Montana
Ninth Circuit narrows wolf trapping ban in Montana griz territory
Alanna Mayham
(CN) — An order limiting wolf trapping and snaring in Montana’s grizzly bear territory survived the scrutiny of a Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday, but the question of how much land a federal judge can restrict to protect the state’s threatened grizzlies from wolf traps remains.
In January, a three-judge panel took a skeptical view of a 2023 injunction that prohibited wolf trapping in a broad swath of western Montana outside of the narrow timeframe of Jan. 1 to Feb. 15 annually, or when grizzlies are most likely to be hibernating in dens.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s preliminary injunction was aimed at protecting grizzlies from wolf traps — an issue opponents say is becoming more common because the warming climate is pushing bears to forage later into the winter and even earlier in the spring.
But Molloy’s order prohibited trapping in a much larger part of Montana than what conservation groups requested and did not follow the state’s scientific determination of where grizzly bears live.
On Tuesday, two-thirds of the panel affirmed Molloy’s injunction because the plaintiff organizations — Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians — demonstrated that Montana’s recreational wolf trapping and snaring regulations would harm grizzly bears in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
“Under our limited and deferential standard of review, we affirm the district court’s grant of injunctive relief,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennet, a Donald Trump appointee, with the concurrence of U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, a Bill Clinton appointee.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman partially dissented, explaining that he would have vacated the entire injunction because the plaintiffs’ evidence falls short of proving that irreparable harm is likely — not just possible.
“While I agree with the majority that plaintiffs established a serious question on the merits, the evidence of record establishes that plaintiffs failed to show a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears should Montana’s wolf regulations remain in force,” the Clinton appointee wrote.
Tallman also argued that the plaintiffs’ evidence is too speculative to warrant an injunction, particularly regarding how climate change affects grizzly denning habits and the plaintiffs’ lack of verified reports of grizzly bears getting caught in recreational wolf traps after 2013.
The other judges disagreed.
“As the district court pointed out, one of plaintiffs’ experts declared that ‘only 12% of unpermitted grizzly bear killings are actually reported,’ and that the ‘data shows that trappers who find grizzly bears in their traps are highly unlikely to call a government agent,’” Lasnik wrote.
Lasnik added how Montana’s evidence showed that over 25% of grizzly bear killings go unreported, suggesting that verified reports are not the best indicator of how often grizzlies are trapped.
All three judges could agree that the injunction is geographically overbroad.
“The district court enjoined wolf trapping and snaring ‘in all areas included in wolf regions one through five, plus Hill, Blaine and Phillips counties,’” Lasnik wrote. “That comprises what appears to be more than half of the entire state of Montana and includes expansive areas outside the occupied grizzly range and even some areas east of Billings — areas that plaintiffs did not even ask to be covered by the injunction.”
The panel also took up Montana’s argument of how the injunction prohibits state researchers from trapping and snaring wolves in the summer for scientific purposes — even though the injunction never prevented that.
On March 19, Montana filed an unopposed motion to modify the injunction so it could allow the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and other management agencies to trap wolves for scientific and livestock conflict management purposes. Molloy denied the request on March 25, explaining that such agencies already had the authority to perform research trapping and they were unaffected by the injunction.
“Apparently the Ninth Circuit wasn’t aware of that,” said Mike Bader of Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot in an interview.
Bader also noted how Tallman in his dissent did not acknowledge a permanent injunction from U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale in March that banned all wolf trapping and snaring in Idaho’s panhandle, Clearwater, Salmon and Upper Snake regions between March 1 and Nov. 30 — the grizzly bear’s non-denning season.
“She actually cited the Molloy injunction ruling as an influence on her ruling, so we hope we can get a permanent injunction because then we would have common law in the Ninth Circuit from both Idaho and Montana,” Bader said.
And that hope might not be far from reality, especially since Molloy’s injunction will stay in place until he adjusts the geographic scope of the order. Bader said a final ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment could arrive within the next few months and that a favorable outcome would also prohibit coyote traps in grizzly territories.
“I think the big issue is climate change,” Bader said, adding how states rely on outdated data for grizzly denning behaviors.
“Especially this past winter, we had reports of females with cubs out in January and a lot of bears out well into December and even past Christmas,” Bader said. “So, the old dates really don’t apply because of the change.”
Montana
Montana State doctoral student awarded national research service grant for gut microbiome, arsenic research
MISSOULA — Four out of five members of Montana’s Public Service Commission were in a federal courtroom in Missoula Thursday morning, as the PSC’s former president challenges the disciplinary action taken against him earlier this year. Now, newly released documents are shedding more light on to what led up to this point.
(Watch the video for a closer look at the case.)
New documents shed light Montana PSC dispute
Commissioner Brad Molnar has sued President Jeff Welborn, Vice President Jennifer Fielder and Commissioner Annie Bukacek – the three PSC members who voted in May to require him to work remotely, after an investigation into complaints about his workplace conduct. Molnar has claimed he is being unfairly punished for constitutionally protected speech, and he asked Senior U.S District Judge Donald Molloy to allow him to return to the PSC offices.
Matthew Monforton, Molnar’s attorney, told the judge that barring Molnar from the building was limiting his ability to do his job.
“He has not been officially kicked out of office, but his voice has clearly been diminished,” said Monforton.
But Natasha Jones, an attorney representing the other three commissioners, said the findings were about behavior, not just speech, and that the PSC’s action was a reasonable response.
“These are serious concerns about a pattern of conduct that has made employees quit,” she said.
Jonathon Ambarian
On Tuesday, Molloy ordered the release of redacted versions of two full investigative reports into Molnar’s conduct – more than 100 pages of documents. Monforton had moved for the full reports to be made public, and Molloy ruled attorneys for the other PSC members hadn’t shown a compelling reason to keep the documents under seal as long as the names of people involved in the investigation were obscured.
While the names remained redacted in the investigation reports, the attorneys for Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek also filed additional documents – including a public declaration from Bukacek and from former PSC executive director Alana Lake, providing information about their allegations against Molnar.
The two reports, from an outside investigator, cover Molnar’s alleged actions over two periods: the first from February to August 2025, and the second from August to October 2025. The investigation began after the first formal complaint, filed by Bukacek in May 2025 – though the reports say employees had been bringing up concerns about Molnar’s behavior informally for several months prior.
Bukacek’s complaint claimed Molnar had repeatedly made what she called “sexualized and demeaning comments.” The examples she cited included saying the PSC should replace “Taco Tuesdays” with “Topless Tuesdays,” reminiscing about watching girls in bikinis as a teenager, and commenting about the beauty of women in areas of China who didn’t get “old and wrinkly.”
In her declaration, Bukacek also claimed Molnar had “maliciously disseminated false information” about her and “engaged in behavior that was dismissive, derisive and otherwise abusive.”
“My primary concern now is not for my safety nor my feelings, but for the rest of the staff who may not have the temperament to speak up or may feel too intimidated to speak up given concerns over job security,” Bukacek said in her declaration.
MTN News
The investigators determined Molnar had violated the PSC’s code of conduct by making comments of a sexual nature, and that it appeared his behavior had continued for some time after he was warned about it. They also found he had behaved unprofessionally and in a belittling manner toward Bukacek, though they said Bukacek herself had at times used “language that could be considered inappropriate” in emails to staff or other commissioners. Bukacek told MTN she “readily self corrected” any behaviors that were brought to her attention.
The investigation also found a violation in connection with a complaint from a PSC staff member, who said he “felt bullied” by Molnar when the commissioner sent an email complaining about his team not being “people with competence.”
However, much of the first report and the entire second report was focused on conduct after the initial complaints, when Molnar was accused of retaliating against people who participated in the investigation. Lake said in her declaration that she saw “an immediate and significant change in his behavior toward staff involved in the process.” She claimed he said he would use an attorney and private investigator to go after people who filed complaints, and she accused him of publicly criticizing her in interviews and removing her job responsibilities because of her handling of the investigation.
Lake said Molnar’s actions led to “declining morale within the agency,” undermined staff members’ ability to do their jobs and damaged her reputation. She said that led her to resign as executive director.
“I believe no employee should be forced to choose between reporting misconduct and protecting their career, reputation, or personal well-being,” she said in her declaration.
Lake has since become Helena city manager.
Jonathon Ambarian
The report said there was evidence to show Molnar had retaliated, including by “making disparaging statements about investigation participants” including Lake, by sending an email warning he could file complaints of his own against people involved, and by taking other actions investigators said could dissuade employees from reporting behavior in the future.
Monforton said during Thursday’s hearing that the initial comments Bukacek complained about were jokes Molnar had admitted were inappropriate, that he regretted saying them, and that he hasn’t made any similar comments in about a year. But he argued the vast majority of the findings against Molnar were about retaliation – and that those were primarily based on speech that the other commissioners don’t have the right to interfere with.
Monforton said it’s unreasonable to punish Molnar for what he said in the July news conference where he announced he was under investigation, in interviews with the media or in commission meetings. He said Molnar’s conduct doesn’t rise to the level of actual retaliation.
“This is an elected official, engaging in speech in his forum,” Monforton said.
He said Molnar may have made harsh comments toward staff, but that he had the right to raise objections about the way the agency does business.
Jonathon Ambarian
Monforton also argued the retaliation claims no longer justify keeping Molnar out of the office, since Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek voted to remove him as president in October and he no longer has the authority he’s accused of misusing. He said there haven’t been further complaints about his behavior since that time.
“We’re not asking for the moon and stars, we’re asking for the status quo as it existed for the last seven months,” he said.
Jones said there is enough evidence to show Molnar would have been punished regardless of whether any protected speech was excluded.
“This is not about a couple of jokes,” she said.
Jones said Molnar made maliciously false statements about people like Lake, and that type of statement isn’t covered by free speech protections.
She also said Molnar’s exclusion from the PSC offices is temporary, and that the PSC will reconsider whether to let him return if he apologizes for his actions, accepts the agency’s code of conduct and undergoes training.
Molloy indicated he saw indications that there was “acrimony” on both sides of the situation, and said he was skeptical it would be resolved easily.
“It would be nice if instead of juvenile behavior, there was professional behavior,” he said.
However, the judge said there was an avenue for Molnar to pursue if he wanted to reach a resolution.
Molloy took no immediate action Thursday. He told the parties he would rule as quickly as he could.
-
Technology2 minutes agoNothing cancels this year’s CMF phone due to RAM prices
-
World9 minutes agoTwo-train crash leaves at least 1 dead, 89 injured as emergency crews rush to chaotic scene
-
Politics12 minutes agoDouble endorsement drama: Trump backs second candidate in red state’s GOP gubernatorial runoff
-
Health17 minutes agoMeasles-infected traveler may have exposed passengers at LAX and nearby hotel, health officials warn
-
Sports24 minutes agoWorld Cup Red Cards: 2026 Has More Red Cards Than Each Of Last 2 World Cups
-
Technology27 minutes agoChina’s brain chip breakthrough raises big questions
-
Business32 minutes agoRanch lovers can soon travel with a TSA-friendly kit of the popular American dressing
-
Entertainment39 minutes agoAt the Fonda, Jane Remover’s violent yearning heralds a new kind of stardom
