Montana 2026 Elk Proposal

[OpenCountry]

The most baffling thing about today is that it took nearly 30 minutes to try and figure out how to stop killing mule deer does on B licenses on public land….. Montanans only know how to increase licenses not limit them….

I didn’t think that conversation was ever going to end. Thanks for showing up today in person and commenting on multiple amendments.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I havent finished watching some of the meeting but it was encouraging to see Commissioner Robinson turn to Wargo and essentially encourage him to keep working on his elk proposal. As frustrating as this process was, it was refreshing to see some positive change get through.

Thanks Gerald for your efforts. Good job remembering to state your name

 

[cgasner1]

This Commission demonstrated a lot of responsiveness to public feedback during this
process and during today’s meeting.

We saw Commissioner Burrows attempt to raise the 900 series antelope quota to 7000 and the commission voted to approve the amendment. After multiple public comments in opposition he amended it back to 5600.

Commissioners Walsh pulled his elk amendment due to public feedback.

Two of the mountain lion amendments were dropped after public comment.

Commisssioner Wargo’s original elk amendment failed passage but he got unanimous approval for having it implemented in Region 1. I think that was due in large part to the amount of positive public support from hunters during today’s comment period. A lot of the other Commissioners didn’t seem to understand the effects of his proposal which was really a shame.
IMO the department really dropped the ball on getting it released to the public two days before Thanksgiving when it had been submitted at the end of September and was the first amendment received.

Multiple other amendments and decisions were affected by in person and online comments today.

Involvement in the process is the price to be paid for gaining influence. If there‘s ever proof to that saying that “the world is run by those that show up” MT season setting and FWP Commission meetings are a good example to see that in action.

Thanks to those of you who commented via Zoom. I could see that it made a difference in multiple occasions.

In my opinion Commissioner Wargo, and Chair Robinson deserve a lot of credit for putting action into what the public land hunters have been complaining about.

Cebull wanted to bump the antelope tags up. Thanks for making that drive

 

[WanderWoman]

Cebull wanted to bump the antelope tags up. Thanks for making that drive

Antelope tags did end up increasing. If R3 was removed and overall state quota remained the same, it would have been 500 in R3 and 5100 for R4-7 (what was proposed). They raised the R4-7 quota another 500 to 5600. So, now there will be 6100 total archery antelope licenses.

Then, mere minutes later, I think it was Brooks, who stated, “we need to do something to alleviate pressure.”

 

[Gerald Martin]

Cebull wanted to bump the antelope tags up. Thanks for making that drive

Thanks for clarifying it was Cebull not Burrows. It was a long day…

 

[Gerald Martin]

I havent finished watching some of the meeting but it was encouraging to see Commissioner Robinson turn to Wargo and essentially encourage him to keep working on his elk proposal. As frustrating as this process was, it was refreshing to see some positive change get through.

Thanks Gerald for your efforts. Good job remembering to state your name

The commission was kicking butt and taking names. I couldn’t even remember to say mine in my haste to speak about the butt kicking.

 

[El Jason]

The fact that commissioners aren’t allowed to discuss amendments and proposals among themselves before the meeting to ensure they understand the amendments made it really clumsy today. I could see multiple Commissioners were confused about Wargo’s elk amendment.

While this makes it clumsy, it also is meant to increase transparency by prohibiting closed door discussions about commission rules. Any discussions and/or debates need to take place in a public forum.

 

[cgasner1]

Antelope tags did end up increasing. If R3 was removed and overall state quota remained the same, it would have been 500 in R3 and 5100 for R4-7 (what was proposed). They raised the R4-7 quota another 500 to 5600. So, now there will be 6100 total archery antelope licenses.

Then, mere minutes later, I think it was Brooks, who stated, “we need to do something to alleviate pressure.”

It seemed to me like the 500 new tags that got created would have pulled enough pressure of the 900 draw that every resident could have the opportunity. I don’t think they needed to add anymore than the tags already created for region 3

 

[DFS]

It seemed to me like the 500 new tags that got created would have pulled enough pressure of the 900 draw that every resident could have the opportunity. I don’t think they needed to add anymore than the tags already created for region 3

You are probably still going to get yours.

 

[cgasner1]

You are probably still going to get yours.

I don’t apply for that tag due to not having any free time for the start of season.

 

[bigsky2]

I couldn’t believe it when Cebull was asking to increase the 900 antelope quota literally in the same meeting that they were voting to remove region 3 from the 900 due to excessive archery harvest.

 

[WanderWoman]

It seemed to me like the 500 new tags that got created would have pulled enough pressure of the 900 draw that every resident could have the opportunity. I don’t think they needed to add anymore than the tags already created for region 3

Yep, that was the goal, to maximize the likelihood of 100% resident draw success.

For those whom it’s important to draw this license every year, it represents a success. For those who don’t think opportunity should continually increase to meet demand, not so much. This was mentioned in the meeting that it’s a little counterintuitive to make this structural change because there’s too much archery antelope pressure, then turn around and raise the quota some more.

Cebull also did this to the archery elk permits when the 900-20 was dismantled, so I can’t say I’m surprised.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Success- 2025

“Hey buddy! How did your hunting season go? Did you get your antelope, buck and bull!?”

“Nope. I didn’t kill anything all year but I was 100% in getting all my tags so I had complete success this year”

 

[cgasner1]

Yep, that was the goal, to maximize the likelihood of 100% resident draw success.

For those whom it’s important to draw this license every year, it represents a success. For those who don’t think opportunity should continually increase to meet demand, not so much. This was mentioned in the meeting that it’s a little counterintuitive to make this structural change because there’s too much archery antelope pressure, then turn around and raise the quota some more.

Cebull also did this to the archery elk permits when the 900-20 was dismantled, so I can’t say I’m surprised.

I was hoping to see a 500 tag deduction from the 900 tag. The only reason I mentioned it the way I did with opportunity is that’s the way it was said. I’m a simple guy but killing an antelope with a bow isn’t an issue the last year I had that tag it was a single stalk and one arrow on a bedded buck. After that I kinda lost interest in it

 

[Nameless Range]

The premise of “opportunity tags” is a dubious one, and it was nice to hear Commissioner Wargo and others point that out.

Archery antelope ain’t innocuous on bucks.

 

[DFS]

I know where those extra tags are headed to as well.

 

[PoleX]

Success- 2025

“Hey buddy! How did your hunting season go? Did you get your antelope, buck and bull!?”

“Nope. I didn’t kill anything all year but I was 100% in getting all my tags so I had complete success this year”

…”but I have a B tag so I’ll probably get get a cow”….”and I may still get lucky with the muzzleloader after they get pounded by 3 feet of snow.”

 

[Gerald Martin]

That’s the spirit. A true Montanan that knows how to lace em up tight and hike another ridge deeper.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Antelope tags did end up increasing. If R3 was removed and overall state quota remained the same, it would have been 500 in R3 and 5100 for R4-7 (what was proposed). They raised the R4-7 quota another 500 to 5600. So, now there will be 6100 total archery antelope licenses.

Then, mere minutes later, I think it was Brooks, who stated, “we need to do something to alleviate pressure.”

Cebull’s last minute amendment wasn’t too surprising. Noticed multiple outfitters sitting in the peanut gallery, including Paul Ellis and Troy Sams, who have been pushing for unlimited 900 antelope tags for years. If they make an extra $5,000 - $10,000 per year it’s worth making ir worse for everyone else.

 

[Nameless Range]

While this makes it clumsy, it also is meant to increase transparency by prohibiting closed door discussions about commission rules. Any discussions and/or debates need to take place in a public forum.

Somewhere in the beginning Commissioner Wargo brought up how they should be developing ideas over time together. That would make a ton of sense.

On the boards I have chaired that are subject to Montana's Open Meetings Law, if a large change is proposed to an agenda item, we typically would not vote on that item, but would put on the next month's agenda Agenda Item xxx: Decision . Because we literally have changed what was proposed to the public without providing them a period of consideration. The cadence of Commissioner Meetings is so unconducive to well thought out proposals, and I know those guys/gals are unpaid volunteers who have opinions coming at them from all directions, but a couple things could be done. 2 or 3 could meet to flesh an idea or ideas out to bring to the other 4 outside of public meetings since there is no quorum in those instances. Subcommittees not constituting a quorum are not subject to Open Meeting Laws as long as they take no official action. Or they could also simply have a planning meeting prior to this season setting meeting which would still be posted and open to the public, but no motions would be brought forth and that would be stated ahead of time.

I missed the last two hours of the meeting because I had my own public meeting to attend, and I think it could be argued it is contra to the spirit of Montana Law to vote on amendments, some of which change the whole package in a big way, prior to hearing public comment on those amendments. I understand those amendments become a part of a larger motion later in the meeting that is then voted on again, and I think that is where they would argue they've covered their requirements, but at that point: (1) oral opinion cannot be ad hoc. You've gotta register for the meeting 24 hours in advance and (2) those who wrote opinions in have not had the opportunity to provide input.

Each board must develop procedures and adopt rules to facilitate public participation in decisions that are of significant interest to the public . The procedures include a schedule of regular meeting times and agenda prepared and posted sufficiently in advance to provide notice of the topics to be discussed and actions to be considered. The public must also be afforded a reasonable opportunity to offer information and opinions, either orally or written, before final decisions are made.(2-3-103)