Commissioner Jeff Burrows of Hamilton had proposed the increase in the greater Bitterroot region because of concerns about declining populations of other huntable wildlife such as deer and moose.

For example, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks had recommended a lion hunt of eight animals for Lion Management Unit 240, which covers much of the northern part of the Bitterroot Mountains. Burrows recommended increasing the hunt to 18. The commission agreed unanimously.

“Sometimes this increase in predator populations is referred to as a war on predators, but that is not the case here,” Burrows said. “This is a response to these ungulate populations.”

FWP developed the proposals for the commission's consideration using recommendations from a 13-member advisory panel. The Montana West-central Lion Ecoregional Population Objective Committee, or LEPOC, met with agency biologists and processed a wealth of information over three meetings to reach agreement on their proposal to maintain a stable lion population in the west-central region.

Based on information provided by FWP, LEPOC was told that between 151 and 280 lions would need to be killed in west-central Montana to maintain population stability. The numbers are based on the average hunt for the past five years in the region (151) and the quota established for the area last year (280).

During last year's hunting season, 179 lions were killed in the West-Central Ecoregion. This number was entered into the department's Integrated Population Model, which indicates that 235 lions would need to be killed to maintain a stable population.

According to Brian Wakeling, FWP's Game Management Bureau chief, there was a roughly 7 percent increase in lion hunting statewide last year, which equates to 542 cougars.

“The biggest increase was in the female segment,” he said.

Commission vice chairman Pat Tabor of Whitefish said he has been trying to understand the connection between predator populations and ungulates.

“Of course, it's not about eradicating one species,” said Tabor. “It's about finding the right balance between the two.”

Wakeling explained that it's not a direct correlation – fewer predators means more ungulates – because many factors come into play, including other predators, habitat and weather that can affect deer, elk and other ungulate populations. Even the price of gasoline can determine how many hunters go hunting.

The difficulty of correlation was illustrated in the Commission's information package, which overlaid deer and elk populations with lion hunting data from the west-central lion management units. In some hunting districts, mule deer numbers increased with the increase in lion hunting. In others, deer numbers remained the same or declined despite an increase in lion hunting.

The process FWP is going through to collect lion hunting data is part of a detailed, six-year project to individually and in greater detail assess lion populations in each region using rigorous scientific methods. The project grew out of a 2019 effort to better understand lion populations. It was called the Mountain Lion Monitoring and Management Strategy and divided the state into four ecoregions.

“Population density is estimated in each ecoregion using an integrated population model (IPM) that combines data from mandatory lion hunting reporting, vitality rates estimated from previous radiotelemetry studies, and a field-based spatial capture-recapture (SCR) method to estimate population density in relation to habitat quality using lion DNA,” said the report presented to commissioners.

“The IPM is also used to make predictions about future population changes under alternative harvest scenarios to inform management decisions,” the report says.

During the initial implementation of the plan during the winters of 2019–2021, FWP conducted field monitoring in the northwest ecoregion, which was combined with harvest and demographic rates to produce an ecoregional estimate of the lion population. An advisory group was formed for this region, and recommendations to reduce the lion population by more than 12% over the next six years were presented to the Department and adopted by the Commission.

Field workers then went to the west-central ecoregion to repeat the process, but things did not go as planned.

“The initial population estimate for the west-central ecoregion was inconsistent with biological knowledge of lions and harvest data for the west-central ecoregion, confusing the model and preventing it from working,” the agency said in its report.

So the FWP science team had to find an alternative way to estimate initial population size. Ultimately, the team could not provide “concrete projected harvest numbers” and so, “recognizing a certain degree of uncertainty in population estimates,” had to split the difference.

Last year, FWP came under fire after a Bozeman scientist argued that the state's Integrated Population Occupancy Model, used to estimate the wolf population, was flawed and produced unrealistically high estimates. The department defended IPOM, saying the researcher's conclusions were flawed and that the model had stood up to peer review.

However, a different model is used for lions, Wakeling explained to the Commission.

Commissioner Tabor expressed concern that the model could multiply initial errors over the course of six years.

“If any element of this population estimation process is a little underestimated, then we have underestimated the population overall to begin with, and that is what we are basing LEPOCs on now and in the future in their recommendations,” Tabor said. “I feel like we run a pretty significant risk of severely underestimating our lion population. And if we then pursue a stabilization policy, we could end up with a lot more lions and therefore a much greater impact on the ungulates affected.”

Wakeling said there are an estimated 1,375 lions in Region 1 in northwest Montana. In Region 2, the west-central area, the lion population is estimated at 1,800 to 1,900 lions.

“We are not concerned that we are hunting too many mountain lions,” Wakeling said. “We believe that mountain lions are widespread and their populations are healthy… so we are talking about trends… within the biologically acceptable range. We have room for error.”

Tabor also attacked the west-central LEPOC, whose members oppose mountain lion hunting. He said the group did the best it could based on its composition. But he and Commissioner Brian Cebull of Billings argued for stripping some of the citizens' group's decision-making power in order to focus lion hunting on areas where the ungulates' numbers have declined.

Public response to the debate was divided: on the one hand, from the conservation community, which believes lion hunting is unnecessary and says the predators are a vital part of the ecosystem, and on the other hand, from outfitters and hunters, who supported increased lion hunting.

Mary Alexine, co-director of Great Old Broads for Wilderness in northwest Montana, told the commission that mountain lions are part of what makes the state's wilderness so special.

“It's clear from all the comments that this is not a scientifically based number of lions,” she said. “We don't know how many there are.”

In an email to the commission, Justin Burdett, Region 2 director of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, criticized FWP for proposing lower quotas than those recommended by LEPOC.

“Populations of big-eared deer, bighorn sheep and mountain goats are suffering from lion overpopulation,” he wrote.

During the meeting, he called to commend Commissioner Burrows for his proposal to hunt more lions in the greater Bitterroot region.