LAURA LUNDQUIST, Chronicle Staff Writer
The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission was reminded Thursday that words are as difficult to manage as wolves, especially when those words would allow the removal of more wolves.
On Thursday, after five months of public comment and legal fine-tuning, the Commission approved new wording and definitions for FWP administrative rules on wolf management — but not without some tweaks and final comments from both sides of the issue.
“We did have public hearings on the proposed amendments. You might imagine, just like every other conversation that the department hosts on wolves and wolf management, there was a diversity of opinion,” said wildlife section chief Quentin Kujala. “Certainly, one of the key items was concern about the clear definition of ‘potential threat.’ And when you go back to the legislative effort, that was also part of that conversation.”
Definitions of “potential threat” and “breeding pair” dominated much of Thursday’s discussion. Both had been changed to incorporate the 1,300 comments FWP received after the amendments were proposed in October.
The department took the opportunity to propose a handful of related rule changes to eliminate redundancy, outdated information and confusing language, Kujala said.
The rule rewrite was prompted by Montana Senate Bill 200, passed last year, which allows landowners to kill wolves that threaten their property without having to buy a permit or license.
FWP had to create a rule that would define the situations in which landowners could legally kill wolves and how they needed to report an incident.
Those situations hinge on the definition of “potential threat,” which requires that a wolf be threatening people, pets or livestock on a private property before it can be killed.
Wolf advocates protested the fact that the definition no longer included an exception for “wolves that might routinely use an area as free-ranging wildlife.”
Zack Strong, Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman, said some wolves routinely travel near livestock but don’t cause problems, so they should not be included as a potential threat.
Defenders of Wildlife spokeswoman Kylie Paul said the new definition was better because it provided less of an opportunity for landowners to abuse the privilege. But she suggested that the wording resemble that of Oregon’s rule.
Oregon’s rule says landowners could kill wolves only if wolves are caught in the act of some destructive activity and the landowner has previously tried nonlethal techniques.
However, the Montana Wool Growers Association was pleased with the potential-threat definition.
“This is one of the times that the department staff really addressed public comment,” said wool growers spokesman James Brown. “The department’s definition is more than adequate. It recognizes the fact that this gives livestock owners flexibility to take action on their own private property.”
Commissioner Gary Wolf suggested listing “potential threat” in the rule’s list of definitions in addition to the section where landowners’ privileges are described.
The definition of “breeding pair” also received a lot of attention.
The previous FWP rule defined a breeding wolf pair as “a male and a female that produced at least two pups…” but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service replaces “produced” with “raised.”
The Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan replaces “produced” with “with.”
Kim Bean, Wolves of the Rockies spokeswoman, said using “with” was inadequate.
“The production aspect is essential; otherwise breeding pairs could be siblings,” Bean said. “We’re starting to omit things that are kind of spooky.”
Commissioner Matthew Tourlotte suggested that the breeding-pair definition be rewritten to reflect the Wolf Management Plan, which was approved by the fish and wildlife service.
Sportsmen from the Bitterroot Valley asked that the names of landowners who shoot wolves be kept private.
Kujala said FWP had considered that suggestion, but legal counsel said that such a requirement needed to be proposed by the Montana Legislature.
The commission unanimously approved the rule change with the two definition amendments.
“Sometimes, people look at what we do and say we don’t listen to public comment. But I would beg to differ. I think this department sets the standard for public comment,” said Chairman Dan Vermillion.