Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission Moves to Draft Predator Management Policy

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously last week to direct wildlife managers to begin drafting a predator management policy that would guide how the Commission sets future regulations for game species, a month after its controversial decision to set the wolf harvest quota at 300.

At a special virtual meeting on Sept. 24, the Commission approved a motion authorizing Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to draft a policy for its review. The draft will return to the Commission for review and public comment before it advances to the formal rule-making process, which would bring further public notice, comment and legislative oversight before any rules take effect. FWP legal staff described the vote as a preliminary step. 

The Commission also unanimously declined to advance two citizen petitions. One, from Footloose Montana and the Gallatin Wildlife Association, would have required 24-hour trap checks on public land. The other, from Patty Ames, president of the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force, on behalf of about 65 organizations and individuals, would have required hunters, trappers and guides to carry bear spray in grizzly habitat.

Region 2 Commissioner Jeff Burrows, who made the motion to deny the trap-check petition, said he didn’t think it was “ready for primetime.” A rejected petition ends the process, said Jeff Hindoien, chief of FWP’s legal unit, but trap-check requirements could still be adopted during regular regulation setting.

The three agenda items drew more than 1,000 written and online comments: more than 600 on trap checks, more than 300 on bear spray and about 100 on the predator policy. Most of the nearly five-hour meeting was devoted to public comment.

Hindoien said the discussion on predator management was meant to open a long-term dialogue among the Commission, FWP and the public. Earlier Commission meetings, he said, pointed to a desire for “more focused, specific policy on predator management in the context of how that rolls into broader wildlife species management.”

“This is really just that foundational conversation about, does the Commission want to do this in terms of taking this on as kind of a policy initiative,” Hindoien said. 

Region 1 Commissioner Ian Wargo, who presented the initiative, said he wanted “an intentional predator management framework.” 

“I don’t think predator management should be arbitrary. I don’t think it should be uniform,” he said, describing a hypothetical policy that allows stricter predator management in areas with depressed ungulate populations and more tolerant management where populations are thriving. 

“My goal isn’t fear of predators. It’s just a healthy, sustainable predator-prey ratio to measurable biological objectives,” Wargo said.

The proposal follows the Commission’s approval last month to set the wolf harvest quota at 300 animals, down from 450 last year. The vote went against FWP’s recommendation of 250 wolves in favor of a region-based quota system. The scaled-back harvest quota reflected an updated population estimate of about 735 wolves, down from an earlier estimate of 1,094. Conservationists and hunters and trappers alike criticized the decision, with one side saying the quota was too high and the other too low.

Burrows cited that decision in supporting a formal framework. He said the Commission had reduced quotas in Wolf Management Units 313 and 316 against the department’s recommendation and without biological justification, and that a framework would remove the arbitrariness from such decisions. He pointed to the state’s mule deer management as a precedent for what the framework could look like.

Commissioners Susan Kirby Brooke, Vern Gagnon and Bill Lane, of Regions 3, 5 and 7, also voiced support, citing a need for more information when setting regulations. Brooke said she hopes to bring in data on factors beyond predator-prey relationships, such as drought and disease. 

Commission Chair Leslie Robinson expressed concern that a formal framework could “tie their hands” in future decisions. Biological metrics are not the only consideration in setting regulations, she said, and there must be room for social factors.

Public comment during the meeting leaned critical. Speakers said the proposal lacked specificity and was added to the agenda at the last minute. Many objected to the phrase “predator management,” saying it signals a harsher approach to carnivores that favors ungulate populations. Some community members supported the direction.

Robinson pushed back on the idea that the Commission was authorizing more liberal harvests of carnivores. 

“Management doesn’t mean killing more. Management could be trying to target areas of concern, which is exactly what I think we’re trying to do here, is to be more targeted and focused on the areas that need to be targeted,” she said. “So management doesn’t necessarily just mean that we want to kill a bunch more predators.”

Burrows said he was frustrated by claims that the proposal was rushed or shut out the public.  

“Do you want to be involved early and often in the process and develop a policy from the ground floor,” Burrows asked, “or would you like us to develop a policy that’s got the detail already in it and have public comments on it?” A framework with metrics to guide regulations, he argued, would allow for more predictable decision-making. 

FWP legal staff in attendance reiterated that the language of the agenda item  was not being voted into law, but would allow FWP to begin drafting a predator management policy.

Wargo made the motion, and Brooke seconded.

“This is a fundamental first step,” said FWP Director Christy Clark in the Monday press release. “There will be lots of opportunities to hear concerns as we move forward.”

[email protected]