Montana

Ranchers concerned about impact of Montana State University animal exclusion fence on elk herd

Published

1 year ago

February 5, 2025

Ranchers concerned about impact of Montana State University animal exclusion fence on elk herd

BOZEMAN — North of Bozeman in the Springhill community, a large fence surrounds Montana State University research land. It was installed last summer for the sole purpose of keeping elk out. But some ranchers in the area are concerned about what this fence might mean for those animals.

“There’s definitely no animals in there. They can’t get in or out. Yeah, there’s pretty much nothing in there,” Doug Graves tells me.

Watch the story here:

Ranchers concerned about impact of MSU animal exclusion fence on elk herd

Doug is a rancher who’s lived in the Springhill community for around 45 years.

“We have elk, deer, moose, antelope, that come across this property. They have been for probably hundreds of years,” says Doug.

But recently, Doug has been missing that wildlife. He suspects a fence surrounding nearly 600 acres across from his property is the problem.

“Last summer Montana State University started the construction of this fence. They finished it this fall,” he says.

MTN News

Doug Graves

The fence surrounds Lutz Farm which was donated to MSU for agricultural research. The university explained in an email that the research being done on the fields of Lutz Farm produces new crop varieties for the unique conditions in Montana.

The email said, “The production from that field is extremely important (and valuable) to Montana agricultural producers.”

MSU goes on to explain how a few years ago, nearly 30 acres of the Lutz Farm research land was destroyed by elk. Since then, they’ve tried different options to mitigate elk damage, including limited hunting and temporary fencing, but they say nothing worked. So, the fence went up—for the sole purpose of keeping elk out.

Doug says the fence may be good for research, but he thinks it’s had a negative effect on wildlife.

“The elk are stuck currently on the other side of it to the west. They haven’t been able to get back over here, and the big concern with that? This area to the east of us is very open, conservation easement, national forest land. They breed up there. They’re not hunted. And it’s very un-stressful for them,” Doug explains.

Doug’s noticed the elk roaming on farm fields where there is limited food.

“I’ve seen some people out there trying to move them off their haystacks. So they’re getting into other people’s hay,” says Doug.

Which Doug fears could lead to Depredation hunts, which are seasonal hunts that allow hunters to kill animals that are harming livestock, agriculture, or humans. So, I was curious what Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks thinks of this predicament.

“For this area, along Springhill road north of Bozeman, it does have an elk herd of about 200 or so head of elk that use that area between the foothills of the Bridger mountains, over to Bear Creek and Reese Creek Road,” says Morgan Jacobsen, the information and education manager for Montana FWP Region 3.

An area of about 60-70 square miles these elk use year-round. But FWP doesn’t have GPS trackers on this specific herd, which has made it harder to predict the effects of the fenced-off area.

“In terms of wildlife and landscape, we know that there’s a herd there. And we know that there’s other wildlife there as well that use the area. In terms of potential impacts, you know, that’s something we’ll be monitoring,” Jacobsen explained.

But I was curious, although this land is used for agricultural research I asked how common it is for people build a fence to keep out elk.

“I’d say it’s fairly uncommon. Most fences are your typical barbwire fence that’s about waist height,” Jacobsen says.

Such as the fence in Doug’s front yard, which elk are still able to travel over.

“They’re part of the system out here, and they’ve been here longer than any of us have. Me and some of my neighbors? We’ve always kind of looked at it as a price of admission to live here. You live with the elk. You don’t necessarily help them out. But you give them a place to live,” says Doug.

Doug tells me he hopes something can be done about the fence before spring when the elk begin calving.

Source link

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

1 minute ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

12 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link