Conservation group pushes back on Interior order expanding hunting access

The National Parks Conservation Association on January 15 issued a formal response to Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3447, warning the directive could unsettle how national park units handle hunting and fishing access. The order instructs Interior bureaus to identify and remove administrative barriers to hunting and fishing and to prioritize expanding those opportunities across federal lands.

NPCA's wildlife program director framed the order as elevating a politically driven review of wildlife access decisions at a time when park staffing and professional expertise have already been diminished. The association pointed out that many national park sites already operate under hunting and fishing authorities set by Congress, and questioned why a broad secretarial push was necessary given existing legal frameworks and site-specific management plans.

For backcountry hunters, anglers, guides, and day-use visitors, the dispute matters in practical terms. Resource managers and rangers could face new review mandates that add to workloads at a time when staffing shortages have reduced on-the-ground capacity for monitoring wildlife, enforcing rules, and conducting biological surveys. That strain could affect everything from the issuance of permits and seasonal closures to routine patrols and visitor safety during hunting seasons. Anglers and hunters planning trips to park units should verify park-specific regulations before heading out; changes could be uneven across the system as bureaus assess administrative obstacles.

The NPCA statement emphasized the need for careful, science-based wildlife management rather than sweeping administrative changes. It raised concerns that a top-down push to expand access could undercut site-level decisions informed by local biologists, longstanding conservation goals, and congressional language that already defines allowable take and seasons in many parks.

Interior bureaus now face the task laid out by the secretarial order: cataloguing administrative barriers and proposing adjustments to regulations or policies. That process could include internal reviews, revisions to manuals, or outreach to state fish and wildlife agencies. Stakeholders should watch for opportunities to engage as parks and bureaus move forward with assessments, and be prepared for a patchwork of outcomes rather than a single systemwide shift.

This debate underscores a larger tension in public lands management between expanding recreational access and protecting ecological integrity. Expect follow-up decisions to play out at the park level, where the balance between hunter and angler access, visitor use, and science-driven wildlife stewardship will determine how policies translate into field practices.