Committee considers bill to limit and reallocate antlerless elk tags by objective and limit nonresident tags

Senate Bill 270, sponsored by Senator Denley Loge, aims to align antlerless elk tag issuance with local population objectives and place explicit limits on how many class B (antlerless) elk tags an individual may hold. The sponsor said the measure grew from concerns in his western Montana district about uneven tag distribution and situations where hunters could obtain multiple tags and take more than expected in areas under objective.

Loge described earlier versions and amendments. The bill as amended would generally limit a person to no more than two class B elk tags; sponsors discussed an additional concern some stakeholders raised about language that had been struck in drafting software and proposed reverting to original statutory language to ensure the intended limit. The sponsor said the intent is to give the Fish and Wildlife Commission more latitude to reduce cow tags in districts that are under objective and to prevent concentrated harvesting in low‑population areas.

Proponents including Ben Lamb (Montana Conservation Society) and Charlie Bucher (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation) said the amendment and sponsor engagement addressed many stakeholder concerns and that the revised bill gives FWP and the commission better tools to manage elk regionally. Ben Lamb also noted a restriction limiting nonresidents to fewer antlerless tags in certain circumstances and said the fiscal impact on nonresident participation should be small.

Opponents and previously concerned organizations — including Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Sportsman Alliance and Flathead Wildlife — said they had worked with the sponsor and indicated the amended language addressed key issues; several organizations said they would withdraw opposition with the amendment in place.

FWP informational witnesses Emily Cooper (licensing bureau chief) and budget analyst Joy Ross answered committee questions about how the amended language changes current practice. Cooper said the amendment clarifies that the department already considers objectives in management recommendations and that the bill would formalize and slightly alter tag‑holding limits (from current statute language that allowed up to three B tags to a proposed maximum of two B tags for certain holders). Ross was available to discuss fiscal implications; witnesses indicated the amendment reduced concerns about unintended outcomes.

Committee members asked whether the amended language would reduce resident tag availability and how it would affect nonresident tag purchases; witnesses said the amendment narrows the total number of B licenses an individual may hold and limits certain nonresident purchases unless they hold a specified combo license. The sponsor said he was willing to revert specific struck language to the original text to satisfy opponents and that additional drafting adjustments could be made ahead of executive action.

The hearing closed without a recorded committee vote; sponsors asked for a do‑pass recommendation and said they would work further with stakeholders on final drafting.