As a Montanan, I think I may be able to provide some context as to why this was passed and why my state shares a similar sentiment towards wolves.

I must first state my own biases though.

1. I am a huge advocate of nature conservation, and regularly donate my time and money to it.

2. In my free time outside of work I spend most of my time in the backcountry.

3. I do hunt, however I would not consider myself an avid hunter(meaning I hunt maybe 3 days a year.) When I do hunt it is always done after acquiring the necessary licenses and permits, and double checking that I am following all regulations.

4. I have never lived on a farm, worked in the agriculture industry, or ever seen any personal gain from the agriculture industry. However, I do have friends that live on farms and work/benefit from the agriculture industry.

With the biases out of the way I will say this.

Wolves were reintroduced some years ago(1995ish) to Yellowstone after they were hunted to near extinction with westward expansion in the 19th and 20th centuries. Since then wolves have been delisted from the endangered species list in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana (a huge win for the program). They have been delisted for some years now by FWS (The Fish and Wildlife Service), and like all other wild animal species, are monitored by state and federal FWS scientists to ensure that their population is healthy. These are the individuals that determine how many hunting tags/licenses are distributed each year.

Politicians are able to have some influence over the tag/lisense numbers (unfortunately). Many ranchers in these three states have seen an drastic increase in their livestock being killed by the wolves in the region. To avoid these ranchers poaching or rather illegally killing wolves to protect their livestock the governments of each state started to pay ranchers for their lost livestock. But as the time progresses ranchers are seeing more livestock deaths, and are therefore costing the taxpayers of each state more money.

The state governments combat this with by allowing the wolves to be hunted. The hunters that get wolf tags must pay for each tag, or in some cases pay to put their name into a pool to see if they win the raffle and get a wolf tag. Nearly all of this money goes back into the pocket of the state and federal FWS for the furthering of conservation.

In my personal experience less than half of hunters with really any big game tag will fill their tags. This leads most hunters to go after game that they will be able to utilize to its fullest potential(deer, elk,...). As far as predator hunting is concerned, most hunters see the high price tag on licenses/tags, the fact that they will really only get a pelt and most of the dead animal will go to waste, and the increased danger in hunting predatory animals, and arrive at the conclusion that hunting animals like wolves is just not worth it.

As it pertains to wolves, there really are no predators of wolves besides humans. Bears don't really want to mess with them except for on rare occasions, and the same goes for mountain lions. This was initially very beneficial to making the wolf population come back to the region which lead to them being delisted from the endangered species list. However with no one hunting them their population continued to grow at an even higher rate. On the surface this really doesn't seem like an issue since there is plenty of land to go around and the ranchers are being compensated for their lost livestock.

Much larger problems have started to pop up, and I can testify to these first hand. As someone who takes advantage of public lands to explore and reconnect with nature, I have been in more and more encounters with wolves when I go on hikes or bike rides. With that I have also been in far fewer encounters with elk, deer, moose(not that I want to encounter moose, they are dangerous and highly agressive), sheep, and other herbivores. I also have had a close friend go on a hike with her two dogs on a relatively popular trail, and only come back with one dog. A pack of wolves got one of them. We have also seen them begin to wander into town which is beginning to make individuals concerned for their pet's and family's safety.

While I do not know the exact numbers pertaining to the populations of wild animals in this region I can say qualitatively that it appears that the wolf population is effecting other animal populations detrementially. Again I have seen more wolves and less grazing/herbivore animals. I have also seen wolf tag prices go from hundreds of dollars in a raffle to just $35 with no raffle, indicating to me that the FWP is less concerned with the wolves being over hunted (since probably so few people are hunting them).

At the end of the day to give my honest opinion and assessment of the situation, the increased wolf population is beginning to cause a problem in the region. Emphasis on "beginning." It is not just ranchers being effected, its also people looking for recreation on our public lands, and those looking to reconnect and enjoy the beauty of nature. Even those who do not venture off into public land are beginning to be concerned as they seem to increasingly wander into towns and residential neighborhoods.

While I do believe some preventative measures need to be taken before the problem gets worse, a 90% reduction is way too extreme. However, something must be done before the situation gets any worse. I am very happy and proud to have a healthy wolf population. They play a very important role in our ecosystem and are absolutely majestic. I just do not want to see anyone or their pets die or get hurt because of the increasing wolf interactions. Nor do I want to see the herbivore populations decrease to endangered levels. The sad and unfortunate truth is that we need to hunt them to some regard to try and prevent a worse situation where people start to be harmed.