Roughly half the wolves in Montana could be killed under proposals state lawmakers are considering.
More than 50 people crowded into a committee hearing room to praise or condemn the ideas.
A crowd too large to fit in the room’s public seating area packed into the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee. They shared opinions on two wolf bills which could quickly reduce populations across the state.
It’s the first package of wolf bills heard by the 69th Legislature and resumes the long running debate over how many wolves should live on the landscape.
One proposal says 450 wolves are enough and anything more than that can be killed.
“Having a statewide quota instead of regionally will allow the numbers to be brought down more quickly to reach our goal of reduction,” said Dillon Republican Representative Shannon Maness.
Maness’ bill would depart from current regulation, which sets goals for wolf populations in different regions instead of the state as a whole.
Maness says big game species and livestock need more protection from wolves and fewer wolves means less conflicts.
It was supported by trapping, stockgrower, and hunting organizations. Maness says a threshold of 450 wolves keeps wolf numbers high enough to avoid a possible re-listing of the animals under the Endangered Species Act.
Wolves were removed from those federal protections in 2011 and their population has grown since. A total of 1,100 are estimated to live in the state today.
The Republican majority has for years wanted to see a smaller wolf population.
In 2021, lawmakers loosened hunting and trapping restrictions with bills that allowed the use of neck snares, trap baiting and night hunting. But it didn’t result in the number of dead wolves they wanted, which some blame on the management of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
A bill this year carried by Kalispell Republican Representative Lukas Schubert would create a year round open season on wolves.
“The past expansion of methods and seasons to harvest wolves have hardly made a dent in the population. You can look at the graph, the wolf population over time, it is very gradually decreasing. And frankly, I think that it's not going fast enough,” said Schubert.
He pointed in his presentation to a graph of FWP’s wolf population estimates over the last several years, showing a slight decrease in numbers. Schubert’s proposed open season would not close unless population numbers fell to 600 wolves statewide.
FWP opposed Schubert’s bill. Quentin Kujala, the agency’s chief of conservation policy, says year round hunting would greatly complicate how the agency can estimate wolf populations.
“This bill, we see removing our flexibility, requiring an inflexible hunting season, at least for wolves, unlimited quota year round … The other piece that we point to is the insertion of potential undocumented indirect mortality of pups in the den,” said Kujala.
Both bills passed out of committee with amendments in the days following the hearing. Schubert’s bill passed with an amended threshold of 650 wolves, and a provision to allow the season to close for May and June for denning and whelping. While Maness’s bill passed with an increased population target of 550 wolves.
The call by some groups for greater wolf kills continued, following a recent court ruling that found trapping in some areas threatened federally protected grizzly bears. That shortened wolf trapping and hunting seasons for the last few years.
Matt Lumley, a trapper and guide known for assisting Gov. Greg Gianforte with trapping a wolf in 2021, lives in one of the restricted areas near Yellowstone National Park.
“My season will close. I will have had 20 days of opportunity as a trapper. Article nine, Section seven of the Montana Constitution clearly states that the ability to harvest shall forever be preserved to the citizens of the state,” said Lumley.
There were twice as many opponents in the hearing as there were supporters. Among them was recently retired Yellowstone wolf biologist Doug Smith.
“In general, when you apply management action to wolves, it's for three reasons: big game management, livestock, and health and human services. None of those things apply to this management action at all,” he said.
Smith pointed to robust elk populations, including many areas where their numbers are above management goals, as well as federal and state programs that remove predators in livestock conflicts, and pay producers for their losses.
Other opponents of the bills included tribal lawmakers, hunting, wildlife advocacy and anti-trapping groups. Many called the bills legislative overreach into the role of wildlife management.
This is the first legislation over wolves heard so far this session, reigniting debates over the charismatic canids.