM outputs include 95% credible intervals and the department is exploring genetic tools and additional field surveys to strengthen population estimates. Tourism operators and local business owners described substantial economic reliance on wolf viewing, citing multi‑million‑dollar local impacts in Park County.
The committee engaged in detailed questioning about threshold definitions (600 vs. 450 vs. 400/15 breeding pairs), how IPAM would be applied, whether refugia in Yellowstone would reseed state populations, and Idaho’s management differences. The hearing closed with sponsors urging legislative action and opponents asking for tabling or amendment. No committee action was taken at the hearing.
