National Wildlife Refuge System: 2026-2027 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

A group of 5,484 individuals is requesting that the National Park Service provide public comment opportunities and transparency regarding changes to hunting and trapping rules. They argue that the standards for managing national parks should be higher than other public lands and should include public input.

Animal Wellness Action, the Center for a Humane Economy, Footloose Montana, PEER, and The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks oppose the proposed rule because it reverses previous measures to phase out toxic lead ammunition and expands hunting opportunities. They argue that the proposal ignores established science regarding lead poisoning in wildlife and humans, violates the conservation mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and is an arbitrary and capricious use of agency authority.

Humane World for Animals and Humane World Action Fund opposes the proposed expansion of hunting opportunities on the National Wildlife Refuge System. They argue that trophy hunting of native carnivores causes ecological damage, endangers offspring, and that the use of traps, snares, and lead ammunition poses severe risks to animal welfare, human health, and wildlife populations.

Earthjustice, representing several conservation organizations including the Sierra Club and Maine Audubon, opposes the proposed rule to rescind lead-free ammunition and tackle requirements. They argue that the proposal contradicts the Service's own scientific findings regarding the harmful impacts of lead on wildlife and human health, and violates the core conservation mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The Center for Biological Diversity opposes the proposed rule because it reverses previous decisions to phase out lead ammunition and fishing tackle on several national wildlife refuges. The organization argues that lead remains highly toxic to wildlife and that the Service has failed to provide a reasoned scientific explanation for allowing its continued use.

The Yankton Sioux Treaty Committee opposes the proposed deer hunting program at Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge, arguing that it is incompatible with the Refuge's primary purpose of providing sanctuary for bald eagles. They contend that the proposal lacks adequate environmental review, fails to account for the timing of eagle arrival, ignores the lack of a cultural resources survey, and bypasses meaningful government-to-government consultation with the Tribe.

The Rewilding Institute opposes the proposed expansion of hunting and fishing on National Wildlife Refuges, arguing that it conflicts with the primary mission of wildlife conservation and the Public Trust Doctrine. They contend that the proposal lacks sufficient scientific evidence, fails to conduct adequate NEPA analyses, and prioritizes a minority interest over the broader public's preference for wildlife viewing and ecosystem preservation.

The commenter strongly opposes the expansion of hunting, fishing, and trapping on National Wildlife Refuges, arguing that these lands should prioritize wildlife conservation and ecological integrity over recreational and commercial killing interests. They advocate for a "wildlife-first" approach, demanding rigorous, site-specific scientific reviews and the preservation of federal standards that are more protective than state regulations.

The Public Interest Coalition opposes the proposed expansion of hunting and trapping in the National Wildlife Refuge System, arguing that it contradicts the primary purpose of wildlife protection. They specifically criticize the rescinding of lead ammo and tackle bans, citing concerns over wildlife poisoning and human health risks.

The Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) opposes the proposed expansion of hunting and fishing across the National Wildlife Refuge System, arguing that it undermines the primary conservation mission of the refuges and negatively impacts the majority of non-hunting visitors. They also express opposition to rescinding non-lead ammunition regulations, citing significant health and environmental risks from lead toxicity.