Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Safety Hunting Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee advances bill to shorten legal hunting discharge distance despite Game and Fish opposition
Summary
A House committee of the whole adopted a technical amendment and recommended Senate Bill 10-53 as amended for passage after members debated safety concerns raised by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission about reducing the allowable distance for discharging firearms and archery equipment.
A House committee of the whole on Wednesday adopted a floor amendment and recommended that Senate Bill 10-53, which would shorten the statutory discharge distance for firearms and archery gear near structures, do pass as amended.
The bill drew pointed criticism from Representative Marquez, who said Arizona Game and Fish “still stands opposed to this” and urged more stakeholder engagement before changing the existing rule. “This is an issue of urban rural interface,” Marquez said, arguing the measure was prompted by one community’s request rather than statewide input.
Why it matters: The measure would reduce the distance from 1/4 mile to 1/8 mile for discharge near a property or structure in the version debated on the floor. Representative Marquez warned that difference is material for public safety: “For comparison purposes, 1 quarter a mile is 1,320 feet or 440 yards. 1 eighth of a mile is 660 feet or 220 yards. This is about the size of 2 football fields,” Marquez said, adding that some shotgun pellets and slugs can travel beyond the shorter distance.
Most of the debate centered on definitions and safety. Arizona Game and Fish, the commission that oversees wildlife and hunting rules, told lawmakers the bill’s definitions “are problematic,” the transcript records, citing ambiguities around what counts as authorized shot or a projectile and noting the commission’s view that the current quarter-mile standard remains relevant to public safety and wildlife management.
Supporters characterized the change as narrowly tailored and said the version before the committee contained only technical drafting corrections. Representative Marshall, who brought the committee motion, described the committee floor amendment as “technical” and said the Senate had already adjusted language that needed cleanup.
Action taken: The committee of the whole adopted the floor amendment (voice vote) and rose to report that Senate Bill 10-53 as amended “do pass.” The House then adopted the committee report and sent the bill to engrossing.
What’s next: The measure was advanced to engrossing after the committee report was adopted; floor debate flagged the need for more stakeholder engagement and questions about precise drafting that the Game and Fish Commission said should be resolved before final enactment.
Ending: Lawmakers pressed both caution and deference to local hunting traditions, with calls from some members to “listen to our experts at Game and Fish” and from others to move forward with a bill they called a limited, community-driven change.
