SB 295: What it is and where it stands. 

GYC’s Montana advocacy team is keeping an eye on SB 295 as it makes its way through the state legislature. The bill pertains to citizen take of grizzly bears in the act of threatening livestock or personal safety due to presence near dwellings. The bill attempts to address concerns that arose from ambiguity now in Montana statute due to last session’s SB 98. SB 98 allowed Montanans to fatally shoot grizzly bears perceived to be threatening livestock. As a result, current Montana law conflicts with federal regulations around take of grizzly bears protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  

Should it pass into law, allowances within SB 295 would go into effect upon the removal of grizzly bears as a threatened species under the ESA, which the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have petitioned for. Two Montana grizzly populations are currently under a twelve-month status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the process initiated by the Montana and Wyoming petitions to delist grizzlies. 

SB 295 was introduced on February 7, and received its first committee hearing on February 14, but no vote has yet been held. 

Our position. 

GYC opposes SB 295 as written. Our position is based on two primary considerations. First, that the bill does not adequately address or correct the issues with SB 98 and invites in new components and ambiguities detrimental to sustainable grizzly bear management. Second, that regardless of the bill’s content, grizzly bear management is not the role of the Montana State Legislature. 

What we’re doing. 

GYC’s advocacy team submitted written testimony to the Senate Fish and Game Committee hearing on February 14. Broadly, our testimony expresses the following concerns: 

• SB 295 fails to state where quotas for take of grizzly bears perceived to be threatening livestock would apply. This ambiguity invites the possibility of unlimited take of grizzlies outside areas with established mortality limits.  

• SB 295 fails to include take of grizzly bears perceived to be a threat due to presence or proximity to people or inhabited dwellings in any sort of quota system. Again, this loophole could allow for unlimited take of grizzlies outside areas with agreed upon mortality limits. 

• SB 295 fails to define the words “threatening” and “proximity,” leaving what constitutes threatening behavior open to interpretation and opening the door to overly aggressive take of grizzlies based on the subjective experience of a “threat.”  

• SB 295 allows for the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission to adjust grizzly take quotas before quotas have even been met, thus undermining the value of having a clearly defined process to regulate grizzly bear take. 

• SB 295 does not differentiate between grizzly bear activities on public versus private lands, meaning a livestock producer with a grazing allotment on public land in grizzly bear habitat could obtain a permit to kill a grizzly perceived to be threatening their livestock without having first made any non-lethal efforts to protect their livestock from grizzlies. 

• SB 295 establishes an impractical process for fielding and responding to complaints of bears threatening livestock, which circumvents the current role of bear management experts on the ground. 

What’s next? 

We will continue to keep an eye on SB 295 as it advances and will keep you apprised of opportunities to take action. Watch this space.  

Thank you to everyone who took action!

—Kristin Oxford, Communications Coordinator

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is the land of 49+ Indigenous Tribes who maintain current and ancestral connections to the lands, waters, wildlife, plants, and more.