Montana 2026 Elk Proposal

[El Jason]

Very few poachers are caught.

You should have more brain power than disagreeing just to do it.

I never claimed to be a genius, but do carry on.

You still think I’m an outfitter?

 

[El Jason]

How would you draw two permits in one draw process?

Aren’t you allowed to apply for both the LE permit and the B tag?

 

[ispeakelk]

Hi all, Yours Truly Here. Randy provided my contact info but here it is again https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/commission/members

Food for thought, There are more posts on this thread in one day than all the direct emails I have received over the entire season setting process. If you want to see change make sure you are also engaged in the proper ways to make your opinions heard.

Opportunity to comment is now live, but do me a favor please READ the proposal. Your ability to kill your first elk on public will improve with this proposal, if you are someone who is killing two elk per year on public my ask is the second elk comes off private.

Thanks all, Happy Thanksgiving!

December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting Of The Montana Fish And Wildlife Commission | Montana FWP

December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission

fwp.mt.gov

 

[cgasner1]

Aren’t you allowed to apply for both the LE permit and the B tag?

Would be interesting if they just made those tags work like a mule deer tag if you draw that’s what you get to hunt for the season. Would help spread people out

 

[Gerald Martin]

Aren’t you allowed to apply for both the LE permit and the B tag?

Yes. Sorry, I’m working and posting at the same time.

 

[SAJ-99]

Not to derail too much, but I still hear some talking points that act as if it’s 2022 and not 2025. When we adopted our new elk plan in 2023, we went from a statewide elk population goal of 92,000 elk - which caused all sorts of consternation- to what is now a range of 96,000 - 151,000. The use of ranges (which mostly went up compared to our old plan ) within districts as opposed to hard numbers, has really alleviated the pressure the agency has to hammer elk in tons of geographies.

It’s not perfect, and there certainly are some districts still over objective, but an amendment like this is only possible because of that plan. We can finally start to at least consider serious proposals regarding the distribution of elk and elk pressure, as opposed to just trying to bring raw numbers down.

You highlight the core problem- managing to “socially acceptable” levels. It’s undefinable, not scientific determined, and subject to change based on changes to demographics. The whole idea of trying to set rules in a unit, region or statewide, to change how elk behave across the landscape is a little crazy.

 

[El Jason]

Yes. Sorry, I’m working and posting at the same time.

You can join the low brain power club with yours truly.

 

[Nameless Range]

You highlight the core problem- managing to “socially acceptable” levels. It’s undefinable, not scientific determined, and subject to change based on changes to demographics. The whole idea of trying to set rules in a unit, region or statewide, to change how elk behave across the landscape is a little crazy.

I mean, I agree, but I don’t know any other way you would do it. We sort of defined the goal of those very sometimes unscientific things in the elk plan and in my opinion got a huge improvement with some very important historic sticking points.

One reason I would like to see this amendment go through, is so we can observe whether it does a damn thing at all. I acknowledge that that’s always a scary risk with FWP - because in recent memory, we can look at things that were theoretically temporary and for testing and see how they are basically foundational to hunting in Montana now(shoulder seasons).

In the hunting district I live in(335) and have for 35 of my 41 years, the others in the area I hunt, this amendment is a prescription in the direction of what’s needed in my opinion.

 

[DFS]

Hi all, Yours Truly Here. Randy provided my contact info but here it is again https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/commission/members

Food for thought, There are more posts on this thread in one day than all the direct emails I have received over the entire season setting process. If you want to see change make sure you are also engaged in the proper ways to make your opinions heard.

Opportunity to comment is now live, but do me a favor please READ the proposal. Your ability to kill your first elk on public will improve with this proposal, if you are someone who is killing two elk per year on public my ask is the second elk comes off private.

Thanks all, Happy Thanksgiving!

December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting Of The Montana Fish And Wildlife Commission | Montana FWP

December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission

fwp.mt.gov

Is the online system an acceptable way to make comments or are emails better? Not specific to this proposal just in general

 

[Gerald Martin]

You can join the low brain power club with yours truly.

At least I’m not an outfitter…

 

[SAJ-99]

I mean, I agree, but I don’t know any other way you would do it. We sort of defined the goal of those very sometimes unscientific things in the elk plan and in my opinion got a huge improvement with some very important historic sticking points.

One reason I would like to see this amendment go through, is so we can observe whether it does a damn thing at all. I acknowledge that that’s always a scary risk with FWP - because in recent memory, we can look at things that were theoretically temporary and for testing and see how they are basically foundational to hunting in Montana now(shoulder seasons).

In the hunting district I live in(335) and have for 35 of my 41 years, the others in the area I hunt, this amendment is a prescription in the direction of what’s needed in my opinion.

If I still lived in MT I would support this as well, but wouldn't bet on it fixing anything. I would be for it because it would reduce NR licenses by 4000 and add $8 to R license. That would be a positive.

But the idea itself has holes. Case in point, the comment
"Your ability to kill your first elk on public will improve with this proposal,..."

The author states in the proposal,
"With the current licensing system it is difficult to determine how many of those B-Tags were used on public land,"

So there is no way to know what impact this has/will have because the thing targeted for change isn't even measured. Then you start down the rabbit hole. I guess making a change and claiming success seems to be a preferred political plan these days.

Every time I see these ideas I drift toward @Treeshark in wondering if LO transferrable B tags would be a bigger step toward the preferred result. I threw up a little when I typed that

 

[Treeshark]

Every time I see these ideas I drift toward @Treeshark in wondering if LO transferrable B tags would be a bigger step toward the preferred result.

I’ve been staying out of this one intentionally, but since you summoned me…

It’s kind of entertaining watching this continue to be over-complicated on here. Some of these guys could mess up a wet dream.

 

[PoleX]

The whole idea of trying to set rules in a unit, region or statewide, to change how elk behave across the landscape is a little crazy.

Exactly, A lot of the B tags were created for this exact reason. We aren’t changing the elk behavior. Year after year they ball up in winter ranges comprised of checkerboard WMA’s, BLM, Private and Block management. You’re not touching them on public during the general as they’re all on private, being pressured onto private or haven’t migrated into the area yet. This won’t change any of that behavior. Only difference is if it’s a second tag you have to wait for them to be on a BMA. Not a big deal but its definitely not a magic bullet that will move the needle on these issues (IMO).

Last comment and I’m out on this one. I really like the permit portion of the proposal. I do think we can try and distribute pressure by making people commit to high success rate cow hunts in the regular draw through these additional permits. I could see a lot of youth and meat hunters stuck hunting general units because they typically apply for 380 and 410 permits every year switching to these type of high success rate cow hunts.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Every time I see these ideas I drift toward @Treeshark in wondering if LO transferrable B tags would be a bigger step toward the preferred result. I threw up a little when I typed that

Functionally - whats the difference if the tags are unlimited?

At least I’m not an outfitter…

Just a simp for em.

 

[Treeshark]

whats the difference if the tags are unlimited?

Access.

 

[SAJ-99]

Functionally - whats the difference if the tags are unlimited?

You could certainly put a limit on them, but
1) you would figure out what the true market price of an cow elk tag is, and maybe even the price of access.
2) Bios could stop managing to "socially acceptable" population levels, which is just a made-up thing anyway.
3) When the LO comes complaining you can tell them to STFU and cash the check. per the proposal "many landowners have reported overabundant elk populations and the resulting impacts on crops, fencing, and property."

There has been a long list of ideas created to address the concerns in #3- BM program, Game Damage hunts, shoulder seasons. Some more effective than others. This is just added to the list. The complaints won't stop. Elk are on crops because they are the best feed (I have argued that to get elk on public land, install a pivot and alfalfa). They damage fences because many ranchers can't or won't install a smooth top wire to help (fixable problem with volunteers). And I have no idea what "property damage" is other than those that won't leave the suburbs and keep eating petunias.

 

[cgasner1]

Seems to me like it would probably be way easier and more effective to just add right here where I highlighted “must be used with a general elk license” just like the bull tags on any tag that you don’t want people killing more than one on public. Then leave it to the bios to sort it out.

 

[Fire_9]

From my understanding if a guy pulls 410-21 he would need to burn his general elk tag with it when he harvested. But if he had also drawn 410-00 he is now no longer able to legally fill that tag because it would also require to punch your general. I don’t hunt this unit but I also believe that if you draw the 410-00 tag you are allowed to shoot 2 cows and one being tagged with your general elk tag. If I have this wrong please inform me. On the phone Ian told me 1 elk on public that’s it.View attachment 394033

If you drew 410-21 you can kill a bull or cow with your general tag. If you also drew 410-00, 410-01, or 410-02, you can kill a second elk on public. I don't see anything in there that mentions it cannot be on public. There's just no shoulder season

 

[rogerthat]

This is definitely the best most well thought amendment I have seen put together under this new process. Kudos to all involved. I will be voicing my support. It’s great to see something proposed to try to address the quality of the hunt on public lands. Long overdue.

 

[golfer]

From my understanding if a guy pulls 410-21 he would need to burn his general elk tag with it when he harvested. But if he had also drawn 410-00 he is now no longer able to legally fill that tag because it would also require to punch your general. I don’t hunt this unit but I also believe that if you draw the 410-00 tag you are allowed to shoot 2 cows and one being tagged with your general elk tag. If I have this wrong please inform me. On the phone Ian told me 1 elk on public that’s it.View attachment 394033

The 2 for 1 is no more.