Montana bison producers could get boost under new proposal
There are about 9,600 bison being raised commercially in Montana (NPS / Jacob W. Frank)
If a bear kills a cow, a rancher will get paid if it's proven a predator did the deed.
The Livestock Loss Board handles those claims. However, a small — but growing — number of bison producers don't have access to the same system and can't file claims over animals that have been killed by predators.
Llamas and chickens get paid out, so why not bison?
With House Bill 504, Rep. Eric Tilleman, R-Cascade, wants to add them to a list of animals included in the livestock loss mitigation program, extending the protection to approximately 9,600 bison being raised for food in Montana.
'This is just expanding the livestock laws and adding domestic bison,' Tilleman said.
The bill received a hearing in the House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday afternoon. The committee did not take immediate action on the bill, but at least one bison rancher said it would help a growing sector of food production in the state.
'It's more about the principal than it is the funds,' Ty Stubblefield, who has 100 bison on a ranch near Bridger, said in an interview. 'Though they do help for a small operation.'
Stubblefield was in Helena representing the Montana Bison Association, joking he made the four-hour drive to give three minutes of testimony. He did answer several questions from the committee as the only bison rancher in the room. He's got about 200 acres and has slowly been building his business.
Several years ago, Stubblefield had to put down a bison that had its Achilles tendon severed by a predator.
'That sent me down this path that we are on today,' said Stubblefield, who testified in favor of the bill. 'I discovered how difficult it is, number one, to prove that it was actually a bear that attacked your animal, but number two, that bison were the only livestock animals that are not represented on the livestock loss.'
A fiscal note attached to the bill showed no impact to the budget, as it's not common for bison producers to have their animals killed by predators. It does happen, but USDA Wildlife Services has only responded to three bison incidents in the last five years in Montana.
While the number is not huge, it's about fairness, Stubblefield said.
'We're managed just as cattle are,' Stubblefield said in an interview. 'We're under the same rules and regulations.'
The Livestock Loss Mitigation Board is allocated $450,000 per year to pay out claims. Over the last six years, the board averages about $250,000 in payouts each year and 292 claims, according to the bill's fiscal note. The livestock board pays out claims for farm and ranch animals killed by wolves, grizzly bears and mountain lions.
Bison claims are estimated to be about $3,600 per animal, while the five-year average for cattle claim payouts is $1,800.
The industry is growing, according to the National Bison Association.
Stubblefield is seeing it himself.
'I can think of, off the top of my head, like five new producers that did what we did and started from scratch,' Stubblefield said. 'It's a growing thing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization'
When the federal government decided to prosecute mountain runner Michelino Sunseri for using an unauthorized trail while setting a record for ascending and descending Grand Teton in September 2024, it seemed like a good example of a problem that President Donald Trump decried in an executive order last month: "overcriminalization in federal regulations." The National Park Service (NPS) ultimately agreed, saying it was "withdrawing its criminal prosecution referral" after "further review" in light of the president's order. But the Justice Department proceeded with the case anyway, resulting in a two-day bench trial that ended on May 21. That disagreement, revealed in an email chain that Sunseri's lawyers obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, raises questions about whether prosecutors met their constitutional obligation to share information that would have been helpful to the defense. It also casts doubt on whether the Justice Department is complying with the policy described in Trump's order, which said federal prosecutors should eschew charges involving regulatory crimes unless they have evidence indicating that the defendant knowingly violated the law. That point always seemed doubtful in Sunseri's case. For one thing, he publicized his route up and down Grand Teton with a map that he posted on social media. According to the NPS and the Justice Department, that map showed Sunseri had committed a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. And as WyoFile reporter Katie Klingsporn noted during Sunseri's trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanie Hambrick in Jackson, Wyoming, the route that the NPS said he should not have taken, known as the "old climber's trail," is "a historic trail so well-used that it's become a skinny singletrack." In fact, Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox noted in March, "record holders before Sunseri had used the same trail, and tour guides who charge hefty sums frequently lead hikers up the same route. Only two tiny and ambiguous signs inform the public that the trail is off-limits." One of those signs, at the top of the trail, said "shortcutting causes erosion." The other sign, at the bottom of the trail, said "closed for regrowth." Ed Bushnell, Sunseri's defense attorney, argued that his client was not "shortcutting," since he was using a long-established trail. Bushnell added that it was unclear whether the "closed" notice referred to the area around the sign or the trail beyond it. "There is no clear prohibition there," Bushnell said. "This is not conspicuous signage." Given the evidence that Sunseri did not deliberately violate park rules, the criminal referral was puzzling and controversial. As is typical with regulatory crimes, his prosecution was based on the interaction between the Code of Federal Regulations—a body of law so vast and obscure that even experts can only guess at the number of criminal penalties it authorizes (at least 300,000, they think)—and a more general statute enacted by Congress. Sunseri was charged with violating 36 CFR 21(b), which says a park superintendent "may restrict hiking or pedestrian use to a designated trail or walkway system." It adds that "leaving a trail or walkway to shortcut between portions of the same trail or walkway, or to shortcut to an adjacent trail or walkway in violation of designated restrictions is prohibited." The regulation says nothing about criminal penalties, which are separately authorized by 16 USC 551. That law says violations of "rules and regulations" governing the use of public and national forests "shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both." By authorizing prosecution for agency-defined offenses, Congress has created a bewildering situation in which the average American cannot reasonably be expected to know when he is committing a federal crime. "This status quo is absurd and unjust," Trump said in his executive order, which he issued on May 9. "It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it." In addition to urging prosecutorial restraint, Trump instructed federal agencies to "explicitly describe" conduct subject to criminal punishment under new regulations and prepare lists of regulatory violations that already can be treated as crimes. He also told them to publish plans to "address criminally liable regulatory offenses." In deciding whether to make a criminal referral, he said, agencies should consider factors such as "the harm or risk of harm, pecuniary or otherwise, caused by the alleged offense"; "the potential gain to the putative defendant that could result from the offense"; and "evidence, if any is available, of the putative defendant's general awareness of the unlawfulness of his conduct as well as his knowledge or lack thereof of the regulation at issue." The Interior Department, which includes the NPS, got the message. A week later, Damon Hagan, a deputy solicitor at the department, emailed Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariel Calmes, noting his office's "review of our regulations for compliance" with Trump's order. Hagan added that he "look[ed] forward to further discussions with your supervisors and yourself regarding the Michelino Sunseri matter." Hagan also emailed Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, noting his office's interest in reconsidering the Sunseri case. Three days later, on May 19, Hagan emailed Nicole Romine, chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Wyoming, passing along a message "for your situational awareness" from Frank Lands, deputy director for operations at the NPS. "After further review," Lands said, "the National Park Service is withdrawing its criminal prosecution referral in the Michelino Sunseri matter." He noted that the prosecution's most recent plea deal proposal entailed a fine and a five-year ban from Grand Teton National Park. Because "we believe" that represents "an overcriminalization based on the gravity of the offense," he said, "we withdraw our support." Romine was unfazed. "Thank you," she wrote back to Hagan that evening. "We're continuing with the prosecution." Sunseri's trial began the next day. Although Romine and Calmes "had access to this email [from Lands] before trial," Bushnell and co-counsel Alexander Rienzie say in a motion they filed with Hambrick on Wednesday, they "decided not to disclose it to the defense, despite its clear relevance to DOJ authorization, defense strategy and witness impeachment." That failure, Bushnell and Rienzie argue, ran afoul of the prosecution's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, the 1963 case in which the Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have a due process right to see evidence "material" to their guilt or punishment. In the 1995 case Kyles v. Whitley, the lawyers note, the Supreme Court clarified that "a showing of materiality does not require demonstration by a preponderance [of the evidence] that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant's acquittal." Rather, it is enough that the suppression "undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial," which implies a "reasonable probability" that the evidence might have changed the result. If they had known about the Lands email before Sunseri's trial, Bushnell and Rienzie suggest, they would have called additional witnesses, including NPS Public Affairs Officer Emily Davis. They say they also would have "expand[ed] trial strategy to challenge the institutional legitimacy of the prosecution" and "explore[d] additional selective/vindictive prosecution theories on cross-examination." Those missed opportunities, they say, "collectively undermin[ed] the fundamental fairness of Mr. Sunseri's trial." Bushnell and Rienzie are asking Hambrick, who has not yet delivered a verdict, to admit the email chain as evidence. They are also seeking an evidentiary hearing to address several issues raised by those messages, including a possible Brady violation and "the integrity and authorization of the prosecution itself, in light of the initiating agency withdrawing support." They are curious about "the decision-making process that led DOJ to continue prosecution without agency support" and "the motivation to continue pursuing disproportionate plea terms after NPS withdrawal." Connor Burkesmith, a photographer who documented Sunseri's Grand Teton feat and is working on a film about it, thinks that decision was plainly unfair. "After the National Park Service explicitly withdrew, the prosecution decided to continue on the war path and subpoenaed the park rangers to testify," Burkesmith says in an email. "The trial then proceeded for two days, with [about] 20 federal employees in attendance, wasting countless taxpayer dollars to prosecute a trail runner for running on a trail." This certainly seems like a case that could have been handled with a civil fine rather than a criminal prosecution, or at least with a plea deal less onerous than the one prosecutors offered. "Even after the DOJ was aware of NPS withdrawal of support, on the morning of trial," Bushnell and Rienzie say, Calmes "reiterated an offer of deferred prosecution with 1,000 hours of community service and a ban from Grand Teton National Park—entirely disproportionate to the conduct at question, particularly with the initiating agency no longer supporting prosecution." Sunseri's lawyers "extended a counter-offer modifying community service to 60 hours and replacing the ban with a restriction tied to alleged conduct." It is unclear how Hambrick will respond to Sunseri's motion, how she is inclined to assess his guilt, or what punishment she might think is appropriate. But the fact that his fate will be decided by a single judge (subject to appeal) could affect the ultimate outcome. Hambrick rejected Sunseri's request for a jury trial, which she was allowed to do under a "petty offense exception" that the Supreme Court has atextually carved out of the Sixth Amendment. That amendment says defendants "in all criminal prosecutions" have a right to "a speedy and public trial" by "an impartial jury." In cases like Sunseri's, "the right to a jury trial is of particular importance," Fox argues. "Founding-era jurors were tasked with preventing injustice. Criminal jurors had a civic duty to assess the wisdom, legitimacy and fairness of a given prosecution, and they had the power to acquit against the evidence to prevent injustice. It is doubtful that a jury fully cognizant of its historical powers and duties would convict Sunseri." The post A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization' appeared first on
Axios
15 hours ago
- Axios
Dupont Circle park to close for WorldPride weekend after all
After days of uncertainty, the National Park Service shut down Dupont Circle for this weekend's Pride festivities, even after a community backlash to the idea and the D.C. police chief withdrawing her request to close it. Why it matters: It's a blow to WorldPride 2025 revelers, who were hoping the park in the heart of D.C.'s historic LGBTQ community would remain open. Driving the news: Citing D.C. police chief Pamela Smith's original request to close the park, NPS installed fencing early Friday morning. Fencing will remain until 6pm Sunday. U.S. Park Police said the temporary closure is necessary "to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Context: In 2023, NPS said the park was faced with $175,000 in vandalism and damage to the historic fountain after Pride weekend festivities. Last year, D.C. police said groups of juveniles got into fights and "engaged in unpermitted and illegal activities." Those incidents spurred Smith to send a closure request to NPS in April this year. But following public backlash, Smith rescinded that request on Tuesday. The latest: U.S. Park Police decided to move ahead with the closure anyway. "While some community leaders and residents have voiced their concerns for a closure of Dupont Circle to MPD the threat of violence," the agency wrote in a letter to NPS leadership Wednesday, "criminal acts and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD's original April 22, 2025 park closure request." The letter cites a "local DJ advertising and selling tickets to an unpermitted gathering/party in Dupont Circle following World Pride events" as one more reason to shut down the park. Between the lines: It's another pain point for festival-goers who are already upset with the Trump administration for anti-LGBTQ policies.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Search for L.A. woman swept away by raging river scaled back due to dangerous conditions
A search for a 26-year-old Los Angeles woman swept away by fast-moving water in Sequoia National Park over Memorial Day weekend has been scaled back as river conditions remain too hazardous for rescue teams to enter. Jomarie Calasanz was last seen near the Paradise Creek Bridge along the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River in the park's foothills. Officials said she was with friends and family when she was caught in the cold, powerful current. After nine days of intensive searching by multiple agencies, National Park Service officials said crews have transitioned to 'limited continuous mode,' assigning fewer resources while continuing to monitor the river. Officials believe Calasanz could still be within park boundaries but said current conditions make it unsafe for divers to conduct an underwater search. Search efforts have included ground crews, canines, underwater cameras, helicopters and drones. 'We are thankful for the dedicated aid of our neighboring agencies and for all of the people who have been involved in the search for Jomarie,' NPS officials said. Park officials continue to urge visitors to stay out of the river and away from its banks, warning that runoff from melting snowpack has made the water both frigid and deceptively fast-moving. Even calm-looking sections can overpower experienced swimmers, and wet rocks near the river's edge are extremely slick. Public notices remain posted in the area, and teams plan to reassess their options once the water level drops, likely in the coming weeks. Anyone with information or possible sightings is asked to contact Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Dispatch at 888-677-2746. The Calasanz family has announced the death of their loved one, and is asking for donations through GoFundMe to help pay for the cost of recovery efforts and memorial expenses. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
