Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Wolf Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cleanup bill would permit reimbursement for lawfully harvested wolves, critics call it a bounty

House Fish and Wildlife Committee · January 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

HB219 would clarify that reimbursement programs may cover all lawfully harvested wolves, including those taken under landowner authority (SB200); proponents call it a technical fix, while conservation groups call it a de facto bounty that could incentivize killing and urged audit and limits.

Representative Lucas Schubert presented HB219 as a narrow technical amendment to ensure reimbursement programs can cover all "lawfully harvested wolves," including those taken under existing landowner authority. Supporters — trappers, outfitters and the Foundation for Wildlife Management — said the change simply matches statute to intent and helps reimburse costs incurred in lawful harvests (fuel, traps, gear) when documented by receipts.

Opponents from conservation groups and wildlife advocates characterized the provision as effectively creating a bounty system and warned it could incentivize commercial killing and inflows of out‑of‑state hunters seeking reimbursement. Mark Cook (Wolves in the Rockies) said the change would "incentivize unethical behavior" and turn lawful take into proliferation of year‑round harvest without proper conservation oversight.

FWP conservation policy staff told the committee the department currently confirms lawful harvests via carcass inspection forms and that SB200 (landowner take) harvests require reporting and site follow‑up; the department does not administer reimbursements but provides carcass inspection documentation used by third‑party foundations. Representatives of third‑party organizations (Foundation for Wildlife Management) said they require receipts and audit and that reimbursement to date has been tied to documented expenses.

The hearing generated broad public comment for and against the amendment; committee members requested clarification about auditing and oversight of reimbursement funds if the bill moves forward.