Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission

Special meeting, September 24, 2026

9 Matters · 3 votes · 0 from the floor · 0 raised by Members

Documents 4

Not on the agenda

No Member brought up a Matter that was not on the agenda, and no motion or amendment was brought up without being posted beforehand.

Decisions

24-hour trap check requirementPassed Vote on the motion to deny the petition to start rulemaking on a 24-hour trap check requirement for traps and snares on public lands. “Motion carries” 2:13:12
Administrative Rulemaking Petition – Bear Spray RequirementPassed Voice vote on the motion to deny the petition requiring hunters, trappers, outfitters and guides to carry bear spray in grizzly bear habitat. “Motion carries” 3:16:29
Initiation of Administrative Rulemaking Process – Predator Management PolicyPassed Vote on the motion authorizing staff to prepare a draft MAPA rule notice for a predator management policy. “Motion carries” 4:35:42

All Matters

On the agenda

Informational Update – Licensing Report

0:18:28–0:58:12

Summary

The Commission received an informational licensing trends presentation from FWP licensing staff; Members could ask questions, but no public comment was taken. 0:18:28

Robinson Okay, we're gonna start the meeting with a licensing update from Emily Cooper, and this will not have public comment, but the commissioners will be able to ask Emily questions, however you want to do it, Emily, throughout the presentation if they come up. Probably if you guys could raise your hands, can you? Is there someone that can tell Emily if the hand is raised? Jesse can see. Okay, perfect. Okay, let's go ahead. Thank you.

Watch at 0:18:28 · Show in the Transcript
Staff reported that the 2026 nonresident deer combination drawing started with 8,226 licenses: the 4,600 statutory base quota plus 1,122 unclaimed landowner-sponsored licenses and 2,505 'orphan deer' licenses split off from elk combination licenses. 0:24:34

Emily Cooper (staff) The statute says Then we added that 1,122 of unclaimed landowner sponsored, and then the 2,505 of the orphan deer for a starting total of 8,226. This number is different every time we do the drawing, so it— because of the, the nature of our drawings. So there are a couple statutory and administrative rule license restrictions for non-residents. Montana Code says we restrict big game licenses and permits for non-residents to no more than 10%. So they can have no more than 10%, a maximum of, but not a guarantee of 10%.

Watch at 0:24:34 · Show in the Transcript
Staff reported that nonresidents provide 76% of all hunting license revenue and 80% of deer and elk license revenue. 0:31:25

Emily Cooper (staff) This is all hunting license revenue that residents bring in 24% of that revenue and non-residents 76% of that revenue for overall hunting licenses. Specific to deer and elk license revenue, that split is 80% for residents, or sorry, 80% for non-residents and 20% for residents.

Watch at 0:31:25 · Show in the Transcript
Staff reported that survey estimates show active resident elk hunters falling by about 4,000 while nonresident elk hunters rose by about 1,600. 0:35:43

Robin Bartsch (staff) All right, now we talked about license and revenue. Now let's see where they're hunting and how long. So specifically, this is the statewide active deer hunter estimates from 2015 to 2025. This is an estimate that we do from a random sample from our hunter harvest survey. You can see residents have decreased since 2015, where we do have a slight increase of non-residents since 2015. Same here, this is a statewide active elk hunter numbers from 2015 to 2025. Once again, we do see a decrease in residents by about 4,000, an increase in non-residents about 1,600.

Watch at 0:35:43 · Show in the Transcript
Robinson said she had not realized that unclaimed landowner-sponsored licenses go into the general deer combination pool, bringing it close to double the intended 4,600, and staff said a legal review had confirmed that statute allows this. 0:45:15

Emily Cooper (staff) Yeah, you bet. This is Emily. So we actually had legal do a review on those unclaimed landowner sponsor licenses to make sure that we were executing it correctly. And statute does actually outline that we can take those licenses that are unclaimed and add them to the general license pool. So we did look into that and that is, we're, we're above board on I'm not saying that you're above board on it.

Watch at 0:45:15 · Show in the Transcript
Burrows argued that landowner-sponsored tags meant for hunting a sponsoring landowner's deeded land should not be moved into a general pool that adds nonresident pressure on public and block management land. 0:48:06

Burrows I don't see the nexus to take a landowner-sponsored tag that was intended for them to hunt landowner-sponsored deeded land and then drop them into a pool where we now have block management and public land impacts from nonresidents. I think if I would have known that, we hopefully could add some more discussion about dropping those, and maybe it's a director decision, but I really hope that decision is considered seeing those impacts and hearing the fact that non-residents are hunting the eastern part of the state more and harvesting more mule deer.

Watch at 0:48:06 · Show in the Transcript
Robinson agreed with Burrows and asked staff to find out whether the released landowner-sponsored tags fall under the Commission's jurisdiction, which staff agreed to do. 0:54:57

Robinson Chair Robinson? Yep, I just have a follow-up to the landowner-sponsored tags. Could I— could you check Between, or, you know, whenever you can to see if that is under our jurisdiction, the ones that were released, because I am completely in agreement with Commissioner Burrows that it's not really the same intention for those tags. And so I, I know I spent a lot of time with the staff trying to figure out this deer tag stuff last year and what our jurisdiction was and what it, what it wasn't. And I don't remember having this conversation at all.

Watch at 0:54:57 · Show in the Transcript
Burrows said the House Bill 568 questionnaire on the FWP website misses the bill's aim of identifying nonresident impacts, and staff responded that a more formal survey asking those questions is being analyzed for the December report. 0:51:22

Quentin (staff) And that does more deliberately ask those sorts of questions that you referenced. So again, the piece on the website, um, Is not the whole, and in fact is kind of a second add-on just to accompany the introduction to the public of that core data that were— that will ultimately also show up with some analysis in the 568 report itself, if that helps.

Watch at 0:51:22 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 34

Staff explained that A licenses (antlered or either-sex) are used mainly to manage age structure and male ratios without significantly affecting population trajectories, while B licenses are used specifically to manage population trends. 0:19:48
Staff explained that a license allows its holder to harvest and possess an animal, while a permit only expands or restricts a license and cannot be held without one. 0:20:30
Staff noted that nonresident licenses are capped in statute: 17,000 shared between big game and elk combination licenses, 4,600 deer combination licenses, 2,000 landowner-sponsored deer combination licenses, and 500 of each Come Home to Hunt license type. 0:22:33
Staff reported that the 2026 nonresident deer combination drawing started at 8,226 licenses: the 4,600 base quota plus 1,122 unclaimed landowner-sponsored licenses and 2,505 'orphan deer' licenses split off from elk combination licenses. 0:24:34
Staff explained that statute caps nonresidents at a maximum of 10% of big game licenses, but administrative rule lets nonresidents receive more than 10% when every resident applicant has already received a license. 0:26:01
Staff explained that surplus licenses left after a drawing have already been subject to the 10% nonresident restriction and are sold over the counter to anyone regardless of residency. 0:27:30
Staff summarized statutory changes, including I-161 eliminating outfitter-sponsored licenses, House Bill 140 creating the base hunting license, Senate Bill 281 limiting nonresident deer B licenses, and House Bill 568, a study of hunting pressure and nonresident participation on public lands due by December 1, 2026. 0:29:23
Staff noted recent Commission actions, including reducing the number of orphan deer licenses created by elk combinations and cutting the maximum deer licenses per resident from 8 to 3, along with making all Region 1 elk B licenses valid on private land only. 0:30:09
Staff reported that nonresidents pay far more for comparable licenses (for example $1,312 versus $64.50 for a sportsman package) and provide 76% of all hunting license revenue and 80% of deer and elk license revenue. 0:31:25
Staff reported that total hunting licenses issued from 2016 to 2025 rose by 86,264 for nonresidents and 22,866 for residents. 0:31:57
Staff reported that nonresident elk B license sales more than doubled over ten years, rising by 2,585, while resident elk B sales rose by 3,697. 0:33:22
Staff reported that in 2025, 81% of resident deer and elk hunters held licenses for both species, while nonresidents were more evenly split, and that nonresidents buying only a B license are increasing. 0:34:46
Staff reported that survey estimates show active resident deer and elk hunters declining (about 4,000 fewer resident elk hunters) while nonresident hunters increased (about 1,600 more for elk). 0:35:43
Staff reported that statewide deer and elk hunting days have increased since 2004 for both residents and nonresidents, with more nonresident deer hunter days in Regions 6 and 7. 0:37:50
Staff reported that block management enrollment declined about 7.5% from 2015 to 2025 while hunter days increased 75%, with the largest acreage loss, about 300,000 acres, in Region 7. 0:39:14
Staff reported that nonresidents made up 51% of block management hunters in Region 6 and 41% in Region 7 in 2025, though residents remain the majority statewide. 0:39:56
Staff projected that nonresident license revenue will remain an important part of total revenue and that hunter effort will remain high even if resident participation keeps declining. 0:41:25
In answer to a question from Walsh, staff explained that for landowner-sponsored deer licenses the resident landowner applies first and then gives a certificate to the nonresident hunter, who applies separately. 0:42:34
Staff explained that for the nonresident relative of a resident license the nonresident applies personally and must supply documentation such as a Montana birth certificate. 0:43:22
Staff explained that the Come Home to Hunt license does not require Montana birth but does require hunting in the field with the resident relative. 0:43:45
Robinson said she had not realized unclaimed landowner-sponsored licenses go into the general deer combination pool, bringing it close to double the 4,600 intended, and staff responded that a legal review confirmed statute allows this. 0:45:15
Staff explained that surplus licenses are released at the director's direction under administrative rule, and that the director's office reviews them weeks to months after the drawing rather than releasing them automatically. 0:46:24
Burrows argued there is no nexus for moving landowner-sponsored tags, intended for hunting a sponsoring landowner's deeded land, into a general pool that adds nonresident pressure on public and block management land, especially as nonresidents increasingly hunt eastern Montana mule deer. 0:48:06
Robinson agreed with Burrows that the released landowner-sponsored tags do not serve the same intent and asked staff to determine whether they fall under Commission jurisdiction, which staff agreed to do. 0:54:57
Burrows noted that the House Bill 568 questionnaire link on the FWP website was labeled House Bill 536, and staff said this was a mistake they would look into. 0:49:33
Burrows said the website questionnaire's three open questions miss the bill's aim of identifying nonresident impacts, and staff responded that it is only an add-on and a more formal human dimensions survey asking those questions is being analyzed for the December report. 0:51:22
Wargo asked whether hunter effort could be broken down into average days per hunter to see if a select group drives the increase, and staff offered to follow up separately with the data providers. 0:53:09
Wargo pointed out that undersubscribed resident tags in the 900 archery antelope draw flowed to nonresidents, giving nonresident applicants about a 78% success rate, and staff said they would look into it. 0:54:08
Wargo remarked that he encountered no nonresidents in the Bob Marshall over the weekend. 0:51:57
Robinson requested upland bird license trends broken out by region, and staff agreed to provide them. 0:47:17
Burrows asked that future presentations correlate license numbers with hunter success and harvest, and staff agreed to add it. 0:57:09
It was noted that much of the harvest information would come in the House Bill 568 report in December, though a Member observed that would be after the Commission's meeting and useful for the following year. 0:57:21
A Member asked for the slides to digest the information, and staff said they had been sent and would be posted online after the meeting. 0:57:46
Members praised the presentation as helpful for understanding resident and nonresident impacts on the landscape. 0:47:26

Transcript 124 passages

All Matters

On the agenda Passed

24-hour trap check requirement

0:58:15–1:35:42 · 1:38:49–2:13:41

Also came up at: October 14, 2026 regular meeting

What was decided

Motion Burrows moved to deny the petition asking the Commission to start rulemaking on a 24-hour trap check requirement; Lane seconded. Burrows withdrew the motion, with Lane's agreement, so the petitioners could present first. 1:03:37
Motion After the petitioners' presentation, Burrows again moved to deny the petition to start rulemaking on a 24-hour trap check requirement for traps and snares on public lands; Lane seconded. 1:13:38
Passed Vote on the motion to deny the petition to start rulemaking on a 24-hour trap check requirement for traps and snares on public lands. “Motion carries” 2:13:12

Summary

The Commission considered a citizen petition from Footloose Montana and the Gallatin Wildlife Association asking it to start a rulemaking process to require a 24-hour check of traps and snares set on public lands. 0:58:56

Jeff Hindoien (staff) As outlined in the proposal information sheet and on the agenda, the first one is a petition requesting that the commission initiate a MAP rulemaking process to adopt a requirement for a 24-hour trap check for traps and snares set on public lands. Is under the process, you know, set forth in the statute, the Commission has 60 days to render a decision on a petition of this type, then issue a written decision. Your option in these cases is to approve the petition for rulemaking.

Watch at 0:58:56 · Show in the Transcript
Staff (Jeff Hindoien) explained that approving the petition would not adopt a rule; it would only publish a draft rule for written comment and a public hearing before the Commission later decided whether to adopt it. 0:59:38

Jeff Hindoien (staff) You're not actually adopting the rule, but rather just advancing, making a decision to advance it into a process with— it's administered by the Montana Secretary of State. The proposed or draft rule would be published in the Montana Administrative Register. Written comments would be solicited, and public hearing would be held on a draft rule. And then at the conclusion of that process, we would bring those comments and everything back to the Commission for consideration of whether or not to actually adopt a rule.

Watch at 0:59:38 · Show in the Transcript
Burrows moved to deny the petition and Lane seconded, but Burrows withdrew the motion with Lane's agreement so the petitioners could present first, then renewed the motion to deny after their presentation, again seconded by Lane. 1:13:38

Burrows Uh, I would make my motion. I would move to deny the 24-hour trap check petition.

Watch at 1:13:38 · Show in the Transcript
A petitioner argued that science supports a 24-hour check, that FWP recommended a trap check in 2017, and that FWP's own research standards require foothold traps and snares to be checked twice daily. 1:06:44

Public (voice Q) Science supports a 24-hour trap check. In 2017, Fish, Wildlife, and Parks itself recommended implementing a trap check. Fish, Wildlife, and Parks' own professional wildlife research standards require foothold traps and snares to be checked twice daily, or more often depending on the species and risk of non-target capture. Why should trappers be exempt from this professional standard?

Watch at 1:06:44 · Show in the Transcript
A member of the public from Montana Wildlife Federation supported the intent but questioned requiring checks on kill sets and underwater sets, urging a narrower rule covering only live-restraint sets on public land. 1:28:28

Public (voice V) We question the need for requiring 24-hour checks on every trap and snare, which would presumably include kill sets, underwater sets, other sets that would lead to immediate death. You know, we feel these could be cumbersome and unnecessary, lead to increased wildlife disturbance through the winter, etc. Instead, we would encourage a more narrow rulemaking process to proceed, one that clearly defines and includes only live and/or draining trap sets on public land under this mandatory check requirement and such.

Watch at 1:28:28 · Show in the Transcript
The Montana Outfitters and Guides Association opposed the petition, saying a blanket 24-hour check is physically impossible in remote or roadless terrain where weather and geography control access. 1:21:12

Public (voice H) Thirdly, we've heard no reason several times, and so I would ask the petitioners and other supporters to pay close attention to this. A blanket 24-hour check is physically impossible for trappers working in remote wilderness or roadless terrain. Access is governed by weather, weather and geography, not scheduling preference. A requirement that cannot be met in a storm is not a regulation, it is a prohibition. And for that, we urge the Commission to deny this petition. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioners.

Watch at 1:21:12 · Show in the Transcript
Burrows said the petition was not ready, noting that even some likely supporters wanted changes, and Lane added that daily checks would not be feasible or enforceable in a large region like Region 7. 2:07:46

Burrows Just wanted to respond, and Commissioner Wargo kind of touched on it, that that motion was not to do anything without public comment but was just to initiate that public comment and discussion. I made the motion to deny the petition because I don't feel like it was ready for prime time. And I think we heard that from some of the folks that may have typically supported that petition. While there may be some merits to looking at an alternative to what we have now, I appreciate that Trappers Association offering up to those folks that if you want to get together and have a conversation, let's see what we can come up with to maybe come up with a petition that works for everyone.

Watch at 2:07:46 · Show in the Transcript
The motion to deny the petition carried on a voice vote, with no count stated. 2:13:12

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we— does anybody need a break before we go into the next petition? Okay. All right, we'll go ahead into the next petition. We'll follow the same process. Um, I do want to remind you that I will not allow personal attacks. So you can talk about something that somebody else has talked about, please do not use their name when referring to that comment.

Watch at 2:13:12 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 35

Staff (Jeff Hindoien) explained that the citizen petition asks the Commission to start a rulemaking process under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act, and that approving it would not adopt a rule; it would only publish a draft rule for written comment and a public hearing before the Commission later decided whether to adopt it. 0:59:38
Staff confirmed that the Commission must make an affirmative decision to either approve or deny the petition, and must do so within 60 days of receiving it. 1:02:23
Staff noted that the Commission already has authority to set trap check requirements and has used it to adopt species-specific trap checks in its annual furbearer regulations, but has not used the rulemaking-petition process for this kind of rule in a long time. 1:00:12
Staff said the penalty language in the petition would not go forward in any rulemaking because the legislature sets penalties for trapping violations. 1:01:20
A petitioner from Footloose Montana withdrew the proposed penalty provision if legal counsel found it required legislative authorization. 1:07:16
A petitioner argued that science supports a 24-hour check, that FWP recommended a trap check in 2017, and that FWP's own research standards require foothold traps and snares to be checked twice daily. 1:06:44
Petitioners and several members of the public said 36 states require daily or 24-hour trap checks and that Montana, Alaska and North Dakota are the only states without one. 1:11:09
A member of the public cited 50 years of studies showing that the length of time an animal is held in a foothold trap predicts how badly it is injured. 1:25:29
A member of the public cited an FWP report of non-target captures over five years, including 153 domestic dogs and 99 mountain lions, and argued that time in the trap is what maims and kills them. 1:26:15
A member of the public from Trap Free Montana proposed daily trap checks as a compromise to a strict 24-hour check, and suggested allowing visual checks. 1:21:59
A member of the public from Montana Wildlife Federation supported the intent but questioned requiring checks on kill sets and underwater sets, and urged a narrower rule covering only live-restraint sets on public land, or else handling the issue in the annual furbearer season setting. 1:28:28
A member of the public who traps said trappers are already among the most regulated groups the Commission oversees, argued that Montana lacks the biodiversity found in states with 24-hour checks, and offered to meet with the petitioners. 1:15:24
The Montana Outfitters and Guides Association opposed the petition, saying it offers no Montana-specific evidence of harm and that the legislature rejected the same requirement in 2005 and 2019. 1:20:27
The Montana Outfitters and Guides Association also said a blanket 24-hour check is physically impossible in remote or roadless terrain, where weather and geography control access. 1:21:12
Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife opposed the petition as an impossible burden on trappers and on enforcement, noted that no neighboring state has a 24-hour check, and said frequent checks disturb animals and reduce success. 1:23:21
A member of the public speaking for the Center for Biological Diversity said trapping occurs in habitat of grizzly bears, Canada lynx and wolverines protected under the Endangered Species Act, and that these animals do get caught. 1:45:41
A member of the public said FWP has documented at least 27 grizzlies caught incidentally in traps, and asked that all such captures on public lands be investigated and reported publicly. 1:59:17
A member of the public who described himself as a wildlife biologist and trapper said 50 years of research show 24-hour checks are workable even on long trap lines by splitting them into sections, that they produce better pelts, and that they should also cover killing neck snares that do not kill humanely. 1:48:53
Members of the public noted that the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' trapper education material tells responsible trappers to check their traps daily. 1:50:56
A member of the public from Humane World for Animals said most trapped animals in Montana can now be left in traps for weeks, and that removing wolf trap setbacks has led to more non-target captures, such as dogs injured in Mineral County this year. 1:51:34
A petitioner said physiological stress escalates fastest in the first 24 hours after capture, and that longer restraint is tied to injury, dehydration, starvation, exposure and capture myopathy. 1:54:26
Several members of the public urged the Commission to amend rather than simply deny the petition, for example by limiting the check to traps that restrain rather than kill. 1:40:04
A member of the public argued that daily checks would put human scent on trap lines, would not be cost-effective given fuel prices, and would be hard for trappers who work full-time jobs. 2:04:28
A member of the public who traps said trapped animals are often found asleep rather than in distress, and that a longer check interval is needed to avoid ruining the trap line. 1:49:38
A petitioner disputed the claim that trapped animals are asleep, saying they are in shock, and pointed to petition photos of a coyote that struggled for nearly 15 hours in a neck snare. 1:53:42
A member of the public from Wolves of the Rockies urged the Commission not to leave trap check policy to the legislature and to bring stakeholders together to address it. 1:43:52
A petitioner objected that the Commission had moved to deny the petition before hearing from the petitioners. 2:00:52
The Chair explained that the special meeting was held because petitions must be answered within a set number of days, not to give anyone special treatment, and staff confirmed this. 2:12:23
In answer to a question from Wargo, the Chair confirmed that a motion can be modified after public comment. 2:05:56
Staff explained that if the petition is denied, a trap check could still be adopted through the Commission's annual furbearer regulations or by the legislature, while approval would only open a proposed rule to further public comment. 2:07:10
Burrows said the petition was not ready, noting that even some likely supporters wanted changes, and welcomed the Trappers Association's offer to work with petitioners on a petition that works for everyone. 2:07:46
Burrows disputed claims that most Montanans support the petition, saying his reading of the more than 600 pages of written comments did not show majority support. 2:08:34
Burrows argued that the rule would force enforcement against trappers who physically could not check their lines, suggested a leash law on public lands to protect pets, and said the rule would shorten time in traps but not reduce non-target captures. 2:10:28
Lane said that in a large region like Region 7, daily checks would not be feasible or enforceable with too few game wardens, and that keeping traps closer would push trappers toward urban areas and cause more conflict. 2:11:20
Lane said the idea has merit but is not one-size-fits-all for the whole state. 2:12:03

Transcript 246 passages

All Matters

Raised by public

Name included without consent on Safari Club wolf comment letter

1:35:45–1:36:38

Summary

A speaker objected that their name had been included, without their agreement, on a list of Safari Club members supporting the club's endorsement letter for killing more wolves, a letter submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. 1:35:49

Robinson Chair Robinson and commissioners, my, um, I oppose trapping, and also I'm very upset that my name was included on a list of Safari Club members supporting their endorsement letter for killing more wolves. And this letter was submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Watch at 1:35:49 · Show in the Transcript
The name appears among a list of names on page 831 of the August 18th attachments to the wolf comments. 1:36:07

Public (voice O) My name actually appears among a list of names on page 831 of the August 18th attachments to Wolf Comments.

Watch at 1:36:07 · Show in the Transcript
The speaker said they never agreed to sign onto the letter and are not affiliated with the Safari Club. 1:36:15

Robinson I never agreed to sign onto this letter, and I'm not affiliated with the Safari Club.

Watch at 1:36:15 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 5

The speaker objected that their name was included, without their agreement, on a list of Safari Club members supporting the club's endorsement letter for killing more wolves, a letter submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. 1:35:49
A member of the public said their name appears in a list of names on page 831 of the August 18th attachments to the wolf comments. 1:36:07
The speaker said they never agreed to sign onto the letter and are not affiliated with the Safari Club. 1:36:15
The speaker also said they oppose trapping. 1:35:49
A member of the public said they oppose the killing of wolves, believe all of the natural world has a right to exist, and said Montanans especially need to be the best stewards of wildlife and its habitat. 1:36:20

Transcript 6 passages

All Matters

Raised by public

Opposition to wolf harvest

1:37:04–1:38:49

Also came up at: October 14, 2026 regular meeting

Summary

A general comment was offered opposing the harvest of wolves; this Matter was not on the agenda. 1:37:15

Robinson Yep, go ahead. Marvelous, thanks. Um, well, uh, Commissioners, uh, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Um, I'm gonna have to keep it short here. Um, this is a general comment, uh, regarding, uh, harvest of, of wolves.

Watch at 1:37:15 · Show in the Transcript
The comment cited a biologist who studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years and concluded that, apart from light and sporadic subsistence use where it is traditional, it is best not to allow any harvest of natural wolf populations. 1:37:39

Robinson Biologist Gordon Haber, after studying wolves for 43 years in Alaska, wrote in his book Among Wolves, other than relatively light and sporadic sustenance subsistence use in areas where it's a traditional practice, it is clearly best not to allow any harvest of natural wolf populations. Huh, that's pretty clear. He also wrote, many complex controls operate between predators and prey.

Watch at 1:37:39 · Show in the Transcript
The comment argued that predator-prey relationships left to themselves produce a vigorous, genetically diverse animal community able to withstand severe winters, and invoked Aldo Leopold's principle that a thing is right when it preserves the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. 1:38:13

Robinson When they are left to themselves, the result is an animal community characterized by a high degree of vigor, genetic diversity, great variety, and the ability to withstand major natural disturbances such as severe winters. Aldo Leopold wrote, a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community, It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Watch at 1:38:13 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 3

A general comment opposing wolf harvest cited a biologist who studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years and concluded that, apart from light and sporadic subsistence use where it is traditional, it is best not to allow any harvest of natural wolf populations. 1:37:39
It was argued that when the complex controls between predators and prey are left to themselves, the result is an animal community with high vigor, genetic diversity, great variety and the ability to withstand major natural disturbances such as severe winters. 1:38:13
The comment also invoked Aldo Leopold's principle that a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community, and wrong when it tends otherwise, as a reason to oppose wolf harvest. 1:38:13

Transcript 7 passages

All Matters

On the agenda Passed

Administrative Rulemaking Petition – Bear Spray Requirement

2:13:12–3:16:37

What was decided

Motion Walsh moved to deny the petition to require mandatory carrying of bear spray by hunters, trappers, outfitters and guides in grizzly bear habitat; the motion was seconded. 2:31:42
Passed Voice vote on the motion to deny the petition requiring hunters, trappers, outfitters and guides to carry bear spray in grizzly bear habitat. “Motion carries” 3:16:29

Summary

Staff member Jeff Hindoien explained that the citizen petition asks the Commission to adopt a rule requiring anyone who hunts or traps in grizzly bear habitat, or who accompanies a hunter there as an outfitter or guide, to carry bear spray and keep it reasonably accessible. 2:14:25

Jeff Hindoien (staff) As you just mentioned, 60-day process, typically by which a written decision at the end of that process needs to be issued and based on the information submitted to the agency, including in this instance the comment that you solicited in writing and in here today at the meeting. This particular petition requests the adoption of a rule that would require require any person who hunts, traps, or accompanies a hunter as an outfitter or guide in grizzly bear habitat to carry bear spray and have it be reasonably accessible.

Watch at 2:14:25 · Show in the Transcript
Jeff Hindoien said the Commission's authority to adopt this requirement is less clear than for trap-check rules, because the comparable hunter orange requirement was set by the legislature. 2:17:27

Jeff Hindoien (staff) So all kind of a typical fashion of my— Just long-winded way of saying The space here for doing— to adopting this type of requirement isn't as clear as it is with respect to the last one, but that's the space to navigate through for the Commission. Again, happy to answer any questions, but that's the process piece on this one.

Watch at 2:17:27 · Show in the Transcript
A petitioner argued that hunting and trapping in grizzly habitat is especially risky and that hunter-grizzly incidents have increased, often involving people without accessible bear spray. 2:21:58

Public (voice W) Conflicts between hunters, trappers, Incidents involving hunters and grizzly bears have significantly increased in recent years in the northern Continental Divide ecosystem and the Montana portion of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In many of these incidents, people engaged in hunting activity were not carrying bear spray or did not have it readily accessible. Hunting and trapping in grizzly bear habitat is inherently risky. Hunters often stalk quietly alone through thick brush and forest, often wear musk odors that mask human scent, and they're next to freshly killed animals that may attract bears. Trappers have caught many grizzly bears in their traps within Montana, and unknowingly approaching a trapped grizzly bear is very dangerous.

Watch at 2:21:58 · Show in the Transcript
Asked whether bear spray would have prevented any documented grizzly deaths, staff said spray has ended conflicts but no analysis of that kind has been done. 2:30:04

Quentin (staff) Yeah, on this side, I'm sorry, Chair, Vice Chair, on this side, this is Quentin, just hearing the question, and it's, we can wonder what might otherwise have happened, but that's, I think, in this room as close as we can come thinking about Instances where bear spray have been deployed over the previous seasons and has been successful at ending the conflict. But what to think might have happened otherwise, you know, and when a firearm is in place, if that's— if we hear the question that way, Vice Chair, that's— we haven't, other than speculation we might do here in the moment, we haven't put an analysis together of the sort that I understand you're asking for. Vice Chair.

Watch at 2:30:04 · Show in the Transcript
Walsh moved to deny the petition after saying FWP's hands-on bear spray education matters more than a carry requirement, and the motion was seconded. 2:31:42

Walsh To deny this petition, um, to require mandatory carrying of bear spray.

Watch at 2:31:42 · Show in the Transcript
Several members of the public and organizations urged the Commission to rely on FWP's bear spray education rather than a mandate they saw as government overreach, while supporters compared the proposal to seat belt and hunter orange laws. 3:04:07

Public (voice AG) But, you know, I think as we've seen with the non-lead ammunition discussion, education can really move the needle on this without creating what is felt like an overstep by the government telling you what to do. So would really encourage the agency to continue what they're doing and lean in on education. It is incredibly helpful. It does move the needle significantly, and we would ask that you deny this petition. Thank you.

Watch at 3:04:07 · Show in the Transcript
Wargo said that without enforceable penalties the requirement could lack teeth and that FWP's education is already working. 3:11:36

Wargo But I I do. I do have concerns mostly from an unintended consequence standpoint that I think you very rarely see a decrease in utilization if made mandatory without an actual penalty. So thank you.

Watch at 3:11:36 · Show in the Transcript
The motion to deny the petition carried on a voice vote. 3:16:29

Robinson All opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Does anyone need a break before we go into the next?

Watch at 3:16:29 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 28

Jeff Hindoien explained that the petition, filed under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act's 60-day citizen petition process, asks the Commission to adopt a rule requiring anyone who hunts or traps in grizzly bear habitat, or who accompanies a hunter there as an outfitter or guide, to carry bear spray and keep it reasonably accessible. 2:14:25
Jeff Hindoien said the Commission would not set the petition's requested penalties by rule, because the legislature has already provided a residual penalty for violating Commission rules. 2:15:44
Jeff Hindoien said the Commission's authority to adopt this requirement is less clear than for trap-check rules: the comparable hunter orange requirement was set by the legislature, and the legislature has been specific about the Commission's role on hunting equipment. 2:17:27
Jeff Hindoien noted that the department had denied a nearly identical petition, mainly because the department's authority covers game management rather than the hunting, fishing and trapping rules assigned to the Commission. 2:17:58
A petitioner argued that hunting and trapping in grizzly habitat is especially risky because hunters move quietly and alone, use scents that mask human odor, and work near carcasses, and because baited traps can draw bears from far away; the petitioner added that hunter-grizzly incidents have increased and that many of the people involved lacked accessible bear spray. 2:21:58
Petitioners and other members of the public pointed out that FWP and federal agencies recommend bear spray, and quoted an interagency brochure saying spray needs less accuracy than bullets, has never caused a fatality, and leaves the bear alive. 2:23:19
Several members of the public, including petitioners, cited studies finding that bear spray stopped undesirable bear behavior in roughly 90 to 98 percent of cases and that most users in close encounters escaped uninjured. 2:48:07
A petitioner said defense-of-life grizzly killings have risen sharply, increasing sevenfold in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem according to FWP data, and cited a November 2025 case near Seeley Lake in which hunters without bear spray shot a female grizzly and two cubs. 3:08:22
A petitioner said the petition does not single out hunters and trappers unfairly, because those activities carry higher risk and fall within the Commission's authority, and added that everyone in grizzly habitat should carry bear spray. 2:24:34
Walsh asked whether any documented grizzly deaths would have been prevented by bear spray; Robinson answered that none have been documented, and staff member Quentin said spray has ended conflicts successfully but that no analysis of the kind requested has been done. 2:30:04
Walsh observed that the hunters in recent grizzly attacks had all been carrying bear spray. 2:29:50
Walsh said FWP's hands-on bear spray education is more important than a carry requirement, noting that spray expires and a person could be carrying an ineffective canister. 2:31:12
Lane said the federal agencies and FWP recommend bear spray but none require it, that carrying it should be the individual's choice, and that government mandates rarely turn out well. 2:32:07
Several members of the public answered the objection to government mandates by comparing the proposal to seat belt, hunter orange and hot-car laws. 3:02:19
A representative of the Montana Trappers Association, who said he supports and uses bear spray, reported that he could find no case in which bear spray would have prevented a trapping-related grizzly death. 2:35:38
A representative of a sportsmen's group said no state mandates bear spray and that the petition targets hunters and trappers while ignoring other land users; he cited fatal attacks in Glacier and Banff where emptied spray canisters were found as evidence that spray can fail. 2:37:58
Several members of the public, including a backcountry recreationist and a wildlife federation representative, said any requirement should apply to all backcountry users rather than to hunters and trappers alone. 2:40:34
A representative of an outfitters and guides association said outfitters already carry bear spray and brief their clients on it; he objected that the proposed penalty language would hold licensed outfitters liable for clients' conduct, calling this unprecedented vicarious liability that raises due process concerns. 2:46:56
A member of the public, a teacher, responded that licensed professionals taking people into the field are responsible for those people's actions, and asked why anyone would oppose carrying spray when most hunters already do. 2:57:10
A member of the public opposed adding another piece of mandated gear for hunters, and said that in Region 1 the entire area is grizzly habitat because bears are moving beyond the recovery areas. 2:45:40
A longtime hunter education instructor said his courses promote bear spray, but that he is allergic to it and that its effective range falls short of 20 yards. 2:52:46
Several members of the public and organizations urged the Commission to rely on FWP's bear spray education, which they credited with real progress, rather than a mandate seen as government overreach. 3:04:07
A wildlife federation representative questioned whether the requirement could be adopted without legislation, and suggested the department analyze bear encounters and present the findings publicly to guide future education. 2:51:15
A member of the public said the growing number of out-of-state hunters, who may not know bear safety the way Montanans do, is a reason to address the issue. 2:54:32
A carnivore conflict specialist asked the Commission either to enact the requirement directly or to begin the formal rulemaking process, arguing the Commission has authority under Section 87-1-130. 3:04:50
A petitioner said the rule would give game wardens a tool to deal with the small minority of hunters and trappers who do not carry spray, despite FWP's good training. 3:09:27
Wargo said that without enforceable penalties the requirement could lack teeth, noted that states making harvest surveys mandatory without enforcement saw compliance fall, and said FWP's education is already working. 3:11:36
A petitioner said that without spray a person facing a grizzly has only a weapon to rely on, and explained that other users were left out of the petition because of doubts about the Commission's authority over them, not because petitioners disagree that everyone should carry spray. 3:14:16

Transcript 181 passages

All Matters

On the agenda Passed

Initiation of Administrative Rulemaking Process – Predator Management Policy

3:23:22–4:36:12

What was decided

Motion Wargo moved that the Commission authorize FWP staff to prepare a draft MAPA rule notice for a predator management policy for consideration at a future meeting, following the direction given in the discussion and in the supplemental document 'Development of a Predator Management Policy'; the motion was seconded. 3:56:55
Passed Vote on the motion authorizing staff to prepare a draft MAPA rule notice for a predator management policy. “Motion carries” 4:35:42

Summary

Staff introduced the item as a front-end discussion for the Commission to give guidance on whether, and how, staff should develop a predator management policy, building on earlier talk of ungulate districts of concern during season setting. 3:24:01

Jeff Hindoien (staff) Tried to get that addressed in the P&I sheet, but really what the intention of this agenda item is, at least from the department staff perspective, was to have an opportunity for you as a commission in a meeting to ideally, hopefully provide us a little guidance to help you to the extent that's the direction the commission wants to go in the development of, of a predator management policy, for lack of a better term.

Watch at 3:24:01 · Show in the Transcript
Wargo proposed an intentional predator management framework, coordinated across species, aimed at a healthy predator-prey ratio tied to measurable biological objectives rather than simply fewer predators. 3:31:21

Wargo You know, conversely though, I think in that, in that framework, I'm also opening the, the door to, you know, really, um, you know, to that intentional management, uh, to where if there is, um, you know, indication where where that predation is compensatory and, you know, isn't additive in nature, that, you know, maybe there would be a little bit more tolerance on the landscape for some of the large carnivores. So anyway, you know, the goal isn't simply fewer predators. It's just that healthy sustainable predator-prey ratio, you know, tied to, you know, measurable biological Objectives is kind of my my thought there.

Watch at 3:31:21 · Show in the Transcript
Burrows argued for a plan modeled on the mule deer management plan, in which long-term averages and metrics would trigger set management levers that later revert, so that quota setting is predictable rather than arbitrary. 3:34:10

Burrows And having that, that for the commission, for the public, for the department to have that predictability on when we see a metric being hit or a long-term average or an objective not being met, we pull a lever for a certain period of time and then it just reverts back once we hit that metric again. And I think it would get rid of some of the, what some consider the arbitrariness of Walking into a season setting meeting and saying, "Do we want? I propose 60 wolves in this region. Why one 58? Why one 62?" All right, let's settle on 59 and a half wolves then in this region.

Watch at 3:34:10 · Show in the Transcript
Wargo moved that the Commission authorize staff to prepare a draft MAPA rule notice for a predator management policy for consideration at a future meeting, following the discussion and his supplemental document 'Development of a Predator Management Policy', and the motion was seconded. 3:56:55

Wargo Yeah, Chair, would you entertain a motion, please? Okay, thanks. And, uh, Jesse, I did just, uh, hit an email on, on this language for you. So, uh, I move the Fish and Wildlife Commission authorize FWP staff to prepare a draft MAPA rule notice for predator management policy for the commission's consideration at a future meeting in accordance with the direction outlined in this discussion, in addition to the direction provided in the supplemental document entitled Development of a predator management policy.

Watch at 3:56:55 · Show in the Transcript
Several members of the public opposed the proposal or asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was rushed and late-posted, lacked clarity, and was aimed at killing more large carnivores. 4:03:51

Public (voice F) These concerns become even more significant when we combine the continuing surrounding Montana wolf population estimates and the transitioning to the IPOM 2.0. This is simply too important to rush. We ask respectfully that the department and the commission withdraw this proposal for now, address the unanswered questions and policy questions involving a broad range of stakeholders and independent scientists, and then bring it back through And we'll have a look at it and we'll decide then. Wolves of the Rockies is— I want to get this straight— Wolves of the Rockies is for bear chase hunting of ungulates.

Watch at 4:03:51 · Show in the Transcript
Other members of the public supported moving forward, calling it a science-based start to a public process that would require biological evidence before action. 4:13:15

Public (voice H) Predator management in the Northern Rockies has been heavily litigated, and a durable policy framework protects the Commission's ability to act. We ask for a do pass. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Commission.

Watch at 4:13:15 · Show in the Transcript
Asked about concerns that the process was rushed, staff said there was probably no legal obligation to take comment at this stage and that there would be multiple further comment opportunities on a more detailed draft. 4:32:04

Jeff Hindoien (staff) Madam Chair, Vice Chair Walsh, it may, may not take that long, but you're certainly entering a process because we'll have multiple opportunities opportunities for public comment on the substance concept at a much greater level of detail than what's out there today. I mean, strictly speaking, from a technical standpoint, there probably wasn't a legal obligation to solicit public comment on this because it's not a final agency action. It's 2 or 3 or 4 steps removed from the point in time When the public is actually commenting on something that you as a commission or an agency for purposes of MAPA would be taking action on as a final action.

Watch at 4:32:04 · Show in the Transcript
The motion authorizing staff to prepare a draft MAPA rule notice for a predator management policy carried on a voice vote, with no count stated. 4:35:42

Robinson All right, same sign. Okay, motion carries. Only thing left we have on the agenda is public comment on items not on the agenda. A reminder that do not repeat what we've already discussed today, and this is a special meeting. We'll be meeting again, going to take 1-minute comments It's on the items not on the agenda. So, see, change the timer to 1 minute, please.

Watch at 4:35:42 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 36

Staff explained that the item was meant as a front-end discussion so the Commission could give guidance on whether, and how, staff should develop a predator management policy, building on earlier Commission talk of ungulate districts of concern during big game, lion and bear season setting. 3:24:01
Staff said they would focus on the functionality the Commission wants rather than exact wording, then write it into policy and administrative rule format for a second conversation. 3:28:09
Wargo said he wants an intentional, non-arbitrary and non-uniform predator management framework, coordinated across species, for areas where ungulates are struggling, habitat could support more animals, and predation is likely adding to mortality. 3:30:38
Wargo said the framework should also allow more tolerance for large carnivores where predation is compensatory, with the goal of a healthy predator-prey ratio tied to measurable biological objectives rather than simply fewer predators. 3:31:21
Burrows argued for a plan modeled on the mule deer management plan, using long-term averages and metrics that trigger set management levers and then revert, to give the public and Commission predictability and avoid arbitrary quota setting. 3:34:10
A Member asked for a balanced approach that looks at the impact of one species on another across all species on the landscape, rather than one species at a time in season setting. 3:35:03
Brooke said season setting is currently rushed, based on limited data and increasingly polarized, and that better population data would make decisions easier to make and to explain to the public; Lane agreed. 3:36:54
Lane raised concern about coyote impacts on deer and antelope and said measuring coyote populations would be difficult. 3:37:35
Asked whether coyotes, over which the Commission lacks authority, could be included, staff said coyotes already have an unlimited season, the department has used aerial removal by staff or contractors where fawn ratios are low, and the Commission could ask the department to pursue such efforts, subject to funding, contracts and landowner arrangements. 3:41:21
Lane said coyotes need to be incorporated in some way in ungulate areas of concern even though they are outside the Commission's current purview. 3:42:04
Wargo said existing long-term data such as calf and fawn recruitment could be leveraged for measurable metrics at a later drafting stage. 3:42:35
Burrows said the policy should also account for social and economic factors, citing a wolf quota in districts 313 and 316 cut from 3 to 1 without biological justification, and should not box the Commission into decisions it does not want. 3:44:50
Robinson said she would not support a policy that ties the Commission's hands, since it must weigh public comment and social factors alongside any metrics. 3:45:27
Staff said the discussion already gave enough direction to return with a more refined draft product at a future meeting for further public review and editing. 3:47:05
Brooke asked that the data brought to the Commission include non-predator causes of population decline, such as disease, habitat change and drought. 3:49:08
A Member also asked for information on all influences, citing rabbit population cycles affecting bobcat season setting in Region 5. 3:53:00
In response to Lane's question, staff confirmed the action only authorizes staff to prepare a draft, a front-end step ahead of a formal rulemaking process with further public comment and Commission amendment. 3:51:57
Asked whether a draft rule notice is the same as a draft policy, staff explained the rule notice is the vehicle and its content would be a first draft of the Commission's predator management policy language. 3:56:28
Members of the public, including one from Footloose Montana and one from Hughson, objected that the item was posted late, that comment registration was restricted, and that the proposal's intent was unclear, undermining a transparent process. 4:22:15
A member of the public from Footloose Montana opposed the proposal as treating large carnivores as a problem to be eliminated to produce more elk and mule deer for trophy hunters. 4:01:49
A member of the public from Wolves of the Rockies asked that the proposal be withdrawn for now, saying it was rushed only six days after comment closed and raised questions given uncertainty in wolf population estimates and the move to a new estimation model. 4:03:51
A member of the public from the Montana Wildlife Federation asked the Commission to hold off for more clarity, opposed managing one species based heavily on another's objectives, and suggested species-specific adaptive carnivore plans with regional population objectives. 4:05:26
A supporting member of the public said moving forward would start a public process, elevate large carnivores biologically, and bring more information such as drought and disease into decisions. 4:08:07
A member of the public from Trap Free Montana called the policy politically driven, said lion and wolf numbers have already dropped substantially, and said habitat is the main cause of low ungulate numbers. 4:09:38
A member of the public from Montana Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife supported a science-based adaptive plan to reduce polarized debates, saying predators severely depress herds in some areas. 4:11:55
A member of the public from the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association supported the proposal as a conservation policy requiring biological evidence before action and said a formal rulemaking record would strengthen the legal defensibility of decisions. 4:13:15
A member of the public from the Montana Trappers Association supported continuing forward, noting the idea had been raised at several prior meetings. 4:17:12
A member of the public argued the Commission's statutory mandate does not mention predator management and that carnivore-ungulate relationships involve many factors, so killing carnivores rarely achieves long-term goals. 4:14:19
A member of the public urged that any expansion of lethal take require a documented species-specific conservation need based on population, conflict, reproduction and cumulative mortality data. 4:18:06
A member of the public from Wolf and Wildlife Advocates said many herds, such as one in Region 2, are above objective for non-predator reasons, and asked that the policy require identifying the herd, its limiting factor, justification for each predator species, and stopping actions that fail. 4:24:59
A member of the public opposed wolf hunting, citing wolves' roles in ecosystem health and disease control, ecotourism value, and livestock losses under 1 percent. 4:26:36
A member of the public thanked Members for requesting measurable data and considering non-predator causes of death, and shared a recording of students who want wolves, bears and lions on the landscape. 4:20:42
Robinson said management does not necessarily mean killing more predators but targeting areas of concern. 4:29:31
Asked about public participation and whether the policy's name would be reconsidered, staff said the draft would be open to change from top to bottom and would return at least twice more with public comment opportunities. 4:30:37
Asked by Walsh about concerns the process was rushed, staff said there was likely no legal obligation to take comment at this stage and there would be multiple future comment opportunities, though the process may not take 18 to 24 months. 4:32:04
Burrows suggested the policy name could change and said opponents both opposed the policy and called for science-based metrics, arguing that starting early gives the public a chance to shape the policy from the ground floor. 4:33:52

Transcript 227 passages

All Matters

Raised by public

Late posting of meeting materials and Commission transparency

4:35:42–4:37:37

Summary

During public comment on items not on the agenda, a member of the public representing a wildlife advocacy group raised concerns about the Commission's transparency in releasing proposal information. 4:36:32

Public (voice AC) You got me. Thank you very much, Chair, Commissioners, Kim Bean, Wolf and Wildlife Advocates. My main comment is the fact that the frustration you hear, Commissioner, is the fact that we get a PI the day before comment closing, and that is a frustration because there's an expectation that we understand what you're thinking and what you want. This is an issue. This is a transparency issue. It's a question in ethics. It's a question in numerous problems that we have. Communication's a very big thing.

Watch at 4:36:32 · Show in the Transcript
The commenter said the public receives proposal information the day before comment closes yet is expected to understand what the Commission is thinking, calling this a transparency and ethics issue. 4:36:32

Public (voice AC) You got me. Thank you very much, Chair, Commissioners, Kim Bean, Wolf and Wildlife Advocates. My main comment is the fact that the frustration you hear, Commissioner, is the fact that we get a PI the day before comment closing, and that is a frustration because there's an expectation that we understand what you're thinking and what you want. This is an issue. This is a transparency issue. It's a question in ethics. It's a question in numerous problems that we have. Communication's a very big thing.

Watch at 4:36:32 · Show in the Transcript
The commenter added that the Commission's transparency is lacking and the public does not see its actions until it is too late, which drives frustration even among commenters who agree with some of the Commission's decisions. 4:37:11

Public (voice AC) Understanding what your objective is, and we hear your objectives a lot, and the objective's usually killing. And so there's frustration. And it's not that we don't agree with certain things, because I think you heard today that some of us do agree. But your transparency is lacking, and the frustration lies with that. So once again, when we don't see your actions until it's too late, there's a problem.

Watch at 4:37:11 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 2

A member of the public representing a wildlife advocacy group said the public receives proposal information the day before comment closes yet is expected to understand the Commission's thinking, calling this a transparency and ethics issue. 4:36:32
The same commenter said the Commission's transparency is lacking and the public does not see its actions until it is too late, which drives public frustration even where some commenters agree with the Commission. 4:37:11

Transcript 6 passages

All Matters

Raised by public

Consideration of non-game species in wildlife management

4:37:38–4:38:49

Summary

During public comment, a member of the public pointed out that rabbits, like many Montana species, are classified as non-game and so receive no state or federal protection, meaning they can be killed year-round, unreported and in unlimited numbers, and argued that wildlife discussions should not be limited to big game and predators such as elk, deer, moose, bears and wolves. 4:37:44

Public (voice S) Madam Chair, Commissioners, real quick, I just wanted to bring up something mentioned about rabbits and bobcat. Again, rabbits are considered non-game, and as non-game, they receive no state or federal protection or regulations. So rabbits can be killed, like many species in Montana, year-round, unreported, unlimited. So when we're talking about wildlife, Yeah. We can't just talk about big game and Um, you know, prey game species, elk, deer, moose, etc., bear, wolves.

Watch at 4:37:44 · Show in the Transcript
The same speaker said most of Montana's wildlife is non-game and overlooked despite its ecological role, urged the Commission to address all wildlife as part of its role, and expressed hope that the name and the planning would be changed to reflect this. 4:38:22

Public (voice S) You have to remember the majority of the wildlife in Montana is classified as non-game, and they're forgotten, and they have a role, and they have an impact. So when we're— Hopefully you will change the name and you will change the planning that seems very clear. Um, I won't— sorry, I'm going back onto that. But let's start addressing all the wildlife, please. That's your role, and thank you.

Watch at 4:38:22 · Show in the Transcript

Points made 4

A member of the public noted that rabbits are classified as non-game in Montana and so receive no state or federal protection or regulation, meaning they can be killed year-round, unreported and in unlimited numbers. 4:37:44
A member of the public argued that wildlife discussions should not be limited to big game and predator species such as elk, deer, moose, bear and wolves. 4:37:44
A member of the public stated that the majority of Montana's wildlife is classified as non-game and is overlooked despite having an ecological role and impact, and urged the Commission to address all wildlife as part of its role. 4:38:22
A member of the public expressed hope that the Commission would change the name and the planning to reflect all wildlife. 4:38:22

Transcript 3 passages

All Matters