Connect with us

Montana

Montana to truck grizzlies into Yellowstone region to improve delisting prospects

Published

on

Montana to truck grizzlies into Yellowstone region to improve delisting prospects



Fresh grizzly bear bloodlines are expected to arrive in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem this summer, adding genetic diversity to a population of animals that’s been isolated for a century.

Advertisement

The infusion of genetics will come from the North Continental Divide Ecosystem, and it will roll down the highway in the form of a slumbering grizzly or two.

Why truck in grizzly bears to a population last estimated at nearly 1,000 animals?

Montana and Wyoming — which have hashed out an agreement — are translocating bears as part of the effort to convince the federal government that they’re responsible stewards of a large carnivore species, which the states contend no longer requires Endangered Species Act protections.

“We’re trying to demonstrate to everybody, the courts included, that connectivity isn’t an issue that should impede delisting,” said Ken McDonald, wildlife division chief for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “Until it’s happening regularly, naturally, we can cover this with human-assisted movements.”

The two grizzly bear populations aren’t far from each other — the leading edges are just 35 miles apart — but there’s never been a documented case of a Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem grizzly traveling to the Yellowstone Ecosystem and procreating. Grizzlies have gone the other direction, trekking north well into Montana, but that doesn’t accomplish the goal of creating gene flow into the isolated population.

Advertisement

Firm plans are in place to force the issue as soon as this summer. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has staffed up, adding two employees who will be used during the summer and fall to assist with the grizzly translocation project, McDonald said. Those expert grizzly trappers will be targeting animals with specific attributes.

“Ideally, it’d be a bear that has no history of any conflict,” McDonald said. “And ideally, a younger aged female.”

Wildlife officials intend to move the bears as soon as mid-June, but no later than mid-August. “We don’t want to move them too late, when they’re not ready to den,” McDonald said. “So it’s a pretty finite window.”

Other parameters of the genetic augmentation pilot project are described in an appendix of Montana’s draft grizzly bear management plan. That document estimates the frequency of translocating grizzlies at two to four animals every decade.

The grizzly-moving operation in the absence of a natural dispersal is also a commitment included in the tri-state memorandum of agreement that Wyoming, Montana and Idaho struck to guide management of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s grizzly bears.

Advertisement

“In the tri-state MOA, we’re committed to translocating at least two grizzly bears from outside by 2025,” Wyoming Game and Fish Department large carnivore supervisor Dan Thompson told WyoFile.

Neither Thompson nor McDonald identified exactly where the Glacier-region grizzlies would be released, but there are some requirements and goals. It will need to be within the “demographic monitoring area,” which is a 19,278-square-mile zone in the Greater Yellowstone region’s core where bear numbers are estimated.

Ideally, McDonald said, the release site will be in a low-density grizzly bear habitat. Translocating the grizzly farther south — possibly into Wyoming — is another ideal, he said, because it’s farther geographically from where the bear will have been captured in Montana, and it’ll make the animal more likely to stay.

“We’ve been working with Wyoming on potential places,” McDonald told members of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee’s subcommittee for the Yellowstone Ecosystem, which met in Jackson in November.

Although state wildlife managers have committed to translocating grizzlies into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the current level of genetic diversity is not “in dire straits,” Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Leader Frank van Manen said.

Advertisement

“We have a little bit lower genetic diversity than other populations, but it’s not declining further,” he said. “It’s moderate genetic diversity, is how I would classify it.”

The genetic augmentation appendix of Montana’s draft grizzly bear management plan calls the ecosystem’s genetic isolation a “long-term conservation concern.”

“The rate of inbreeding has been very low (0.2% over 25 years),” the document states, “and no inbreeding effects have been detected.”

Nevertheless, U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen sided with environmental groups in 2018 on the question of genetic diversity, ending a short stint where the Northern Rockies states had jurisdiction over their Ursus arctos horribilis populations.

Thompson pointed out that genetic diversity was an issue decades ago when the Yellowstone region population was much lower and “bottlenecked,” but nowadays, with many times more bears, it isn’t much of a concern, he said.

Advertisement

“We’ve demonstrated it is not an issue anymore,” Thompson said, “but (translocation) is another way to address the issues that some people have.”

Thompson made a “Star Wars” analogy out of environmental groups leveraging genetic diversity during the last round of litigation over grizzly delisting.

“It was the thermal exhaust port in the Death Star,” he said. “Opponents of delisting look for weaknesses and try to exploit them. We don’t feel that genetics are a weakness, but (translocation) is just another thing that we can do.”

There are indications that trucking animals into the Yellowstone region won’t placate groups opposed to the states having control over — and potentially hunting — their grizzly bear populations.

“My perspective would be that it undermines their claim of recovery, if they have to translocate bears,” said Matthew Bishop, a senior attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center who argued the last delisting litigation for WildEarth Guardians. “The goal should really be to get bears back in the Bitterroot (recovery area), and get some connectivity between subpopulations. Then maybe start thinking about delisting and recovery, but I don’t think we’re there yet.”

Advertisement

Retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grizzly recovery coordinator Chris Servheen told WyoFile he conditionally supports the step that state managers plan to take in 2024.

“I’m OK with them doing it in the interim until the bears are naturally connected,” Servheen said, “but I do not want trucking bears to be the alternative to minimizing mortality in the intervening areas. The optimum is for the bears to naturally connect.”

• • •

This story was originally produced by WyoFile, a news partner organization with States Newsroom. The Daily Montanan, a nonprofit newsroom, is an outlet of States Newsroom.



Source link

Advertisement

Montana

Montana Lottery Mega Millions, Lucky For Life results for Jan. 17, 2025

Published

on


The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Jan. 17, 2025, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from Jan. 17 drawing

08-10-37-54-69, Mega Ball: 22, Megaplier: 3

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lucky For Life numbers from Jan. 17 drawing

01-04-06-09-46, Lucky Ball: 04

Advertisement

Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from Jan. 17 drawing

05-15-25-26, Bonus: 04

Check Big Sky Bonus 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.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network.

Advertisement

Where can you buy lottery tickets?

Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets.

You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Texas, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer.

Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). 18+ (19+ in NE, 21+ in AZ). Physically present where Jackpocket operates. Jackpocket is not affiliated with any State Lottery. Eligibility Restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Terms: jackpocket.com/tos.

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.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

94-year-old Iowa-based trucking company closes terminal in Montana

Published

on

94-year-old Iowa-based trucking company closes terminal in Montana


Family-owned Decker Truck Line Inc. of Fort Dodge, Iowa, confirmed that it has permanently closed its terminal in Missoula, Montana, citing findings from a thorough review of its operations and freight network as the main reason for the closure.

“This decision was not made lightly, but it is necessary due to the changing freight network patterns and the associated costs of operating a full terminal that is not being utilized sufficiently,” CEO Dale Decker said in a statement Tuesday about the closure. 

As many as 18 positions were eliminated at the Missoula terminal, according to NBC Montana.

Decker said a small group of drivers was also affected by the closure but added that the company will continue to utilize truck drivers in Montana to haul freight.

Advertisement

The trucking company said it plans to work with employees of the now-shuttered terminal to “explore relocation options” if they want to stay with Decker Truck Line.

“As our business continues to grow, our focus will shift more towards core regions. This strategy aims to enhance density in our well-established areas,” Decker said. “However, we will continue to require drivers residing in the Montana area, but we no longer consider it a strategic advantage for having a terminal in Missoula along with the associated overhead costs.”

The 94-year-old trucking company has around 790 company drivers and the same number of power units. It hauls general freight, refrigerated food and building materials, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s SAFER website.

Besides its home terminal in Fort Dodge, which has approximately 190 employees, Decker Truck Line operates terminals in Mediapolis, Iowa; Bessemer, Alabama; and Hammond, Indiana, as well as a maintenance facility in Des Moines, according to the company’s website.
 

“Although this location no longer offers sufficient value to warrant a terminal, expansion in other regions may prompt new investments in areas that do provide clear benefit to our network,” Decker said.

Advertisement

Do you have a news tip or story to share? Send Clarissa Hawes an email or message @cage_writer on X, formerly known as Twitter. Your name will not be used without your permission.

Wyoming trucking company pays $124,000 to settle sexual harassment suit

New Hampshire man created fake trucking, ag businesses to collect COVID funds
St. Louis trucking company, affiliate file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Why fight a 'clean and healthful' environment when it's good for all Montanans? • Daily Montanan

Published

on

Why fight a 'clean and healthful' environment when it's good for all Montanans? • Daily Montanan


Montanans are witnessing an inexplicably vicious attack on the ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that the plain language of the constitution guarantees “a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”  

What we haven’t heard is why a dirty and unhealthful environment is good for anybody — or the future of our state. 

Truly, why would anyone think they or their kids or grandkids would be better off with a degraded and toxic environment?  Yet, the court’s decision has sparked a misguided rebellion against the environmental laws that protect all Montanans — and an attack on the judiciary as if it’s some kind of enemy of the people.  

But it seems pretty clear that enemies of the people don’t rule to protect the people.  And ensuring that the laws passed by the Legislature comply with the Montana Constitution is the primary job of the Montana Supreme Court.  It’s the foundational checks-and-balances upon which our system of government relies to ensure the executive and legislative branches stay within constitutional mandates to preserve the rights of the people.

Advertisement

Making war on the environment is a dead-end street — which we’re increasingly finding out as the tragedies driven by atmospheric pollution stack up along with the hundreds of billions of dollars to deal with the aftermath. So, where’s the wisdom in deciding to protect polluters at the cost to the rest of the populace?

How about this little truth: Pollution does not discriminate between Republicans and Democrats, nor Independents, Libertarians, or any other organizational clusters regardless of what they call themselves.  Nor does polluted air or water recognize any boundaries — we all need clean air and water, which is not only a shared resource, but a shared responsibility to provide those vital necessities to nourish, not poison, our people. 

The fact is, we have many good environmental and conservation laws on the books that serve all our people well. There’s simply no good reason why one political party or another should be against those laws, none at all.  

Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes of the “environmental movement” was attaching itself at the hip with the Democratic Party.  Yet, in Montana’s history, it has often been Democrat governors who have been responsible for some of the worst environmental decisions. 

In the mid-1980s, Democrat Gov. Ted Schwinden cut the coal severance tax in half to supposedly make Montana competitive with Wyoming.  He succeeded in losing hundreds of millions of dollars for the Coal Tax Trust Fund, but it didn’t save the coal industry because distance to market was the deciding factor. 

Advertisement

Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer morphed into the “Coal Cowboy” within one year of taking office.  His mission?  Save the coal industry by peddling economically ridiculous proposals for coal-to-liquids when fracking was producing record amounts of cheap oil and gas. 

Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock allowed radioactive waste from the Bakken fracking operations to be disposed of in Montana’s landfills — because it’s illegal to do so in North Dakota.

Of course Republicans have their own rogue’s list of bad decisions and policies — but there’s not room in one column to cover all those.  

There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever why a clean environment should be partisan.  The great attractions of Montana are our clean rivers, our blue skies, and an abundance of fish and wildlife that are the envy of the nation and world.  The Constitution plainly states: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana” — and that’s a legacy worth upholding. 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending