Montana
Montana hits Yellowstone with lawsuit over bison plan
Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and two agencies have raised a lawsuit to challenge the Yellowstone National Park’s way of managing its bison herd, arguing that it violates federal laws.
Newsweek has contacted the Yellowstone National Park’s press office for comment via email outside normal business hours.
Why It Matters
The clash between Montana and the National Park Service, among other officials and entities that maintain the sprawling park, stems from state authorities’ belief that the park’s plan to manage its bison herd doesn’t do enough to reduce the risk of brucellosis transmission.
Though a bacterial disease that mainly infects cattle, swine, goats, sheep and dogs, brucellosis can be transferred to humans if a human has direct contact with an infected animal, or if they eat or drink contaminated animal products.
Matthew Brown/AP
What To Know
On December 31, Gianforte’s office, Montana’s Department of Livestock and its Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks filed a lawsuit over Yellowstone National Park’s bison management plan.
In a news release about the lawsuit, the state government said its concerns had been ongoing since 2022, when the national park first announced its intent to draft the plan.
In 2023, Gianforte criticized the park’s bison management, citing Yellowstone National Park’s “failure to meet its own mandates,” a lack of cooperation of the park with the state of Montana, and deficient and misstated analysis.
According to the lawsuit, the size of Yellowstone National Park’s bison herd has been a “source of constant strife” in the state, as the boom in the bison population has increased the spread of brucellosis.
Yellowstone National Park and Montana adopted bison management plans in 2000 to tackle the issue, the lawsuit added, with a goal of keeping the bison herd to 3,000 while combating the spread of the disease.
“Over the last 20 years, YNP has utterly failed to manage to the specified population target or implement critical elements of its plan,” the lawsuit said.
It added that the new plan developed by the park in 2024 “fails to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is a violation of the National Park Service Organic Act (NPSOA) and Yellowstone National Park Protection Act (YNPPA).”
The new plan was also “developed without meaningful consultation and collaboration with one of its “cooperating agencies”…the State of Montana,” the lawsuit said.
What Is Yellowstone National Park’s Bison Management Plan
When Yellowstone National Park announced its new bison management plan last year, it said the Record of Decision, a culmination of the Environmental Impact Statement and National Environmental Policy Act process, allowed the National Park Service to manage the bison based on new scientific information that suggested the 2000 plan needed updating.
The new information related to how brucellosis could be regulated, the park announced in July. It added that the decision “continues the original purpose of the [Interagency Bison Management Plan from 2000] to maintain a wild, free ranging bison population and reduce the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle.”
The 2024 plan said the bison herd population would be managed in a range between 3,500 and 6,000, up from the goal of 3,000 in the 2000 plan.
The new plan also called for expanded bison hunting and greater bison freedom, allowing them to roam beyond the tolerance zones along the park’s northern and western edges, Montana Free Press reported.
According to the outlet, Tom McDonald, the vice chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, supported this element of the new plan.
McDonald told Montana Free Press that expanding where Yellowstone bison could go would help make tribal and state hunting safer, which is a method used to regulate the bison population.
What People Are Saying
Mike Honeycutt, the director of Montana’s Department of Livestock, said in a December 31 news release: “The Department of Livestock is committed to preventing, controlling and eradicating animal disease. Given the way NPS has ignored feedback from Montana, we have major concerns about potential threats to animal health from the possible spread of brucellosis.”
Christy Clark, the director of Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said in the release: “Bison represent a complex and contentious issue with both livestock producers and wildlife advocates. We had hoped for and asked for a better and more transparent process in developing this EIS. Those requests were ignored.”
Montana Governor Greg Gianforte said in the release: “The National Park Service has repeatedly and consistently failed to engage with the State in a meaningful and transparent manner as required by law throughout the planning process. NPS has not given us a fair shake and has ignored concerns raised by the State. We will always defend our state from federal overreach.”
Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly said in July of the park’s 2024 bison management plan: “We have come a very long way since the last bison management plan was signed in 2000. This new plan solidifies much of the progress made over the past two decades and provides a foundation for future decision making. We appreciate the significant engagement on this plan by our affiliated Tribes, partners, and the general public.”
What Happens Next
The lawsuit requests that the Montana district court rule on whether Yellowstone National Park has violated federal law with its 2024 plan.
Do you have a story Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Montana
Montana Vista residents confront ‘Pecos West’ developers in tense meeting
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.
Montana
Montana Lottery Mega Millions, Big Sky Bonus results for May 8, 2026
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at May 8, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Mega Millions numbers from May 8 drawing
37-47-49-51-58, Mega Ball: 16
Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from May 8 drawing
09-14-18-20, Bonus: 16
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from May 8 drawing
14-16-21-43-51, Bonus: 03
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
“It’s Life Alert or rent”: Montana trailer park tenants are on rent strike
Mobile home residents in Bozeman, Montana, say they’re being forced to choose between paying rent and paying medical costs.Courtesy of Jered McCafferty
35-year-old Benjamin Moore has lived in Mountain Meadows Mobile Home Park, outside Bozeman, Montana, since he was 17. This month, for the first time, he’s withholding his rent.
On May 1, Moore received a rent bill for $947, up 11 percent from the month before, and the second hike in nine months—the product of the park’s sale to an undisclosed buyer.
Moore hung a sign on his trailer that says “RENT STRIKE.” He and his neighbors in Mountain Meadows and nearby King Arthur Park, organized with the citywide group Bozeman Tenants United, are collectively withholding over $50,000 a month from their landlord.
Historically, trailer parks have been a relatively affordable housing option—a third of trailer park residents in America live below the poverty line. But on average, their cost of living has risen 45 percent over the past decade. By unionizing, the Bozeman trailer park tenants believe they might be able to fight the most recent rent hike—especially given the state of their housing.
For years, tenants say, the maintenance hasn’t been attended to: tree limbs hang perilously over trailers, and water shutoffs are a regular occurrence. “I cannot recall a time in the past 20 years where we had three straight months of water and power working all day, every day,” Moore said.
Shauna Thompson, another resident, calls the water “atrocious…like a Milky Way, like you’re drinking skim milk. It’s very nasty and turned off all the time, without any notice.” And tenants allege that they’ve experienced retribution for maintenance requests, punitive eviction attempts, and unsafe conditions.
“It’s really hard on people here,” Moore said. Some residents are “already paying their entire Social Security check for rent. It’s a very poor neighborhood. We’ve got old folks. We’ve got young families. We’ve got working-class people who can’t afford anything else.”
For the past four decades, a group called Oakland Properties has owned both trailer parks. When they learned about the sale, tenants were scared that their parks would be bulldozed, or that their rent would be increased even further, forcing them to move.
The tenants attempted to buy the parks themselves, but were decisively outbid. The winning bidder demanded an NDA. The transaction should be finalized next month, park owner Gary Oakland said, but residents still don’t know who’s going to own the land they live on.
This month’s rent hike, Oakland acknowledged, was “part and parcel” of the sale. But for tenants, it’s a catastrophe. On top of the $947 lot rent—more than double the national average—many residents also pay off home loans on their trailers, as well as insurance and utilities costs.
Oakland calls claims of broken utilities “nonsense”: “If it was such a bad place to live, why would the homes be selling for such high dollars?” he said. The rent strike, Oakland points out, is “just a group of people not paying their rent.”
Some people are rationing their medication to make ends meet, Moore said. “There’s one person who canceled Life Alert. It’s either Life Alert or rent, and if you don’t pay rent, they evict you and throw you in the streets.”
Tenant organizers across the nation have found a foothold in recent years organizing against individual landlords, and Bozeman’s tenant union, situated in one of the fastest-growing communities in the state, is no exception. Tenant unions from Los Angeles to Kansas City to New York have organized to win rent freezes, maintenance, and security in their homes.
Mobile home parks—increasingly private-equity-owned and uniquely at-risk in the face of climate disasters—are organizing, too: a group of trailer park residents in Columbia, Missouri, unionized in February. In Montana, as Rebecca Burns recently wrote for In These Times, mobile homes were already once a site of tenant organizing: buoyed by the state’s miners unions, the first Bozeman-area mobile home tenants’ union won an agreement with their landlord in 1978.
Oakland says park residents “have been terrorized by the union,” and plans to evict the strikers. The strikers say they’ve retained a lawyer and will fight to stay in their homes.
“I wish none of this was happening,” Moore said. “Your utilities should work. Your place should be safe. You should be able to get in and out of it. These are the absolute basics, and they just haven’t kept them up. And if you call them on it, they threaten you.”
-
Health2 minutes agoSingle workout cuts cravings, offering new hope for smokers trying to quit
-
Sports8 minutes agoWings rookie Azzi Fudd sets dubious WNBA record with lowest-scoring debut by top pick
-
Technology14 minutes agoFive data broker opt-out myths that leave retirees exposed
-
Business20 minutes agoMattel investor campaigns to take the company private
-
Entertainment26 minutes agoFCC drops trove of viewer complaints over Bad Bunny’s ‘disgusting’ Super Bowl halftime show
-
Lifestyle32 minutes agoHow to have the best Sunday in L.A., according to Pete Yorn
-
Politics38 minutes agoCalifornia abortion pill suppliers ready with workaround in case of Supreme Court ban
-
Sports50 minutes agoLakers drop Game 3 to Thunder; now one loss from elimination





