A letter to Senator Voight objecting to Senate Bill was shared with me from one of his District 33 constituents today – and I was excited to share this, because he has some pretty good bullet points on the complete ridiculousness of the measure.
In hunting terms, it’s good ammo for those seeking to put Senate Bill 16 in their crosshairs, and to bring the measure down:
Dear Senator Voight,
I am writing to express my opposition to SB 16, which would require guides to pay a fee and become licensed by the state. I am a constituent and business owner in your district.
My opposition begins with a core principle: good government is small, restrained government. This bill may appear modest on its face, but licensure is rarely a one-time action. First comes the license, then a board to oversee it, followed by staff, rulemaking, enforcement, and ongoing administrative cost. Once created, these structures rarely shrink or disappear, regardless of whether the original problem ever materializes. It feels a lot like GF&P staff may have “suggested” this bill to you.
Second, I see SB 16 as a solution in search of a problem. I would respectfully challenge you to identify a specific instance where a member of the public was harmed by a guide in a way that would have been prevented or meaningfully mitigated by state licensure. Existing laws already address fraud, negligence, and misconduct. Creating a new licensing regime without a documented pattern of harm sets a concerning precedent.
Finally, the proposed license fee is inordinately high, particularly when viewed in the context of other professional licenses in South Dakota. Many guides are part-time or seasonal workers. In practice, this fee would almost certainly be passed on to lodges, meaning an additional regulatory burden on agricultural producers who are already facing rising costs, labor shortages, and regulatory pressure from multiple directions.
For context, here are common professional license fees in South Dakota today:
South Dakota – Common Professional License Fees
• Physician (MD/DO): $450
• Certified Public Accountant (CPA): $50
• Registered Nurse (RN): $100
• Real Estate Salesperson/Broker: $100–$200
• Cosmetologist: $45
• Barber: $50–$100
• Electrician: $50–$150+
• Plumber: $50–$150+
• Architect: $100–$300+
• Professional Engineer: $100–$300+When a seasonal guide license approaches or exceeds the cost of licenses held by highly regulated professionals, it raises serious questions about proportionality and legislative intent.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to reconsider SB 16 and its long-term implications for limited government, rural businesses, and South Dakota producers.
Sincerely,
Chris Hipple
Well, when Senator Voight proposes charging more for a fishing guide license than the state does for a doctor or an electrician, it makes you wonder where his sense of proportion is. And Chris makes a number of good points on what happens after the license.. a board to oversee it, followed by staff, rule making, enforcement, and ongoing administrative cost.
I just don’t see where there are many South Dakotans who are demanding to sign up for all that new government.
I have a feeling this bill will have a similar trajectory of a pheasant flushed in October.
I see his spineless co-sponsor, Sen. Perry, has already dropped off. The real question is, did Perry even bother to read the bill before he signed on?
There isn’t much thought process amongst this crop of legislators.
Voight brought a bill last session that would have froze property taxes or set to the 2020 level anyone over the age of 65, owned their home for 10 years, and was a resident for 25 years. Guess who fell into this category. He did and a majority of his co sponsors did. Give him a little credit, his bills are thought out…….self serving, but thought out.
Yes, lets reward the generation that saddled us with debt and crapped the greatest economy in the world down their legs because they bought into trickle down economics.
This bill isn’t perfect but it’s absolutely needed! The vast majority of states in the US have a license requirement for guides/outfitters that sell our public resources. SD leads the nation with 24% of citizens holding a hunting/fishing license. Our state, tourism etc. advertise to sell what belongs to the citizens and many are very tired of being sold out. Guiding and outfitting is fine, but let’s have some guard rails here. They don’t own what they are selling! We have NO idea how many there even are. Many aren’t even residents of the state. Yes, we don’t love more government or taxes BUT, what other option is there to putting up barriers or even safety measures to help preserve our natural resources for the residents of SD?
Most states have guide/outfitter licensing. Some states have governing boards and even a residency requirement for licensure. What’s wrong with protecting our states wildlife for the residents first before selling it off to out of staters?
It’s not “absolutely necessary”. Less than half of the states require guides and outfitters to be licensed. Being “sold out”? How are residents being sold out? Because they can’t access private land without paying? That’s not being sold out, that’s the right of the landowner, as it has always been. If they can’t figure out how to get access without paying ie: helping with calving etc, they can hunt public. I know more about hunting operations and guides/outfitters and the overwhelming majority are residents. Most states do NOT have guide/outfitter licensing. Your final sentence tells me everything you’re interested in: protect the states wildlife before selling it to out of staters. My take is that you hate out of staters coming here and hunting and actually wish it was illegal so you could go back in time where landowners would let you hunt just by knocking on their door and asking. Those days are pretty much gone, and there’s a solid reason *why* they are gone.
The reason they are gone is money… and this bill has nothing to do with access. While I do not support this bill as written there is a need to get a handel of the number of guides and the amount of public resources they are harvesting. I just seen an ad on facebook coming from a business in Minnesota offering guiding services on waters in the Northeastern part of the state. While I have been fishing on Big Stone lake the number of guides at the cleaning station was surprising. And before the landowners blow up, I don’t think a landowner guiding on land they own should have to pay a fee or be licensed. GFP already has reporting requirements for big game licensed hunters.