The National Park Service has four months to develop ideas for how to increase elk hunting in Grand Teton National Park following a directive from U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
A Jan. 7 secretarial order requires federal land managers to come up with recommendations for increasing hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands managed by the U.S. Department of Interior.
Typically, the Park Service doesn’t allow hunting — the agency’s founding legislation, the 1916 Organic Act, generally prohibits it. But there are dozens of parks where Congress made an exception, and Grand Teton National Park is one of them.
Teton Park spokeswoman Emily Davis referred WyoFile to the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. for questions. The 310,000-acre park is still awaiting specific guidance regarding Burgum’s order, she said.
But the secretarial directive makes it clear that Teton Park has until May 8 to provide recommendations for “expanding opportunities” related to hunting authorized by Congress. Additionally, park staff must review regulations to “identify restrictions on hunting or fishing” that exceed their authorities and then identify “appropriate” modifications.
In Grand Teton, elk hunting is the only type of hunting authorized by Congress. Language in the park’s enabling legislation calls for a “controlled and managed reduction” of elk by “qualified and experienced hunters” who are considered “deputized rangers.” Partly because of the setting — it takes place near roads and sometimes in view of tourists — the annual park hunt has proven controversial at times, even triggering litigation.
The Park Service sets hunting seasons and quotas for Grand Teton’s annual fall hunt, dubbed a “reduction program,” in consultation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
Because the Jackson Elk Herd has hovered slightly below its 11,000-animal objective and long-distance migrating elk pass through Teton Park, hunting there has been scaled back significantly. Although hundreds of licenses were once available for the hunt, tag numbers have fallen to 20 in the park, classified as hunt area 75 by Wyoming.
Wildlife disease experts predict the Jackson Herd will shrink considerably in the years and decades to come because of the effects of chronic wasting disease. A planning process is underway to alter the historic practice of elk feeding and avert the worst consequences of the always-fatal disease.
Those factors may make it difficult for federal and state wildlife managers to achieve Burgum’s vision and ramp up elk hunting opportunities in Teton Park.
“The Wyoming Game and Fish Department objective for the Jackson Elk Herd is 11,000, and it’s been below that for the last three years,” Wyoming Wildlife Advocates Executive Director Kristin Combs told WyoFile. “It seems like Game and Fish would not want to increase hunting within Grand Teton National Park.”
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department declined an interview for this story.
Grand Teton isn’t the only park that may run into difficulties, National Parks Conservation Association lobbyist Kristen Brengel said. There are nearly 70 Park Service units where hunting is permitted, including the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, where hunting seasons are broader and mirror those set by Game and Fish. But the Congressional language authorizing park-specific hunts is oftentimes quite restrictive, she said.
“You can’t abandon the Organic Act to hunt,” Brengel said. “That’s why I think this is going to be a fruitless exercise.”
Brengel also questioned the wisdom of adding duties — in this case, requiring a planning process — for national parks that have been steadily shedding staff. The Park Service has lost a quarter of its staff since the second Trump administration began, she said, and as of October, Grand Teton’s full-time, year-round workforce had dwindled by 20%.
“If Doug Burgum wants more of something, he should focus on more staff,” Brengel said. “You’re not going to get any of these things that he wants done with the amount of staff he has now at the Park Service.”
Although Park Service advocates have not met Burgum’s directive favorably, the reception has been warmer in other circles. The order applies to all Interior Department agencies, including those where hunting is more commonplace, such as the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Greg Sheehan, president and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation, called the directive “one of the most important conservation and access actions taken in decades.”
“Secretary Burgum is reaffirming that hunting and fishing are not fringe activities on public lands,” Sheehan said in a statement. “They are foundational to how wildlife is conserved, funded, and managed in America.”
In a Congressional hearing Tuesday, Wyoming resident and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik cited Burgum’s order as an example of the good he believes the Trump administration is doing for public lands.
“I don’t believe that anybody should be worried about what this administration is doing with public lands,” Nesvik said.
no more hunting or trapping
The big question here is if a National Park, BLM, or Wildlife Refuge is already doing everything it can to maximize hunting and fishing opportunity – and a lot of them are – is the current administration willing to accept that?
Makes sense if your a biologist wanting control CWD, the elk population and to give ethical (hopefully) hunters a place to get meat. Actually it would be a lot better for elk hunters if we moved most of the feedground to a lower elevation.
And Brian doesn’t know much about habitat.
Makes sense if your a biologist wanting control CWD, the elk population and to give ethical (hopefully) hunters a place to get meat.
Nesvik’s comment that “I don’t believe that anybody should be worried about what this administration is doing with public lands” is not only wrong, but frightening coming from the director of the U.S.F.W.S. Apparently Nesvik is unaware of how damaging the Trump administration has been to public land management in the gutting and dismantling of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
But let’s not forget that Nesvik also said that massive oil and gas developments in Wyoming were good for wildlife and particularly big game species!
I agree with you Bruce.
I just read the secretarial order. Most places are already doing exactly what it says, and have been for decades. It’s going to create more government paperwork but I doubt it will make much difference in hunting or fishing opportunity.
If he really wanted to create more fishing opportunity, then allow fishing in the Wyoming portion of Yellowstone NP with a Wyoming fishing license. And the same for Idaho and Montana. It’s ridiculous that a State issued fishing license is invalid.
There is a big problem with Burgum & Nesvik’s policies: The only major “improvement” they are looking to achieve is to make hunters happy. They are happy to cut Park Service staff meaning fewer rangers and other staff to meet the interests of visitors. They are also happy to cut back staff & funding for National Wildlife Refuges—again, their only interest with respect to these refuges is to make hunters happy. Burgum & Nesvik should read & study the results of study done by the Wildlife Management Institute (a group that caters to hunters!) of visitors to National Wildlife Refuges. This is what they found: Hunting is NOT the reason most people visit Refuges. Report found most common activities were: wildlife observation (59%), hiking/walking (56%), and bird watching (46%) during the past 12 months (Fig. 4). Visitors’ primary activities on the day they were contacted onsite were hiking/walking (21%), fishing (14%), wildlife observation (14%), and bird watching (13%). Indeed, Hunting ranked 15th! On top of this, Burgum and his Republican friends in Congress are doing to do everything possible to weaken the Endangered Species Act. They don’t want any concern with wildlife (including, by the way, big game migration routes!) to interfere with oil-gas-mining-ranching. https://wildlifemanagement.institute/outdoor-news-bulletin/january-2026/refuge-national-visitor-survey-released
My theory for this is that hunters tend to lean right politicly, and with all the public lands fighting this past year where right and left shouted the same thing “hands off”, they are now trying to win the hunters back into their voting pool with how badly this “administration” is hemorrhaging support. “Look we gave you more hunting opportunities, now come back to us.”
When I lived in Jackson things were simpler……National Parks main mission was Preservation. The USNF/BLM was multiple use. The Refuge hunt at the end of the winter where hunters line up on the Elk Refuge Road and fire away was a joke. The hunter with the fastest sneakers to tag one were the winners.
You’d have to define multiple use to me
Interesting that someone has a crystal ball predicting herd number will dwindle. The last study I saw published the number of elk affected by CWD had dropped. While mule deer numbers affected increased. Mule deer do not typically graze in congregated areas as the elk do. Interesting isn’t it? Nobody knows exactly why this is but someone can see into the future.
I am 84 years old and have been hunting area 75 for 13 years.Last year didn’t get as total permits were 20 with non resident 2.This was a great hunt for the family including grandchildren to learn the art of responsible hunting and utilizing the meat. In that period of time the area allowed to hunt was reduced more than 50% and the time slotted reduced by about 40%making traveling there in a non guided hunt very limited.As far as chronic wasting there has been very little evidence on the refuge. As far as staff there was no evidence during this period of too little.My wife always commented on it would be a better experience hunting here if the wasn’t always a federal ranger within site.Regarding numbers of elk just look at the cow/ calf ratio reduction and that is not caused by human hunters.
My guess is many people other than myself wrote letters to Burgum (mine was sent last March).
Because the herd out of south Yellowstone has been cut to hardly anything, the tag numbers probably won’t go up.
The article fails to mention area 79, also in GTNP that closed completely a decade ago. Once over 1000, some years 1500 tags were issued between 79 and 75, now at 20. A season that went for 2 months now 3 weeks, Antelope flats and Snake river bottoms closed, the hunt has been attacked with anti-hunter agenda long enough.
CWD did not do this, the incessant broken record of CWD propaganda is completely disingenuous when any HONEST person looks at the elk collapse in the past 20+ years. Then look to the Laramie peak herd with CWD for 40 years, a herd that is still flourishing with relatively low infection rates and abundant numbers. CWD is being used as a cover for elk herd destruction in Wyomings portion of the GYE.
Seeing this article makes me hope change is on the way for the crime committed with the introduction of canis lupus occidentalis.
DELIST Canis lupus occidentalis and reverse the damage done.
just look into Steve Pearce nominated to head up the BLM and his stance on public lands. If Barraso has balls he will oppose this nomination but we all know what direction that will go!
As a hunter, I’d like to grouse hunt in The Park. There’s a significant amount of prime habitat well away from common tourist routes. But, I also see value in maintaining sanctuary areas where wildlife sitings are common for the average person. I encourage Dept of Interior to find the right balance.
The title of this article is a bit dramatic. It makes it sound like hunting must be increased in GTNP no matter what. No, that’s not the case.
The secretarial order simply requires all Interior Dept lands, including National Parks, to expand access and opportunity only where legal and compatible with conservation needs. It requires coordination with State wildlife agencies. It also mentions that hunting can be limited when necessary due to resource conditions. If you read the actual secretarial order, it makes a lot of sense.
However, the concerns about creating additional workload burdens on a reduced workforce are certainly legitimate.
Yes, it does.
“I don’t believe that anybody should be worried about what this administration is doing with public lands,” Nesvik said” Seriously?
The fat wallet boys, that are mostly obese, need some more easy targets to mow down from their vehicles. – What Doug Burgam really said while the mully boys bobble their heads in agreement.
PS. They still want to sell/give away our Public Lands, this is just a sweetener to get the hunters/fisherman back into the GOP tent.
Greg, this isn’t “selling public lands”, this trying to give THE PUBLIC more access that has been increasingly stripped away for the last 15 years to nearly nothing.
This isn’t about fat wallet trophy hunters, this about thousands of middleclass Wyoming and some out of state families that can no longer fill their family’s freezers in the fall from a reliable source.
I don’t care about any possible motive for doing something good like this. This action will put more eyes on the PROBLEM that resulted in 1000-1500 of tags being cut to 20. WOLVES. The tag allotment can’t go up right now because numbers are so low. More people will then question “why are the numbers so low?” the answer isn’t CWD its wolves, period.
This is a thoughtful and timely article, and I appreciate WyoFile laying out the legal, biological, and staffing realities rather than framing hunting as an ideological issue. What often gets lost is that hunting in Grand Teton National Park is not a modern loophole or a political experiment. It is explicitly authorized by Congress in the park’s founding legislation and has long been part of responsible elk management in this landscape.
If the Park Service is now being directed to review restrictions that exceed its statutory authority, that review should not stop with hunting quotas alone. Public access deserves the same level of scrutiny. Roads, trails, and corridors that have historically existed along the Snake River on the north end of the park are omitted from public trail maps and not explained by park information staff. Whatever their current status, the public should not be left guessing about what exists, what is closed, and why.
Transparency matters. When access routes are treated as unofficial or effectively secret, visitors are pushed into confusion, off-trail travel increases, and enforcement becomes arbitrary rather than fair. If a route is closed for wildlife protection, safety, or administrative use, that should be plainly stated and posted. If it is open, it should be acknowledged and managed accordingly. Public lands work best when expectations are clear.
Encouraging lawful hunting, reviewing access restrictions like the River Road closure, and being honest about existing roads and trails are not anti-conservation positions. They reflect the same principle Secretary Burgum highlights here: that public lands are meant to be stewarded for the public in accordance with congressional intent, not quietly narrowed through discretionary or opaque decisions. This article raises the right questions, and I hope the Park Service uses this moment to take a broader, transparent look at both wildlife management and public access in Grand Teton National Park.