Montana
9th Circuit upholds length-of-season restrictions for Montana wolf trapping, snaring • Daily Montanan
A federal court on Tuesday mostly upheld a judge’s decision last fall to limit Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring season to six weeks in January and February over what he said was the potential for grizzly bears to incidentally get caught in the traps in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the main part of District Court Judge Donald Molloy’s November order, which limited wolf trapping and snaring season to Jan. 1 to Feb. 15 to ensure as many grizzlies were in their dens as possible and could not be caught in the wolf traps.
But the circuit court panel disagreed with the portion of his order that limited the season length in hunting Regions 1 through 5 and in Blaine, Hill, and Phillips counties, and said the lower court needed to modify that part of its original order to only include areas where grizzly bears are known to live.
The panel also vacated the part of the order that the court said appeared to have prohibited Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks from trapping wolves for scientific purposes, which the state says is necessary and often happens during the summer months. The order says plaintiffs’ attorneys had agreed to the injunction not applying to scientific research trapping.
The order comes as the plaintiffs in this case seek a permanent injunction to keep the restrictions on wolf trapping seasons in place, as a judge in Idaho implemented similar restrictions there, and as conservation groups appeal the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision that wolves don’t need heightened Endangered Species Act protections in the states that are allowed to manage their wolf populations.
The two groups that challenged Montana’s 2023 wolf trapping regulations, WildEarth Guardians and the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force, said they see the decision as a small victory as they continue to push for a permanent injunction in the district court.
“We must give grizzly bears a fair shot at recovery, and hostile state management like Montana’s has a long way to go before it measures up to what wildlife and the public need,” said Lizzy Pennock, the carnivore coexistence attorney for WildEarth Guardians.
The defendants in the case, Gov. Greg Gianforte and Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair Lesley Robinson, almost immediately appealed Molloy’s November order to the 9th Circuit. Their attorneys argued the district court wrongly considered new arguments and materials submitted by the two conservation groups, applied the wrong injunction standard, and that the injunction did not prevent irreparable harm and was geographically overbroad.
The circuit court panel, in the majority opinion, disagreed with the state on nearly everything but the geographic overbreadth argument.
Judge Judge Mark J. Bennett and Judge Robert S. Lasnik, a Washington district court judge sitting on the appeals panel for the case, also said that the court’s consideration of a news story highlighting a sighting of a grizzly bear as far east as one had been spotted in 100 years, which was published just before the hearing, was not improper.
The state had also argued that Molloy used the wrong injunction standard by saying the plaintiffs had shown the case involved a serious question on the merits rather than meeting the higher standard of showing that they had a likelihood to succeed in the case.
But Bennett wrote that the 9th Circuit uses the “serious questions” test, and Molloy correctly used that as well. Bennett wrote that the conservation groups had shown evidence grizzly bears are not limited to geographical borders, are attracted to baited traps and can get caught in them. He also said they had shown grizzly bears would be active outside of their dens during the state’s proposed trapping season, which was to start on a floating date sometime between Nov. 27 and Dec. 1 and run through March 15.
“Given all the evidence, it was plausible for the district court to find a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears should Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring season proceed as planned,” Bennett wrote. “In other words, the district court’s finding was not implausible given plaintiffs’ evidence and the evidence as a whole.”
Judge Richard C. Tallman disagreed with the other two judges on that finding, offering a partial dissent in which he said Molloy based his decision off speculative evidence offered by the plaintiffs and their exhibits.
“The record viewed in totality does not support a finding that irreparable harm is likely, other than just possible,” he wrote. “Of the four exhibits, ten declarations, and nine affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs, the bulk of the information provided is speculative in nature, offering theories about what could happen in the face of climate change or food scarcity, instead of offering any actual evidence that the harm is likely to occur.”
The other two judges disagreed with his assessment however, saying Tallman was giving more weight to evidence that would undermine Molloy’s decision than to the evidence that led him to make his decision.
“Because the district court’s finding of a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm was not implausible on the record, we must affirm that finding,” Bennett wrote.
District court will have to decide new geographic boundaries
But all of the judges agreed that the geographic area to which the season restrictions applied was too broad and said there was not enough evidence in the record to conclude having restrictions across more than half the state was necessary to prevent the accidental capture of grizzly bears.
Molloy’s decision on where the season restrictions would apply seems to have been based on the plaintiffs’ citing of a news release from FWP saying grizzlies have the potential to be found “anywhere in the western two-thirds of Montana” and a news story about the bear being spotted near the Missouri and Judith rivers in eastern Montana. But the judges said those did not constitute enough evidence to close off all wolf trapping west of Billings except for six weeks out of the year.
“The bulletin’s statement is thus couched in speculation and is too hypothetical to support the conclusion that grizzlies will likely be present in all areas of west of Billings such that the injunction’s geographic scope is necessary to protect the grizzlies,” Bennett wrote.
The judges remanded the geographic scope question back to the district court and asked it to make a finding “expeditiously.” But they also ordered that the current geographic scope stay in place until a new one is decided. Montana’s wolf hunting and trapping season concluded on March 15.
Meanwhile, the Montana Trappers Association and Outdoor Heritage Coalition have intervened in the district court case in an attempt to loosen the restrictions. Also, the two conservation groups that are plaintiffs in the case last week filed for summary judgment, asking Molloy to extend the injunction permanently and to include coyote trapping and snaring season restrictions that are identical to the wolf season restrictions – something Molloy declined to do with the preliminary injunction, meaning they can still be trapped and snared year-round for the time being.
It’s currently unclear how the court will handle the remanded geographic question in conjunction with the request for a permanent injunction, but attorneys for Gianforte and Robinson will have until May 6 to file their opposition to the request, and the two sides will have about another month to fully brief their arguments, at which time the decision would rest in the court’s hands.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesperson Greg Lemon said FWP agreed the geographic area of the original injunction was too broad and said the state was focused back on the district court case.
Pennock and Mike Bader, a consultant to the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force, said the state needed to acknowledge how climate change was shortening grizzlies’ den times and start to better acknowledge how some of its hunting and trapping policies could harm animals, like grizzlies, that do still have protections under the Endangered Species Act.
“The State of Montana cannot be entrusted with management responsibility for grizzly bears because they are acting irresponsibly towards carnivores and predators,” Bader said.
The Socorro Independent School District honored and celebrated its top two educators at the 2026 Teacher of the Year Gala on Friday, May 8 at the El Paso Convention Center.
Cristina Garcia, a fifth-grade teacher at Mission Ridge Elementary School, was recognized as the 2026 SISD Elementary Teacher of the Year. Javier Esparza, an audio and video broadcast teacher at Socorro High School, was named the 2026 SISD Secondary Teacher of the Year.
https://www.ktsm.com/news/socorro-isd-honors-top-2-teachers-at-gala-celebration/
EL PASO, Texas (KFOX14/CBS4) — A proposed high-voltage transmission project in far East El Paso is raising concerns among residents in the Montana Vista area, as developers work to determine a potential route that could impact private property.
The project, known as Pecos West, is being developed by Grid United and would create a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line connecting El Paso to southeastern New Mexico.
According to the company, the goal is to link major parts of the U.S. electric grid, specifically the Western and Eastern interconnections, allowing electricity to move in both directions between regions. Developers say the project could strengthen energy reliability, expand access to power markets, and help prevent outages during extreme weather.
Grid United also describes Pecos West as a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investment that could bring jobs, tax revenue, and long-term economic benefits to communities along the route.
However, for residents in Montana Vista, the immediate concern is not the long-term benefits, but what the project could mean for their land.
At a community meeting Saturday morning, several residents were able to voice their concern, telling KFOX14/CBS4 they feel they have not received enough information about the project’s path or timeline, especially as discussions about a preliminary route continue.
“We haven’t got anything from you,” said Armando Rodriguez, president of the Montana Vista Landowners. “Not one quote.”
Others echoed concerns about communication, calling on the company to directly notify homeowners who may be affected.
“You need to go to these houses, give people information, and say this could affect you,” one resident said.
Grid United says the project is still in the planning and development phase, and no final route has been approved.
The company says construction would only begin after securing regulatory approvals and negotiating land agreements with property owners.
Company representatives also emphasized that landowner participation is voluntary.
“Pecos does not have eminent domain,” said Alexis Marquez, community relations manager for the project. “If a landowner does not want it on their property, we would look at alternate routes.”
Developers say outreach will continue as planning progresses, but residents are asking for more direct communication now, especially those who believe they could be directly impacted.
The project is not expected to be completed anytime soon, with Grid United estimating that Pecos West could become operational in the mid-2030s if approved.
For now, the conversation in Montana Vista reflects a familiar tension seen in large infrastructure project, balancing long-term regional benefits with local concerns about transparency, property, and community impact.
RECOMMENDED: Circle K: Diesel mistakenly delivered into premium gas tank at El Paso Zaragoza Road store
Sign up to receive the top interesting stories from in and around our community once daily in your inbox.
EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) — Following widespread neighborhood concerns first reported by KTSM 9 News on Friday, residents of the Montana Vista area came face-to-face with developers of the proposed “Pecos West” transmission line project on Saturday morning, May 9 during a community meeting held at the Montana Vista Community Center.
The multi-million dollar project, spearheaded by power grid developer Grid United, aims to build a massive transmission line connecting the El Paso area to southeastern New Mexico.
While developers tout the project as a crucial link to prevent grid bottlenecks, families living in the path of the proposed line continue to voice mounting frustration and distrust over how the land acquisition is being handled.
On Friday, Grid United released a statement to KTSM insisting their one-on-one land negotiations were conducted out of respect for private property rights. But at Saturday’s community gathering, residents and advocates made it clear they aren’t buying it.
“People are afraid. I’m not afraid. I’m angry,” said Armando Rodriguez, president of the Union of Montana Vista Landowners, who previously said that developers had been quietly approaching his neighbors for months with varying buyout offers.
Only about a dozen residents and advocates attended the weekend meeting, but they loudly questioned why the company spent the past year approaching landowners individually rather than addressing the community as a whole.
During the exchange, project officials admitted they have already acquired about 50 percent of the properties in the impacted area. Grid United later clarified to KTSM that the exact number fluctuates frequently, just like the proposed route.
Community organizers argued that the company’s isolated approach leaves residents vulnerable and misinformed.
“When a company like this turns up and says, ‘We’re going to buy your property.’ We must ensure that community members understand that they have the right to say no, or that they have the right to negotiate a higher value,” said Veronica Carbajal, an organizer with the Sembrando Esperanza Coalition.
Carbajal highlighted that the lack of widespread notification and a standardized compensation formula is creating deep unease.
“They’ve already bought properties, but they have not established notification to every resident that will be impacted, nor have they set up a formula for compensation,” Carbajal said. “So what we can see online through the title transfers is that there is a very wide distinction between how much people are being paid. We don’t want the community to be divided. We also want people to understand that this is voluntary. They do not have to sell if they don’t want to.”
A major point of contention at Saturday’s meeting was the threat of eminent domain. Grid United explained that, as a private company, they do not possess eminent domain authority, insisting that if a landowner refuses to sell, the company will simply find an alternative route.
“At Pecos West we’re very landowner-first approach,” said Alexis Marquez, Pecos West community relations manager. “So if a landowner does not want (the transmission line) on the property, then we would find alternative routes.”
But Rodriguez remains highly skeptical that the developers would simply walk away from targeted plots.
“A corporation as big as you, a multi-million dollar corporation, I find it hard to believe that you would invest money into something this big and just walk away if the family said, ‘No, I don’t want to sell it,’” Rodriguez told officials during the meeting. “The question is: Are you really serious about what you’re saying here? Or is this just another dog and pony show?”
Project leaders conceded they need to adjust their efforts in engaging and informing the community, promising more meetings to come. However, residents emphasized that trust is currently broken and will only be rebuilt with concrete action.
El Paso County Commissioner Jackie Butler, who helped organize the meeting, said the County has no power to halt the proposed project, but she said she has been communicating with project officials and is trying to connect them with community advocacy organizations.
“I learned very quickly that the County does not have any authority or permitting process to stop these kinds of projects. And so that’s when I started connecting Pecos West to community members so that they could get directly involved,” Butler said. “My questions to Pecos West have been, Why do you have to come through our community? And even if you have to build through our region, you should go around it.”
Moving forward, the residents in attendance made it clear they do not intend to sell their property. They are demanding Grid United bring all impacted neighbors to the table as a collective before any more land is purchased.
If the project continues to move forward, construction is not expected to begin until the mid-2030s.
-
Technology2 minutes agoDrone delivers 2 pizzas in minutes
-
Business8 minutes agoSweeping California law on single-use plastic meets with outrage from all sides as it goes live
-
Entertainment14 minutes ago‘How I Met Your Mother’ actor Nick Pasqual convicted of attempted murder
-
Lifestyle20 minutes agoWhat is an eye massage? We tried it at this under-the-radar L.A. spot
-
Politics26 minutes ago‘Extremely scary’: Specter of an all-GOP governor’s race spurs push to remake open primary
-
Science32 minutes agoCalifornian exposed to hantavirus aboard cruise ship resides in Bay Area, officials say
-
Sports38 minutes ago‘They punched us in the face.’ Sparks can’t keep pace with Aces in season-opening loss
-
World50 minutes agoTrump says Iran’s reply to US peace plan ‘totally unacceptable’