New Federal Hunting Policy: Is Public Land Now 'Open Unless Closed' by Default?

For decades, the logic of federal land management followed a cautious, often opaque, "closed unless opened" philosophy. Hunters and anglers frequently found themselves navigating a labyrinth of administrative hurdles, where the burden of proof for access rested on the public. That paradigm has undergone a tectonic shift. With the issuance of Secretarial Order 3447 by the Department of the Interior, the default setting for hundreds of millions of acres of public land has been recalibrated. We are entering the era of "open unless closed," a move that redefines the administrative posture of the federal government toward traditional outdoor recreation.

Direct Answer: What is the "Open unless closed" policy? Secretarial Order 3447 dictates that federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Reclamation is considered open to hunting and fishing by default. Under this framework, land managers are required to explicitly justify any closures or restrictions based on statutory law, public safety concerns, or specific resource protection needs. This shifts the "burden of proof" from the sportsman to the government.

Decoding Secretarial Order 3447: What Changed?

To understand the weight of Secretarial Order 3447, one must look past the headlines and into the "administrative posture" of federal agencies. In the past, opening a specific tract of land for hunting often required a lengthy environmental assessment and a proactive "opening" rule. This created a patchwork of access where adjacent parcels of land might have vastly different regulations despite having similar ecological profiles.

The new directive effectively flips the script. By establishing hunting and fishing as a "priority use," the Department of the Interior is mandating that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) treat these activities with the same foundational legitimacy as conservation or mineral extraction.

The most significant change is the shifting burden of proof. If a regional manager wishes to restrict hunting in a certain drainage or forest block, they can no longer rely on bureaucratic inertia. They must provide a documented rationale—citing specific threats to endangered species, proximity to high-traffic hiking trails, or archaeological sensitivities. This ensures that closures are surgical and temporary rather than broad and permanent.

Old Policy vs. New Administrative Framework

Feature	Pre-SO 3447 Posture	SO 3447 "Open Unless Closed"
Default Access	Often "Closed" or "Undetermined" until explicitly opened.	Open by default for hunting and fishing.
Burden of Proof	Sportsmen must advocate for land to be opened.	Managers must justify why land should be closed.
Consistency	Inconsistent across different BLM/FWS regions.	Standardized nationwide administrative mandate.
Decision Logic	Based on specific opening regulations.	Based on safety, law, and resource necessity.
Agency Scope	Variable across DOI agencies.	Uniform for BLM, FWS, and Reclamation.

The 2025–2026 Expansion: By the Numbers

This policy shift is not merely theoretical; it is backed by significant acreage expansions. For the 2025–2026 cycle, the Department of the Interior has already moved to add or expand hunting and fishing opportunities across tens of thousands of acres within the National Wildlife Refuge and Fish Hatchery Systems.

The scale of the Bureau of Land Management’s involvement cannot be overstated. The BLM oversees approximately 245 million surface acres—roughly one-tenth of the United States' landmass. Under SO 3447, this vast expanse becomes the primary frontier for the "open unless closed" mandate. While much of this land was already accessible, the order provides a legal and administrative safeguard against "stealth closures" that have historically plagued Western hunters.

Furthermore, the expansion is increasingly tied to the EXPLORE Act (Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences). This bipartisan legislation complements the Secretarial Order by providing the funding and modernization necessary to make this "open" land actually usable. This includes the development of new public shooting ranges on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands, as well as the modernization of boat ramps and access points.

The EXPLORE Act: Modernizing the Sportsman's Experience

The shift in policy posture is being met with a shift in technology and infrastructure. The EXPLORE Act acts as the operational arm of the "open unless closed" philosophy. For the modern traveler and sportsman, this means a departure from faded paper maps and confusing trailhead signage.

• Digital Integration: The act mandates the streamlining of permits and the improvement of digital mapping. The goal is to ensure that a hunter’s GPS clearly reflects the "open" status of federal land in real-time, reducing accidental trespassing on private inholdings.
• Accessibility for Veterans: There is a concerted effort to improve access for veterans and individuals with disabilities. This includes specialized parking, adaptive blind locations, and trail improvements that don't compromise the "wild" character of the land but allow for broader participation.
• Target Shooting Ranges: Recognizing that hunting and target shooting are distinct but related activities, the act specifically directs the BLM and USFS to identify and develop designated shooting ranges. This moves high-velocity recreation away from multi-use hiking trails, addressing the "safety" justification for closures before it even arises.

The Counter-Perspective: Conservation and Biodiversity Risks

As a travel critic and policy analyst, it is essential to look at the ecological ledger. While the "open unless closed" policy has been lauded by organizations like the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, it has met with pushback from conservation groups such as "Wildlife for All."

The primary concern is a mismatch between policy and ecology. Critics argue that 2025 State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) show an increasing number of "Species of Greatest Conservation Need" (SGCN). In a landscape already stressed by climate change and habitat fragmentation, a blanket "open" policy could place undue pressure on sensitive ecosystems.

• Lead Ammunition Debate: The expansion of hunting on FWS lands has reignited the debate over lead ammunition. Many refuges are moving toward non-lead requirements to prevent secondary poisoning in raptors and other scavengers—a restriction that some hunters view as a barrier to entry, while biologists view it as a necessity.
• Resource Management Gap: There is also the question of funding. Managing 245 million acres is an expensive endeavor. If the "open" status leads to a surge in use without a corresponding surge in "boots on the ground" (game wardens and biologists), the risk of habitat degradation or illegal harvest increases.

The Department of the Interior maintains that the policy allows for closures based on "resource protection," but the procedural shift means those protections must be proactive and specific, rather than a broad precautionary principle.

Practical Guide: What Hunters Should Expect in the Field

If you are planning a trip to federal lands in 2026, do not assume that every gate is now unlocked. The "open unless closed" policy is an administrative framework, not a total deregulation.

1. Statutory Closures Still Apply: The order does not override federal law. Certain National Parks, "no-hunt" zones within monuments, and military installations remain off-limits. If an area was closed by an Act of Congress, a Secretarial Order cannot reopen it.

2. Coordination with State and Tribal Law: Federal land managers do not manage wildlife; states and tribes do. Even if a BLM tract is "open," you must still adhere to state-specific seasons, bag limits, and licensing requirements. The federal government provides the land, while the state provides the opportunity.

3. Check for "Specific Justification" Closures: Expect to see more detailed signage. Instead of a sign that simply says "No Hunting," you are more likely to see "Area Closed to Hunting: Bighorn Sheep Lambing Season (April–June)." This specificity is the hallmark of the new policy.

4. The "America the Beautiful" Digital Shift: Moving forward, ensure your digital passes and permits are synced. The administrative push is toward a unified digital experience where your "America the Beautiful" pass and your specific hunting permits are easily verifiable via smartphone, even in remote areas.

James Wright’s Final Take

The shift to an "open unless closed" default is one of the most significant changes in federal land management in a generation. It is a win for the transparency of our public institutions and a boon for the American sportsman. However, the longevity of this policy depends on the responsibility of those who use it. Increased access brings an increased duty to uphold the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation." As the burden of proof shifts to the government to justify closures, the burden of ethical conduct shifts more heavily onto the shoulders of the public.

FAQ

Does SO 3447 mean I can hunt in any National Park? No. Most National Parks are closed to hunting by federal statute. Secretarial Order 3447 applies primarily to BLM, FWS (Refuges), and Bureau of Reclamation lands where hunting is an authorized use but was previously subject to more restrictive administrative hurdles.

How does this policy affect lead ammunition use? The policy itself does not ban lead ammunition, but many specific "open" designations within the National Wildlife Refuge system are being paired with phased-in requirements for non-lead shot and bullets to protect biodiversity.

Will this result in more crowds on public land? While the policy expands the amount of land available, it also focuses on infrastructure (like the EXPLORE Act) to better distribute users across the landscape. However, hunters should expect increased activity in areas that were previously "grey zones" of access.