Montana

9th Circuit upholds length-of-season restrictions for Montana wolf trapping, snaring • Daily Montanan

Published

2 years ago

April 24, 2024

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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

Published

5 hours ago

March 11, 2026

Press Room

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

It’s the talk of the town this week — powerful winds ripped the roof off Lincoln Elementary School on Sunday, leaving students, teachers, and residents in shock.

The incident has sparked concern among homeowners who are now worried about how such weather damage could impact their own homes—and what their insurance would cover.

According to Tauna Locatelli, owner of Advantage Insurance, most insurance policies have a set deductible for things like fire or theft, but wind and hail damage deductibles are often much higher, or even based on a percentage of a property’s value.

Quentin Shores reports – watch the video here:

Wind damage highlights insurance challenges for Montana homeowners

“Right now our industry is going through a really challenging time, especially when it comes to wind and hail in Montana. Several carriers are going to a standard ‘all peril’ deductible for everything other than wind and hail. So, it could be $1,000 for all but wind and hail, $2,500 wind and hail,” Locatelli explained.

A deductible is the amount homeowners must pay before insurance covers the rest. For wind and hail, that deductible can be steep.

“Some companies are going 1 or 2% of a coverage value, so that’s the building value. If it’s insured for $500,000 and you have a 1% deductible, you’re looking at a $5,000 deductible for wind and hail, which is what we get in Montana,” Locatelli said.

It’s important for homeowners to know their deductible—if repairs cost less than the deductible, insurance won’t pay anything.

Filing small claims can also impact your rates; Locatelli said, “Because if you have a $3,000 patch job claim and you have a $5,000 deductible, you really don’t want to file that because you’re not going to get anything in. That claim is going to follow your insurance record for five years.”

Age of property factors in as well. If you have an older roof, insurance may not fully cover its replacement.

“You’ve now lived half the roof life. Well, insurance is about indemnity and putting you back in the same condition you were in before the loss. You can’t put a 16-year-old roof on a home, so at 16 years, they’ll now pay 50% of that roof instead of 100% because it’s already lived half of its life. And then it drops each year as it goes by,” Locatelli added.

The bottom line: Keep your property maintained, review your insurance policy, and think carefully before filing a claim—especially as Montana faces more intense weather.

Source link

Montana

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11

Published

17 hours ago

March 11, 2026

Press Room

Missoula and Western Montana neighbors: Obituaries for March 11

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

Published

1 day ago

March 10, 2026

Press Room

Montana AG letter alleges Helena violates law banning ‘sanctuary cities’

HELENA — On Monday, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sent a letter to the City of Helena claiming the municipality is not in compliance with the state’s law banning “sanctuary cities.” The letter comes just under a month after the State of Montana launched an investigation into a city resolution on Helena Police policy and Helena’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement.

In the letter, Knudsen laid out the ways he believes the city’s resolution violated state law. The attorney general gave Helena 15 days to respond or reverse the policy. If the city does not comply, his office will pursue legal action.

“Helena’s resolution appears to contain blatant violations of this law,” wrote Knudsen.

MTN News

On January 26, 2026, the City of Helena adopted a resolution clarifying when and how the Helena Police Department will cooperate with federal immigration officials. The vote was 4 to 1. The Helena commission seats and the mayor are elected in non-partisan races.

In the letter, Knudsen alleges the resolution established “a broad sanctuary city policy” that seeks to protect every illegal immigrant, regardless of whether the individual had committed a serious crime or not. The state further claims the resolution gives illegal immigrants “special privileges” in plea deals and establishes a “free-for-all policy” where a police officer can request the unmasking of Department of Homeland Security and ICE officers.

Knudsen has requested that the City of Helena, in their response, specifically describe in detail how the resolution complies with Montana law, provide emails and correspondence from city staff and the commission regarding the resolution.

Helena City manager Alana Lake told MTN in a statement: “The City of Helena is aware of the issues being raised by the Attorney General’s Office and is reviewing the matter. While we cannot discuss the details of a potential legal issue, the City is committed to transparency and compliance with the law. The City takes these matters seriously and will continue to cooperate with the appropriate authorities while remaining focused on serving our community.”

Passed in 2021, Montana House Bill 200 prohibits a state agency or local government from implementing any policy that prevents employees or departments from communicating with federal agencies regarding immigration or citizenship status for lawful purposes. It also states governments must comply with immigration detainer requests if they are lawfully made.

HB 200 was backed by Republicans and passed with only Republican votes. Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the legislation into law on March 31, 2021.

Passage of the resolution by the Helena City Commission has drawn ire from conservative voices in Montana politics and on the national level.

The resolution said the commission supported the Helena Police Department avoiding “committing its resources to federal action for which it has no authority,” such as entering into an agreement with the federal government to directly enforce immigration laws. Under federal law, immigration enforcement is conducted by federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. However, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local governments can voluntarily enter into 287 (g) agreements with the federal government that allow them to enforce immigration laws.

The commission further supported HPD’s policy not to stop, detain, or arrest a person solely on suspected violations of immigration law, including assisting other agencies in an arrest based solely on immigration law.

DEEPER LOOK: Helena has seen a growing debate over ICE and local police involvement

In the resolution, the commission also supported an HPD officer, using their own discretion, requesting the identification and unmasking of a Department of Homeland Security Officer if the HPD officer “feels it will not be interfering with the actions of federal officers exercising their jurisdiction.”

“This adversarial relationship by local law enforcement toward federal officers itself undermines public safety and forces immigration officers to fear for their safety when they are simply carrying out their lawful duties,” wrote Knudsen.

The resolution further supports the City of Helena’s policy not to consider immigration consequences in a plea agreement with a defendant.

The commission also supports the City of Helena not disclosing any sensitive information about any person – including immigration status, sexual orientation, or social security number – except as required by law.

“This is a restriction that directly conflicts with Montana’s prohibition on sanctuary jurisdictions, specifically ‘sending to, receiving from, exchanging with, or maintaining for a federal, state, or local government entity information regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status for a lawful purpose,’” the attorney general wrote.

If a government is found to be violating Montana’s law banning “sanctuary cities”, the state could fine them $10,000 every five days, prevent them from receiving new grants from the state, and have their projects with the state re-prioritized. A government in violation can avoid penalties by becoming compliant with the law within 14 days of being notified of the violation.

Read the full letter from the Montana Attorney General to the City of Helena:

Source link