Proposed bill would strip feds of wolf authority within Montana

2010-11-07T06:00:00Z 2010-11-07T06:10:48Z Proposed bill would strip feds of wolf authority within MontanaBy ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian
November 07, 2010 6:00 am  • 

Montana’s gray wolves already face opponents in federal court and Congress. Soon, the state Legislature may enter the fray as well.

State Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, plans to reintroduce a wolf management bill he fielded in 2009. It would declare that the United States government “lacks authority to impose wolves on Montana,” cancel any existing partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage wolves, and demand that “the United States agree in writing to unfettered state management of wolves with no further assertion of federal authority.”

“The wolf issue is decided in court all the time anyway,” Balyeat said in a telephone interview on Friday. “The animal rights people are taking it to court with the judge of their choosing and the issues of their choosing. We’re giving away the home-court advantage. Why not do it on an issue of our choosing and a judge of our choosing? The state’s rights issue is the most winnable issue we have on wolves.”


In a nutshell, the bill claims Montana’s right to manage wolves trumps the federal government’s authority under the Endangered Species Act. Missoula firearms and hunting advocate Gary Marbut helped draft the legislation.

“It’s still a 10th Amendment exercise to wrest control of wolves out of the hands of the federal government,” Marbut said. “It has been the traditional function of state police power to manage and regulate wildlife within the state. Only in recent times has there been construed authority for the feds to manage wildlife. When the Endangered Species Act has been argued in court, the claim for authority the feds make is the commerce clause. But how many wild wolves have you seen sold across state lines? The answer is zero.”

The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.” The 10th Amendment reserves to the states any powers “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Marbut believes wildlife management is one of the powers the Constitution left to the states.


Balyeat’s bill made it to second reading in the 2009 Legislature before dying in a standing committee. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks legal counsel Bob Lane said he warned then the bill could have the opposite effect it intended.

“We’d make Wyoming look moderate, if not liberal, if that passed,” Lane said from Helena. “That would have totally tied the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s hands in terms of ever qualifying Montana to manage wolves on its own. It was difficult for us to see any scenario where we would regain management authority until that bill was repealed.”

Wyoming’s Legislature passed a wolf management plan that made it a big-game animal in a small part of the state and a shoot-on-sight pest almost everywhere else. The plan was so different from those approved by Montana and Idaho that the Fish and Wildlife Service kept control over Wyoming’s wolves when it delisted them in the other two states in 2009.

That division formed the heart of a lawsuit by 13 environmental groups that sued the federal government last year. They argued wolves can’t be managed according to state boundaries. U.S. District Judge Don Molloy agreed and returned Montana and Idaho wolves to Endangered Species Act protection in August.

The states are challenging that ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, several members of Congress have drafted bills to remove the wolf from federal oversight.


Balyeat’s state bill has several other measures that raised eyebrows among constitutional experts. It would make anyone “responsible for inflicting wolves on Montana or preventing state management of wolves” liable for damages to anyone injured or killed by a wolf, including anyone “party to a lawsuit with the purpose of preventing or delaying the implementation of state management of wolves.”

“It’s overstepping the Legislature’s authority to target a specific group, and it would fall flat under equal protection in a heartbeat,” said Jack Tuholske, a visiting professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Montana. “It would also conflict with the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance. But that’s why we have a court system in our constitutional democracy. Legislatures do foolish things and courts declare them unconstitutional. That’s how the system works and it’s been working pretty well for 230 years.”

Marbut said the legislation followed other “loser pays” provisions.

“There are people who introduced wolves and prevented delisting, who have twisted the truth and fact in order to have their way with the people of Montana,” Marbut said. “That bunch of people is complicit in damaging Montana’s lifestyle and economy and culture. Those people who are responsible and complicit need to have some consequences.”

The bill also includes consequences for wolves. It states if a person is injured or killed by a wolf, “the wolf or wolves involved in the attack are considered likely to be infected with rabies (and) any person may kill any wolf by any means within 100 miles of the alleged attack.”

Mike Meloy, a Helena attorney specializing in constitutional law, said wording like that just weakens the bill.

“I don’t think they have to engage in those kinds of fairy tales to permit somebody to shoot a wolf within 100 miles of a death,” Meloy said. “I don’t think they need to diagnose rabies. All they need to say is the Legislature controls how the wolf is hunted in Montana. The way it is, I don’t understand how they could get to first base in court if someone decided to challenge it.”

But getting to first base could be the least of the legislation’s problems.

Ryan Benson, legal counsel for the multi-state Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said Congress is a faster way to reach a wolf solution.

“Going through the Legislature will essentially require some kind of a lawsuit, and that’s kind of a long pass,” Benson said. “If Congress says the wolf is delisted, it’s effective immediately. And that could happen as soon as next year, where in a court case, you’re looking at several years to get it through the system.”

Reporter Rob Chaney can be reached at 523-5382 or at

Copyright 2015 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

No Comments Posted.

Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian ( may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

Missoulian reporter Rob Chaney presents the latest news you need to know about today's headlines in about t…

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

Missoulian reporter Martin Kidston presents the latest news you need to know about today's h…

Vietnam, then and now: Chue Vang

Vietnam, then and now: Chue Vang

Chue Vang recounts his experiences as a young man in Laos and Vietnam. 

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

Missoulian reporter David Erickson presents the latest news you need to know about today's h…

Vietnam then and now: Ira Robison

Vietnam then and now: Ira Robison

Ira Robison describes his experiences as an anti-war advocate during the Vietnam War.

Vietnam Then and Now: Janet Zupan

Vietnam Then and Now: Janet Zupan

Janet Zupan, daughter of a man who was a POW during the Vietnam War, recounts her memories o…

Vietnam then and now: Karen Ryan

Vietnam then and now: Karen Ryan

Karen Ryan recounts her experiences in Operation Babylift.

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

Missoulian reporter Kate Haake presents the latest news you need to know about today's headl…


Search our events calendar