On the face of it, the deal that billionaire Dan Wilks acquired final fall from Montana’s Fish, Wildlife & Parks Division final fall was underwhelming.
Wilks, the non-resident proprietor of considered one of Montana’s largest ranches, obtained a allow from the state company to hunt trophy bulls on his central Montana land. In change, he chosen a Montana resident hunter who had drawn a bull allow within the space of Wilks’ ranch and agreed to supply that hunter free entry to his 179,000-acre ranch. Moreover, he allowed two cow-elk hunters chosen by FWP to hunt the ranch, which occupies the timbered shoulders of the elk-rich Little Snowy Mountains.
The phrases of the settlement have been spelled out in a contract between the state wildlife company and Wilks, a billionaire who lives in Cisco, Texas. The regulation that permits this tags-for-access settlement was handed by the Montana Legislature again in 2001. The settlement, generally known as a 454, comes from the invoice variety of that laws.
The popularity that produced Montana’s 454 contracts is that the lengthy custom of letting of us you don’t know hunt your land has ended. The result’s that many giant Montana ranches, particularly within the central a part of the state, have been “locked up,” as native hunters name it. That’s, the one of us who get to hunt these properties are the house owners, who sometimes dwell elsewhere, and the folks they know and invite to hunt. For elk, that are notoriously averse to searching strain, these calmly hunted ranches have turn out to be sanctuaries, whereas the adjoining public floor, closely hunted by landless hunters, has turn out to be more and more elk-less.
Advertisement
In a lot of America, this association is unsurprising. The thought of letting a stranger hunt your land free of charge is as overseas as letting them sleep in your mattress. However in Montana, this ask-to-hunt association has outlined the state’s landowner-hunter relationship for many years. That began altering in central Montana round 20 years in the past, about the identical time the 454 permits have been approved, and now the one land that hunters can reliably entry is both public or it’s personal land enrolled within the state’s Block Administration program, which pays ranchers and farmers to open their land to searching.
The issue for Dan Wilks, who has a private value of some $1.3 billion derived from his enterprise within the hydraulic fracking business, is that with the 454 permits he can’t hunt his personal ranch, or at the very least not as usually as he may like. That’s as a result of the N Bar Ranch, which Wilks purchased along with his brother Farris in 2011, is in District 411, considered one of Montana’s special-permit elk items. To be able to hunt elk right here, hunters should draw a allow that has between 4 and 18 p.c drawing odds for each residents and non-residents.
The concept that birthed the unique 454 laws again in 2001 is that landowners just like the Wilks Brothers may be keen to permit some entry to public hunters if they might hunt their very own land. It’s a software particularly designed for use in limited-entry searching districts like 411, the place hunters (landowners included) typically wait 20 years or extra to attract a tag.
The unique model of the regulation known as for FWP to randomly choose 4 hunters for each landowner tag awarded. However in its first 10 years, it appeared as if the 454 was a software in quest of a activity. Just one or two of those entry agreements have been negotiated per 12 months within the first decade of its existence.
That modified with the 2021 Legislature when a revision to the 454s was included in a last-minute “FWP clean-up invoice” full of dozens of provisions and handed with no public enter within the final days and hours of the session. The laws, Home Invoice 637, revised the 454 agreements to require solely three (as an alternative of 4) hunters for each landowner tag. Plus, the landowner was given the authority to decide a bull hunter of their selecting to get the coveted tag; FWP was directed to select the 2 public hunters.
Advertisement
The adjustments have been definitely seen by giant resident and non-resident landowners, 13 of whom reached out to FWP final fall. One was Dan Wilks, who apparently didn’t draw his 411 tag within the lottery, despite the fact that the state reserves 15 p.c of tags in limited-permit areas for landowners.
Desperate to hunt his personal ranch, Wilks acquired in contact with Mark Taylor, an influential Montana legal professional and lobbyist who helped draft a few of the provisions in Home Invoice 637. Later, due to his total program information, Taylor contacted the FWP director’s workplace to facilitate the acquisition of Wilks’ 454 allow months after the remainder of Montana’s elk hunters had both obtained their particular permits or resigned themselves to searching the state’s general-tag districts. Taylor says that, moreover the Wilks Brothers, he labored with a half-dozen different residents and non-residents who personal giant Montana ranches to safe these particular permits.
On the N Bar, Taylor managed to barter a 454 bull allow not just for Dan Wilks, however for seven members of his household, all Texas residents. In change—and regardless of the regulation not requiring it—the Wilks household picked eight bull hunters from these classes: disabled hunters, youth/novice hunters, wounded veterans, firefighters, regulation enforcement members, “and different regional group members who contribute to the success of the Ranch.” FWP then chosen the 16 cow hunters from a roster of profitable candidates for District 411.
In 2011, FWP executed 13 of those elk-access contracts, which doubled in a single 12 months the variety of 454s that FWP had administered within the first 10 years of this system. On this manner this system is working simply because it ought to: numerous elk have been killed by hunters who won’t in any other case have had entry to those giant ranches. However to listen to opponents inform it, the opposite casualty was a lifestyle in central Montana.
“Bulls for Billionaires,” is how podcaster and tv persona Randy Newberg termed this system. As these 454 agreements have been introduced earlier than the Fish and Wildlife Fee final August for procedural approval, Montana’s resident elk hunters began balking.
Advertisement
Billings hunter Cole Hoefle, talking earlier than a legislative subcommittee reviewing the 454 program, stated the landowner tags “have outraged 70 p.c of Montanans who’re basic public of us recreating on public land. It is a political supermajority, however each [elk management] board, group, and fee appears to be the alternative, composed of ag landowners and outfitters. So it comes as no shock that laws represents these particular pursuits.”
Hoefle known as the three:1 ratio of public 454 tags to landowner tags “flimsy” and steered that “the ratio ought to look extra like 7:1 primarily based on the going charge for a bull tag, and a ratio of extra like 10:1 can be extra affordable.”
Elk are for Combating
There’s loads of sparring over 454 permits in Montana. John Hafner
It’s necessary to notice that Searching District 411, together with many different special-permit items in Montana, has far more elk than the state’s administration plan prescribes. Though the Wilks’ 454 settlement, together with the others accredited by Montana’s Fish and Wildlife Fee final summer time, don’t materially have an effect on inhabitants dynamics of the districts the place they’re accredited, the uproar amongst Montana’s resident elk hunters has much less to do with inhabitants benchmarks than with a development many say favor landowners on the expense of public hunters.
Hunters who don’t usually interact in public coverage discussions fell over themselves to decry these agreements as theft of a public useful resource. Others claimed it’s a type of authorities welfare to present elk tags to landowners who supply in return a tiny quantity of fastidiously managed entry. The 454 agreements, together with a wider reconsideration of elk administration in Montana, even gave rise to a grassroots motion, the Montana Residents Elk Administration Coalition.
Many of those opponents got here collectively to withstand FWP’s earlier makes an attempt to rethink Montana’s elk administration, however they gained members and momentum by repeating a story that the 454 agreements are opposite to Montana’s custom of equitable distribution of public wildlife. Marcus Unusual, state coverage and authorities relations director for the Montana Wildlife Federation, famous that he helps the idea of 454 agreements as a result of they supply entry the place it beforehand hasn’t been out there. However he thinks the present rendition of 454 agreements is step one towards a system of wildlife administration the place landowners, not the wildlife company, dictate the destiny of wildlife which might be presupposed to be managed for the general public.
Advertisement
“We’re speaking a couple of public useful resource that must be held in belief for everyone,” says Unusual. “The rationale persons are getting so fired up about 454s is that there’s a notion that it’s an inequitable allocation of a public useful resource.”
Plus, provides Unusual, elk merely get folks’s consideration. “If this was antelope tags, or one thing else, it most likely wouldn’t be as huge a deal, however elk ring a bell with folks the best way that no different creatures in Montana do.”
Justin Schaaf takes an extended, extra cynical view in his opposition to 454 agreements, particularly the place the Wilks Brothers are involved. Schaaf, who’s a member of the Elk Administration Coalition and lively in different searching organizations, notes that the brothers introduced a Texas mentality to Montana after they arrived on the scene a decade in the past. As soon as they discovered {that a} portion of their N Bar Ranch, about 5,000 acres of landlocked public land in what’s known as the Durfee Hills, was being accessed by airborne hunters, they tried to commerce the land to be able to consolidate their personal holdings. When that didn’t work, they erected a wildlife-proof fence across the Durfee Hills, successfully blocking the motion of elk from personal to public land. That aggressive motion left quite a lot of Montana hunters with a dim view of the Wilks, says Schaaf.
“The truth that these newly approved 454 agreements began with the N Bar and neighboring ranches, contemplating the tensions that the ranch has created by attempting to denationalise elk, didn’t strike most hunters as being within the public’s curiosity,” says Schaaf, who additionally famous that the ranch’s determination to select disabled children to obtain the bull tags feels “slimy in a manner that’s exhausting to explain.”
“It principally boils all the way down to ‘children with most cancers can’t hunt on my property until I get a limited-entry bull tag,’” says Schaaf. “In the event that they have been that involved about giving again to sick children, then they need to do it with no expectation of a payback.”
Advertisement
Landowner Tags and Public Entry in Different States
However scratch beneath the floor of the 454 dust-up, and also you see deeper implications of Montana’s tags-for-access program.
Opponents look southward, to Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico, all states which have engaged in some form of private-access agreements which have, over time, tilted in favor of landowners and towards the commercialization of public wildlife.
These of us are prone to point out Utah’s Cooperative Wildlife Administration Items (CWMUs), that are giant ranches that obtain a negotiated variety of trophy bull or buck tags that the landowners can promote or switch to eligible hunters. In return, these landowners have to supply a specific amount of public entry to the ten p.c of hunters who draw tags for the world. Many CWMU landowners rent outfitters to dealer the premium tags after which information the hunters who purchase them. The general public hunters sometimes are escorted to areas of the ranch with smaller bucks or bulls than the paying purchasers get to hunt.
Public-land elk searching in Colorado is notoriously robust. Tess Rousey
Utah began its CWMU program within the early Nineteen Nineties with a handful of cooperating ranches. Ultimately rely, 125 landowners enrolled over 2 million acres of Utah land in this system. This system has obtained combined opinions. On the one hand, it’s opened up 1000’s of acres of wildlife-rich personal floor that will in any other case be locked up. However there’s a robust feeling, which dates from the daybreak of this system, that CWMUs are “a token try and appease members of the overall searching group by perfunctorily offering them with just a few complimentary permits in order that they suppose they’re deriving a considerable profit from a program that’s slanted tremendously towards the monetary pursuits of landowners,” wrote an early critic of this system. “At worst, it’s an inequitable system that resembles the outdated European game-law system that favored the Aristocracy on the expense of the peasantry and primarily grants CWMU operators their very own unique searching preserves.”
READ NEXT: On a Colorado Elk Hunt, Any Authorized Bull Is a Trophy
The concern, say critics of Montana’s 454 agreements, is that it’s a brief trip from offering landowners with bull permits that they’ve to make use of themselves to offering them permits that they’ll then switch to paying clients.
Advertisement
“It’s a dink-and-dunk means of stripping away alternatives from the general public,” says Schaaf. “The one factor that these rich landowners haven’t been in a position to purchase is an elk tag, however they’ve now discovered a solution to get one anyway. It’s loss of life by inches for the typical hunter.”
Acceptance vs. Opposition
However Mark Taylor, the legal professional who facilitated final 12 months’s 454 agreements on behalf of his resident and non-resident purchasers, says that 454 agreements, whereas removed from excellent, are assembly the targets of their enabling laws. They’re reaching extra elk harvest and they’re permitting entry that most likely wouldn’t be offered with out the agreements. He famous that the Wilks Brothers offered much more entry than that stipulated within the 454 agreements. Greater than 200 resident cow-elk hunters got free entry to the N Bar, and the bull hunters who had the 454 tags weren’t restricted to raghorns or juvenile bulls however got permission to kill no matter bull they desired.
As to why these seemingly minor administrative allowances have prompted such an uproar, Taylor paraphrases Mark Twain.
“Twain stated that ‘whiskey’s for ingesting and water’s for preventing.’ In Montana, elk searching isn’t far behind water,” says Taylor, who thinks opponents are utilizing the agreements for their very own organizational well being.
“The political adjustments in Montana have left sure environmental organizations with out the historic affect they as soon as had, and they’re attempting to stay related with their members, who must be cautious of the variations between advocating for coverage and political activism,” says Taylor. “Elk administration ought to begin with organic targets for the species versus social science and what’s politically greatest for the species. Organizations that are against 454 agreements, or need to materially constraint their utility and utilization, may need to contemplate hanging a extra collaborative pose versus trying to promote battle to their members because the mechanism for change.”
Advertisement
Elk herds usually congregate on personal land the place there’s much less searching strain. John Hafner
He additional means that hunters “do their half in the event that they need to hunt personal land. Analysis areas (made simpler by digital mapping apps), knock on doorways, develop relationships with the landowners, be keen to assist landowners with duties like branding, harvest, weed spraying, or fixing huge stretches of fence in hard-to-reach areas that frequently get torn down by both winter situations or wildlife, or do one thing the landowners can not readily do for themselves.”
However Doug Krings, a board member for the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers who hails from Taylor’s hometown of Lewistown, says all these best-practices for gaining entry are unlikely to get the eye of rich landowners who need that one factor their cash can’t purchase: a trophy bull tag.
“After I graduated highschool right here in 1998, there have been locations you couldn’t hunt, however typically if you happen to knocked on a door you could possibly get permission,” says Krings. “However again then there have been additionally solely 700 elk in your complete vary. These huge ranches are getting purchased as a result of they now have so many elk and entry is proscribed. The 454s are simply the tip of the iceberg. The landowners are going to say how profitable they have been with three tags, and subsequent 12 months they’re going to need extra. You watch. There’s going to be a invoice subsequent session that claims landowners with X variety of acres will get X variety of tags they usually can take X variety of buddies. We’re going to have private-land tags, after which we’re going to be similar to New Mexico or Utah or Colorado” the place landowners can revenue from the general public’s wildlife.
If these agreements are as egregious as Krings and different opponents declare, then why are they rising in quantity and scale? Krings blames the state’s transfer towards hyper-partisan politics for the shift in conventional views of wildlife administration.
“We’re going to lose what we’ve had due to folks whose political get together turns into the Dallas Cowboys to them,” says Krings, who says lots of his elk-hunting associates who hate the thought of landowner tags go alongside as a result of they’re supported by high-profile activists in their very own get together. “My buddies received’t name them out for doing one thing improper, even when they don’t prefer it. And impulsively, the Republicans will determine that it’s cool to have landowner tags and also you’ll have a complete bunch of people that by no means would have agreed with that supporting it as a result of it’s their workforce and you may’t be towards the Cowboys if you happen to’re a Dallas Cowboys fan.”
Each Unusual and Schaaf declare the end result doesn’t should be that stark. They level to the work of the Montana Residents Elk Coalition, which is advocating for enhancements to 454s together with revolutionary entry options. Amongst these enhancements are an earlier software date for 454 aspirants, necessary harvest reporting, a return to ratios that present extra public profit, and a extra equitable solution to decide public hunters.
Advertisement
However this month, simply because the Coalition was gaining members and affect, the authorized equal of a cluster bomb detonated in Montana’s wildlife-management circles. A property-rights group, United Property House owners of Montana, filed a lawsuit towards Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the Fish and Wildlife Fee claiming that the general public course of for managing elk and setting searching rules in Montana is unconstitutional.
The swimsuit prices that “Defendants should make elk administration choices primarily based on elk inhabitants ranges and landowner tolerances—not the ‘equitable’ issues it has used to punish personal property house owners who don’t permit public entry and to reward highly effective particular curiosity teams.”
Detractors have been fast to denounce the lawsuit. “In essence,” stated the Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, “UPOM needs to show Montana’s time-tested wildlife mannequin on its head. The lawsuit straight assaults Montana’s long-standing custom of public searching and equitable wildlife administration.”
Whether or not the lawsuit has benefit or not is the subject of heated debate this week amongst Montana’s elk hunters, however most who learn the swimsuit’s textual content observe that it claims “there are round 50,000 extra elk within the state above the utmost inhabitants ranges set by the Defendants themselves.”
As Lewistown’s Krings put it, “I could not get an opportunity to hunt a bull elk once more, however the best way it’s going there’s going to be a complete lot of cow searching available in Montana whereas we save the bulls for the landowners.”
REED POINT — All day Sunday, hundreds of people and sheep will flock to Division Street in Reed Point, for the annual Sheep Drive.
Unfortunately, this year will look different than most, as Olen Raisland, the town’s famous sheep shearer, passed away in April.
“It’s left a big hole in the community, losing Olen,” said Lynn Phipps.
Phipps, a Reed Point community member, was friends with Olen for years. He even trained her daughter on sheep shearing for almost two decades.
Advertisement
Reed Point Community Club
Olen Raisland
As Reed Point has a population of about 210 people, Olen’s loss has made a ripple in the townspeople’s pride this year.
“You just have to work around them. It’s the only thing that keeps you going,” says Jerry Friend.
Friend is a member of the Reed Point Community Club and lives in the town. He’s been organizing the event for the past 35 years, only one year after the event began.
Mack Carmack, MTN News
Advertisement
Jerry Friend, Reed Point community member
Though Olen’s loss was devastating to the community, Reed Point is still trying to make this year’s Sheep Drive the best year yet.
RUSSELL NEMETZ – MTN
SHEEP IN MONTANA
“I feel like there’s a lot of support for Sheep Drive. Our Community Club is kind of a small organization, but when it gets closer to the date of Sheep Drive and stuff, a lot of people step up and help out,” said Lev Ott.
Lev and Audrey Ott are two of the organizers behind the event, and knowing that Olen loved to shave hundreds of sheep every Labor-Day weekend, they want to honor that activity completely to him.
“Like this year, the newest thing is the Olen Raisland sheep shearing demonstration. I think he was the one that sheep sheared for all of the sheep drive events, and we thought it was really important for him passing away, that we honored him,” says Audrey Ott.
Advertisement
Reed Point Community Club
Olen Raisland shaving sheep
As time gets closer, residents are becoming more and more excited for the Sheep Drive, and the festival’s biggest event, the Sheep Run.
“The Sheep Run turns into a town-wide event, and it lasts for an hour, instead of the ten minutes it usually does,” said Audrey Ott.
Mack Carmack, MTN News
Lev & Audrey Ott, Reed Point Community Club
Even though things have changed in Reed Point, the community is still planning on showing up Sunday, just as Olen would have wanted.
Advertisement
“You’ve still got your factions. You’ve got this branch, and this branch, but they all pull together when times are needed,” says Friend.
“Yeah… We’ll miss him a lot,” said Phipps.
Mack Carmack, MTN News
Reed Point Sheep Drive
To learn more about this year’s Sheep Drive, visit Reed Point Community Club’s Facebook page.
JetBlue thinks there might be some skiers who are willing to splurge on its top-notch Mint business-class experience.
The New York-based carrier announced this week that it would start flying its Mint-equipped Airbus A321 to Bozeman, Montana, on a limited run from Feb. 14, 2025, to March 30, 2025.
The airline will offer its business-class cabin on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays on flights to and from Boston and New York during the peak Montana ski season.
Flights will operate with a daytime schedule, departing the Northeast midmorning and arriving in Bozeman in the early afternoon. The plane will then return to the East Coast later in the afternoon and arrive around 9 p.m. back in Boston and New York.
Advertisement
In addition to the special Mint service, the airline will fly its regular all-economy jets from Boston and New York to Bozeman during this period. All-economy service from Boston will operate on Mondays and Wednesdays, while economy flights from New York will operate on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
ZACH GRIFF/THE POINTS GUY
Mint tickets are already available for purchase, and one-way fares start at around $900.
JetBlue says that it’s adding Mint service to Bozeman to “meet the evolving needs of its customers by offering superior travel options with an elevated in-flight experience.”
Back when Mint was introduced in 2014, JetBlue kept its business-class experience limited to a few key bread-and-butter routes. It was originally designed for premium transcontinental flights from New York and Boston to Los Angeles and San Francisco.
But as the airline has added more Mint-equipped jets to its fleet over the years, the carrier has also deployed Mint service to a few other premium-heavy transcontinental markets, such as Seatte and San Diego. JetBlue also flies Mint planes to select Caribbean destinations during peak holiday periods and on weekends when it doesn’t need to operate as many frequencies on transcon routes. (Business travel usually slows down during these periods.)
Daily Newsletter
Reward your inbox with the TPG Daily newsletter
Advertisement
Join over 700,000 readers for breaking news, in-depth guides and exclusive deals from TPG’s experts
Mint is also the premium cabin that JetBlue offers on its transatlantic flights to Europe that debuted in 2021. The airline has two Mint products: the original one that launched in 2014 and primarily flies on domestic and short-haul routes, and a newer product that debuted in 2021 for its European expansion.
These days, however, JetBlue has been scaling back its European expansion — at least, during the winter season, when transatlantic demand typically falls — to refocus its network on profitable routes.
During this time, JetBlue could send some of its business-class-equipped planes to the hangar on less profitable routes, or it could look for other routes with enough premium demand to fill a 16-seat cabin.
ZACH GRIFF/THE POINTS GUY
JetBlue seems to think it’s found one of the latter with Bozeman, the gateway to the famed Big Sky ski resort and the nearby luxe private Yellowstone Club for deep-pocketed skiers. Bozeman is also the gateway to Yellowstone National Park, but the national park doesn’t get too crowded during the winter.
Bozeman joins other new Mint cities announced recently, including Phoenix; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Vancouver, British Columbia.
Advertisement
All these moves come as JetBlue doubles down on its JetForward strategy to return to profitability. The airline is tweaking its network to focus on leisure and VFR (visiting friends and relatives) traffic from its Northeast focus cities.
ZACH GRIFF/THE POINTS GUY
JetBlue’s original Mint product (the one flying to Bozeman) is arranged in an alternating 2-2, 1-1 configuration. Travelers enjoy lie-flat beds, a restaurant-quality dining experience, amenities from Tuft and Needle and much more.
Mint has historically been considered the best domestic business-class product, but the seats are definitely starting to show their age. The airline hasn’t yet announced a retrofit program for these 10-year-old cabins, but one might be coming soon as the airline gears up to possibly launch a more extensive premium cabin experience.
Editor’s note: The Blitz is updated as soon as we receive game results.
Class AA
• Bozeman Gallatin 35, Helena Capital 28: Montana State commit Grant Vigen threw for two touchdowns and ran for a third. Reese Dahlke ran for a 57-yard score and Carter Dahlke provided a 7-yard TD reception as the Raptors scored all 35 points in the middle two quarters in edging the Bruins.Merek Mihelish threw for two scores and ran for another for Capital. Bobby Gutzman scored the decisive TD on a 25-yard reception from Vigen on the final play of the third quarter.
• Bozeman 30, Helena 17:Kash Embry threw two touchdown passes and ran for a third as the defending state champion Hawks rallied past the Bengals. Embry had a 15-yard toss to Evan Hughen and a 13-yarder to Logan Humphrey. His 3-yard scamper capped the TD scoring. A 33-yard strike from Jaxan Lieberg to Mac Lundstrom gave Helena a 17-13 lead with 5:13 to play in the third quarter. The Bengals’ other TD came on a 3-yard run by Trygve Braun.
People are also reading…
Advertisement
• Billings West 28, Butte 27: The Bulldogs broke a 14-14 tie in the third quarter when Colton Shea unloaded a 66-yard bomb to speedster Tocher Lee, but the Golden Bears erupted for 14 points in the fourth quarter. Both teams scored in the final minute, but it was Billings West’s goal-line stand to prevent Butte’s two-point conversion with seven seconds remaining that sealed the victory. Lee got things going for the Bulldogs in the first quarter when he fielded a punt, cut back against coverage and raced 50 yards for the touchdown. The Bears scored on a touchdown run from Matt Ludwig, and took a 14-7 lead in the second quarter when CJ Johnson connected with Elias Bonner on a 25-yard strike. Butte tied the game before halftime on a TD pass from Shea to Hudson Luedtke.
• Missoula Big Sky 40, Belgrade 7:Avery Omlid tossed a pair of touchdown passes, hitting Eli Kasberg (6 yards) and Brady Williams (33 yards), and the Eagles dismantled the Panthers, going up 13-0 in the first quarter and 33-0 at halftime. Tanner Davis ran for two scores, including a 16-yard dash, Keller Hiedrick rushed for a score, and Williams added a three-yard scoring run.
Advertisement
• Missoula Sentinel 27, Billings Skyview 21:Jace Kashotka rushed for 148 yards and a pair of touchdowns, and threw a 22-yard scoring strike to Jaxson Allery as the Spartans got past the Falcons for a season-opening win. Camble Bjornstad hauled in a 25-yard scoring pass from Paxton Fitch for the Falcons, and had a second score on an eight-yard run. Zakai Owens caught a 14-yard touchdown from Fitch, and Ryan Haidle hit paydirt for Missoula on a seven-yard run. Sentinel rolled up 235 yards rushing and 172 yards through the air.
• Great Falls CMR 28, Kalispell Flathead 14: Caleb Taylor fired three touchdown passes – two to Drew Etcheberry – and Keegan Fuller added a first-quarter running score from 15 yards out as the Rustlers fended off the Braves to give first-year coach AJ Wilson his inaugural win. Taylor connected with Etcheberry from 77 and 26 yards out for a 21-6 lead early in the fourth quarter, then found Kade Somerfeld for an 80-yard launch to clinch it. Taylor was 12-for-20 passing for 308 yards. Brett Pesola scored on a 14-yard quarterback keeper and Nolan Campbell added a 9-yard scoring jaunt for Flathead.
•Kalispell Glacier 28, Great Falls 3:Kobe Dorcheus ran for 106 yards and two touchdowns and Jackson Presley ran for a third and passed for another as the defending state runner-up Wolfpack jumped to a fast start and held off Great Falls. Presley romped into the end zone from 15 yards out with 10:05 showing in the first quarter and hit Carson Baker from 38 yards out for a 14-0 lead eight minutes later. Great Falls got on the board with a 29-yard field goal by Caleb Litzinger with 0:00.2 showing on the clock before halftime.
• Billings Senior 21, Missoula Hellgate 12:Ryder Murdock ran for one score and threw for another — a 66-yarder to Davyn Lehfeldt — for the Broncs, who rang up 257 yards rushing and handed the Knights their 13th consecutive defeat. Rylan Jennings also scored for Senior, which led by two points until Murdock’s 15-yard run with 6:43 to play. Vince Paffhausen threw for a score to Finn Kelly and ran for another for Hellgate, which had allowed at least 41 points in all of its games in 2023.
Class A
• Frenchtown 42, Columbia Falls 12:Brody Hardy threw for two touchdowns and ran for another two, and Billy Corette added a pair of scores on his own as the Broncs romped past the Wildcats. Hardy opened the scoring with a 24-yard run and also had a 1-yard plunge, added a 25-yard scoring toss to Corette – who had a 35-yard fumble return for a score – and also found Bailey Corette for a 3-yarder. Banyon Johnston scored both of Columbia Falls’ TDs on 1-yard runs in the first half.
Advertisement
Class B
• Jefferson 21, Florence-Carlton 14:Tyler Zody’s keeper with 9.9 seconds remaining broke a 14-14 tie and lifted the Panthers to a huge season-opening road win over the defending B champs. Jefferson went up 7-0 in the first quarter on a touchdown run by Luke Oxarart. The Falcons tied it up when Mason Arlington hit paydirt. Oxarart put Jefferson back on top with a 31-yard scoring run, and the Falcons answered again when Arlington found Isaac Bates for a nine-yard scoring strike.
• Red Lodge 46, Whitehall 8:Chase Cook ran for nearly 200 yards – including a 47-yard run on the game’s first play and a 97-yarder late – as the defending state semifinalist Rams clobbered the Trojans.
• Glasgow 51, Shepherd 8: In a battle of two playoff teams from a year ago, the Scotties started fast with 26 points in the first quarter and 19 in the second en route to a 51-8 victory over Shepherd, under the direction of new first-year coach Josh Casares.Warren Gamas threw for three touchdowns and Wyatt Suggs ran for two for the Scotties, who blitzed to a 45-0 halftime lead on the way to crushing the Mustangs. Alec Boland had a punt return for a score, Rex Monson added a pick-6 and Minot State commit Wyatt Babb caught one of Gamas’ TD passes for Glasgow.
8-Man
•Fairview 63, Poplar 26:Tyler Loan threw three touchdown passes, ran for a fourth and caught a fifth for the defending state champion Warriors, who rolled to a 54-0 halftime lead on the way to drubbing the Indians. Wyatt McPherson ran for two scores and tossed a scoring strike to Loan. Ryan Lustig also scored three TDs for Fairview: On a 20-yard interception return, a 70-yard catch from Loan and a kick return to start the third quarter and cap his team’s scoring. Poplar scored two TDs and had a safety.
Editor’s Note: To have games included here, submit scores and scoring details to 406mtsports.myteamscoop.com.
Advertisement
Contact Jeff at jeff.welsch@406mtsports.com or on Twitter @406sportswelsch