Montana 2026 Elk Proposal

[Big Fin]

Most have seen the 2026 season setting proposals that have been put out for the FWP Commission meeting on December 4th. There is one elk-specific proposal that I hope folks find useful. It has to do with changes to units where elk are over objective and making some of the Elk B tags "Private Land Only," while still offering some Elk cow "Permits" available for public land hunting, which addresses those hunters who just want to hunt a cow elk.

We changed cow elk tags from a "Permt" draw system to an Elk B license about 20 years ago. The idea was that if access to tags was why we weren't killing enough elk to satisfy landowner tolerance, Elk B licenses would remove that tag constriction. The Elk B license idea failed to account for the immense amount of pressure it would add to public land cow elk hunting, which contributed to more elk being pushed to private land and the cow elk remaining on public land (the elk that weren't the problem) dying of lead poisoning. It also failed to account for how many non-residents would take advantage of this opportunity and add even more hunting pressure to the public lands.

I have been pushing the idea of reforming our cow elk system for eight years. To date, the Department has resisted, for reasons not well-explained of not explained at all. I suspect "institutional inertia" and fear of upsetting someone might create hesitancy to rock the boat.

Region 1 Commissioner, Ian Wargo, and I talked about this issue six years ago when he first read one of my proposals. At the time, he was not a Commissioner, rather a public land hunter who is passionate about chasing elk. Now that he is on the Commission, he is trying to address the issue of elk distribution and "shooting the wrong elk." He and I have talked about this issue for years and I think he is at a good starting point and he is open to adjustments that are helpful in the end goal - redistribute elk to where hunters are and not kill that few cow elk where the hunter pressure is most intense.

Commissioner Wargo has proposed an amendment to move the cow elk hunting pressure in some units to private land, which is where the complaints of too many elk persist. I asked him what the Department's response was to his proposal, knowing the Commissioners always seek FWP input on proposals to make sure they are biologically sound and not against some FWP policy. From what I gather, the Department has not responded to his amendment. When he and I talked about this in September, he told me he was submitting his proposal that week. To not have the Department's response or input this close to the Commission meeting is not good.

Many of us had supported the same change to antlerless deer tags in Regions 6 & 7, something that passed last year. That was against years of Department resistance. To date, I've not heard any complaints, other than from some non-residents who have complained that they weren't coming out this year because they didn't have private access to shoot does. Nobody has been able to explain to me why we can't do the same for cow elk in units where the problem is too many elk on private land and excess pressure on public land that further pushes elk to private land.

If you would like to see this change, or something similar to it, I'd ask that you email your Commissioner. I will provide the emails below. If you know your Commissioner, a phone call would be even more effective.

Commissioner Wargo has vetted this among a lot of public over the last few months. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. I worry that the Department is hoping to run out the clock by not providing their analysis to the proposal, and in doing this will not be part of the 2026 season structure.

I have attached the proposal as a PDF file to this post for you to read. It includes the current proposal and the justification for such.

If you can attend the meeting or chime in via Zoom, that would be great. At a minimum, if you support this change, please email your Commissioner(s). Given the Department has not supported or opposed this proposal, it is going to take the Commission forcing the Department to take action.


Region 1 - [email protected] (Ian Wargo)
Region 2 - [email protected] (Jeff Burrows)
Region 3 - [email protected] (Susan Kirby Brooke)
Region 4 - [email protected] (K.C. Walsh)
Region 5 - [email protected] (Brian Cebull)
Region 6 - [email protected] (Lesley Robinson, Commission Chair)
Region 7 - [email protected] (William Lane)

Commission Meeting Agenda and link to register to comment via Zoom - https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/commission/december-2025-meeting

 

[Nameless Range]

Commissioner Wargo is a great advocate for they types of hunters disproportionately represented on this site.

I like this aspect of his motion: “Only valid on private land” or “Valid outside National Forest Boundary and Not Valid on FWP WMAs or BLM Lands”. Over the years in the over-objective (or not) districts where reducing cow numbers was the goal, the districts I am familiar with would just limit take to off USFS lands. This doesn't work in a lot of geographies because so much BLM land is on offer, elk are still pressured to private, and that is what I see happening locally. The current proposal for the district I call home for 2026-27 is to make cow harvest available on a general tag off USFS lands, and I am dreading it for both reasons related to elk and the fact that the few remaining deer chiefly occupy BLM/Private.

Also in the district in which I live, for the last few years a person who drew a B license could kill a cow on all accessible lands within the district, and then go kill a bull using their general license in the same district. This not only exacerbates pressure on public lands, but limits opportunities for those with a general elk license because the individual with a cow permit may as well also shoot the first bull they see. His stated goal of modifying "elk opportunity to generally limit the harvest of elk on public land to 1 per person per year", is also a good one in my mind.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I am specifically concerned with the area where I live. I *think* the way the regs are currently written for 390/391 are as about as good as they can get in regards to this issue. I seem to remember a time when the 397 tag (maybe it was a different number back then) was "only valid on private land." There is a good amount of State and BLM lands away from the "mountains" in these regions that sort of make this a silly/frustrating wording. They eventually changed the wording to "Not valid on National Forest lands." I think this is most appropriate for these regions.

I am just not as familiar you are with the intent here as the wording I'm reading I could see this getting screwed up again and I have little trust left to give benefit of doubt at this point in my life.

This is what it reads and what I am asking for clarification on:

"Take all Elk B Licenses and modify valid land use under “Opportunity Specific Details and/or Restrictions” to read: “Only valid on private land” or “Valid outside National Forest Boundary and Not Valid on FWP WMAs or BLM Lands” or variations based on HD specific land composition to not include large tracts of public land."

I would think this part I bolded means they will leave these regions as-is but was curious if you could offer clarification. If they are leaving those two regions alone I can write in and give testimony as to why this works (although I still think there are too few elk on the national forest in those regions), but I recognize the toughness of the nut to crack, especially in 390 where the majority the elk reside on CA & Turners nearly year round. I can e-mail Ian to clarify as well but thought would ask here first in case it's already been discussed. Further, like @Nameless Range stated above, there are regions where there are large tracts of BLM so the wording could be tweaked a bit perhaps "Not valid on Federally owned lands."

 

[PoleX]

I’ll go out on a limb and sound like a sniveling b*tch....I'm probably feeling sorry for myself cause I can't fill a tag.

Montana is rapidly becoming a private land state and it’s because we are prioritizing opportunity for everyone but the public land, resident hunter.

I like the intent of this proposal but I think we are getting too comfortable asking the resident public land hunter to continue to give up opportunity rather than address the root cause of the issue which is FWP continuing to give out too many tags to NR, Come back home hunters, ect. in the name of opportunity. Also having such liberal season dates is a big factor in elk harboring on private. This seems like a band aid.

 

[sjl2012]

the root cause of the issue which is FWP continuing to give out too many tags to NR, Come back home hunters, ect. in the name of opportunity.

As a non resident that spent 10 days during archery season hunting elk on a general tag, this wasn't my experience. We only ran into two other non resident pairs of hunters in the 7 units we hunted over those 10 days. Most of the places we left were because there were resident villages established on the sides of roads or in a couple of cases the camper was parked blocking the road. I would agree 100% that the Montana resident is getting shafted on the general elk tag on public lands but well over 99% of the hunting pressure I saw was from vehicles with Montana plates, whether they were riding roads grouse hunting, elk hunting, or deer hunting I don't know, but they were there in full force day after day.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I’ll go out on a limb and sound like a sniveling b*tch....I'm probably feeling sorry for myself cause I can't fill a tag.

Montana is rapidly becoming a private land state and it’s because we are prioritizing opportunity for everyone but the public land, resident hunter.

I like the intent of this proposal but I think we are getting too comfortable asking the resident public land hunter to continue to give up opportunity rather than address the root cause of the issue which is FWP continuing to give out too many tags to NR, Come back home hunters, ect. in the name of opportunity. Also having such liberal season dates is a big factor in elk harboring on private. This seems like a band aid.

I feel your frustration and don't disagree with reducing NR tags to the advertised 17k number.

However, I think the liberal season dates has little to do with the elk harboring on private (at least in 390/391 in regards to the "late" formerly "shoulder" season). Those elk are going to be on private nearly (or completely) all of the general seasons. I do not have the answer as to why but I would suspect habitat is a large reason. They have everything they need there. It often isn't until December or January until one day I look out my back window and suddenly there are 500-1k elk on the landscape. Generally in 1-4 groups/herds. Where are these elk now? Completely inaccessible to the public. Some years we get early weather and they will come down/onto accessible public/BMA lands during the general season but that's few and far between and in the 10 seasons I've lived there now I would say well under less than half the years they do. My opinion is a bit short-sighted because I don't have experience with the area before the shoulder seasons so maybe there was a time things were drastically different in regards to elk distribution in these units.

We must also be careful to not take for granted the private lands and demonize them and their landowners, as frustrating as it is at times. The reason we have the elk we have in most of the state (even if they are largely inaccessible to public land hunters at times) is largely because of those private lands. What landowners deserve or don't deserve in return is constantly debated on here.

I generally do not see this as giving up opportunity rather an attempt to transfer opportunity into the future on USFS lands. I don't think it works quite as simply or well as the proposal states but makes about the most sense given the current state of affairs, I'm not sure what else we can ask/hope for?

If you don't fill your elk tag lmk, I'm happy to help a fellow Buckeye fan whenever the elk do show up as it's looking like this will be another unsuccessful general season for me as well, just Sayin (pun intended).

 

[Fire_9]

I would love to see an amendment brought forth that eliminated all bull hunting until herd numbers were at objective. All of this nonsense would go away if they made that change.

 

[MTLabrador]

Thanks for sharing this Randy, the shift to B tags valid on national forest has been a huge problem, especially in region 4 and region 5 where anyone can buy an over the counter B tag.

I hunt areas where those B tags are valid on national forest and areas where they aren’t, and there’s a noticeable difference in the amount of pressure. This would be a step in the right direction.

 

[El Jason]

I do not have the answer as to why but I would suspect habitat is a large reason.

The best elk habitat in Montana is three strands of barbed wire.

 

[PoleX]

However, I think the liberal season dates has little to do with the elk harboring on private (at least in 390/391 in regards to the "late" formerly "shoulder" season). Those elk are going to be on private nearly (or completely) all of the general seasons. I do not have the answer as to why but I would suspect habitat is a large reason. They have everything they need there. It often isn't until December or January until one day I look out my back window and suddenly there are 500-1k elk on the landscape. Generally in 1-4 groups/herds. Where are these elk now? Completely inaccessible to the public. Some years we get early weather and they will come down/onto accessible public/BMA lands during the general season but that's few and far between and in the 10 seasons I've lived there now I would say well under less than half the years they do. My opinion is a bit short-sighted because I don't have experience with the area before the shoulder seasons so maybe there was a time things were drastically different in regards to elk distribution in these units.

We must also be careful to not take for granted the private lands and demonize them and their landowners, as frustrating as it is at times. The reason we have the elk we have in most of the state (even if they are largely inaccessible to public land hunters at times) is largely because of those private lands. What landowners deserve or don't deserve in return is constantly debated on here.

I had no intention of demonizing landowners. I would imagine if a landowner is concerned with elk harboring on their property, they are already doing something about it. In R3 for example, there are a decent number of places that allow people to hunt for fair price and kill a cow late in the year. I think that’s a reasonable win/win solution for people looking for an easy and cost-effective way to get an elk in the freezer while thinning out elk on private. We all know if your hunting archery-rifle and holding out for a mature bull in Montana there’s usually nothing cost effective about that pursuit. Paying 150-200 to shoot a cow on private and give your kid a fun experience is nothing IMO.

As far as elk harboring, I’m not sure if it’s more of a pressure thing or season length issue but I’ve noticed elk moving to private earlier and they may return for the opener of rifle, but you better get lucky as they won’t be there long. I’d imagine it’s more of a pressure thing then season length, but the combo isn’t helping anything. Ask the R3 biologist, she'll tell you the elk are doing it earlier and earlier.

There is plenty of great habitat on public and it’s obvious the elk like it there as they are easy to find on public late August.

If you don't fill your elk tag lmk, I'm happy to help a fellow Buckeye fan whenever the elk do show up as it's looking like this will be another unsuccessful general season for me as well, just Sayin (pun intended).

I'll say this about Montana hunting, if there is one hunt I can reliability fill a freezer every year as a resident: it's a late cow hunt. I’ve killed them on all the above (WMA’s, BMA’s, BLM and accessible State lands). If this went into effect in the regions I'm familiar with it would reduce opportunity for the public land hunter and concentrate the pressure to the few, already over hunted type 1 BMA’s. Meanwhile the elk are still harboring on private land that is unaccusable to the public.

 

[WanderWoman]

I appreciate the intent behind this proposal and agree that for over-objective HDs, inundating an area with general/B opportunity isn’t working. And full disclosure, I love hunting cows on public land.

I don’t think a broad, statewide approach is the answer. However, if you were to do it in some HDs, you might get more pressure in others (similar to concerns with going LE in some deer districts).

A few(?) years back we had the 900-00 B tags only valid on private land outside of BMAs. Those didn’t last because they were not effective (like single-digit harvest in some districts, even the Snowies if I remember right). Granted, it might be different if that’s the only option. Another example is in 410, when the 410-02 initially came out it was only valid on private/DNRC (maybe just private I can’t remember). It was ineffective because 410 is so checkerboarded, even including BMA, the elk were inaccessible on public (a good problem to have, but it didn’t help harvest more elk which was needed at the time).

Specific to an area like 410 where there’s still generally good access and a lot of intermixed private/BMA/public this could be disastrous. That particular example is a case of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I have personal experience with that HD but there could be others like it. Another reason a statewide approach might not be the best idea.

As far as trying to designate which public is valid and which isn’t for some B licenses, it could be a reg/enforcement nightmare. As for the regs, it’s hard enough to get people to read/understand/follow them (shouldn’t be, but that’s just how it is I guess). In areas where there’s a public island in a sea of private, there’s no way to really make sure the licenses are used correctly. And it’s not like wardens don’t already have enough on their plates this time of year!

Also, I think that it’s not going to do anything to increase Hunter numbers on private land. Those hunters who don’t have a cow permit will still hunt public, but in general areas, will only shoot bulls. Bulls could get torched, particularly in areas that are antlerless/brow-tine only, like some of the Little Belts. Even if people aren’t killing bulls, there will still be people in the woods looking for bulls, and pressure is pressure. Elk will get pushed to private. Whether it’s a direct result or not, an R7 bio noted increased buck harvest with the doe regulation change to private land only last year. There are plenty of hunters that can’t or won’t get private land access and will thus switch to whatever is valid where they hunt.

This is such a significant change it’s something that should be scoped and given more time. Biologists could look at their individual HDs and determine the pros/cons, etc. It’s bad enough that season-setting has shifted to during hunting season, which reduces public involvement, but this significant change at such a late stage just isn’t the best thing to do—esp concerning a public trust resource. If it’s the best choice, it will happen after more careful consideration and public input.

To me, if this were to go through, I see the consequences not applying as much to LE permit areas, because people can’t switch to bull harvest if they can’t shoot cows there. Who knows, maybe it could even improve the public land experience for those that draw a coveted bull permit. (Just not 410, please!) I typed this riding my horse back from gathering a pasture, so hopefully it makes sense. My fingers are numb so I’ll quit here.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think Ian’s amendment is long overdue and will help direct cow elk harvest away from over pressured public land and towards private land.

There is still ample opportunity for cow harvest on public land in units that are either-sex or antlerless/brow tine bull only. It will just require a successful hunter to use their either-sex tag on a cow. If that hunter wanted to shoot a second cow on an additional B-licenses he would have to make that harvest on private.

Ian’s amendment would eliminate the ability to shoot a public land cow on a B-license and also shoot a public land bull on the either-sex license.

I am planning to attend in person and testify in support of this amendment. I would urge anyone else who is able to attend in person to do so as well.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I had no intention of demonizing landowners. I would imagine if a landowner is concerned with elk harboring on their property, they are already doing something about it. In R3 for example, there are a decent number of places that allow people to hunt for fair price and kill a cow late in the year. I think that’s a reasonable win/win solution for people looking for an easy and cost-effective way to get an elk in the freezer while thinning out elk on private. We all know if your hunting archery-rifle and holding out for a mature bull in Montana there’s usually nothing cost effective about that pursuit. Paying 150-200 to shoot a cow on private and give your kid a fun experience is nothing IMO.

As far as elk harboring, I’m not sure if it’s more of a pressure thing or season length issue but I’ve noticed elk moving to private earlier and they may return for the opener of rifle, but you better get lucky as they won’t be there long. I’d imagine it’s more of a pressure thing then season length, but the combo isn’t helping anything. Ask the R3 biologist, she'll tell you the elk are doing it earlier and earlier.

There is plenty of great habitat on public and it’s obvious the elk like it there as they are easy to find on public late August.

I'll say this about Montana hunting, if there is one hunt I can reliability fill a freezer every year as a resident: it's a late cow hunt. I’ve killed them on all the above (WMA’s, BMA’s, BLM and accessible State lands). If this went into effect in the regions I'm familiar with it would reduce opportunity for the public land hunter and concentrate the pressure to the few, already over hunted type 1 BMA’s. Meanwhile the elk are still harboring on private land that is unaccusable to the public.

You can still kill a cow on public using your either-sex tag if the unit regulations allow for antlerless harvest on the either sex elk tag. You just can’t kill two or more elk on public.

 

[El Jason]

Montana is rapidly becoming a private land state and it’s because we are prioritizing opportunity for everyone but the public land, resident hunter.

I would disagree with this statement. The problems are rooted in trying to satisfy demands for public opportunities that go back over decades.

 

[WanderWoman]

I think Ian’s amendment is long overdue and will help direct cow elk harvest away from over pressured public land and towards private land.

There is still ample opportunity for cow harvest on public land in units that are either-sex or antlerless/brow tine bull only. It will just require a successful hunter to use their either-sex tag on a cow. If that hunter wanted to shoot a second cow on an additional B-licenses he would have to make that harvest on private.

Ian’s amendment would eliminate the ability to shoot a public land cow on a B-license and also shoot a public land bull on the either-sex license.

I am planning to attend in person and testify in support of this amendment. I would urge anyone else who is able to attend in person to do so as well.

Ok, the first time I read it I read it as only being able to shoot a public land cow if you have a permit. I did not see/catch where you mention eliminating the ability to shoot a public land bull; perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.

No qualms about using a general license on a cow, but my comments about hunter pressure/hunters switching to bulls if they can’t take a cow (in an instance where they don’t draw a permit) hold I still think—just something to think about.

Also, again, not all districts should only have B-license opportunity on private only, like the example I gave above.
There are some areas where a change like this could do a lot of good (particularly HDs with little public land, liberal antlerless opportunities, and LE ES permit). But a broad, statewide approach in the 11th hour of a season-setting process sells this short.

I definitely agree that a solution to harvesting the “right” elk and maintaining quality public land hunting is needed and long overdue, but I think we should tap the brakes a little.

 

[DFS]

The mindset that just because you see something you need have a tag and it needs to die needs to change. That is why private land has better quantity and quality they protect the wildlife. I can see the mindset that would oppose this though it will change from cows to bulls once it’s established. Not sure there is a great way of stopping it though.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ok, the first time I read it I read it as only being able to shoot a public land cow if you have a permit. I did not see/catch where you mention eliminating the ability to shoot a public land bull; perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.

No qualms about using a general license on a cow, but my comments about hunter pressure/hunters switching to bulls if they can’t take a cow (in an instance where they don’t draw a permit) hold I still think—just something to think about.

Also, again, not all districts should only have B-license opportunity on private only, like the example I gave above.
There are some areas where a change like this could do a lot of good (particularly HDs with little public land, liberal antlerless opportunities, and LE ES permit). But a broad, statewide approach in the 11th hour of a season-setting process sells this short.

I definitely agree that a solution to harvesting the “right” elk and maintaining quality public land hunting is needed and long overdue, but I think we should tap the brakes a little.

Most cow harvest in Region 1 and 2 during rifle season is by permit only and requires the validation of your either-sex tag as well as drawing a permit.

For example the last time I hunted Unit 121 the regulations allowed antlerless or brow tine bull during the archery season with a general tag but brow tine bull only during rifle season.

There were 25 or 50 antlerless only permits that hunters could apply for and use in conjunction with their either-sex tag to harvest a cow during the rifle season. Successful permit holders were not allowed to shoot an bull in that unit or any elk in a different unit with their either sex tag.

Unit 121 did not offer B-licenses for cows.


That type of scenario is what Ian is referring to with the cow harvest by permit language.