174

Trump administration pushes to scale back on hunting restrictions in national parks (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 2 days ago by TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Donald Trump's administration is quietly pushing to dramatically scale back hunting restrictions across national parks, refuges, and wilderness areas, raising questions about visitor safety and wildlife impact. This initiative follows a January order from U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, directing agencies to remove what he termed "unnecessary regulatory or administrative barriers" to hunting and fishing, and to justify any regulations they wish to maintain. Burgum stated, "Expanding opportunities for the public to hunt and fish on Department-managed lands not only strengthens conservation outcomes, but also supports rural economies, public health, and access to America's outdoor spaces." He added, "The Department's policy is clear: public and federally managed lands should be open to hunting and fishing unless a specific, documented, and legally supported exception applies."

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago

The hunting restriction was one of the things that allowed the American bison (our unofficial second national animal) to came back from near extinction. This is a serious step backwards for conservation. Imagine all the other animals that might go extinct from this relaxation of hunting restrictions.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago

Motherfucker hunters better stay the fuck out Yellowstone. I get shot at and going beat that person to death with their own rifle.

There should never be hunting in a National Park.

[-] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago

I know this is a joke but you wouldn't come within 50ft of that person as they'd claim it was self defense to shoot you dead.

Personally, though, many people who hunt probably wouldn't hunt at a national park IMO because there risk of other non hunters being there. Normally, iirc hunting has policies to signal you're a person (like wearing orange while hunting deer).

I'm personally not a hunter, but we own firearms; and I believe anyone who's afraid to use them, or hates on them is in for a rude awakening. This country built in the right to own them to protect ourselves from our government because they understood that people with power lust for more power, and we'll likely need a reset in the future because of this. Learn to protect yourselves! Your way of life and your life will depend on it someday.

[-] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Many years a ago a conservation officer was called to a small, rather unknown state park we have here. The call was because someone was poaching on the land. The poacher shot the CO dead. He also was not convicted.

https://www.odmp.org/officer/15179-conservation-officer-james-v-spignesi-jr

It says private field, but They renamed the state park, so perhaps the field was the one that borders the park.

[-] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

Ohhh shit! That's so sad! And there fact he wasn't convicted because no real way to prove?! How about ballistics, powder residue on the shooter's hand, or an approximate match of the size/weight of the round (though very well could've not been recovered if it went through).

[-] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The shooter argued it was an accident, he thought the CO was a deer, and ..was let off.

[-] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago

The benefit of a rifle is that you can do what ya gotta do from more than 50ft away. Now we just have to come up with some sort of signal to differentiate between who’s in Yellowstone to hunt deer and who’s there to hunt the hunters.

[-] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

Well, true on the 50ft, but you couldn't rightfully shoot someone at 200ft+ and claim defense, because you'd have had enough time to leave or get away from the situation. Many self defense scenarios are judged on the defender being in fear for their lives or at risk of great or grave bodily harm to themselves or a loved one.

I think most sane people wouldn't hunt at national parks because of a respect for others, unless maybe an invasive species went open season to save other species or plants.

Hunters aren't itching to hunt anywhere and everywhere they can. Unless maybe you're some wealthy big game hunter for sport and not respect of the animal. Maybe that's why they're relaxing regulations, for Trump & Co's wealthy friends to expand their trophy collections... 🙄

[-] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

I wasn’t suggesting shooting them in self defense, but in defense of the wildlife in the park. I’d say that in addition to the trophy hunters there’s no shortage of yahoos that would jump at the chance to hunt in a place like Yellowstone because of the ease. The wildlife there is not tame but it is habituated to human presence, they do not behave like animals in areas where hunting has been allowed for years. It’s be like shooting fish in a barrel for the first couple of seasons until they remembered they needed to scatter. And then the magic that is Yellowstone is gone. The landscapes remain beautiful but there’s no wildlife to be seen existing in it, they fled when they heard your approach.

[-] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago

Adopting the Kenyan game warden policy of shooting poachers? I'm in.

[-] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 19 points 2 days ago

Future generations: "Gramps, are you saying they drove species into extinction to own the libs? Can you explain again what that means?"

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

Including relaxing restrictions around hunting near trails. Which is to say near hikers.

[-] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 27 points 2 days ago

I’m just going to assume the goal here is hunting humans.

[-] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 22 points 2 days ago

May or may not be the goal, but a shot hiker is the inevitable result

[-] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

But only in season - the school year.

[-] OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Let's get some government legislators and C-suite executives out there in those parks! The beauty is to die for!

[-] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

It’ll be pretty easy. The big game hunters wear bright orange.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

If they follow the rules

[-] Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Hunger Games here we come.

[-] TheDankMemegician36 18 points 2 days ago

Dick Cheney liked this 👍🏻

[-] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Rents too high, go outside! There you may try to hide!

[-] BlindPenguin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I hope the eggs are doing alright

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

F This! When are we going to start hunting these pedophiles and their brainwashed cucks?

[+] green_red_black@slrpnk.net -2 points 2 days ago

[deleted]

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I live near a national historic park in a suburban area. They have struggled with deer overpopulation since we have basically no predators left in our area.

A few times a year they have sharpshooters doing deer culls after hours, and it's helped a lot, you see some of those ripple effects where since the deer aren't eating all the vegetation you're seeing more and different kinds of plants returning which has brought back populations of other animals that used to be pretty uncommon.

And the deer are generally healthier with less competition from each other, I remember seeing a lot of sickly-looking deer there when I was a kid and I don't see that as much anymore.

But even though the culls have helped, there's still a bit of an overpopulation problem, and allowing some hunting could help with that, and maybe eliminate the need to pay sharpshooters for culling. We have other, similar-sized parks in our area where hunting is allowed with few to no issues and in this part of the state you're basically limited to bows and shotguns which helps to limit how far a stray shot could go.

I wouldn't want the whole park to be opened to hunting all through hunting season, but I think allowing it in certain parts of the bark on certain days could be very beneficial.

[-] Pollo_Jack@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

This occupation isn't known for oversight nor competency. Expect any changes to be implemented in the worst possible way.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Oh absolutely, I have 0 faith in this administration to do this in any kind of remotely sensible way

But in general, with different people at the helm, I could really get behind more hunting opportunities in national parks as a conservation tool.

Really I'd like to see predators like wolves reintroduced, but that's not going to happen anytime soon, and realistically for it to work in the parks around me that I have in mind for this we'd probably need to bulldoze and reforest huge swathes of suburbia to support those predators, so nothing that's going to happen in a hurry, even if we somehow got the people living there to agree to move or eminent domained their properties (which isn't going to happen) we'd probably be looking at years if not decades just to replant and regrow the forests.

this post was submitted on 08 May 2026

174 points (99.4% liked)

News

37531 readers

1220 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world