Montana 2026 Elk Proposal

[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.

 

[MTGomer]

We could solve a lot of this in central Montana by having a spine.

Think the elk would still be fakely overpopulated if the 411 bull tag was only valid on public land and you could buy 5 cow tags for $1 a piece on private land?

I bet the objectives would adjust to reality real fast.


I like this proposal especially for the western part of the state.
Ian is a good guy.

 

[huntin24/7]

Just got done reading some comments on Facebook about the new proposals. I never thought I’d ever see the day residents are almost unanimously voicing support for reducing their own opportunity to help herds recover. Kinda feels like the tables are turning.

 

[El Jason]

Kinda feels like the tables are turning.

Excellent. Now find a legislator who will sponsor a bill to separate the NR deer and elk tags.

 

[huntin24/7]

Excellent. Now find a legislator who will sponsor a bill to separate the NR deer and elk tags.

It sure feels like now’s the time to strike. I like to pay attention to the social media comments to see what the general consensus is. Ive never seen nearly this much support for reducing opportunity by hunters here. In the past, it’s unanimously all pro opportunity at all cost.

 

[brockel]

Stop beating around the bush with these ideas. Just shoot them from a helicopter and donate the meat to the poor MT hunters that can't afford to pay a reasonable price for a hunting tag. That is the most direct solution.

If we upped the resident prices what would the non residents have to whine about?

 

[El Jason]

If we upped the resident prices what would the non residents have to whine about?

Pretty sure the residents will make up for it.

 

[SAJ-99]

If we upped the resident prices what would the non residents have to whine about?

I would like to see you try it and we find out. I don’t see a lot of NRs whining.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Do it. If randy says go then go. I trust it.

But I have already intended on using a general tag for a cow- since archery season. Actively hunting for a cow. I’m not the only one. I know you’re not wrong about people wanting to fall back on them. Someone recently told me “they’re practically giving them away”. As a resident, there is No reason to buy a B if I can’t even fill the A though, in my opinion. So a limit to NRs and a small increase in R cost I would support.

You make the changes and we average joes will comply…

I don’t believe we are “over objective” as that is subjective and i think we should have more elk than Colorado, but i sure hope he’s right that killing the first on public will get easier— that’s all most of us care about. We NEED this long of an opportunity to kill ONE. Let alone couple.. when the people who struggle to find and kill elk on public land get more of a say, I’d feel a whole it better. Unfortunately most of us aren’t as savvy as you well polished “trophy room” types when it comes to public speaking about things we can only speculate the outcome of, with a room full of the same fuddtalk

 

[Forkyfinder]

Do it. If randy says go then go. I trust it.

Racky D - heres a summary. Dont trust me. Dont even blind trust Randy, everyones gotta make their own opinion - theres a cohort here who trust some certain names who would gladly lead them blindly off a cliff for a "buck."

The people who struggle to kill an elk have the exact same say as anyone else. I can tell you that Montanans choose to not use their voice, as evidenced by Ians comment that more comments arrived on this thread in 1 day than support in the form of emails.

If youre wondering who shows up and who makes a difference, theres like 10-15 names i ever see commenting, supporting, rejecting and half of em arent on HT. When you comment - they dont know your net worth, if youre some spoiled tool shooting raghorns on a ranch, or if youre just some forky finding prick either .

I view this as possibly the potential best change ive seen for elk hunting thats been proposed since ive started to adequately give a shit (3 ish years). If you disagree, i dont really understand, but i support you, and anyone else using their voice, enough to encourage you to send the email against it. If we go hunting - you shoot first and you can use any rifle in my safe - if you send an email.

Happy thanksgiving, buddy!

### Summary of the Proposed Amendment to Montana's 2026–2027 Elk Hunting Regulations
(Submitted by Commissioner Ian Wargo, Region 1, October 22, 2025)

#### Core Proposed Changes
1. **One Elk Per Hunter Per Year on Public Land**
- Limit total elk harvest on public land to 1 elk per person per year (bull or antlerless).
- Antlerless elk on public land would shift from the general B-license system to a limited-draw permit system (or remain on the general license only in specific HDs where a general-season harvest is deemed sustainable).

2. **Restrict All Elk B-Licenses (Antlerless Tags)**
- Make every B-license valid on private land only, or valid only “outside National Forest boundary and not on FWP WMAs or BLM lands,” etc., so that large blocks of public land are excluded.
- Exception: Holders of an either-sex or brow-tined bull permit may be offered one additional antlerless B-license that is valid only in the same area and dates as their permit (at the biologist’s discretion).
- To offset reduced public-land harvest, the department could increase the total number of B-licenses issued (all private-land focused).

3. **Expand Elimination of Antlerless Opportunity in Region 1**
- Extend the department’s proposed removal of antlerless opportunity in HDs 130 & 140 to the entire Region 1.

#### Primary Goals
- Reduce excessive hunting pressure and hunter numbers on public land (a frequent complaint from resident sportsmen).
- Improve elk distribution by pushing more elk back onto public land and directing harvest pressure toward private land where landowners report overabundant elk and damage issues.

#### Key Rationale
- The current unlimited B-license system (valid on both public and private land) is believed to be a major driver of declining elk numbers on public land and worsening distribution problems.
- Hunters (especially skilled ones) preferentially use both their bull and antlerless tags on public land when given the choice, leaving private-land elk numbers high.
- Shifting antlerless harvest to private-land-only tags or limited public-land permits is intended to reverse this trend.

#### Projected Side Effects
- Effectively eliminates ~4,000 nonresident antlerless B-tags from public land (nonresidents would need to draw both a general license and a limited antlerless permit).
- Estimated revenue loss of ~$1.1 million (roughly $7–8 increase per resident elk license if spread across all licenses).
- Many resident hunters have indicated willingness to pay slightly more to reduce nonresident pressure on public land.

In short, the amendment seeks to return Montana to a more permit-based, public-land antlerless harvest system while aggressively shifting cow elk hunting pressure to private land in order to restore elk on public land and improve overall herd distribution and hunting quality.