Guides and outfitter licensing, fee and compensation rules draw divided views in committee discussion of HB153

House Bill 153, a second-substitute bill addressing hunting amendments including guide, outfitter and spotter rules, was the subject of an extended committee discussion on Feb. 27; the committee did not record a final vote on the bill during the hearing and later moved to the next agenda item.

Sponsor testimony said the bill responds to safety and enforcement concerns in remote big‑game hunts, clarifies that compensated spotters and guides count toward a four-person limit and moves licensing for guides from the Department of Professional and Occupational Licensing (DOPL) to the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). The sponsor also said the substitute removed compensated locators from the bill and set up a fee structure that differentiates in‑state and out‑of‑state guides, and distinguishes big-game/bear guiding from other guide activities.

Several witnesses testified in opposition to fee increases and the transfer of licensing. Cole Hartley, a hunting guide, said fee increases would disproportionately hurt small-scale guides. “My concern is that because Representative Shipp has hunted with Doyle Moss…there's a misunderstanding that all outfitters and guides roll like Mossback, which unfortunately, they don't. This change in state policy would only hurt the little guy,” Hartley testified, urging a sliding-scale fee or leaving licensing at DOPL.

Deputy Chief Wyatt Bubach of the Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division and Justin Shannon of the Division of Wildlife Resources both described operational reasons for the change. Bubach said DOPL historically lacked resources to focus on guiding enforcement: “Much of their time as far as investigations is based on larger commercial operations… and they just didn't have the resources to allocate to guiding and outfitting.” Shannon told the committee DWR supports the bill and said it is in “a really good spot” after negotiations.

Longer testimony highlighted three recurring concerns: (1) the magnitude of proposed fee increases in early drafts and the impact on part‑time guides who earn modest incomes; (2) whether transferring licensing and enforcement to the DWR is administratively appropriate; and (3) enforcement of guiding rules in remote terrain (including how dogs, horses and packers are treated). Witnesses proposed alternatives including sliding‑scale fees based on revenue and maintaining licensing at DOPL with better resourcing for enforcement.

The committee paused further action on HB153 and proceeded to later items on its agenda. The record shows competing stakeholder positions and requests for fee and governance changes that would require further negotiation before the bill advances.