Expand the safety zone within which hunting and trapping are restricted.
Summary
HB1236 would expand South Dakota’s hunting and trapping safety zone around occupied dwellings, churches, schoolhouses, and livestock from 660 feet to one-quarter mile. The bill amends existing law governing hunting on highways and other public rights-of-way, and it keeps the general prohibition on discharging firearms or trapping within the protected area, while preserving limited exceptions for the owner of the dwelling or livestock, or a person with written permission from the relevant owner.
The measure also clarifies that hunting on highways or rights-of-way includes taking small game located within the right-of-way and, in some cases, small game in flight over private land if the animal originated from or is crossing over the right-of-way. It continues to exclude mourning dove from these provisions. A violation remains a Class 2 misdemeanor, and a person convicted of knowingly discharging a firearm within the posted safety zone would still face a one-year revocation of hunting privileges, with possible consecutive revocation periods under other hunting-law penalties.
Impact
If enacted, HB1236 would broaden the geographic area where hunting, trapping, and firearm discharge are restricted near homes, churches, schoolhouses, and livestock, effectively increasing the buffer zone from 660 feet to one-quarter mile. This would affect hunters, trappers, landowners, livestock owners, and others using highways or public rights-of-way for hunting-related activity, and it would likely require greater caution and more posted warning areas to avoid criminal liability and license suspension under § 41-9-1.1.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in some stages but also faced substantial opposition, especially on the final committee action where a do-pass-amended motion failed 5-29. Earlier votes were more favorable, including a 51-19 House vote, indicating the concept had support in the chamber but not enough consensus to advance cleanly through later committee consideration. Overall, the sentiment appears mixed, with a clear split between supporters of expanded safety protections and opponents concerned about the broader restrictions.
Contention
The main point of contention is the size of the safety zone and the resulting limits on hunting and trapping near occupied structures and livestock. Supporters likely view the larger buffer as a public safety and property-protection measure, while opponents may see it as an unnecessary expansion that reduces access to hunting opportunities on or near rights-of-way and burdens landowners and sportsmen. The sharp reversal in the final committee vote suggests disagreement over whether the amendment struck the right balance between safety and hunting access.