H.B. 168 Hunting and Fishing Amendments: transcript

Hunting and fishing amendments as an amendment as well. Yeah, I'll be speaking the amendment. We can move it at the appropriate time. Okay. Okay. HB 1 68. Hunting and fishing amendments. Uh, what it does. Last year we ran a hunting and fishing amendments bill as well. And this is just making some additional changes. Uh, some of the key points are, uh, it establishes an anti-poaching mitigation fund. Uh, so, uh, basically this fund will be generated from restitution paid by in individuals convicted of illegal take, uh, out there. And so we hope there's not much illegal take, but, uh, it is a problem that we have in the, uh, wildlife right now and always has been actually. So we need to continue to do that. It, uh, removes, uh, the spotters, uh, from the cold, uh, spotters. Were kind of a, uh, mini guide, if you will, and we determined in working with DWR that it wasn't really necessary to have a spotter, uh, designation. So, uh, what it also does, uh, limits the guide services to three, which we put in place last year for once in a lifetime hunts. But it also now this year we're adding that it can be three, uh, guides used for limited entry hunts as well. Uh, it also, uh, has a new pilot liability. Uh, pilots, uh, uh, a lot of times hunters, uh, even guides or even people that aren't guides like to fly to see where the wildlife is, whether it's deer or elk or moose or what have you. Uh, they can't do that 48 hours before a hunt opens. And, uh, so this is putting that if they are caught doing that, that a pilot will receive a penalty of a Class B misdemeanor for the first infraction. Uh, a class A for the second and a third degree felony for any after that. Uh, they can also be subject to losing their own hunting or fishing licenses, uh, for a period of time. Uh, so we wanna make sure the pilots are not acting inappropriately if they're doing that. So also, uh, what this bill does as well as far as administrative, uh, if, uh, as, again, we can only use, uh, before this year you could only have the guides. We could be the only ones in the camp other than family and friends. We have, uh, expanded that a little bit to allow there to be, uh, people providing camp services, uh, as far as a cook. So if, uh, a guide or outfitter wants to hire a cook that's just gonna help with that type of thing and not be involved in the pursuit of wildlife, they can do that. And it also allows that once an animal is down and tagged, that the outfitter can call in additional guides or outfitters to help pack an animal out. Many times these hunts are going on, uh, when the weather is warm, and if you've hiked back in, uh, several miles, which some of 'em do to get to their prime hunting ground, uh, it takes a big effort to get those larger animals out. So, uh, that is allowed that once it's down and tagged, you can get extra help, paid help and to help you. So, uh, with that, the amendment just covers that. Uh, it kind of was a little bit vague in the, in the statute, uh, that only an outfitter could transport the hunter or, uh, or the client around. But, so he just made sure through the amendment that allows any of the guides that are helping to also be able to transport the client or the hunter. So with that, I'm open to clarifying questions. Mr. Chair.

Thank you, chair. I'm just wondering if you could help, uh, just talk us through the fiscal note on this bill. Um, I know that there's the, the guide and outfitter fund and then also the Poaching mitigation fund. Um, do you mind just speaking to that?

I haven't got the fiscal note. What's, what is the fiscal note? What, how much is there? I, I believe it is fy I'm seeing 240,000 new, new, I don't know if this is like previous new account created by Bill 365,300. Total revenues 125,000. So I guess I'm a, I'm not sure what it, because it is, uh, it's funded. The poaching fund is funded through the, uh, any penalties for illegal take. And so, uh, the, uh, let me look at that. Oh, basically what it's doing is because in the past, uh, representative, the illegal take was went into the general fund. And so because it's taking that money and putting it instead into this restricted account, it's like a fiscal note.

So it's removing money. Is that correct?

Uh, my name's Chad Becher. I'm a major with Division DNR law enforcement. This, this, uh, in, in effect transfers what we used to be called the Help Stop Poaching fund that belonged in the, in the DDWR that was specific to law enforcement efforts. It transfers that to the division of law enforcement. So yes, it's, it's a new fund, but it's not new money.

Gotcha. So, so thank you. That helps. Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate that. Just so I can be sure that I get, so Line 60 describes the poaching mitigation fund, uh, two way reimbursement money, I think is what you're saying there to be restitution collected. But then two c money appropriated by the legislature. Is there like an ongoing fund funding from the legislature that goes into this fund for for two C there?

Well, the division, uh, there is money that is appropriated to the DWR and, uh, some of it goes into help, help the, this process too with the guides and outfitters. Most of the costs for the law enforcement in, in this bill comes from the fees that are paid by the guides and outfitters.

Awesome. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I haven't got it up here though, looking at the fiscal note, but tell me the problem we're trying to solve with the spotters Had a lot of people, not a lot, several people I know have complained about certain aspects of, uh, guiding or being, having other people's, uh, guided, being guided in areas where they hunt traditionally and et cetera. And spotters seem to come up. Tell me what the problem is and what you're solving.

Well, the spotters, uh, uh, are are kinda like a quasi guide, if you will. And, uh, so the, one of the concerns that, uh, the division had with that, uh, it makes sense is because the spotters were acting also as guides. Uh, a lot of the guides would register as spotters 'cause it costs less to register as a spotter. But essentially they're doing the same thing as a guide. And there was not a really a need to have a separate category as a spotter. 'cause they're basically guiding, guiding. If that makes sense.

Go ahead. Uh, Chad Ridge with, uh, DNR law enforcement. Uh, appreciate the sponsor. Uh, bringing this to light, it does provide a lot of clarification both on the enforcement side as well as the, the, those that are hunters, uh, excuse me, the guides and the outfitters. And I do think it's, uh, it's a, a good step in the right direction and we're supportive of this.

Hello, my name is Justin Shannon and I'm with the DWR. Um, I want to thank the sponsor for, uh, running this bill. He, he did this last year. It was a heavy lift. And, um, during the interim we realized that there's a lot of things that could be improved in the bill and, uh, Representative Shipp held meetings where he brought, uh, the guides, the outfitters, the division, law enforcement, a lot of people together to figure out. Um, we had version one and it was good. And it was a really good start. And, and this just improves upon that, really supportive of the, uh, everything that we have in here. And I appreciate Representative Shipp for making improvements. Thank you.

Hi, Mr. Chair. Matt Anderson with the Utah Sportsman's Caucus representing hunters, fishers, and trappers across the state. Um, we really like this bill. Uh, two things I wanna mention that we particularly like are the poaching mitigation fund. Um, you know, especially the education component about what it does. And then of course, the detection equipment. The second thing that I personally like a lot is the, uh, the ability to facilitate field dressing of down to animals, but not counting those who come and help out with, uh, when an animal is tagged. You know, when it's really hot outside, especially in September, you're on an antelope hunt, you need to get that thing cooled down, packed out quickly. And so it will help, you know, mitigate the spoilage of games. So this is a great bill. There's a lot of other provisions in it with aircraft. And, um, once in a lifetime tags for additional guides, we reelect this and support it. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to, uh, move that we move favorably. HB 1 68 as amended

I, I apologize. Um, I wanted to speak to the motion.

Just, uh, I wanna reserve the right to make a motion. Okay. Okay. So I, I was just speaking with the, the policy analyst. There is a new fund created in the bill. There's the existing guide outfitter fund, but then there's also the poaching mitigation fund. That's, that's brand new. Um, and I just, I, I'd like greater clarity on that and the cost of the new fund. Um, how much is coming from the legislature before I, uh, vote on this motion? So I'd like to make a motion that we hold the bill or move to the next agenda item.

That sounds good. And I, I can also speak with the Sponsor and get, okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Um, uh, HB 1 68 is kind of a follow up from last year's, uh, uh, bill that we did on, on, uh, funding and guiding issues. Uh, one of the, the things that this bill does is it establishes a poaching mitigation fund, uh, to finance wildlife crime prevention and detection. Uh, and so it clarifies some additional registration requirements for guides and outfitters. Uh, notably we have removed a reference to spotters. Uh, so we're just dealing with outfitters and guides. So the Poe Mitigation Fund will be funded by restitution, paid by individuals convicted of illegal taking or destroying protected wildlife. Uh, law enforcement can use this money for wildlife crime prevention and so on. Uh, courts are authorized to require violators to reimburse the state for operational expenses incurred, uh, during COVID or complex wildlife investigations. Uh, uh, also it has a restriction on aircraft. Uh, pilots are prohibited from knowingly or recklessly operating an aircraft in a way that assists someone in locating or taking wildlife from the air. So it has escalating penalties for that. Pilots have increased penalty offenses, uh, class B misdemeanor for the first class A for the second and the third degree felony for subsequent violations. Um, uh, also, uh, the bill just has some, uh, cleanup language as it relates to some of the things that needed to be cleaned up along the way as well. And so, with that, I'm open to any questions. Uh, oh, oh, oh. I need to add that, uh, last year we put in, uh, prior to last year, you could only use two, two guides on hunts, whether it was, no matter what it was, last year, we added a third, uh, guide that could be used on once in a lifetime hunts. Uh, this year we're, uh, just gonna extend that to also limited entry hunts. Uh, one of the reasons for that, that I've heard, and I've, I've kind of fit into that category with my own experience as well. Some of these hunters on once in a lifetime or even limited entry will take, like, it took me 27 years to draw on a limited entry tag and a once in a lifetime tag. It was 28 years. And so I felt that, uh, they need some help. I didn't know how to hunt my once in lifetime. I'd never hunted that before. I was only gonna be able to hunt it once. So I felt like I needed some guides, uh, to help me, uh, find, uh, what I felt like was an acceptable animal. Uh, and so we have added that to also limited entry. Uh, two other things that have, uh, we did is, uh, we are also, before you could only, the only ones you could have in camp was your two or three guides. And then the only, the only others that could be there were friends or family of the hunter. Uh, what we're expanding there is just to allowing if, if the outfitter wants to have somebody that they hire to cook, you know, kind of a camp services, as long as they're not also helping on the guiding side, they can still only have the three on the, on the guiding. And, and then the other thing that we had a good discussion on, in, in the interim, uh, with DWR law enforcement and a lot of the, uh, stakeholders with the guides and outfitters in this was, uh, once an animal is down and tagged, uh, they can hire all the help. They want to come and help get the animal out so that we don't, sometimes you're hunting the weather's hot. You want to be able to get, get 'em out and not have any spoilages. So that's the bill. And I'm open to any questions, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. So, um, some questions looking around, uh, the aircraft piece. Um, so I, I see you were, uh, pretty explicit about not making it, uh, a problem to continue to, to take coyotes, oli. Uh, but I'm kind of wondering where we're gonna land on drones. And I see when you talk about pilot, uh, is a pilot a drone operator as well? That's Mr. Chair.

Go ahead. Uh, that's not specified in the bill, but I would, common sense tells me, yeah. A drone, and maybe that's something that ought to be added in, actually, because a drone

Operator can, can I follow up please? Uh, if you add drone in there, it causes a extra problem. Um, as we go forward, we're gonna start to use drones more and more to locate animals, whether they're cattle or sheep or something else on the range. Uh, I don't want to get into some conflict, uh, during a hunting season where I've got a drone up and somebody accuses me of finding a, an animal, a, a wildlife animal, and then somebody taking it. Uh, I think, I think you've gotta be able to care. I, I can see in a fixed wing aircraft, um, not really having that problem. I mean, it's a little different, but you talk about when we get into drones, I'm, I'm a, I'm starting to get a little worried that we start to make that a, a fa or a, um, a an offense, a criminal offense, and how that would look.

Well, uh, it doesn't specify a drone, uh, Mr. Chair in the bill, uh, I hadn't even frankly, uh, senator and thought about a drone. The one thing that we do know is you can't fly, uh, and locate an animal for hunters 48 hours prior to the opening of a season. Uh, and so this, uh, would, if somebody's flying after that for the purpose of locating or taking wildlife, if you're hunting, I, I, I don't think it would apply. Uh, I'd have to refer maybe to DNR law enforcement on this. But, uh, if, if they're not doing it for the purpose of locating wildlife and hunting, uh, it, it's not, it's not in this bill that, that would be a problem.

So I, I, I understand that may be your intent, but let me give you a ground on experience. So, um, I'm out with my drone and I'm trying to, to check across a pretty rough piece of country on my property and looking for cattle. It's during the deer hunt season, and my son is hunting deer and he harvested deer. Okay. Do I, am I gonna have to prove that? I did not call him to tell him where the deer was? Am I gonna, it's, in other words, you, you, you've conflicted a couple of things here that I'm a little concerned about. When I, I, I'm, I'm not sure. I just don't wanna be liable in that, in that position, or I, I guess, I guess I'm having a hard time to just, just determining, as we start to use more and more aircraft in our operations, if somehow we could be pointed to as liable for then the taking of an animal.

I Can, um, weigh in a little on this with the discussion. I, you, you bring up a really interesting point that we're going to have to address Senator. And, uh, and full transparency. I, I've been a year, but, uh, uh, I had, um, been able to, after 23 years, draw a tag and, uh, during, uh, so frustrating to have a helicopter come in and blow up the deer in the canyon. Uh, and I asked the, the representative to put aircraft in here. So, but we, we never had the discussion about being a drone. Um, I think it, it, the, uh,

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and committee,

Yes, sir. Uh, deputy Chief w Ock, DNR law enforcement. So, generally speaking, um, we have both administrative rule and state statute that regulates the take protected wildlife with aircraft and other terrestrial vehicles. Basically, it will be tied to the take or attempted take, uh, that aircraft. And then to, uh, Senator Sandall point, it would be our burden to prove the intent intended use of that aircraft. And so if you're flying and monitoring cattle or otherwise, and there's no intent or no subsequent harvest as a result of that data, then there would be no concern per current state code or administrative rule.

I do. Uh, thanks you, Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering, uh, so the money that, uh, is collected from, uh, poaching. Now, what all does that entail? I mean, a lot of times when they get caught poaching, they lose their vehicle, they could lose their guns and their animal, and then they auction that off at the end of the year. Will all that money go into this fund you're talking about? That's, Yes. That's the intent, Mr. Chair is the money would go into the account to, uh, focus on mitigating, poaching, uh, and, uh, and other issues. Sometimes they may have to, uh, have some expenses if, uh, uh, DNR law enforcement may have to have some expenses when they're trying to, uh, if they've gotten some, uh, information on a potential, uh, violator of the law. And they may have to, uh, go even so far as, uh, buying a tag or something, or paying an outfitter, uh, to hunt so that they can investigate. Uh, this would go towards, uh, the, the poaching poachings the real problem in our, in our state. I Understand that Center. Yeah. I just wondered. So where does that money go now? Because right now they're collecting money, like if they auction off a vehicle or guns and the animal itself, sometimes if they're large animals, they sell

Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Uh, so currently in statute it says that largely the money that goes into that account will be restitution. That is governed by statute. So, uh, unlawful harvest of a Bull elk is, is, has a statutory value to it. That money goes into the division of Wildlife's account that is then earmarked for the allowable expenses in code, um, which are educ education for poaching projects, uh, various poaching projects, equipments to mitigate, poaching, uh, things like that. There's very strict standards on what that can be spent on. But, uh, as it occurs, currently someone's charged with poaching, they're charged restitution for the animal, goes to Division Wildlife, and is in a earmarked for that account. What this is doing now that we now have the division of law enforcement that is outside the Division Wildlife is, it's basically saying, let's use that same money for that same purpose, but in the division of law enforcement.

Yeah, that probably an, uh, brought up more question than it did answers, but I was just, uh, so the money now goes into the DNR account. Uh, Just a, just a general Vision, wildlife restricted account Sounds tome like, and they distribute it from we, our appropriations allows where it can go, but this would be where now there would be no oversight over it. So I'd have to have someone from DWR speak on if it's a, in their appropriations. I'm not sure if that's, Well, I, I, I can go ahead and, you know, myself be okay with this. Uh, but I need to get that answer before I pass it, before I vote on it, on the floor, till I, you know, so

Thank you. I, I, I wonder if, if it was just clarifying here, now that we have a law enforcement division and the DWR that this clarifies that it goes to the, okay. Yeah, that helps. Thanks for a question, Senator.

Deputy Chief Wyatt Bok, DNR law enforcement. Just wanted to, uh, thank the bill sponsor here for his effort, both, uh, with, in our agency and DNR as well as the constituents that he's solicited for input onto this. Uh, I think it's a, a great building block for where we were last year, kind of closes some of the challenges we had on the enforcement side and, uh, also at the same time makes it more clear for those that are operating in this space and the constituents that it serves. So, just wanted to say thanks for that. Alright.

Anderson, director of the Utah Sportsman's Caucus Advisory Council, represen six 16 different, um, hunting, fishing, and wildlife related organizations. Um, we support this bill. We think it's great, great policy. Um, as was mentioned before, especially for when you have a downed animal and it's hot outside, it's really good to get in there quickly and get that animal out so that we're not spoiling meat and we're using the animal for the intended purposes. So we urge you to pass this bill. Thank you. Great.

I'm Justin Shannon, deputy Director for the Utah Division Wildlife Resources. We also support this bill. We are very appreciative of Representative Shipp, uh, bringing this forth two years in a row. Last year when this got in place and we started implementing it with the, through the division of law enforcement, there were a lot of questions that they had. And I think this bill clarifies a lot of that as far as who can be in camp, what constitutes, uh, people engaged in the hunt and the taking of the animal. And I really like the addition of the, the, um, the pilot component of that, because as you mentioned earlier, we, we've had some bad actors in this and, um, just put some teeth into that. So, anyways, appreciate the sponsor. Bringing people together in the interim, talking about what was working well and where we still had questions and, and trying to make improvements. Thank you. Great.

You guys. Amazing timing. I just made it on the bus at the airport. My name's Sierra Nelson. I'm the, um, vice chair of the Utah Sportsman's Caucus. I am a failed bird hunter, and I am an outdoor enthusiast, and I really appreciate the sponsor for bringing this bill forward. Um, we really, really appreciate the work that he's done on this to get it right and the great stuff. If you are familiar with anything with the, uh, Ariel debacle in Idaho from last year, there's some really great components to this bill And I, I echo Senator Sandall worries about drones 'cause we use them a lot with sheep now, especially with thermal imaging to locate lost animals. Um, but that's something that we can work on and something that we should continue to discuss. In the meantime, I would encourage you to pass this bill forward. It's a great bill and I, I really think you ought to pass it out favorably. So thank you so much for your time.

Mr. Mr. Chair members of the committee. My name is Tyler Millard. I'm a Utah Outfitter and Guide. I'm also the director of the Utah Outfitter and Guide Association. Tyler, Can you turn the Camera on Large majority of the actual operators in the working class that this legislation re Mr. Chair members of the committee. My name is Tyler Millard. I'm a Utah Outfitter and Guide. I'm also the director of the Utah Outfitter and Guide Association. I represent a large majority of the actual operators in the working class that this legislation regulates. I'm presenting this statement because HB 168 builds upon the regulatory framework created in 2020 when professional licensure for this occupation was removed and replaced with an open registration model, professional licensure removal. Prior to 2020, this profession operated under a professional licensing structure with defined oversight and standards. That structure was replaced with an open registration system administered within an enforcement framework. Since that change, this relatively small occupational class has been subject to repeated statutory revisions, fee increase in industry exit.

Yeah, I apologize. Chair there. I have, uh, honestly, I have submitted so many, um, revisions and changes and attempts to work on, uh, just simple modifications on this bill. What you're not being told. Okay. This bill isn't about wildlife. This bill isn't about anything you're hearing. What this is, is this is about regulating the profession of outfitters and guides. Okay? So that will be smoothly drifted over. You won't hear about that, but that's exactly what it is. And for several years, just like this year, once again, it's being attempted to be written into code so that it can never go before RAC committees 'cause it's already in law and already changed, and then nothing can be done about it. Um, there's several problems with this bill. Uh, the biggest one is there is an open gateway. Okay? They de they define, um, professional licensure as an industry or a field that is identified as one that is potentially hazardous to the public. Okay? Now is hunting with a rifle on the mountains over ledges, muddy hills chains. Is that dangerous to the public? And we've turned it into what I just said, an open entry, no testing, no CPR, no first aid. Okay. I had to give CPR to a cl uh, not a client, but a person on the mountain two years ago. Fortunately, I used, used to be In the, to speak to the Bill Tyler.

Uh, so, and additionally, I represent, I, uh, the Utah Outfit and Guide associating students. So I'm not just here representing myself and a large majority, majority of us want input on this bill. Have not been given it. We adamantly are against the way this bill currently stands, and it regulates us our profession.

You. Uh, I'd like to make a verbal amendment on line 6 0 6. That would be in order. Um, my amendment would be after the word airplane. Words airplane, or insert the word helicopter and strike other airborne vehicle or device. It goes to my original intent. I think if we're gonna deal with the drones, let's have that discussion somewhere down the road and figure it out. Representative. Um, but for right now, let's, let's, let's get those bigger, those bigger, uh, airborne things taken care of.

I I hate to do this on the fly. I don't like verbal amendments, but Yeah. Julie Humberstone, um, staff for the committee. So what I'm hearing, Senator Sandall is just to confirm on line 6 0 6 after airplane or at the word helicopter and strike other airborne vehicle or device.

That is correct. That would be my motion. Mr. Chair, Thank you to the sponsor, to the amendment. I, I fully support that. That makes sense. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'll make that motion. Thank you. Uh, I'll move that we, uh, favorably recommend first substitute 1 68 as amended from this committee.

Yeah. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the motion. And I commit, I mean, this is kind of a work in process. Uh, there's gonna be some tweaks and we're, I'm happy to have the amendment in there and we'll work on it further in the future. Thank you.

Grover. Senator Grover, we have you as an I, Grover. Aye. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to adopt first sub HB 1 68.

Yeah, just briefly. What, uh, what the sub does Mr. Speaker is. It moves the fees out of statute into the fee schedules in the, uh, sub in the appropriation subcommittee for natural resources.

I waive Made and waive.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill, uh, is some, uh, updates to the bill we passed last year. Uh, and, uh, we had some discussion over the interim, uh, with some guides, uh, with the DWR, uh, law enforcement. Uh, and we, we had some discussions on some things that ought to change and the process. Uh, what this bill does is it sets up a poaching mitigation fund, which will help for educating people around the poaching area. The, the fund will be, uh, funded with, uh, uh, any, uh, penalties, uh, and such that are taken for illegal take of wildlife. Um, also this bill adds, uh, uh, an extra guide. You can only have two guides, uh, except for once in a lifetime. This adds one more guide that's available to for limited entry hunts. Uh, the purpose of that, uh, colleagues is many times during these hunts with these animals are, it is warm. We need to be able to, to get those animals out in a timely manner. Also, uh, the bill allows now for, uh, camp services. So if a outfitter has some hunters in camp and he, he doesn't want to cook for the, for the hunter and, and his, uh, family and friends, then he can hire a cook as long as they're still only using the three guides in the field on these, uh, particular, uh, limited entry hunts and once in a lifetime, uh, uh, also it has some aircraft and pilot restrictions. Uh, so, uh, pilots are prohibited from knowingly or recklessly operating aircraft in a way, uh, assisting somebody in locating or taking wildlife. Uh, it sets up some penalties for that. Uh, initially it's a Class B mis misdemeanor, and it steps up to a Class A on a second offense. And a third offense is actually a third degree felony. Uh, and there's also just some technical cleanup, uh, in the bill as well. Uh, so that's, that's the bill. Mr. Speaker.

It's good. Bill, I'll waive

I move to adopt first sub HB 1 68.

Yeah, just briefly. What, uh, what the sub does Mr. Speaker is. It moves the fees out of statute into the fee schedules in the, uh, sub in the appropriation subcommittee for natural resources.

I waive Made and waive.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill, uh, is some, uh, updates to the bill we passed last year. Uh, and, uh, we had some discussion over the interim, uh, with some guides, uh, with the DWR, uh, law enforcement. Uh, and we, we had some discussions on some things that ought to change and the process. Uh, what this bill does is it sets up a poaching mitigation fund, which will help for educating people around the poaching area. The, the fund will be, uh, funded with, uh, uh, any, uh, penalties, uh, and such that are taken for illegal take of wildlife. Um, also this bill adds, uh, uh, an extra guide. You can only have two guides, uh, except for once in a lifetime. This adds one more guide that's available to for limited entry hunts. Uh, the purpose of that, uh, colleagues is many times during these hunts with these animals are, it is warm. We need to be able to, to get those animals out in a timely manner. Also, uh, the bill allows now for, uh, camp services. So if a outfitter has some hunters in camp and he, he doesn't want to cook for the, for the hunter and, and his, uh, family and friends, then he can hire a cook as long as they're still only using the three guides in the field on these, uh, particular, uh, limited entry hunts and once in a lifetime, uh, uh, also it has some aircraft and pilot restrictions. Uh, so, uh, pilots are prohibited from knowingly or recklessly operating aircraft in a way, uh, assisting somebody in locating or taking wildlife. Uh, it sets up some penalties for that. Uh, initially it's a Class B mis misdemeanor, and it steps up to a Class A on a second offense. And a third offense is actually a third degree felony. Uh, and there's also just some technical cleanup, uh, in the bill as well. Uh, so that's, that's the bill. Mr. Speaker.

It's good. Bill, I'll waive