Montana 2026 Elk Proposal

[PoleX]

My position on this is purely based on the condition of the resource. I've always been without hesitation in favor of eliminating B doe tags in R6 and 7 and would like to see rut hunting end for MD in MT. It's obvious to me MD are struggling throughout the west and it's wild MFWP hasn't hardly changed a regulation in decades....Comparing the two seems like apples and oranges. When it comes to elk, from what I can gather about these units, the problem isn't that the elk numbers are down rather it's their behavior and the public land hunter's experience.

I think it will help slightly with the elk moving to private early, and I think it will greatly improve the experience of the special bull permit holders (which I like the idea of). I just think there's maybe better ways to accomplish it while still allowing resident hunters the opportunity at these over objective elk on public land. For instance, make the B tag only valid for shoulder season dates. If cows aren't getting blasted all regular season archery/rifle it should just improve the experience for the public land B tag hunter and the folks hunting that unit during the general dates. Or maybe increase B tags and make them 60-40 public vs private only but give the private land B tags the more liberal season dates. IDK, something like that I'd be more inclined to support.

In all honesty, do you think making this tag private land only will open up more private land opportunities in these areas? Or do you think we'll just have an additional 1-2K elk making it through another season adding to the over objective issue?

I'll go out on a limb and make the prediction that with a change like this the elk #'s will keep increasing which will cause FWP to further increase bull permits so in the end we'll just have more hunters putting even greater pressure on the same amount of public land but instead of the mix of cows/bulls it will be just bulls getting shot out.

 

[sethkuhl]

Currently in my district, a single hunter can harvest three elk legally. Private land cow tag, district wide cow permit if drawn and over the counter bull tag. If that hunter is over 75 can harvest a cow on their bull tag which would be three cows in same district. Bums me out as there are not half the elk there used to be. The good old days are gone.

 

[PoleX]

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

I agree with your statement. I also think we're very generous to non-residents and Montana natives that come back home to hunt which I think has had a much greater impact on the issues this proposal aims to address.

 

[PoleX]

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.

I like having them two elk in the freezer every year...Buzz gets to shoot like 6 every year...I've got 3 kids and a bunch of family that enjoys it.

 

[SixPoint]

This amendment could definitely have unintended consequences, especially in regard to bull harvest. You think baby bulls get creamed now, wait until brow-tined bulls are all you can pursue on a general license on public land in some districts. Hunters will still pursue elk, the focus will just shift. I don’t foresee private land doors suddenly being flung open because that’s the only place a cow can be harvested. Thoughtful landowners that are trying to be a part of the solution are already allowing access. This could also hamstring landowners who have been working with public hunters that can show up annually with their general license and shoot a cow. These vetted hunters will then have to draw a b tag or permit. Folks who’ve made an effort to develop a relationship with a landowner may not be drawn and I could foresee cases where fewer cow elk will be getting harvested due to landowners not connecting to the hunters who have drawn the appropriate license/ permit.

I agree with the sentiment of over objective units and wanting to focus harvest on elk on private that need the reductions, but taking a broad state wide approach seems shortsighted. It is particularly frustrating that this new amendment process lacks any vetting or real public comment periods. Most hunters in our state will be clueless this is even a thing until it gets implemented and they buy their tags next fall and are going to be pissed.

Lastly, look through the regs, there are already a lot of b tags that are restricted to certain landownership’s in an effort to target the elk herds causing the issues. The department is already heading in this direction but at a unit by unit basis.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I like having them two elk in the freezer every year...Buzz gets to shoot like 6 every year...I've got 3 kids and a bunch of family that enjoys it.

Great. Shoot the second one on private.

 

[MTLabrador]

The biggest issue that this amendment fixes is for the OTC unlimited B tags, which are some of the few licenses that have no caps for nonresidents. That absolutely has an impact on hunting pressure.

There is still ample opportunity for residents to kill a cow on a general tag in many places in the state. There’s absolutely no need to move that pressure onto national forest, especially when the entire point of these B tags is to target over objective elk on private lands.

 

[Rack Daniels]

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.

Wasnt expecting that from you lol

 

[PoleX]

Great. Shoot the second one on private.

Good luck with the proposal.

 

[Big Fin]

For those who commented that this seems like a last minute deal by the Commissioner, I can see why it is viewed that way. I worked with this Commissioner since he started this proposal, so I know the timeline. He and I have talked regularly on his proposal.

Suffice to say, FWP in Helena knew of this almost three months ago. Helena staff was asked for input to make it specific and address concerns that bios, legal, and licensing might have. The request was made for FWP input to make it as flexible as possible and not a one-size-fits-all-units approach.

Protocol is to run everything through FWP in Helena, not bios or Region offices. Crickets out of FWP in Helena. No reply and no feedback.

Maybe I’ve grown cynical after years of trying to create change, only to have ideas get stonewalled when they get to Helena FWP. I don’t like saying this, but I’ve come to the conclusion that some in Helena FWP leadership use the “run out the clock” tactic on proposals they don’t agree with or that they think might be controversial.

With no FWP feedback out of Helena, what’s a Commissioner or Legislator to do? All they can do is give it their best shot and hope FWP eventually gives feedback that results in a better proposal.

The reason this was dated October 22 was waiting on Helena for replies. With no response, the only options were 1) status quo or 2) put it out as an amendment knowing it didn’t have FWP feedback. Hardly a way to run an agency.

And to hear that bios are only hearing about it today, when the idea is almost three months old and was officially submitted to Helena five weeks ago is not the fault of the bios or the Commissioner. That’s a FWP problem in Helena HQ.

I’m glad this Commissioner decided to push forward with this, even with FWP ignoring his requests for feedback and input. I have had phone calls and personal meetings with multiple Commissioners in the last year. Delays in Helena are not isolated to this single amendment.

I hope some of the other Commissioners submit their other amendments this week. It won’t allow much time for vetting those proposals, and given how big some of those changes might be those might have to be tabled for a future meeting. I hope doing so will be a way forward on these bigger challenges that doesn’t allow “institutional inertia” to run out the clock on ideas that might come with some discomfort.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I submitted an email and commented in support.

Insane to think there are "unlimited" b tags, seemingly not a lot of BMAs are even open for it and private access (driven by an endless supply of NR) in the unlimited B districts is mostly pay to play.

As far as enforcement, i feel that its too commonly used as an excuse to not change policy. The whole basis of hunting regulations is based on honor and most of it is hard or near impossible to enforce. I.e. legal shooting light, LE areas, etc

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

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.

Genuinely curious how you hunt 7 units in 10 days.

 

[cgasner1]

For those who commented that this seems like a last minute deal by the Commissioner, I can see why it is viewed that way. I worked with this Commissioner since he started this proposal, so I know the timeline. He and I have talked regularly on his proposal.

Suffice to say, FWP in Helena knew of this almost three months ago. Helena staff was asked for input to make it specific and address concerns that bios, legal, and licensing might have. The request was made for FWP input to make it as flexible as possible and not a one-size-fits-all-units approach.

Protocol is to run everything through FWP in Helena, not bios or Region offices. Crickets out of FWP in Helena. No reply and no feedback.

Maybe I’ve grown cynical after years of trying to create change, only to have ideas get stonewalled when they get to Helena FWP. I don’t like saying this, but I’ve come to the conclusion that some in Helena FWP leadership use the “run out the clock” tactic on proposals they don’t agree with or that they think might be controversial.

With no FWP feedback out of Helena, what’s a Commissioner or Legislator to do? All they can do is give it their best shot and hope FWP eventually gives feedback that results in a better proposal.

The reason this was dated October 22 was waiting on Helena for replies. With no response, the only options were 1) status quo or 2) put it out as an amendment knowing it didn’t have FWP feedback. Hardly a way to run an agency.

And to hear that bios are only hearing about it today, when the idea is almost three months old and was officially submitted to Helena five weeks ago is not the fault of the bios or the Commissioner. That’s a FWP problem in Helena HQ.

I’m glad this Commissioner decided to push forward with this, even with FWP ignoring his requests for feedback and input. I have had phone calls and personal meetings with multiple Commissioners in the last year. Delays in Helena are not isolated to this single amendment.

I hope some of the other Commissioners submit their other amendments this week. It won’t allow much time for vetting those proposals, and given how big some of those changes might be those might have to be tabled for a future meeting. I hope doing so will be a way forward on these bigger challenges that doesn’t allow “institutional inertia” to run out the clock on ideas that might come with some discomfort.

He told me this was coming a month ago when I was talking to him about some other things. Maybe people need to get more involved. My only issue with it is being more blanket management. Some units are draw for any elk tag other than on private. How can we expect Fwp to hold elk at a certain number if they don’t know if I’ll be filling my b tag till after I’m done archery hunting. I always assumed the b tags are issued to help keep numbers at objective. I really appreciate the fact that this commissioner is willing to make a run at something. He also seemed willing to listen.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Great. Shoot the second one on private.

Great! Get a bunch of private landowners to fling their doors open! This is already the problem. Once again, helping outfitters’ clients kill mo’ elk while the public gets the shaft.

Booooooooo

 

[cgasner1]

Great! Get a bunch of private landowners to fling their doors open! This is already the problem. Once again, helping outfitters’ clients kill mo’ elk while the public gets the shaft.

Booooooooo

You have apparently never talked with Ian that’s a pretty ignorant statement about him. I guarantee that is the last thing he is trying to do is help outfittters