The Rural Lobbyist: SB 130 Comes Back From the Dead, Grabs Attention of Ag Groups

Sometimes during legislative session bills will slip under the radar. This happens because many bills begin with simple intentions. These bills will quietly pass out of their house of origin and then BAM! All of the sudden all eyes are on a bill that everyone previously considered “clean-up” or “simple”. Such was the case with Senate Bill 130. The original intent of the bill was to increase the fee collected on park entrance, game, fish, or trapping licenses. It was a bill brought on behalf of retailers and was considered very simple in nature. After all, the only changes made by the original legislation were replacements of the words “two” and “four” with “four” and “eight” in a select section of statute. SDFU and other ag groups weren’t concerned with the legislation and it breezed through the Senate Ag Committee 8-0 and the Senate floor 28-3.However the train was quickly derailed in House Ag Committee when it was deferred to the 41^st legislative day by a vote of 8-5. The concern was over the increase in revenue that the Game, Fish, and Parks Department would receive as a result of the legislation. The bill was then reconsidered by the committee with a suggested amendment that would prohibit an increase by Game, Fish, and Parks and allow for the increase at the retail level. There was debate on the amendment and it was ultimately accepted. However, concerns were raised and the committee held the bill over for yet another day of committee hearing. At this point, there was still little interest from the ag community.During the break in committees, a plan was suggested to allow GF&P to collect the increase with the money split between the wildlife depredation fund and the animal damage control fund. At this point, the ears of ag groups collectively perked and we were drawn into the discussion. With the increase in funds, GF&P would be able to better manage the animal damage control fund which includes the hunting of coyotes. In fact, in testimony GF&P testified that it was more likely than not that they would be back in front of the committee within the next few years asking for additional revenue to manage the fund without such an increase.Coyotes and their rapid growth have become a major problem for cattle producers in South Dakota; which is why SDFU supported a coyote hunting bill last session as well. Ultimately SDFU testified as a proponent to the new amendment which was accepted by the committee. SB 130 as amended was passed out of the House Ag Committee by a vote of 10-1 and now awaits discussion on the floor. To find more information on the bill click here.It just goes to show that you always have to be on your toes when you wander the halls of the capitol. You never know what bills might become a benefit or a burden.