Karli Johnson, state affairs coordinator for the Montana Farm Bureau and a ranching mother, told the Senate Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation Committee she and neighbors have faced close grizzly encounters after a recent federal delisting decision. "The big bears push out the sows with cubs and the juvenile bears," she said, describing how displaced bears take up residence on community edges.

Johnson said the community-built 12‑acre grizzly enclosure around her yard and calving lots, paid in part with assistance from the livestock loss board, reflects steps ranchers have taken to protect children and livestock. She said that building the enclosure, which includes woven wire, top-and-bottom electric lines and an electric gate, cost about $15,000 several years ago.

Why it matters: Johnson argued that Montana should be able to manage grizzly populations at a scale that reduces the number of bears habituated to human food and that concentrates management on individuals that pose conflict risk. "What that's really about is transitioning from an individual bear management to a full population management," she said, and described limits of current state options when bears that are priorities for population growth return to populated areas.

Committee members asked whether state specialists respond; Johnson said Fish, Wildlife & Parks bear management specialists do respond and will haze bears with cracker shells, but she described situations where hazing did not direct a sow with cubs away from town. She also recounted how a bear she and neighbors encountered later returned with cubs.

Johnson and other speakers asked the committee to consider additional funding for the livestock loss board to support measures such as enclosures, mitigation, and livestock compensation. She also urged more local input in population-level decisions and described the psychological and practical effects of living in areas where bears frequently use the same corridors as people.

A committee member asked whether fences are available for non‑ranchers; Johnson said livestock protection funding helped pay for her fence but town residents seeking human-safety fencing do not have that same program. "When we were going through putting it up, they specifically told us, well, you can't say it's for human safety. This is for livestock protection," she said.

No formal committee action was taken. Members discussed referring technical questions to Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the livestock loss board.