Laura Lundquist

(Missoula Current) The two of first three wolf bills heard in the 2025 Legislature would mandate more drastic measures in order to drive Montana’s wolf population down to a minimum not seen since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service first tried to delist the wolf in 2008.

On Tuesday, the House Fish, Wildlife & Parks committee heard three wolf bills that generated so much public comment that the hearing lasted five hours. But that’s not unusual for wolf management discussions.

Two of the bills would eliminate quotas in the different wolf districts and replace them with one low statewide quota. But while House Bill 176 would set a quota of 450 but keep the existing wolf season dates, House Bill 222 would have the season run nonstop until a quota of 600 was reached.

During the past two Legislative sessions, FWP leaders prevented FWP employees from weighing in on bills as they’d been able to in previous sessions. But FWP has a new director, and on Tuesday, Quentin Kujala, FWP Chief of Conservation Policy, stepped to the podium as an opponent of HB 222.

“This bill we see removing all flexibility requiring an inflexible hunting season for wolves and unlimited quota year-round,” Kujala said. “The other piece we point to is the insertion of potential undocumented mortality of pups in the den. That would represent a change in circumstance that would take some time for us to sync (the population model) to.”

The sponsor of HB 222, 19-year-old Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Kalispell, said the bill was necessary to drive the wolf population down faster than the current slow decline indicated by population estimates. FWP wolf population estimates have declined by about 100 wolves a year since 2020, when the population was estimated at around 1,150.

“The Legislature in 2021 passed legislation to reduce the wolf population. So the legislature and the people are acknowledging that the wolf population is far too high, significantly too high. We must address the concerns of the people,” Schubert said. “Populations in the North Rocky Mountain region above 1,500 will lead to chronic livestock depredation. That’s something we need to address immediately.”

According to the Montana Livestock Loss Board, wolves accounted for 45 claimed livestock losses in 2024. In 2023, the number of claimed losses was 23.

Schubert’s bill was backed by five proponents, mostly representing trapping groups and hunting groups that prioritize ungulates - elk, deer and moose - in Montana. They claimed that only year-round hunting can sufficiently reduce wolves.

But not all the “people” agree. Although HB 222 was heard after 7 p.m., 16 opponents spoke against the bill while another 10 added their names to the list of opponents due to time constraints set by the committee chair. Many challenged claims that elk herds are suffering in Montana. Others objected to the unethical killing of puppies in their dens.

According to FWP’s 2024 elk count data, only 15 elk districts in the state are below population objectives while 29 are above population objectives. The vast majority are at objective. Little is known in northwest Montana because of the 15 elk districts in Region 1, elk are counted in only four. In most of the other 11 districts, “surveys are not conducted due to difficulty observing elk in forested cover.”

Committee Chair Jedediah Hinkle, R-Belgrade, asked Justin Webb of the Idaho-based Foundation for Wildlife Management, an anti-predator organization, how Idaho deals with the killing of wolf pups. Webb said Idaho Fish and Game isn’t concerned about “social aspects.”

“They’re not concerned with whether or not young-of-the-year animals are harvested because they know that they need to control those numbers for the good of the system,” Webb said.

HB 176, sponsored by Rep. Shannon Maness, R-Dillon, was slightly less controversial, but sparked a debate about how FWP estimates wolf populations using its integrated patch occupancy model or iPOM. The bill would allow hunters and trappers to buy an unlimited number of tags and there would be no quota until the wolf population dropped to 450.

Similar to the testimony for HB 222, 17 proponents said the bill was necessary to reduce the wolf population and FWP needs to get more “aggressive.” Many proponents were the same who testified in favor of HB 222 although ranchers and stockmen’s groups joined in support of HB 176.

“We don’t need buffer zones, we don’t need regional quotas. We need to take wolves where they are,” said Kris Killorn of the Outdoor Heritage Coalition, a trapping organization. “Just remember: We are not Yellowstone Park, we are not their buffer zone, we are not their amusement. The tourists will still come.”

But bill opponents questioned the accuracy of iPOM.

Former Yellowstone National Park wolf biologist Doug Smith explained that iPOM was developed to model population distribution, not abundance. Smith suggested that FWP use Italy’s population model, which is more accurate.

“There’s a critical flaw in the design of iPOM. So you’re not getting an accurate population estimation, which you’re basing your management decisions on,” Smith said. “The state of Montana has a proud tradition of training and educating wildlife biologists. The tradition of wildlife management in Montana has brought back wildlife. Biologists should not be encumbered by politicizing their management.”

The iPOM number is just a calculated estimate that doesn’t use actual wolf counts. The population estimate is the middle of an interval that represents where the model should be 95% accurate. For example, in 2023, iPOM estimated the population to be 1,096 wolves, but based on the confidence interval, it could be as many as 1,210 wolves or as few as 993.

So if FWP has to stop hunting and trapping at the exact number of 450 wolves - the population size which ensures 15 breed pairs - opponents said using an iPOM estimate could allow an overshoot, which could send the population into a steeper decline. Kujala said FWP recognizes there’s uncertainty in the model and it was possible that wolf populations in some areas could go extinct.

The 18 opponents who commented and the 17 who added their names when time ran out included hunters, tribal members including the American Indian Caucus, wildlife viewing business owners and wolf advocates. Some argued that FWP would need to conduct better monitoring to prevent overshooting the population limit. Others argued that the bill was a legislative overstep of the FWP commission authority.

“The commission manages wildlife throughout the state based on the best science available. We set quotas based on what the science says, and we set those numbers at the district level. This uses a sledgehammer approach instead of a scalpel. It doesn’t provide that kind of nuanced decision-making ability for the commission,” said Matt Leo of the Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

HB101, FWP’s cleanup bill carried by Rep. Jamie Isaly, D-Livingston, was the least contentious of the three wolf bills. It seeks to classify wolves as “furbearers” rather than “species in need of management” under FWP’s system.

Kujala said the classification would make management more consistent rather than what it’s been since wolves were delisted in 2011. FWP decided wolves wouldn’t be considered “big game” since they can be trapped and they aren’t used for meat.

Even so, wolf advocates were split into opposing camps. Some were in support because putting them in a category would improve management. But others joined trappers in opposing the bill, although for different reasons.

“You have grizzly bears - soon - black bears and mountain lions are big game. It’s not logical to keep wolves from being classified as big game,” said Marc Cooke of Wolves of the Rockies.

Trappers and wolf hunters wanted wolves to be their own category while stockgrowers wanted to classify wolves as “predators.”

No action was taken on the three bills.

Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.