Montana 2026 Elk Proposal

[Bulldog0156]

So what are you willing to give up? Because until people are willing to give something up nothing changes. I’d happily give up killing me second elk. Most years I do kill a bull and a cow. Like I have said my issue isn’t that I’m giving up that it’s that we are taking power from the bios. At this point it feels like instead of having one for all 7 regions we only really need to have one

As someone that works in state government, I think that politics will get in the way of allowing biologists to manage elk in a way that most people on here would consider meaningful. It can be pressure at the executive level (Governor's Office, Director's Office), Regional level (Regional Leadership, regional stakeholders), Legislative level, and the individual biologist level. Putting the decisions in the hands of the biologists who do not understand the politics or how to navigate them is not likely to provide long term success. Each biologist is likely to have their own idea on how to do things (just like everyone else at the different levels mentioned). I recognize that Montana is a big state and each region has different considerations to deal with and a region-based approachmakes the most sense, but it needs to be based on a shared statewide policy on what sideboard exist.

I support Commissioner Wargo's proposal- I think it is a big step in the right direction. This could be a solid base for finding ways to truly improve the opportunity and quality of the hunting experience for most hunters by 1) promoting harvest on private lands where landowners have identified problems and 2) encourage elk to spend more time on publicly accessible land.

 

[cgasner1]

As someone that works in state government, I think that politics will get in the way of allowing biologists to manage elk in a way that most people on here would consider meaningful. It can be pressure at the executive level (Governor's Office, Director's Office), Regional level (Regional Leadership, regional stakeholders), Legislative level, and the individual biologist level. Putting the decisions in the hands of the biologists who do not understand the politics or how to navigate them is not likely to provide long term success. Each biologist is likely to have their own idea on how to do things (just like everyone else at the different levels mentioned). I recognize that Montana is a big state and each region has different considerations to deal with and a region-based approachmakes the most sense, but it needs to be based on a shared statewide policy on what sideboard exist.

I support Commissioner Wargo's proposal- I think it is a big step in the right direction. This could be a solid base for finding ways to truly improve the opportunity and quality of the hunting experience for most hunters by 1) promoting harvest on private lands where landowners have identified problems and 2) encourage elk to spend more time on publicly accessible land.

Your right sure isn’t working worth a shit for Wyoming

 

[El Jason]

Should work on that

I wil trie hardr. Srsly.

 

[cgasner1]

I wil trie hardr. Srsly.

It’s probably an easier fix. Hope your having a great holiday

 

[El Jason]

Your right sure isn’t working worth a shit for Wyoming

Speaking of Wyoming, why is it so hard for MT to grasp what has been succcesful for them? Why, if I as a NR draw an LE elk permit am I allowed to hunt elk anywhere else in the state?

MT could do lots of things to address crowding on public land. This is an easy one.

 

[Big Fin]

I agree with the sentiment that we should rely on biologist to lead season setting and objectives. But let’s not kid ourselves, we have some great biologist who make some great recommendations that get thrown in the trash as those recommendations move up the chain of command.

If one looks at Wyoming or Nevada or Arizona and examines how they do their season settings, their schedule of advance notice for proposals, and their commitment to the biological issues being more important than the social issues, we have good examples to follow.

In Montana we have compressed this process into a two month period that gives insufficient time for comment and vetting. Any delay by Helena and the time compression is even more amplified. And we have always been too afraid of any group who might be upset with a change.

The end result is usually status quo.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree with the sentiment that we should rely on biologist to lead season setting and objectives. But let’s not kid ourselves, we have some great biologist who make some great recommendations that get thrown in the trash as those recommendations move up the chain of command.

If one looks at Wyoming or Nevada or Arizona and examines how they do their season settings, their schedule of advance notice for proposals, and their commitment to the biological issues being more important than the social issues, we have good examples to follow.

In Montana we have compressed this process into a two month period that gives insufficient time for comment and vetting. Any delay by Helena and the time compression is even more amplified. And we have always been too afraid of any group who might be upset with a change.

The end result is usually status quo.

It's not a flaw, it's a feature.

 

[MTLabrador]

It would probably also help if it wasn’t such a big deal to make a change. Go full send on this let’s try it. Things get out of hand in 2 years go back to what we got. Another part of the issue if we make a change it has to be scribed in stone.

I really wish FWP had this attitude when they brought in shoulder seasons as an “experiment” that was almost immediately expanded to just about every hunting district in the state with a viable elk population. Now they are here to stay, and it seems like most hunters can’t get enough of them. One of the worst things we ever did to public land elk hunting.

 

[bigsky2]

I agree with the sentiment that we should rely on biologist to lead season setting and objectives. But let’s not kid ourselves, we have some great biologist who make some great recommendations that get thrown in the trash as those recommendations move up the chain of command.

If one looks at Wyoming or Nevada or Arizona and examines how they do their season settings, their schedule of advance notice for proposals, and their commitment to the biological issues being more important than the social issues, we have good examples to follow.

In Montana we have compressed this process into a two month period that gives insufficient time for comment and vetting. Any delay by Helena and the time compression is even more amplified. And we have always been too afraid of any group who might be upset with a change.

The end result is usually status quo.

Some of those other states seem to lean heavily on the input from CAC’s, or RACs (regional advisory councils) as some states call them. In contrast, in Montana we have some commissioners that have never even met the CAC members in their region, or won’t even engage with them. Its pretty frustrating when some commission members are unreachable by the general public.

 

[cgasner1]

Some of those other states seem to lean heavily on the input from CAC’s, or RACs (regional advisory councils) as some states call them. In contrast, in Montana we have some commissioners that have never even met the CAC members in their region, or won’t even engage with them. Its pretty frustrating when some commission members are unreachable by the general public.

I really hope we are at a turning point with this. The amendments we saw come out this week give me hope. Love or hate it I applaud a couple of these commissioners for taking on this task. Talk about a thankless job.

 

[Nameless Range]

Looks like the dept has provided a response. Whether they are challenged or not, I think there’s a spirit to this amendment that they are capable of understanding, and it allows them flexibility reliant on an implied trust that they get it.

 

[DFS]

These proposals should be coming from the department, the department has been asleep at the wheel my whole life. This commission is at least challenging their ineptitude. It would be nice to understand the departments lack of change as technology, wildlife populations, hunter distribution etc etc have all changed. I hope the commission keeps hammering them with amendments. There are many good amendments so far and I hope people put in comments to support them.

 

[Elktrack]

Speaking of Wyoming, why is it so hard for MT to grasp what has been succcesful for them? Why, if I as a NR draw an LE elk permit am I allowed to hunt elk anywhere else in the state?

MT could do lots of things to address crowding on public land. This is an easy one.

It’s been mentioned several times in different threads that FWP doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel when there’s other models that are working well and could be duplicated. Maybe not in entirety but they could adopt the models that are working.

The point has been made that “we’re killing the wrong elk” and the second tags aren’t targeting the population that needs thinned. Example; Idaho has cow tags that are only valid “on or within one mile of private “ and corporate timber lands do not count as eligible private lands. This puts the focus on the herds that need attention rather than the national forest type herds. It doesn’t fix the problem entirely but it helps get guys out of the woods and headed toward private property that they can’t get access to yet the landowners still bitch about the elk problem.

 

[Bulldog0156]

Looks like the dept has provided a response. Whether they are challenged or not, I think there’s a spirit to this amendment that they are capable of understanding, and it allows them flexibility reliant on an implied trust that they get it.




View attachment 394263

I would hope that in the background the agency is working with Commissioner Wargo to improve the language for clarity in implementation.

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks to those who commented. Looks like quite a few Hunt Talkers weighed in supporting this proposal.

Unfortunately, a lot of people commented against it and based on reading their comments I wonder if they even read the proposal. The concerns they commented would no longer be allowed would still be allowed.

Regardless, now that comments are closed, you can still weigh in by emailing Commissioners at the emails in my original post. And if you are able to testify in person, you can sign up for the Zoom meeting or you can attend the Commission meeting in Helena.

You can sign up to comment via Zoom at the Yellow button on this page - https://fwp.mt.gov/aboutfwp/commission/december-2025-meeting

Thanks to Commissioner Wargo for proposing this. There is no single magical solution to solve the concerns many express, but he is spending a ton of time vetting this with hunting groups. Continuing with what we've always done will result in what we've always had, which many complain is not what they want.

 

[DFS]

Where do you find the public comments at?

 

[Big Fin]

Where do you find the public comments at?

You have to request them. You’ll get them in a PDF doc.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

There is no single magical solution to solve the concerns many express

This. Lots of hunters need to read this line over and over until it sinks in.
It's frustrating to watch any change just get rejected immediately.

I also applaud Commissioner Wargo for trying to address elk hunting in the state while collaborating with others to find a solution. I have seen a lot of undeserved negative comments aimed at him but I really appreciate his efforts. I think the department releasing these so late has caused a lot of issues. Many folks I talked to didnt understand the proposal and were against it because it was released late.

 

[El Jason]

Continuing with what we've always done will result in what we've always had, which many complain is not what they want.

Resistance to trying anything new just leads to Groundhog Day.

 

[RandanP]

You have to request them. You’ll get them in a PDF doc.

That is dumb. Be better FWP.