Montana
FWP seeking comments on proposed 56th state park at Judith Landing • Daily Montanan
Eons of Montana history — ranging from prehistoric dinosaur remains to gathering points for Indigenous people to the state’s more modern ranching economy — join together at the Judith Landing Historic District near the confluence of the Missouri and Judith rivers.
Currently, 109.43 acres of the district’s landscape is under consideration to become Montanan’s 56th state park, which would allow for additional preservation and interpretive work and increase public access.
The proposed Judith Landing State Park property was previously part of a 47,000-acre unit of land known as the PN Ranch owned by American Prairie. The organization had identified the parcel’s historical and cultural significance when it purchased the larger property in 2016. In November, American Prairie announced the donation of the 109 acres to the Montana State Parks Foundation, which will in turn donate the property to the state if approved as a potential new state park.
“This donation and potential state park could benefit those who enjoy floating and fishing on the Judith and Missouri rivers, enrich the surrounding communities and honor Montana’s rich ranching heritage and Indigenous history,” Angie Grove, president of the Montana State Parks Foundation board of directors, said in a statement.
The Foundation’s work primarily focuses on cultural preservation and park enhancement, including accessibility enhancement, but recently has also focused on helping expand the park system.The Foundation raised funds to help with the creation of the state’s 55th park, Somers Beach State Park, which FWP acquired in 2021, and this spring purchased and donated a 26-acre property to the state to expand Missouri Headwaters State Park.
“Our first dabble in helping actually grow the state parks system was at Somers Beach,” MSPF executive director Megan Buecking told the Daily Montanan. “If an opportunity comes up and its’ a really good fit for a new state park or a growing state park, we go ahead and figure out how to make that work. This is the first land donation we’ve received and it’s exciting because it’s just an incredible place.”
In the draft environmental assessment developed by FWP in advance of a Dec. 20 State Parks and Recreation Board meeting, a snippet of the area’s history is laid out as the “impetus behind the proposed acquisition and subsequent development.”
A National Register Sign for the historic district states that “few Montana places encompass as much varied history as Judith Landing.”
For millennia, Native peoples used the wide landing site as a seasonal campground and burial site, according to historic records.
In 1805, Captains Meriwether Lewis and William Clark camped nearby and named the Judith River after Clark’s future wife. In 1855, paleontologist Ferdinand Hayden discovered several specimens of fossilized dinosaur bones and teeth nearby — the first dinosaur remains documented in the Western hemisphere.
In the middle of the Missouri River, multiple important tribal peace councils were held on the eponymous Council Island. The first council forged peace between the Blackfeet and several western tribes, according to the historic sign, while the second established boundaries for communal hunting grounds and paved the way for non-Indigenous settlement.
The U.S. Army builT Camp Cooke west of the Judith River in 1866, and a few decades later Thomas Power bought the camp and relocated it, turning it into a cattle ranch. With a later partner, Gilman R. Norris, the PN Ranch flourished.
On the 109 acres proposed as the new state park sits the Norris ranch house, which was built in 1901. A partially collapsed granite and sandstone store/warehouse structure built in 1882, a rundown blacksmith building, schoolhouse and old post office are also still standing.
“There’s so many interesting things about it both historical and cultural,” Buecking said. “Preserving this area as a state park can really help protect that history and bolster preservation efforts.”
FWP’s draft environmental assessment proposes managing the park at a “rustic service level,” which would include developing only limited amenities and providing more of a “self-directed experience,” and under its “heritage” designation, which highlights a site’s unique historical and cultural aspects, rather than focusing on recreation or the natural world.
However, the location on the confluence of the two rivers will make this location prime for recreationists, said Buecking. The Bureau of Land Management manages the Judith Landing campground across the river from the proposed site and it is a popular stopover for watercraft.
“It’s an epic boat trip site — right at that confluence — so it would make a great state park for anglers,” Buecking said. “It’s great for wildlife and birds as well. This will be a great way to continue protecting that landscape.”
The proposed park would also be unique because it is surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of land protected by American Prairie and open to the public.
“We’ve heard from people that this site is important not just for local people, but for all Montanans, and we wanted them to be better interpreted and preserved in perpetuity.” American Prairie public relations manager Beth Saboe said. “We’re excited to one day invite visitors to explore this area, as well as the entire American Prairie.”
Before officially accepting the donated land and working on the financial details, the draft environmental assessment has been released to the public. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks is accepting public comments for the proposed Judith Landing State Park through 5 p.m. Dec. 14. Comments can be emailed to [email protected] or mailed to MT FWP, Attn: Judith Landing State Park EA, 4600 Giant Springs Road, Great Falls, MT 59405.
The Montana State Parks and Recreation Board will meet on Dec. 20 to discuss the acquisition of the Judith Landing property. Members of the public will have an opportunity to comment during the board meeting, with advance registration required. Information for the meeting is available at fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/parksandrecreationboard.
If FWP acquires the property, the agency will seek funds for development and operations of the park at the upcoming legislative session and through private donations, with development of the property expected to begin in 2026.
Montana
Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026
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.
Montana
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.
Montana
Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO6 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Oregon4 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling

