Montana

Ninth Circuit narrows wolf trapping ban in Montana griz territory

Published

2 years ago

April 24, 2024

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.”

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Christi Jacobsen enters race for Western House seat

Published

8 hours ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

Christi Jacobsen enters race for Western House seat

HELENA, Mont. — Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen is running for Montana’s Western Congressional District seat, entering the race a day after U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke announced he would not seek reelection.

Jacobsen’s announcement sets up a new contest for the open seat after Zinke, a Republican, said he would seek reelection.

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

“As your Secretary of State, I’ve stood up to Washington overreach, defended election integrity, and delivered real results for Montanans. In 2020, voters gave me a mandate to clean up our elections, grow Montana business, and push back against radical liberal special interests. I delivered. Now it’s time to take that same results-driven, America First leadership to Congress.”

Source link

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

20 hours ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

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.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

1 day ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

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.

Source link