From Facebook, there seems to be a groundswell of opposition building to a new measure being proposed by Sen. Curt Voight of Rapid City and Sen. Carl Perry of Aberdeen.
What are they proposing? To create a new form of professional licensure for the State of South Dakota; demanding that all hunting and fishing guides register with the State of South Dakota and pay a fee for that privilege. And it’s not necessarily a cheap license to show people where they might throw a line in the river:
Section 5. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 41-6:
The Department of Game, Fish and Parks shall charge a fee of:
(1) Five hundred dollars for a resident fishing or hunting guide license; and
(2) One thousand dollars for a nonresident fishing or hunting guide license.
Naturally, the bureaucratic minded team of Curt Voight & Carl Perry are already getting pushback:
People are starting to gear up to oppose this new – and what appears to be very unpopular – measure for more government.
What is your opinion? Do we need licensure for hunting & fishing guides?
From the ‘small government’ and ‘local control’ lobbies no doubt.
I checked with my AI assistant if our neighbor to the east MN Requires this.
Yes, Minnesota requires licenses for certain guiding activities, specifically Bear Hunting Guides (Master Guide license needed) and Lake Superior Fishing Guides/Charters (requiring both USCG and DNR licenses), but generally does not regulate most other general hunting or fishing guides, though extensive experience is expected.
Hunting Guides:
Bear Hunting: You must have a Master Bear Guide license and potentially an outfitter license to guide bear hunts for compensation, as regulated by the MN DNR.
Other Hunting: Guiding for other game like turkey (illegal) or deer is not generally regulated by the DNR with specific licenses, though local rules might apply.
Fishing Guides:
Lake Superior: Guides operating charters on Lake Superior need a specific MN DNR Lake Superior Guide’s License and must also hold a USCG Operator of an Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) License.
Other Waters: Most other fishing guide services are not specifically licensed by the state, but guides should have deep knowledge of local waters and fish, and their clients must possess valid MN fishing licenses.
In Summary: Licensing is specific to bear hunting and Lake Superior fishing; other guiding roles rely more on experience and client licensing.
That makes sense to me as both activities, fishing on Lake Superior and hunting bears, strike me as being more dangerous than most outdoor activities and if something goes wrong, the rescue operations are likely to be expensive and risky for the first responders.
South Dakota is the freest state, and Minnesota is the corruptest.
Mr. Voight from the District Numbered 33 wants to clamp down on our freedoms.
Wrong approach. Our state needs revenue, not bureaucracy. Instead of mandating licenses for all guides, create a new licensing opportunity. For a substantial fee a person can register as a guide and get certain privileges, say transferable licenses so out of state hunters can work with guides only. The Fed will be based on the number of licenses the guide is authorized to use in any given period. There would be new restrictions on individuals acting as guides the “old fashioned way”
“Where is the problem” is always the first question. “Because other states do it” is not a reason.
In SD, we have many part-time guides that help hunting lodges and this would be a big expense in time and money.
SDWF supports this probably because this makes it more difficult for out of staters to hunt.
Ice fishing is where the problem is. Hunting and fishing, at least when it comes to guiding, are two very different creatures. South Dakota does not have any kind of need for licensure requirement for hunting guides. Fishing can also be broken down into two main categories. Soft water (summer) and hard water (winter ice fishing). There is no need to have soft water guides licenses. There are already ample regulations to keep everyone on a boat safe.
Ice fishing is an entirely different story. Anyone can do it, you don’t need any kind of personal/business investment to start, and there are way too many people guiding. Many of the best fisheries in South Dakota are slowly being destroyed because a bite gets hot, and within a day every guide has who knows how many clients on that lake, quickly overfishing it. Which can take years to come back from. This isn’t some outlandish hypothetical, I’ve seen it happen first hand, many, many times.
Can accidents happen on a boat? Absolutely. But ice fishing is also inherently more dangerous. How many of these guides do you thing carry enough liability insurance to cover the outcome of them putting a ranger with 4 clients through the ice and nobody coming back to the surface remotely warm? Many of them are also cash only and definitely aren’t contributing to any kind of tax.
It’s an issue that needs to be addressed. This bill goes way too far, but it will start the conversation.
If this will make it more difficult for out-of-staters then I say go for it. I am sick and tired of battling out-of-staters for the limited public resources.
Let’s call them “Fish Tariffs.” Big beautiful tariffs that we love so much.
We have out of state and in state guides whom lodge owners have hired them to hunt on their property as well as leased land. Having a guide license and liability insurance makes sense. After all, who would be liable if a hunter got shot or hurt in some other way?
Everyone from out of state owes us a Fish Tariff.
Predictably D3 where all the present seat holders are liabilities for the economically struggling district begin with bills looking to seek solutions to problems that do not exist.
D3 has been in economic decline with massive hits to good paying jobs with benefits, loss of a college and severe stress to our AG economy. Residents are getting crushed with affordability issues and we will see again how out of touch these elected officials are.
More government from the so called “grassroots” conservative legislators. If I wanna guide hunters on my private land you can go pound sand with your guide tax. If I want to put wind towers or a data center on my land, you can also pound sand as it’s my right. With these people it’s all about private property rights until you do something with your property they don’t like. Then they regulate, because they are smarter than everyone else.
A squeak from a Libertarian ?
Nailed it.
@ anonymous 5:13. You hit the nail on the head. The “grassroots” is only Private Property rights when it suits them.
In campaign Carl’s defense, he probably didn’t read the bill.
Those limited government “conservatives”, at it again.
I bet Voita votes for this. Would par up with her vote to let townies shoot birds at the end of your driveway.
I will believe they care about private property rights when they do something about the ditches.
The property lines run down the middle of the road, The public right of way is 66′ wide. the landowners own the ditches and pay taxes on that land. They own the hay, and they are required to cut it. They own the trees which must be cut down and removed. They own the leafy spurge, too, according to the County Weed and Pest supervisors.
But for some reason they don’t own the asparagus. The Conservation officers have declared the asparagus is “game,” and can be “hunted,” in the public right of way, without the permission of the property owner.
And if an asparagus-hunter does a face-plant in a water-filled ditch and drowns, the property owner also owns the liability.
When hunting asparagus requires the permission of the property owner, THEN I will believe these people care about property rights. Until then…..
It is the same with the sidewalk in front of the business on main street. I have to insure that sidewalk, whether you shop in my business or just passing by. So it is not just the farmer or rural hobby farmer.
I like the idea of needing a guide license. $500.00 is very reasonable price but out of state in my opinion should be at least $3000. I have watched too many guides making two trips each. The fishing equipment is way too good know the fish can’t get away. I’m sure people will say you can’t make them bite but if you stay on top of they bite. Guides can a lot of money in a short time they should help to restock the fish.
I, along with other volunteers come in from out of state each fall and help my cousin who runs a 501c 3 organization that takes purple heart combat wounded veterans, those with PTSD and those with mobility issues pheasant hunting free of charge. It’s all free of charge for the vets. They spend money in Pierre. We the volunteers don’t get paid. We all volunteer our time and our travel expenses, and we also spend money in the local economy. We do it for the mission and the joy that we get from the experience. If this bill continues we can’t continue. I can’t pay a $1000.00 yearly fee, plus possibly having to travel back multiple times for training classes. I can understand having professional guides, who make their living guiding and charge a fee and are paid for their service,1 having to be licensed and certified, but volunteers on private land, not so much.
More government. Just what we need. B.S.
Guide pay this fee they can sell there daily catch if they are deemed commercial fishermen. Reporting daily catch? That’s what we already pay GFP to do That’s there job. What a waste of time.