Rookie Republican Senator Curt Voight (R-33/Rapid City) forgets which party he belongs to and which state he lives in and proposes increased government regulation of hunting and fishing.
Specifically, Senator Voight’s Senate Bill 16 calls for licensing hunting and fishing guides. The Department of Game, Fish, and Parks would charge resident guides $500 and non-resident guides $1,000 for an annual guide license.Fees would go to the GF&P fund to support habitat and public access programs.
Guide license applicants would have to be at least 21 years old, carry liability insurance worth to cover at least a million dollars per claim, and hold certifications in first aid and CPR. GF&P could deny, suspend, or revoke guide licenses for several reasons:
- misrepresenting services offered;
- guiding unlicensed hunters or fishers;
- violating any law or rule related to hunting, fishing, or guiding;
- engaging in “conduct detrimental to the image and integrity of the guide industry” while guiding;
- getting a felony conviction;
- having a guide license denied, suspended, or revoked elsewhere.
SB 16 leaves it to GF&P to come up with application rules and a guide code of conduct.
SDCL 41-4-12 defines “hunting guide” as “a person who holds himself or herself out to the public as a hunting guide and, for compensation or remuneration, directs or provides services to any person for the purpose of hunting any wild animal.” Statute does not appear to separately define “fishing guide”, and SB 16 offers no definitions. So if we’re going to license these professions, charge money, and make it a Class 1 misdemeanor to practice without a license, Senator Voight should probably amend SB 16 to clearly define who is subject to his licensure scheme.
But passage is a big “if”. Opposition from within the SDGOP has already scared off Senator Voight’s former co-sponsor Senator Carl Perry (R-3/Aberdeen). Sturgis insurance salesman and avid outdoorsman Chris Hipple says that, among other problems with SB 16, his Senator is proposing licensing fees for seasonal guides higher than what doctors, nurses, electricians, plumbers, and architects have to pay the state to practice their full-time professions.
Requiring a license to walk around with people in cornfields and sloughs and say, “Look—pheasant! bullhead!” seems unnecessary to my liberal sensibilities. But some other conservative states do license outdoor guides. Utah just updated its licensing requirements for guides, outfitters, and spotters. Take more than $100 a season to lead people around public lands in pursuit of edible critters, and you have to pay the great state of Utah the following license fees:
- Resident outfitter all species (including big game and bear): $500
- Resident outfitter small game/upland/fishing only : $350
- Resident guide all species (including big game and bear): $250
- Resident guide small game/upland/fishing only: $175
- Resident spotter all species: $125
Nonresident fees:
- Nonresident outfitter all species (including big game and bear): $1,500
- Nonresident outfitter small game/upland/fishing only $1,000
- Nonresident guide all species (including big game and bear): $750
- Nonresident guide small game/upland/fishing only: $500
- Nonresident spotter all species: $375
Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, and Wyoming have also licensed guides and outfitters. Montana charges $125 for an outfitter license and requires applicants to show experience or guide school on their initial application. Wyoming charges $600. Alaska big game outfitters have to pass a certification exam and pay a $200 application fee, $125 exam fee, $400 game management unit certification exam fee, and $850 license fee—$1700 for non-residents.
Senator Voight’s fellow outdoorspeople and Republicans may not like his licensing proposal, but charging hunting and fishing guides for the privilege of making money in the great outdoors has precedent in other conservative states as a way to raise money for protecting the natural resources that make guides’ enviable profession possible.
Colorado also licenses rock climbing guides and river rafting outfitters. No fee. Just a $10,000 surety bond and liability insurance. And all the same training courses listed in Cory’s piece.
This interested party’s cousin, Brookings Wildlife Federation President Bob Kurtz, will preside over the group’s annual meeting with area legislators on 9 January. Last session South Dakota considered BWF’s House Bill 1215 that would have required the licensure of fishing/hunting guides and outfitters and specific insurance requirements as part of the new regulations but it ultimately died in committee.
Its difficu!t to guide any Republican anyways. The guide should be paid by the state too.
Most hunting and fishing guides here make a good living, with cash in hand. I think they should have insurance and compensate landowners for their use. The water is free reign but there again, insurance is necessary.
Guides don’t need an education or training of any sort. I would not consider them anywhere near a professional or skilled laborer.
We should license our politicians. Require them to take an IQ test along with a test on knowledge specific to the office they are pursuing. Then require every piece of political adverting must contain the test results. If elected, require them to have a bond so when they steal money, we can go after their bond.
I was thinking the Republicans wanted less government and freedom was greatest in SD.
They definitely need a test on the reason for government, the three branches, separation of powers, their humble responsibilities, and citizenship. Most politicians in SD are not smarter than 5th graders. Just look at how they waste their time and our taxes doing nothing to help the human condition.