Interior Department Plans to Open All Its Public Land to Hunting and Fishing — Unless Specifically Closed by Site Managers

[Greybeard]

The Secretarial Order aims to "eliminate needless regulatory or administrative barriers and to expand opportunities"

Interior Department Plans to Open All Its Public Land to Hunting and Fishing — Unless Specifically Closed by Site Managers

Secretarial Order 3447 will require that most public lands managed by the Department of the Interior are open to hunting and fishing access unless specifically closed by site managers and agency directors.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Details are a bit vague. I'm a little surprised by the conservation groups jumping behind this, particularly WSF commenting on lead ammo and fishing tackle.

There is a NWR very close to me that I have done RMEF work on the last couple of years. A large part of the NWR is closed off to even hikers but parts open up to hunting for select opportunities. Staff have told me that they are conflicted by most people not being able to see other parts of the NWR but also acknowledge that if it were opened up the human activity would destroy a lot of what makes the place special.

 

[Oak]

"Secretarial Order 3362, signed by then-Interior secretary Ryan Zinke, confirmed Interior’s role in the conservation of big-game migration corridors and winter range. That SO, signed at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo in 2018, 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."

Bighorn sheep were specifically excluded from SO 3362. An effort to get the species added before the SO was signed looked to be successful, but was yanked back by David Bernhardt literally the day of signing due to concerns from the ag industry.

 

[Hunting Wife]

This looks mostly symbolic to me. For us, it’s basically saying keep doing what we’ve been doing.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Might be helpful to some here, and perhaps even the SOI, to research the way duck stamp dollars actually limit the amount of area that can be opened to hunting.

 

[BuzzH]

Anyone find a list of whats going to be opened or potentially opened?

I recall when Zinke did something similar there was a list.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

There wouldn't/won't be a list for some time if the agencies just got this directive.

And to elaborate further on my comment above (I was short on time) - No more than 40% of an area that was purchased with duck stamp dollars can be opened to migratory bird hunting. A lot of people don't know this. This was by design. The whole point of duck stamps was to help rebuild the loss of nesting ground and sanctuary areas in order to restore N. American waterfowl populations. So they added this rule to ensure they weren't just putting ducks in a barrel to be shot.

 

[cgasner1]

There wouldn't/won't be a list for some time if the agencies just got this directive.

And to elaborate further on my comment above (I was short on time) - No more than 40% of an area that was purchased with duck stamp dollars can be opened to migratory bird hunting. A lot of people don't know this. This was by design. The whole point of duck stamps was to help rebuild the loss of nesting ground and sanctuary areas in order to restore N. American waterfowl populations. So they added this rule to ensure they weren't just putting ducks in a barrel to be shot.

I haven’t read the article but from your statement here isn’t this the dream and the entire point of conservation? We create something like a duck stamp to help the resource then the resources rebounds and we slowly open up more hunting to help control the numbers? By only opening 40% it’s still creating more opportunities and helping to manage things. Idk I kinda see that as a win and the entire point of all this

 

[Hunting Wife]

There wouldn't/won't be a list for some time if the agencies just got this directive.

And to elaborate further on my comment above (I was short on time) - No more than 40% of an area that was purchased with duck stamp dollars can be opened to migratory bird hunting. A lot of people don't know this. This was by design. The whole point of duck stamps was to help rebuild the loss of nesting ground and sanctuary areas in order to restore N. American waterfowl populations. So they added this rule to ensure they weren't just putting ducks in a barrel to be shot.

That’s not 100% accurate. Depends on the purpose and authorities used for the acquisition. Lots of properties in the Refuge system are not “refuges”, per se, which are typically established with some “inviolate sanctuary” clause in the act (that’s where the mandated closure comes from, not the Duck Stamp Act in and of itself.) Waterfowl Production Areas, though, are acquired with Duck Stamp dollars and are 100% open to hunting. Service conservation easements are sometimes acquired with Ducks Stamp dollars, yet hunting rights remain with the landowner- not one of the rights acquired by the Service in those contracts. So, it’s complicated.

If you read the actual order, it explicitly outlines that all of this has to comply with refuge purposes and statutory authorities. (BLM and NPS have similar verbiage in those sections). It also specifies that it is not to undo closures in place for resource protection. It’s not going to upend any of the Acts and I think what you’ll see is a bunch more of this “yes! South Texas Refuge Complex is open to moose hunting now! Yippee!” stuff that we already do a bunch of now, because most meaningful opportunities have already been opened at this point where they don’t conflict with established purposes and statutes.

But I’m hoping it might make it easier to cut out some of the nonsensical crap and anti-hunting roadblocks that sometimes gets added into these when they come back down from DC.

I’m not a fan of the way things have gone over the last year, but in this particular case I’m not seeing a lot to get worked up over? Guess we’ll see how implementation goes.

Anyone find a list of whats going to be opened or potentially opened?

I recall when Zinke did something similar there was a list.

Looks like Burgum is directing agencies to come up with them from my reading. Not sure about other agencies, but FWS already has some.

SO 3447 - Expanding Hunting and Fishing Access, Removing Unnecessary Barriers, and Ensuring Consistency Across the Department of the Interior Lands and Waters | U.S. Department of the Interior

SO 3447

www.doi.gov

 

[SAJ-99]

...in this particular case I’m not seeing a lot to get worked up over?

Probably true. The most concerning comment in the article was "unless specifically closed by site managers and agency directors.". Given the low morale in the Federal government across all agencies, it would seem this caveat would allow someone to push an action with an implicit threat of dismissing someone if they didn't comply. Crazy, I know.

 

[BuzzH]

I think the one piece I like about it was the mention of making State hunting regulations consistent on the DOI lands.

As much as I liked the early closure of mule deer hunting on the CMR, it flies in the face of states having the right to manage game within their borders.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

That’s not 100% accurate. Depends on the purpose and authorities used for the acquisition. Lots of properties in the Refuge system are not “refuges”, per se, which are typically established with some “inviolate sanctuary” clause in the act (that’s where the mandated closure comes from, not the Duck Stamp Act in and of itself.) Waterfowl Production Areas, though, are acquired with Duck Stamp dollars and are 100% open to hunting. Service conservation easements are sometimes acquired with Ducks Stamp dollars, yet hunting rights remain with the landowner- not one of the rights acquired by the Service in those contracts. So, it’s complicated.

If you read the actual order, it explicitly outlines that all of this has to comply with refuge purposes and statutory authorities. (BLM and NPS have similar verbiage in those sections). It also specifies that it is not to undo closures in place for resource protection. It’s not going to upend any of the Acts and I think what you’ll see is a bunch more of this “yes! South Texas Refuge Complex is open to moose hunting now! Yippee!” stuff that we already do a bunch of now, because most meaningful opportunities have already been opened at this point where they don’t conflict with established purposes and statutes.

But I’m hoping it might make it easier to cut out some of the nonsensical crap and anti-hunting roadblocks that sometimes gets added into these when they come back down from DC.

I’m not a fan of the way things have gone over the last year, but in this particular case I’m not seeing a lot to get worked up over? Guess we’ll see how implementation goes.


Looks like Burgum is directing agencies to come up with them from my reading. Not sure about other agencies, but FWS already has some.

SO 3447 - Expanding Hunting and Fishing Access, Removing Unnecessary Barriers, and Ensuring Consistency Across the Department of the Interior Lands and Waters | U.S. Department of the Interior

SO 3447

www.doi.gov

Wow, gold star for you! Great job. I was keeping things at the 30k foot level, but you dove right in to the weeds of the matter. Nice to know there are some members here who really understand the nuances of public land law and management. Also nice to be on a forum that doesn't feel threatened by those who do.

I agree this has the markings of a big 'ol nothingburger, particularly if you pay attention to the language that was used in the order. The SO mentions the organic legislation for the NPS, but fails to mention the same for FWS. Makes me wonder if that was intentional, or if they just aren't aware it exists. Either way, it's a strange omission.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think the one piece I like about it was the mention of making State hunting regulations consistent on the DOI lands.

As much as I liked the early closure of mule deer hunting on the CMR, it flies in the face of states having the right to manage game within their borders.

I see the value in consistency, but I also see the value in the feds being able to manage a landscape. Part of what makes Yellowstone great is the amount of wildlife. I wouldn't disagree if CMR said one of the values of that landscape is a large population of mule deer, and thus, we need to stop hunting them, or reduce the amount of hunting.