Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wolf Quota 450 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated testimony on bill to impose statewide quota when wolves reach 450
Summary
HB176 would require a statewide unlimited quota when Montana's wolf population reaches 450 and seeks consistent counting methods; proponents (ranchers, trappers) urged quicker reductions while scientists, tribes and conservation groups warned IPAM model limits and loss of commission flexibility.
Representative Shannon Maness opened the HB176 hearing saying Montana faces high wolf numbers (testimony repeatedly cited ~1,100) and needs more aggressive tools. HB176 would require the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to institute a statewide unlimited quota when the total statewide population equals or exceeds 450 wolves and would require consistent population counting and estimating methods.
Proponents — including trappers, sportsmen’s groups, ranchers and the Outdoor Heritage Coalition — said regional quotas and litigation have shortened seasons and limited harvest opportunities; they argued a statewide approach would reduce numbers fast enough to relieve pressure on ungulates and livestock. Several proponents cited past commission quota changes and contested political interference in quota setting as reasons to move decision‑making into statute.
Opponents — tribal representatives, wildlife scientists, conservation organizations and tourism and wildlife‑watching businesses — countersaid the bill would remove locally tailored, science‑based management. Scientists on the record criticized sole reliance on the integrated patch occupancy model (IPAM), saying it was designed for distribution, not a precise abundance estimate, and recommended integrating genetics/capture‑recapture components for a robust count. Tribal witnesses said they were not adequately consulted, and tourism operators warned localized harvest near Yellowstone could disproportionately target transboundary packs that underpin winter wolf viewing.
Quentin Kujala (FWP) responded to technical questions about IPAM: the department publishes IPAM outputs with 95% credible intervals and uses field inputs (pack territory, pack size and measured mortality) to inform estimates; FWP said it is exploring genetic methods and additional field surveys to improve precision. Committee members pressed both sides about model uncertainty, whether IPAM over‑ or under‑estimates counts, and how commission discretion (season timing and length) would interact with a statewide quota.
Post‑hearing comments flagged a practical problem: even when new tools were authorized, court orders and litigation have in practice curtailed some seasons, leaving proponents arguing that statutory certainty is needed. The committee did not vote at the hearing.
