Opponents decry grizzly bill as too vague at Senate committee hearing

Critics sought more clarity Tuesday on a bill allowing livestock owners to take grizzlies on their property in anticipation of the federal government lifting protections for the species.

Senate Bill 295, sponsored by Sen. Bruce Gillespie, R-Ethridge, would revise laws related to the regulation of grizzly bears upon delisting by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, specifically regarding when a livestock owner has the right to take — or kill — a grizzly. The bill would let a livestock owner take that step when a grizzly is threatening or attacking livestock, subject to a quota established by the state.

Questions about the definition of threatening — and other terms employed in the bill — led much of the discussion during a Feb. 14 Senate Fish and Game Committee hearing on the legislation.

Gillespie, who celebrated the recovery of the grizzly population in his district, said he sought to set parameters for managing the bears at the state level.

“I’m here to report that they are alive and they’re doing well,” Gillespie said of grizzlies.

No one wants to see grizzlies disappear from Montana, he added.

Gillespie’s legislation met with support from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Quentin Kujala, the state agency’s chief of staff, testified that the bill would ensure the grizzly population remains at recovered levels given the proposed quota system.

It also provides livestock producers with clarity, he said.

Representatives of other organizations, including the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Montana Stock Growers Association, Montana Farmers Union and Montana Sportsman Alliance, lent their support to the bill as well. Choteau Mayor Chris Hindoien also backed the legislation.

Dave McEwen, a land owner in Galata, Montana, described the proposal as another tool for residents to protect themselves and their property.

“We’re not going to kill all the bears in the state, I guarantee it,” said McEwen, who owns 10,000 acres used primarily for raising sheep and cattle.

Another cattle producer, Trina Jo Bradley, said that under existing rules, grizzlies could be taken if they were attacking a person, not livestock. Bradley said that while in her and her husband’s combined 99 years of cattle ranching they have never caught a grizzly killing anything, the proposal gives livestock owners direction for a worst case scenario involving their animals.

“My point is this: Very few grizzlies will actually die due to Senate Bill 295,” she said.

But concerns about implementation and the perceived vagueness of the bill dominated testimony from opponents.

Chris Servheen with the Endangered Species Coalition said the group opposed the legislation because it is focused on lethal control of the bears. Servheen worried that the language of the bill would allow the killing of non-conflict bears just for existing on ranch land.

Specifically, the bill allows a livestock owner to take a bear if they are threatening livestock, but offers no definition of what constitutes a threat, he said.

“This legislates the killing of bears even though they have done no harm and no damage,” Servheen said.

Gayle Joslin, a wildlife biologist representing the Helena Hunters and Anglers Association, argued that courts have said that genetic diversity must be maintained once a species is delisted, meaning that the bears must be able to travel between ecosystems. Gillespie’s bill threatens a bear’s ability to do that, Joslin said. She said the bill makes no distinction between public and private lands.

Other opponents represented the Montana Audubon, Montana Sierra Club and the Endangered Species Coalition. Many harkened back to Servheen’s criticism regarding the vagueness of the bill’s language.

Kris King with Explore Livingston opposed the bill for economic reasons. A living grizzly bear generates millions of dollars from tourism, King said.

Derrick Goldman, a field director in the Northern Rockies for the Endangered Species Coalition, said that the bill shows that Montana will manage grizzlies lethally, aggressively, and with the intent to reduce numbers and the distribution of the bears across the state.

Kc York, a resident from the Bitterroot, criticized the bill’s focus on lethal management. The bill enables the killing of a grizzly due to a “consistent presence,” but doesn’t explain what that means, she said.

“In other words, the grizzly can be killed for just being seen,” York said.

Killing, instead of a last resort, becomes an immediate solution with this bill, she argued.

Lawmakers asked multiple people in attendance what they would define as threatening. The answers varied. Many livestock owners described it as a situational question.

Gillespie’s proposal comes two years after the passage of Senate Bill 98 and offers edits to that legislation, which Gov. Greg Gianforte signed into law in May 2021. The amendments are modeled after the gray wolf management strategy adopted by the state when that species was delisted, though critics like the Endangered Species Coalition have argued that the two distinct animals ought to be managed differently.

Federal officials announced earlier this year that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would embark on a roughly yearlong study on whether removing the grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide and Greater Yellowstone ecosystems from the endangered species list was warranted.

In December, Montana officials released a 217-page proposal detailing a state management plan for the species in the event of delisting.

Reporter Kate Heston can be reached at kheston@dailyinterlake.com.