” width=”224″ height=”168″ align=”right” hspace=”10″ alt=”In October 2023, Grizzly Bear 566 weighed in at a whopping 716 pounds, three shy of the Greater Yellowstone record” title=”In October 2023, Grizzly Bear 566 weighed in at a whopping 716 pounds, three shy of the Greater Yellowstone record” />Last fall, Grizzly 566
weighed in at a near record-breaking 700 pounds, Mountain Journal spoke with a grizzly expert for the latest in health
and population trends for bears in Greater Yellowstone.
Voting rights at center of tribal dispute with city
The City of Martin, South Dakota and the Oglala Sioux Tribe are at odds over a public records request sent by the tribe.
The City of Martin has asked that the Oglala Sioux Tribe waive its sovereign immunity or pre-pay an undetermined amount of attorney fees and administrative fees for the records it requested. The South Dakota American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging this through the South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners.
On August 25, under the South Dakota Sunshine Act, the tribe requested records relating to potential violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, according to the South Dakota ACLU.
The initial request from the tribe asked for an extensive list of documents, each of which span a time range of 20 years, including election results, redistricting maps (boundary changes and reorganization plans), agendas from meetings where redistricting was discussed, any and all analysis of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or Gingles factors and more.
On September 11, the City of Martin denied the tribe’s request unless the tribe waived its sovereign immunity and paid upfront for time spent gathering records and attorney fees for 20 years’ worth of records. City representatives said the requested attorney’s fees were included as many of the records required an attorney’s assistance to locate.
After the denial, the tribe got in touch with the South Dakota ACLU. Working with the ACLU, the tribe narrowed the requested records down to a 10-year time frame from 20.
The tribe, represented by the ACLU, Native American Rights Fund and Public Council, is appealing the City of Martin’s stipulations before the South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners.
The ACLU said the charging of attorney fees and request to waive tribal sovereignty are unreasonable.
“Why do they not want to produce these records without imposing these very stiff, punitive demands on the tribe like making them pay agreed to prepay attorneys fees in an unknown amount and also waive their tribal sovereign immunity,” said Stephanie Amiotte, legal director of the ACLU of South Dakota and a citizen of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, in a phone call. “It certainly begs the question, why aren’t they just producing these records as they would to any other requester if, in fact, everything is in accordance with the Voting Rights Act or the law.”
The City of Martin said it’s asking for attorney’s fees to be charged due to the nature of the documents requested.
“The requests are vague and broad, leaving it difficult for a layperson to determine whether a statutory exception applies,” said Sara Frankenstein, an attorney representing the City of Martin. “Many of the requests require legal analysis as to whether the documents sought are excluded from public disclosure pursuant to South Dakota law. Additionally, the request sought documents spanning over twenty years. Such a huge and broad request is taxing on the City of Martin’s resources and its citizenry. The City of Martin is small, and resources are thin.”
Generally, tribal sovereignty allows tribes to be free from lawsuits whether private or commercial, much like any other nation. The tribe is choosing to pursue action through the Office of Hearing Examiners because it says the conditions sought by the City of Martin are unreasonable or sought in bad faith.
The City of Martin’s legal counsel said the city requested that the tribe waive its sovereign immunity to ensure the request would be paid should it be fulfilled.
“Due to sovereign immunity, the City does not have legal recourse for collecting the applicable fee should the Tribe not pay, and the amount may be substantial if the ACLU continues to demand 20 years’ worth of broad-ranging documents,” Frankenstein said.
Frankenstein also said if the Oglala Sioux Tribe or ACLU refuses to pay for the records request or sovereign immunity is not waived, Martin taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
The ACLU said a request to waive sovereign immunity reflects a larger problem facing Indian Country.
“It really carries bigger implications than that because it amounts to a gradual erosion of the constitutionally protected status as a sovereign nation,” Amiotte said. “We see that every day in attempts by states to take that sovereign status away through encroachment on jurisdictional issues, and just other areas that tribes really do enjoy that status as a sovereign nation to govern in a manner that other governments are allowed to govern.”
Records shared with the Rapid City Journal and ICT suggest the City of Martin did share a January 2022 redistricting map with the tribe; however, no other records will be shared without pre-payment.
“The ACLU’s press release is wildly inaccurate,” Frankenstein said in an email to the Journal and ICT. “First, the City has yet to deny any document requested, other than broadly asserting a general denial that protected or privileged documents will not be disclosed, if the ACLU truly seeks them. The ACLU is not contesting the withholding of protected or privileged documents, so no denial of records is at issue here. In other words, there has been no ‘denial’ to trigger any judicial review.”
The City of Martin and Bennett County are within the exterior boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation and are considered by the Department of the Interior to be reservation land. State agencies, however, such as the South Dakota Department of Transportation, generally list Bennett County as not being within the reservation. Census records indicate roughly half of Martin’s population is non-Native.
In 2005, the South Dakota ACLU attempted to sue the City of Martin for Voting Rights Act Violations. After an 11-day bench trial, the claim was dismissed.
” width=”224″ height=”168″ align=”right” hspace=”10″ alt=”A barren wheatfield in Malta, Montana, after it was raided by migratory grasshoppers that thrive in drought conditions” title=”A barren wheatfield in Malta, Montana, after it was raided by migratory grasshoppers that thrive in drought conditions” />Following a three-year
planning process, Montana released an updated Drought Management Plan, seeking
to foster drought resilience in the state and recognizing climate change as a
driving factor.
50 Years: How the Endangered Species Act Influenced Greater Yellowstone
The ‘Unprecedented’ Decline of a Wyoming Pronghorn Herd
Judge halves wolf trapping season to protect grizzlies
A federal judge has directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to cut much of Montana’s wolf trapping season in half due to evidence that traps and snares set for wolves unintentionally capture grizzly bears, which are federally protected under the Endangered Species Act.
In a 25-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy wrote that the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians established “a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears should Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring seasons proceed as planned.”
Molloy directed the state to scrap its current season plans for most of the state in favor of more conservative start and end dates. The state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2021 adopted a floating start date to provide some assurance that grizzly bears would be in their dens before traps and snares are set inside occupied grizzly bear habitat.
Molloy heard oral arguments on the conservation groups’ preliminary injunction request on Monday. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the state of Montana, Gov. Greg Gianforte, and Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair Lesley Robinson on Sept. 22.
FWP has recorded more than 20 instances of grizzlies being caught in traps set for other animals since 1988, and an expert for the plaintiffs has documented “numerous other examples” of such incidents, according to Molloy’s order.
Grizzly bear biologists have demonstrated an increase in the number of bears exhibiting “trap-like injuries” since wolf trapping was legalized, the plaintiffs asserted. Grizzly bear biologists noted that in 2021 alone, four different bears were missing body parts, including forelegs and toes, likely due to trapping. Other injuries that can arise from capture in traps and snares include limb fractures and dislocations, as well as tooth and gum damage.
“Each of these untoward events would violate [Section 9] of the ESA,” Molloy wrote, adding that “trapping or capturing an endangered species is an unlawful ‘take’ even if the action does not cause injury or mortality.”
Defendants countered that FWP’s floating start date in grizzly-occupied areas has reduced the likelihood of unintentional grizzly bear capture and injury. They also highlighted other protective measures the Fish and Wildlife Commission has adopted such as restrictions on snaring in lynx protection zones and requirements that trappers use breakaway devices on snares and check their traps every 48 hours.
The state argued that there have been no incidences of a bear caught in a public (i.e., non-research) wolf trap in a decade.
“While Defendants may be correct that there have been no confirmed reports of grizzly bears caught in recreational wolf traps in Montana since 2013, the precise harm at issue in this case has been well-documented in Montana and adjacent states and provinces that share the home ranges of Montana’s grizzly bear populations,” Molloy wrote.
“The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission remains a clear and present danger to Montana’s carnivores and predators and we look forward to reining them in.”
Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force President Patty Ames
The plaintiffs had also argued that evidence suggests grizzlies are likely to be out of their dens through more of the winter and that trend will only increase as climate change brings warmer winter temperatures to the region.
In an emailed press release cheering the order, the plaintiffs expressed optimism that they’ll prevail on the larger issues in the lawsuit as the case proceeds.
“We are pleased with this order and remain confident we will prevail on the larger merits of the case,” Patty Ames of the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force said. “The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission remains a clear and present danger to Montana’s carnivores and predators and we look forward to reining them in.”
In a Facebook post, Gianforte argued that Molloy’s “sweeping order tramples the rights of trappers.”
“Montana has a healthy, sustainable population of wolves and grizzlies, and there has been no incidental takes of grizzlies from wolf trapping in Montana since 2013. And yet misusing ESA protections for the grizzly to thwart the state’s wolf management plan, the activist judge has obstructed the state from responsibly managing wolves based on the sound science of FWP biologists.”
Molloy’s order narrows the 2023-2024 season start and end dates while the lawsuit proceeds. Per his order, wolf trapping and snaring cannot begin until Jan. 1, 2024, and will end on Feb. 15 in FWP’s five westernmost regions. It also applies to Hill, Blaine and Phillips counties.
Judge Molloy’s order applies to the five westernmost regions administered by FWP as well as Hill, Blaine and Phillips counties. Credit: Map courtesy of FWP
In areas in and near occupied grizzly habitat, the state had been set to open trapping season sometime between Nov. 27 and Dec. 31 and close it on March 15. The state said it will appeal the order.
Group sues the Forest Service to halt trout replacement project in wilderness area
A Missoula-based nonprofit that advocates for wilderness conservation is pushing back on a Forest Service plan to poison 46 miles of waterways within the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness in an effort to clear them for Yellowstone cutthroat trout.
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court Nov. 8, Wilderness Watch argues that the Buffalo Creek project violates the Wilderness Act, which holds that wilderness areas should retain “primeval character and influence” and be “protected and managed so as to preserve [their] natural conditions.”
The Buffalo Creek project was authorized by the Custer Gallatin National Forest in August at the behest of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, which seeks to expand Yellowstone cutthroats in waters beyond their native range to create a climate refuge for the fish as the waterways they’ve historically inhabited warm.
Hidden Lake and the upper reaches of Buffalo Creek are naturally fishless due to the area’s topography, but state wildlife officials have stocked rainbow trout in Hidden Lake since at least 1932. Now the state hopes to address the hybridization of rainbow trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout in lower stretches of the watershed by applying rotenone to Upper Buffalo Creek and 36 acres of wetlands and lake surface, to create what Wilderness Watch describes as “an artificial reserve of Yellowstone cutthroat trout.”
Wilderness Watch Executive Director George Nickas described the plan as an attempt to “play God with species and habitat manipulation.” His group also takes issue with the expansion of motorized activity within the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness that the Forest Service has authorized for the poisoning and restocking project. Up to 81 aircraft landings and 60 days of motorized use have been approved to execute the plan.
Map of Lamar River watershed. Credit: Courtesy U.S. Forest Service
“The Wilderness Act was passed precisely to rein in the propensity of managers to want to control nature. Our lawsuit seeks to preserve the wild character of the Wilderness and to let nature continue to evolve of its own free will,” Nickas wrote. His organization is asking courts to block the project, which is slated to begin next year.
In an April 2022 press release announcing the Forest Service’s support for the Buffalo Creek project, Gardiner District Ranger Mike Thom wrote that the agency was “poised to create secure cold water refugia and strongholds for the long-term sustainability and success of Yellowstone cutthroat trout.”
“This is one of those prime opportunities working jointly with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to benefit the natural characteristics of wilderness with native fish communities critical to our ecosystem,” he continued.
A version of this story was originally published in the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.
New leadership is on the horizon for several of Montana’s large cities following municipal elections held across the state this week.
Voters in Missoula, Montana’s second-largest city, picked Andrea Davis as their first elected mayor since the death of longtime incumbent John Engen last year. Davis, executive director of the affordable housing nonprofit Homeword, won decisively over real estate broker and current Missoula City Council member Mike Nugent.
To the east in fast-growing Bozeman, the state’s fourth-largest municipality, voters made a rare decision not to hand incumbent mayor Cyndy Andrus another term, instead picking twenty-something progressive Joey Morrison over Andrus and environmental attorney John Meyer. (Bozeman’s commission system means Morrison will join the city commission for a two-year term as deputy mayor in January when current Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham, who was elected two years ago, assumes the mayorship. Morrison will start his term as full-fledged mayor at the beginning of 2026.)
Great Falls, the state’s third-largest city, also picked new leadership, with former police detective and Cascade County Undersheriff Cory Reeves beating out a field that included former Democratic House Minority Leader Casey Schreiner.
Elsewhere in the state, Billings and Kalispell held city council elections but had their mayoral seats out of cycle this year. Helena’s election was limited to a down-ballot race in one neighborhood after the three incumbent commissioners who were up for re-election drew no challengers.
That’s a lot to keep track of, even without getting into results from smaller communities. As the MTFP newsroom talked about how to cover those results this week, we figured Lowdown readers would appreciate a chance to hear briefly from the fresh blood coming into some of the state’s most important local leadership roles.
All three of the big-city mayors-elect spoke to reporters by phone this week, discussing their plans for tackling, among other issues, housing affordability, homelessness and public safety. The interviews have been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Mayor-elect #1 Andrea Davis, Missoula
MTFP: How can Missoula add the housing it needs to accommodate a growing population without sacrificing the vibe that’s drawn people to the city to begin with?
Davis: When I first moved here, there was the 12th Street Grocery in my neighborhood. But because it was a nonconforming use, that little tiny corner grocery store went away. As we build our community out, how are we making it so we can access services, jobs, groceries, little restaurants on the corner without having to get in our car and drive across town and add to the congestion and add to the strife of the feeling of growth?
A lot of that will be how we make it so we’ve got mixed-use neighborhoods that are connected with well-functioning streets, that have sidewalks that allow people to move around. I really want to see us continue to advocate for and build out street trees. This I know sounds simplistic, but to me this is a very important part of quality of life for living in a city and also helps with the urban heat effect. And we’re going to need to be intentional about a mix of different home types.
MTFP: On the homelessness front, what’s your immediate game plan to make sure people without a place to live have the shelter they need this winter?
Davis: The city council has postponed the decision for an urban camping ordinance until Dec. 13. So my immediate game plan is to work with city staff, city council and the myriad of community partners as that ordinance gets considered against the other policies and practices that we have in our community. We have the Johnson Street facility that’s been opened and my understanding is there have been improvements to the operation of that facility. My immediate plan is to assess those operational procedures and make sure we’ve got a plan in place for a feedback loop with that neighborhood, because we heard loud and clear that that neighborhood felt they were not being heard.
Also, how are we assessing a place for people to be outside? Is there a location where we can have an approved campsite that is run differently than the one that we did in 2022? The one that we had done last time wasn’t a success. There were a whole host of challenges. But we have a lot of community partners at the table that are saying we could do this more successfully.
MTFP: You’re Missoula’s first new elected mayor since 2005, when John Engen first stepped into office. What do you think will be the most obvious difference between your approach to the job and his?
Davis: I’ve been doing quite a bit of work at the state level. I chair a Montana Housing Coalition, I’ve been active with establishing that coalition for a number of years and getting a statewide housing policy addressed and passing legislation. It was something that I encouraged Mayor Engen to do, and whether he wanted to or didn’t or whatever, it just was an area that he didn’t really lean into. I think that is one of the main differences you’ll see with me as mayor is I will be working hard to establish relationships and really a coalition of other major cities and towns across the state, because we share a lot of the same challenges right now … We’re going to need to be working on statewide property tax issues, we’re going to need to be working across the aisle, and homelessness [is] a significant issue that we cannot do alone. The stronger our neighboring cities are in their approach to solutions for homelessness, the better off we all are.
Mayor-elect #2 Joey Morrison, Bozeman
MTFP: Among the most pressing issues facing Bozeman is housing affordability. What specific actions can the city commission take within the next year to provide relief for residents who are struggling with that?
Morrison: It’s pretty limited at the moment. We could look at emergency measures like rental assistance and things like that to keep people in their homes, or looking at renter protections to keep folks from facing eviction. But as far as immediate relief, I don’t see that many tools in a one-year span. Longer term — being able to make it easier for folks to be able to internally subdivide existing structures [and] create private entrances [to] create private rentals that are part of an established existing structure, making it easier for folks to build [accessory dwelling units], maybe providing subsidies or rebates for folks that are willing to do that. Those are some of the things that I think are promising for short-term infill that doesn’t really modify the character of a neighborhood too much.
MTFP: Many of the things the city could do to address housing and related issues like homelessness would take quite a bit of money. Of course, property taxes are the major place city dollars come from and are also a major concern right now. How can the city do more without putting more burden on taxpayers?
Morrison: Some of it really needs to come from belt-tightening from the at-times-indulgent spending with out-of-state consultants that have enormous price tags to answer questions that we know the answers to. I really think that that will move the needle. I’ve sat on a few boards that were coming up hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to pay consultants.
We do have a lot of wealthy, affluent people that are philanthropic folks, that I do believe would be interested in making socially responsible investments or just contributions to some of these bigger projects, and I’d really like to see that start being a practice for us. If we’re going to try and get a $10 million bond before the voters, that we raise half of it as a city first.
MTFP: One of the dynamics you’ll face on the Bozeman commission is the possibility that the state’s conservative Legislature could override local action it sees as too progressive, as happened with inclusionary zoning in 2021. As you’re thinking about how to lead the city, how will you navigate that dynamic?
Morrison: I’ve really seen our local city commission shy away from sitting down and breaking bread with more rural neighbors and rural counties and cities that have real skin in the game to make sure they maintain local control. And I think we really need to start organizing alongside the Glendives and the Miles Cities and the Glasgows to make sure that they also recognize “Hey, when the state Legislature takes stuff away from Bozeman, they take stuff away from you too.”
Mayor-elect #3 Cory Reeves, Great Falls
MTFP: What’s at the top of your to-do list for when you take office?
Reeves: Top of our list is housing, just like every community, I think. To my understanding, in the state of Montana, everyone is having a housing crisis right now and Great Falls is not excluded. Our community development [department] is already making a lot of changes, but I want to do a top-to-bottom review of our zoning and permit processes to make sure that everything is streamlined. So when you show up to build a house in Great Falls or you show up to open a business in Great Falls, you don’t have to wait 6 to 9 to 12 months to get that business off the ground or that house built. I want to make sure everything is streamlined so it’s just kind of like a one-stop shop. And I do know that that is currently in the works. They’re working on that. But I’m going to really make sure when I take office Jan. 1 that people know that Great Falls is open for business. We want you to come here, we welcome you here.
MTFP: Voters shot down the public safety levy on the ballot in Great Falls — what will that mean for your incoming administration?
Reeves: The public safety levy and bond was a “heck no” from the community. It got slaughtered, if you will. So now we, as the commission, are going to have to come, sit back and go, ‘OK, with community input, where do we go from here?’ Because, unfortunately, this can has been kicked down the road for 50 years by previous commissions. The last public safety levy, as you’re probably aware, was in, I think, 1959. And so here in 2023, we tried to go after it and the community said, “No, we’re done being taxed.” And I think timing was bad also. You know, the state of Montana gave out the new tax appraisals, so everyone’s taxes went up. We recently had a public library levy that passed that was very controversial in our community. So I think people just said, “You know what, we’re done giving our tax dollars,” which I totally respect. It was a big ask for the community. But now we as a city commission and the community are going to have to sit down and have some hard conversations about “Where do we go from here?”
(Bozeman mayoral candidate John Meyer is married to MTFP reporter Amanda Eggert, who didn’t participate in reporting or editing this story.)
