The Biggest Expansion of Hunting and Fishing Access in Federal History Is Underway
There are moments in American conservation history that amount to genuine turning points — moments when the bureaucratic machinery of Washington actually shifts in a direction that puts more land beneath more boots. The Trump administration's Interior Department just announced one of those moments. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register this week isn't simply another incremental update to refuge hunting programs. It is, by any objective measure, the largest single expansion of hunting and sport fishing access on federal public lands that any administration has ever attempted.
The Interior Department's announcement of new and expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on national wildlife refuges and other federal lands includes more properties and acreages than any previous administration has proposed. That's not spin. That's a statement of scale. And for the tens of millions of American hunters and anglers who have spent years navigating a patchwork of contradictory federal regulations, the implications are significant enough to warrant a close, unvarnished look at exactly what is being proposed, why it matters, and what could go wrong.
The Numbers Behind the Proposal
In all, 107 national wildlife refuges and another four national fish hatcheries will have new or expanded hunting and sport fishing opportunities if the draft proposal is finalized following a 30-day public comment period. The expanded opportunities also apply to 76 National Park Service units — mainly national seashores, national recreation areas, and national preserves — where hunting was already federally authorized.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to open or expand more than 1,450 hunting and sport fishing opportunities across 111 stations in 32 states. The proposal would make more than 92 million acres, or more than 95 percent of National Wildlife Refuge System lands, available for hunting. It also includes first-ever hunting or sport fishing opportunities at 14 refuges and three hatcheries.
To put that in context: in the contiguous United States, about 10.8 million acres of the refuge system are currently open to hunting. The scope of the proposed change is almost difficult to fully visualize. Safari Club International, in its public response, pegged the total acreage that could be opened or expanded to hunting at over two million acres, though the actual figure detailed by USFWS and NPS is somewhat less than that estimate. Either way, it represents hundreds of thousands of acres of land managed primarily for wildlife and habitat that would, for the first time in many cases, be accessible to hunters and anglers. Most new and expanded opportunities on refuges would conform to the state regulations on adjacent non-federal lands and could take effect as early as this fall's hunting seasons.
Secretarial Order 3447: The Policy Engine Behind the Push
The proposed rules don't exist in a vacuum. They flow directly from a broader philosophical shift in how the Interior Department approaches public land management — a shift formalized through a single document signed on January 13 of this year.
Secretarial Order 3447 establishes a simple but consequential premise: public lands and waters administered by Interior should be presumed open to lawful, regulated hunting and recreational fishing unless there is a clear, legally defensible reason to close them. At its core, the order asserts that hunting and fishing are not peripheral or discretionary activities on public lands, but central, traditional, and congressionally recognized uses.
The practical effect of this "open-unless-closed" framework is a complete inversion of the prior operating assumption. For decades, federal land philosophy operated under a precautionary principle where tracts were often treated as closed to hunting by default until explicitly opened. Secretarial Order 3447 flips that assumption to an "open unless closed" framework. The order sets a department-wide policy that "public and federally managed lands should be open to hunting and fishing unless a specific, documented, and legally supported exception applies." This policy will better align hunting and fishing regulations on federally managed lands with adjacent state, tribal, and territorial wildlife agencies, with the aim of removing access barriers, duplicative permits, and misaligned methods of take.
Among other things, the order directs DOI offices to identify and remove unnecessary regulatory or administrative barriers to hunting and fishing on DOI-managed lands and waters; expand access and opportunities where compatible with law, refuge purposes, park enabling statutes, reclamation area requirements, safety, and conservation needs; and improve coordination and regulatory alignment with state, tribal, and territorial wildlife agencies.
Which Agencies Are Affected
The initiative will apply to the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges, Bureau of Reclamation properties, and some units of the National Park Service where hunting is currently allowed. It would not apply to those Park Service units such as Yellowstone and Yosemite that are permanently closed to hunting. The order also carries a specific provision regarding ammunition: restrictions on lead ammunition or tackle may not be included in station-specific regulations except in rare circumstances. Instead, voluntary and incentive-based lead-free programs will continue where already in use.
On the Ground: What's Actually Changing at Specific Refuges
The high-level statistics tell one story. The refuge-by-refuge details tell another — and that's where the picture gets more nuanced. Some of the newly proposed opportunities are genuinely transformative for specific landscapes. Others amount to incremental adjustments that look more consequential on paper than they are in practice.
Montana's Grass Lake and Hailstone Refuges
On Grass Lake National Wildlife Refuge, a 4,300-acre complex of wetlands and adjacent prairie in central Montana — previously known as Halfbreed NWR — hunting for migratory birds, upland game, and big game would be allowed under Interior's proposal. The refuge was previously closed to all hunting, largely because it serves as an important migration stopover for both north- and south-bound waterfowl. Nearby Hailstone NWR, which has historically been open for migratory bird and upland hunting, would now be open to big-game hunting as well. For deer and antelope hunters operating in central Montana, that second opportunity on Hailstone could open productive ground that has effectively been off-limits for big-game seasons despite being accessible for birds.
Iowa's Neal Smith Refuge
Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge in Iowa, a 6,000-acre property established in 1990 to protect and restore native tallgrass prairie and oak savannas, would be newly open to waterfowl and upland hunting, and its big-game hunting would be expanded. The Neal Smith property is particularly notable because it sits squarely in the heart of some of the best pheasant and whitetail country in the upper Midwest. For Iowa hunters, access to a tallgrass prairie refuge of that size is the kind of addition that changes fall season plans.
The Detroit River Refuge and Columbia River Basin
The Interior roster notes that migratory bird, upland, and big-game hunting would be opened or expanded on Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, a 6,300-acre, multi-unit refuge just south of metropolitan Detroit. Most refuge units currently allow waterfowl, upland and small- and big-game hunting, but the roster includes the refuge on its list of opened and expanded opportunities for each of those pursuits.
On sprawling Columbia National Wildlife Refuge in southeast Washington, USFWS would expand upland game hunting. The Columbia Refuge is already a well-known destination for Pacific Flyway waterfowl hunters, but clearer access rules for upland species could open new territory for pheasant and quail hunters working the channeled scablands of eastern Washington.
National Park System Adjustments
Several of the changes on NPS properties are more surgical in nature. On Jean Lafitte National Historical Park in Louisiana, a longstanding ban on alligator hunting is lifted. At Curecanti National Recreation Area outside Gunnison, Colorado, the change amounts to removing restrictions on firing weapons near trails. In Minnesota's Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area, a ban on tree stands is lifted. These are not sweeping changes, but for local hunters, each one removes a friction point that has no clear conservation rationale.
Three dozen of the 76 National Park Service areas that allow hunting will see expanded access, including Lake Mead in Nevada and Arizona, Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, and Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in Montana. Other parks slated for more hunting include Cumberland Island in Georgia and Assateague Island in Maryland and Virginia. Cumberland's white-tailed deer hunt and Assateague's sika deer hunt have cult followings among hunters.
The Lead Ammo Question: A Buried but Consequential Provision
Tucked into the administrative narrative of this week's announcement is a provision that could prove as significant as the acreage expansions themselves. The proposal includes a plan to suspend regulations that banned the use of lead shotshells, bullets, and fishing tackle on nine national wildlife refuges — regulations that were approved under the Biden administration and were scheduled to go into effect in September.
This is not a random rollback. It reflects a broader position articulated directly by USFWS Director Brian Nesvik. Nesvik previously told Outdoor Life that the Service would take a hard look at lead restrictions and suspend or rescind those that weren't justified by clear and objective science. Secretarial Order 3447 also recognizes that science should drive any decisions related to the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle — and requires that lead ammo and tackle may not be restricted within the Refuge System unless site-specific and species-specific scientific evidence demonstrates a direct population-level impact.
The lead ammunition debate is one of the most contentious in American hunting policy. Proponents of restrictions point to documented cases of wildlife ingesting spent lead fragments. Opponents argue that blanket bans on entire refuges go well beyond what the science supports and place an unfair burden on hunters who use traditional ammunition. The current administration is squarely in the latter camp, and the suspension of Biden-era rules on nine refuges represents a concrete policy shift that will affect hunters' choices in the field this fall.
The Economics of Opening Federal Land
The administration has made the economic case for expanded access a centerpiece of its messaging, and the numbers are hard to dismiss. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service's most recent National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, nearly 40 million Americans fish and more than 14 million hunt, contributing more than $144 billion annually to the U.S. economy.
Hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities contributed more than $394 billion in economic expenditures in communities across the United States in 2022, with hunters and anglers accounting for over $144 billion in expenditures. The Fish and Wildlife Service cited economic benefits for communities near the parks and wildlife refuges, estimating that local economies would see a roughly $1.1 million annual boost. That figure may seem modest relative to the scale of the policy, but it applies to rural gateway communities — small towns near refuges in places like central Montana, the Iowa prairie, and the Idaho panhandle — where even incremental increases in hunting traffic translate into real revenue at gas stations, hardware stores, and motels.
From Federal Duck Stamps to Pittman-Robertson excise taxes on firearms and ammunition, sportsmen and women have paid for the acquisition, restoration, and long-term care of these lands. That argument — that hunters are not merely users of public land but its primary financial stewards — runs through virtually every pro-expansion statement issued by conservation organizations this week. It is also, historically, accurate.
What the Sporting World Is Saying
The reaction from hunting and angling organizations has been broadly enthusiastic, though not uncritical.
Rob Sexton, Senior Vice President at the Sportsmen's Alliance, called today's order "a victory in the open-access battle the Sportsmen's Alliance has been fighting for decades," adding that the organization has "never wavered from our mission to shift the presumption of public lands to open for hunting and fishing."
Ariel Wiegard, vice president for government affairs of Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever, noted that "our organization's mission is to create and maintain access to high-quality upland habitat, and making national wildlife refuges and other Interior acres 'open unless closed' is a crucial step to secure the future of our hunting heritage."
"This is one of the most important conservation and access actions taken in decades," said Greg Sheehan, President and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation. Sheehan emphasized that Secretary Burgum "is reaffirming that hunting and fishing are not fringe activities on public lands — they are foundational to how wildlife is conserved, funded, and managed in America."
Taylor Schmitz, Senior Vice President for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, said the proposed expansion "further recognizes that hunting and fishing are critical to the health" of refuges.
In a statement, Safari Club International noted that "Hunters and anglers play a pivotal role in land, water, fish, and wildlife conservation in the U.S. and the NWRS [National Wildlife Refuge System] is a key facilitator in those efforts."
Voices of Caution: Where the Skeptics Stand
Not everyone in the conservation and public lands space is uncritically celebrating. The concerns being raised are not fringe objections — several come from people with direct experience running these agencies.
Former USFWS Director Raises Budget Questions
Steve Williams, who directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under President George W. Bush, has been one of the more measured voices in the debate. His concerns don't center on the principle of expanded hunting access — he himself opened hunting and fishing programs on dozens of refuges during his tenure. They center on capacity.
Williams is mainly concerned that, with $4 billion in cuts to Interior agency staff and budgets in the One Big Beautiful Bill, refuge administrators will struggle to adequately balance conservation and wildlife management with increased recreational opportunities. Those concerns are amplified by a staffing crisis: the Fish and Wildlife Service lost nearly 1,800 employees between 2024 and 2025, leaving fewer rangers to manage and enforce the expanded access.
"I find it interesting that the mission review was announced around the same time as the Secretarial Order on hunting and fishing on refuges," Williams told Outdoor Life. As director, he noted, he "started a review of NWR hunting programs and required CCPs [Comprehensive Conservation Planning] to include analysis of hunting and fishing opportunities over 20 years ago, so that is nothing new." His concern isn't the policy direction. It's whether the staff and resources exist to execute responsibly.
Conservation and Wildlife Groups Urge Careful Evaluation
A government environmental review highlighted risks including wildlife displacement, noise disturbance, and seasonal closures that could push out other refuge users such as hikers and wildlife photographers. Desirée Sorenson-Groves, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, called for the plan to be "carefully evaluated" to ensure it "supports both responsible public access and the wildlife conservation mission of the Refuge System."
"In national parks, management decisions must start with public safety and natural resource conservation — not with what appears to be a highly questionable directive to remove what someone deems as barriers to hunting and trapping," said Stephanie Adams, Wildlife Program Director for the National Parks Conservation Association.
By forcing federal land managers to legally justify any administrative barrier as the absolute "minimum necessary," the order effectively flips decades of a conservation-first philosophy on its head. Legal analysts within the outdoor industry warn that this exact deregulatory template could easily be weaponized down the road by commercial interests.
A Historical Lens: Every Administration Has Done This — But Not Like This
It's worth stepping back and acknowledging what is genuinely new here versus what is incremental. Every administration since at least the Clinton era has announced some expansion of hunting and fishing access on national wildlife refuges. The Obama administration did it. The second Bush administration did it. Even the Biden administration, which hunters often viewed with suspicion on public lands issues, added modest new opportunities in its annual refuge updates.
What makes this moment different is scale and philosophy. Even more significant than the acreages affected, the administrative change signals an important priority for the Interior Department — that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will assume its refuges are open to hunting and fishing unless closed. That's a departure from previous administrations, in which refuges and Park Service properties were considered closed to hunting and fishing unless specifically open.
Secretarial Order 3362, signed by then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in 2018, confirmed Interior's role in the conservation of big-game migration corridors and winter range. That order is still in effect and continues to direct much of the funding and agency priorities that have benefited elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and other big-game species across the intermountain West. Whether SO 3447 proves similarly durable — surviving beyond the current administration and becoming part of the permanent fabric of federal land management — is an open question. But the precedent set by Zinke's order suggests that secretarial orders focused on hunting and wildlife can have staying power when they're anchored in clear conservation benefit.
The Sportsmen's Alliance has long championed "open-until-closed" legislation for federal lands, which changed the assumption that activities related to hunting and fishing are open unless closed for specific cause. This legislation was signed into law during President Trump's first term. In that context, SO 3447 is less a radical departure than the culmination of a decades-long advocacy effort by sporting organizations to reframe how public lands are conceived and managed.
The Regulatory Cleanup: More Than 500 Outdated Rules on the Chopping Block
Buried beneath the headline-grabbing acreage numbers is another dimension of this proposal that deserves attention from anyone who has ever spent fifteen minutes on the FWS website trying to figure out whether they could use a rifle for deer on a specific refuge unit. The proposed rule would also streamline regulations by revising or deleting more than 500 outdated or duplicative provisions. The changes are intended to better align federal refuge requirements with state fish and wildlife laws and simplify compliance for sportsmen and women.
Under current rules, a hunter can step across an invisible boundary from state land into a federal refuge and accidentally violate a conflicting regulation regarding season dates or equipment. Standardizing these rules reduces public confusion, respects state-level biological expertise, and opens up vast acreage to the public. For anyone who has hunted near refuge boundaries, that scenario isn't hypothetical. It happens regularly, and it creates exactly the kind of friction that discourages access.
The Path Forward: Comment Period, Final Rules, and What to Expect This Fall
The proposal to expand hunting and angling opportunities was published in the Federal Register. The publication starts a 30-day public comment period, with comments due by June 26. Following agency review, final rules are likely to be published later in the summer.
Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik said his goal is to have all refuges and hatcheries open to hunting within two years. The objective is to ensure that all refuges and hatcheries are open to hunting and fishing, with only rare exceptions where legal requirements, public safety concerns, or public input indicate hunting or fishing is incompatible with the purpose of the refuge. That is an extraordinarily ambitious target, and whether it is achievable in the current fiscal and staffing environment is the central unanswered question hanging over this entire initiative.
For the American hunter, the practical upshot is this: the landscape of accessible federal public land is shifting, and it is shifting in a direction that favors boots-on-the-ground sportsmen. New opportunities on refuges across 32 states could begin showing up in the first seasons after final rules are published. In 2025 alone, approximately 2.7 million hunters and 8.5 million anglers visited national wildlife refuges. The communities, businesses, and cultural traditions built around those visits stand to grow considerably if this proposal clears the comment period and becomes final rule.
The debate over how best to balance access with stewardship is a legitimate one, and the concerns raised about agency capacity, staffing shortfalls, and the long-term durability of conservation outcomes deserve serious engagement — not dismissal. But no one who has followed American public land policy closely can credibly claim this is anything other than the most consequential expansion of legal hunting access on federal ground in a generation. The public comment period is open. The fall season is coming. And for millions of hunters, the map of where they can legally set foot this autumn just got considerably larger.
