Montana 2026 Elk Proposal

[Straight Arrow]

Success- 2025

“Hey buddy! How did your hunting season go? Did you get your antelope, buck and bull!?”

“Nope. I didn’t kill anything all year but I was 100% in getting all my tags so I had complete success this year”

Gerald, moreover you had great success in persuading the Commission to make good decisions on behalf of hunting and the resource. Thank-you!

 

[Pagosa]

Did the proposal pass to increase 150 tags for 702 and 704/705?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Did the proposal pass to increase 150 tags for 702 and 704/705?

Commissioner Lanes amendment added 75 rather than 150.

 

[Pagosa]

Commissioner Lanes amendment added 75 rather than 150.

Thanks Gerald. Appreciate you showing up over there. Preston

 

[Carnage2011]

Commissioner Lanes amendment added 75 rather than 150.

I don’t believe this is accurate. It got rid of the 150 in 704,705 completely and increased the overall quota from 280 to 325. 702 still has some 798 set aside but I can’t remember if it’s 150 or 75.

 

[sclancy27]

I remember saying a few years ago on here that the commission needs to be elected and getting laughed out of the room. It’s never been more evident to me than ever that this needs to happen. And as for the department I think you could put me in there and I would have more clear answers. This is a chit show.

Ask yourself this question...Would you rather have the legislature deciding everything when it comes to Fish and Wildlife or the current Commission?

I get the process isn't ideal, or ever will be, but having it be elected, IMO, has a higher probability of making it worse.

 

[cgasner1]

Ask yourself this question...Would you rather have the legislature deciding everything when it comes to Fish and Wildlife or the current Commission?

I get the process isn't ideal, or ever will be, but having it be elected, IMO, has a higher probability of making it worse.

I think it’s one of those sounds good on paper. Then as mentioned you’ll have horrible people getting voted in on party lines. The people voting probably have no idea who they are voting for. Also turning it into a way to pad a political resume at that point. The idea of it sounds great till the people voting on it have never hunted or fished a day in their life

 

[rogerthat]

I don’t believe this is accurate. It got rid of the 150 in 704,705 completely and increased the overall quota from 280 to 325. 702 still has some 798 set aside but I can’t remember if it’s 150 or 75.

150 tags valid just in 702. Increased the 799-20 valid in all 3 units from 280 to 325.

 

[Irrelevant]

Somewhere in the beginning Commissioner Wargo brought up how they should be developing ideas over time together. That would make a ton of sense.

On the boards I have chaired that are subject to Montana's Open Meetings Law, if a large change is proposed to an agenda item, we typically would not vote on that item, but would put on the next month's agenda Agenda Item xxx: Decision . Because we literally have changed what was proposed to the public without providing them a period of consideration. The cadence of Commissioner Meetings is so unconducive to well thought out proposals, and I know those guys/gals are unpaid volunteers who have opinions coming at them from all directions, but a couple things could be done. 2 or 3 could meet to flesh an idea or ideas out to bring to the other 4 outside of public meetings since there is no quorum in those instances. Subcommittees not constituting a quorum are not subject to Open Meeting Laws as long as they take no official action. Or they could also simply have a planning meeting prior to this season setting meeting which would still be posted and open to the public, but no motions would be brought forth and that would be stated ahead of time.

I missed the last two hours of the meeting because I had my own public meeting to attend, and I think it could be argued it is contra to the spirit of Montana Law to vote on amendments, some of which change the whole package in a big way, prior to hearing public comment on those amendments. I understand those amendments become a part of a larger motion later in the meeting that is then voted on again, and I think that is where they would argue they've covered their requirements, but at that point: (1) oral opinion cannot be ad hoc. You've gotta register for the meeting 24 hours in advance and (2) those who wrote opinions in have not had the opportunity to provide input.

Each board must develop procedures and adopt rules to facilitate public participation in decisions that are of significant interest to the public . The procedures include a schedule of regular meeting times and agenda prepared and posted sufficiently in advance to provide notice of the topics to be discussed and actions to be considered. The public must also be afforded a reasonable opportunity to offer information and opinions, either orally or written, before final decisions are made.(2-3-103)

Discussing these types of big ideas is what work sessions are for. You don't take action, you just discuss/brainstorm/workout the issue. And you don't have to take public comment, though you do have to let the public know and allow them to listen. In the boards I'm familiar with, you either do the work session right before the vote meeting, the night before, or the morning before.

 

[PoleX]

I think I was confused by commissioner Wargo's amendment as well. If the goal is to reduce pressure on Public ground during the general deer/elk season, here are some changes I thought would simplify his proposal and accomplish that.

1. B tags are only valid on Private land for the General season dates
2. B tags only valid on land per language outlined by FWP for specific units Shoulder Season dates(leaves discretion to FWP to manage as they see fit. WMA, Migratory hunts can be open to the public if cow populations are out of hand and the elk migrate into accessible lands late in the season after general is through).
-(add same exception, you have option to buy B tag in the event you draw the A tag, otherwise if you draw the B tag only you have to hunt the later shoulder season dates if you want to hunt cows on the public).
3. A tags are no longer valid during the shoulder season (increases revenue for the department, more data on shoulder season participation)
4. Keep your additional cow permit option as well (maybe add a few high success rate cow tags to the regular draw to help spread out applications and increase overall odds)

I chose not to comment on the amendment as I felt I didn't understand it well enough. I did directly provide feedback to Wargo and made sure to let him know I appreciate him working hard to address issues. HT is a good place to iron out these thoughts before mass emailing a bunch of commissioners a BS idea that wasn't well thought out.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

150 tags valid just in 702. Increased the 799-20 valid in all 3 units from 280 to 325.

If there is ever a good thing in MT, you can count on it that FWP will eventually piss it away.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

This Commission demonstrated a lot of responsiveness to public feedback during this
process and during today’s meeting.

We saw Commissioner Cebull attempt to raise the 900 series antelope quota to 7000 and the commission voted to approve the amendment. After multiple public comments in opposition he amended it back to 5600.

Commissioners Walsh pulled his elk amendment due to public feedback.

Two of the mountain lion amendments were dropped after public comment.

Commisssioner Wargo’s original elk amendment failed passage but he got unanimous approval for having it implemented in Region 1. I think that was due in large part to the amount of positive public support from hunters during today’s comment period. A lot of the other Commissioners didn’t seem to understand the effects of his proposal which was really a shame.
IMO the department really dropped the ball on getting it released to the public two days before Thanksgiving when it had been submitted at the end of September and was the first amendment received.

Multiple other amendments and decisions were affected by in person and online comments today.

Involvement in the process is the price to be paid for gaining influence. If there‘s ever proof to that saying that “the world is run by those that show up” MT season setting and FWP Commission meetings are a good example to see that in action.

Thanks to those of you who commented via Zoom. I could see that it made a difference in multiple occasions.

In my opinion Commissioner Wargo, and Chair Robinson deserve a lot of credit for putting action into what the public land hunters have been complaining about.

Thank you @Gerald Martin for your time and efforts.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If there is ever a good thing in MT, you can count on it that FWP will eventually piss it away.

That came from landowners according to Lane..

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

That came from landowners according to Lane..

Resulting in more elk on private/less on public. History does repeat itself.

It’s nice to hear that public comments on the strong defense game maybe were being heard. I’ve always thought FWP completely ignored the public input and it’s only a matter of checking a box for their process.

 

[SAJ-99]

While this makes it clumsy, it also is meant to increase transparency by prohibiting closed door discussions about commission rules. Any discussions and/or debates need to take place in a public forum.

That's a rule? First I have ever heard of it and I have seen emails where they did discuss these things before they were submitted and before meetings. The court loss on the wolves of the Rockies lawsuit and the requirement to disclose emails just made it so they stop putting things in emails. I didn't know there was an official rule. Either way, I wouldn't bet any money on them following that rule. They just make sure it isn't traceable.

This has been said, but what needs to happen is they need to move the meeting to a date not in the middle of hunting season so the public has time to consider and comment on ideas. Giving the public a couple of days to comment on a proposal can't really be considered "public involvement".

 

[bigsky2]

If there is ever a good thing in MT, you can count on it that the commission will eventually piss it away.

Fixed it for you

 

[Labman]

Did the Bear proposals pass - as they were presented prior to the meeting?