The 2 for 1 is no more.
Montana 2026 Elk Proposal
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
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.
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
Excellent. Now find a legislator who will sponsor a bill to separate the NR deer and elk tags.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
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.
If we upped the resident prices what would the non residents have to whine about?
El Jason
Well-known member
Pretty sure the residents will make up for it.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I would like to see you try it and we find out. I don’t see a lot of NRs whining.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
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
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,941
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.
Would that impact BMA funding?
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,560
I remember awhile back someone told me that the statistics for a successful elk hunter in Montana are somewhere around 11% for the first elk and 3% for the second. Does make me wonder how much pressure is added between those numbers. I went to bed happy thinking our commission is putting some serious thought and effort into making a positive change.
Emailed my support to my commissioner and will continue to be vocal in my circles. This is a win-win for public land hunters and conservationists in Montana.
Shout-out to Big Fin and HT for amplifying the proposal, and it’s important to highlight the positive impact of a forum in this case.
Forums and threads can quickly devolve into hellscapes of unproductive hearsay and negativity, but I might have skimmed over an FWP email about this proposal if not for seeing Big Fin’s post. Now, real action is being taken (my commissioner already responded to my email), and I believe this is the kind of acute, high quality change that hunters and pro-active officials like Ian can make.
Boost up the positive!
Shout-out to Big Fin and HT for amplifying the proposal, and it’s important to highlight the positive impact of a forum in this case.
Forums and threads can quickly devolve into hellscapes of unproductive hearsay and negativity, but I might have skimmed over an FWP email about this proposal if not for seeing Big Fin’s post. Now, real action is being taken (my commissioner already responded to my email), and I believe this is the kind of acute, high quality change that hunters and pro-active officials like Ian can make.
Boost up the positive!
WanderWoman
Well-known member
This was kinda answered but I’ll clarify. 410-21/410-20 are ES permits that require punching a general tag. 410 B tags are currently additional tags (like you’d buy a 004, but instead you apply for one of these), but under this proposal would become permits. You’d have to decide whether to apply for archery/rifle permit or a cow permit in 410 as there is no general/004 opportunity there (for good reason—all the BMA/public would make it crazy busy).
From 2020-2023, holders of the 410-02 could harvest a second antlerless elk with their general tag. This was also when there was a late shoulder for 410-02 holders only. Both were eliminated in 2024 because 410 elk were at (old) objective and now under (new) objective.
410-02 initially came out in 2018(?) as private land only, but was ineffective because it’s so checkerboarded. FWP tried a different approach and made it valid south of Crooked Creek as that area has more checkerboarded private land/more elk. Then, the 410-00 was still valid district-wide (to include the northern portion that is mostly public/BMA) with a lower quota. The goal was to facilitate more harvest where needed, but also preserve a good public land hunting opportunity for a limited number of people (like 50-100). This also came about after many, many meetings with landowners and locals who are likely unaware of this new proposal. In a sense, this is Ian’s proposal already but tailored to the on-the-ground/local circumstances.
417 is managed similarly, 417-00 valid district-wide but the 004-00/general license are valid south of Knox Ridge/DY with a late shoulder still in place on the south end.
Similar objectives of maintaining a quality public land hunting opportunity where possible but providing landowners ample ability to manage elk as they see fit. Less effective in 417 because, well, it’s 417 (but at least the BLM lands north aren’t inundated with general/004 holders) but seemingly effective (so far) in 410.
Montana is very diverse. I hope if this goes through, the powers that be would leave a little bit more room and time for the folks that live/work in these areas to figure out how to implement these—in some places, that might mean adjustments to 004/general definitions but that’s it, in others, it might be bringing back single-HD tags where there’s no USFS, but it still limits DNRC/BLM pressure.
Outside of central MT HDs my familiarity is with the Little Belts. The USFS hunting was great there before the shoulder seasons. It was one of the first places they were implemented and it put a blazing neon sign on White Sulphur area. As it’s the first place coming from the east where an NR can shoot a bull on a general license, plus the highlights in cow hunting with the shoulder season and now unlimited accessibility of 004, I don’t think it’s ever going to go back to the good old days there. Cows are already valid on general so ‘part A’ of this proposal doesn’t do anything for USFS hunting. My concerns about bulls (particularly BT) on public land remain if cow opportunity goes to permits there (that second sub-bullet or however you want to describe it).
There’s so much nuance based on the area we’re looking at. I hope if this goes through the flexibility and time to implement where it might make a positive difference and hold off where it won’t is granted (and left up to biologists’/local discretion—which also means a little more time between Dec 4 commission and when regs need to be printed for 2026).
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,560
Thanks for the response I’m 100% for the change and see his goal with it. I’m just very against blanketing the state in another policy. I want to see the power handed over to the bios and let them run their regions how they see fit. It seems to me the easiest way to accomplish what the goal is with this would just change the description in the reg book for the B tags to require the use of a general elk license. The same as the was our l/e bull permits work.
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 235
These are my sentiments exactly. There's so much nuance to so many units across the state so that making such a sweeping change will undo a lot of work that has gone into managing some of these places. I'm generally in support of this proposal for SOME areas where it makes sense, but there are many areas where it doesn't. Many areas in western Montana already have private land only B-licenses, and there's history where antlerless permits were tried and failed and/or resulted in a decline in antlerless harvest where it was sorely needed.
IIRC, management required regions to get rid of antlerless permits as part of the "regs simplification" thing a few years back. And that pissed me off too, because again, it was a sweeping change meant to fix some places but screwed up others. Both management and the commission keep trying to apply their ideas across too varied a landscape, as if every region has the same problems. They don't. Both Helena and the commission need to back the hell off and give some decision-making back to the regions.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
That could work provided there’s flexibility to attach a B tag to general license without making it a ‘permit.’ Functionally they’d have the same definition. I’m not familiar with the legalese of all that though and if it’s possible—commission vs. legislative authority. I assume commission, unless I’m missing something.
However, in that scenario, a successful 410-21 archery hunter could not harvest both a bull and a cow in 410, whether it be with the 410-01 archery license or later with a rifle B license in the general season. With a limited quota (by design), that may significantly limit the number of hunters in the field (how many archery permit holders tag out and then won’t be in the field for rifle season as a result)? If someone shoots an elk in 410 during archery, I’d be willing to bet their success rate is pretty good on the rifle cow tag if they also hold and come back for that.
Then of course you might be able to add in the 2nd antlerless elk for permit holders, but it gets very complex and difficult to enforce or account for how many cow hunters you’ll have afield (i.e., instead of 1000 ES permit holders and 300 B holders for archery, do you still have that, or with the 1000 ES permit holders how many could take a 2nd elk in addition to the 300 B holders? Or are the 300 B tags only limited to whichever of the 1000 ES permit holders that draw it? Archery is kind of an extreme example given low success rates, and not many people take a second elk anyway, but it could really throw off rifle management and predicting success rates/quotas.
I could see FWP having to add additional B/2nd antlerless tags to the regs for 410 and possibly other HDs to maintain antlerless opportunities or management while fulfilling this proposed change on a statewide level.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,560
My thought on adding it to the side would be how things are ran in 4 wouldn’t change but in region 3 you could add must use general elk license with this permit. It lets the bios attack the problem with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw
Haven’t read this whole thing and don’t overly care much one way or another if this passes or not. Cows are easy enough to kill on public land in MT if you really want one.
Question…..and apologies if this has been answered. Say you drew a Gardiner cow tag. Shoot a bull on public in archery. Now you can’t use that 2nd cow tag in November?
Seems like this is a statewide blanket proposal if that’s the case. Some units you are hunting the same elk whether it’s public or private.
Question…..and apologies if this has been answered. Say you drew a Gardiner cow tag. Shoot a bull on public in archery. Now you can’t use that 2nd cow tag in November?
Seems like this is a statewide blanket proposal if that’s the case. Some units you are hunting the same elk whether it’s public or private.
