The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is moving to relax hunting and fishing regulations in dozens of national parks, recreation areas, and seashores prompting concern from conservation advocates who say the changes could undercut a century-old mandate to protect wildlife and park visitors.
A recent DOI directive instructs the National Park Service to review, and relax, rules that limit hunting, trapping and fishing on certain federally managed lands.
About 50 national park sites across the lower 48 could be affected, including high-profile recreation areas in the West such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada and Curecanti National Recreation Area in Colorado.
Stephanie Adams is wildlife director for the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). She said the order marks a departure from how the National Park Service has traditionally balanced recreation with conservation.
“Even though Congress allows hunting and trapping on some National Park Service lands, it still chose to protect those areas as part of a national park system for a reason,” Adams said. “Superintendents have been able to put in really common-sense rules, such as areas where you can’t hunt or shoot across a certain trail.”
Under a long-standing practice, park superintendents can add restrictions on top of state hunting and fishing rules to protect crowded visitor areas, sensitive wildlife habitat or high-use areas like trails and campgrounds. Those site-specific limits have been one of the main tools for keeping national park sites “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations,” according to the 1916 Organic Act that created the park Service.
The new directive appears to flip that presumption. Instead of asking whether additional protections are needed, it frames some existing restrictions as potential “unlawful barriers” to hunting and fishing and makes it harder for superintendents to maintain or strengthen them without high-level sign-off from park service leadership, Adams said.
“What’s troubling to us is superintendents really have been striking this balance of managing for wildlife conservation, visitor safety and, in places where it’s allowed, hunting and trapping,” she said. “The real question is what has changed — and why are we trying to lower the bar, especially because it’s a system that seems to be working.”
Another flashpoint is the directive’s language on lead ammunition and tackle. It specifies that parks should not restrict lead unless there is clear evidence it is harming wildlife or unless tribal law requires it. Scientists have documented the risks of lead fragments and fishing tackle to birds and other animals that may ingest them.
“Studies have certainly shown that there are impacts from lead when it’s being used in hunting and fishing,” Adams said, adding that the group is not opposed to hunting but supports methods that have “the least impact on the overall health of the park ecosystem.”
Perhaps the most consistent criticism is about process. The NPCA says the review has unfolded largely out of public view, without clear opportunities for public comment, consultation with tribes or a robust legal analysis grounded in the Organic Act.
“This process really has been done in the dark and hasn’t been an open, transparent conversation,” Adams said.
According to NPCA, changes are already underway at roughly 16 park units, with more expected. The group is now tracking those regulatory shifts and preparing to brief lawmakers and the public on how they might affect individual park sites — and whether they still meet the high conservation standard Congress set for the national park system.
