Lawmakers advance bills aimed at increasing regulation of hunting on Oklahoma's public lands
Two bills would tighten regulations for guides and nonresidents hunting on Oklahoma public land. An Oklahoma game warden speaks with hunters. (Provided photo)
OKLAHOMA CITY — Lawmakers advanced two bills this week designed to tighten the state's hunting regulations on Oklahoma public lands by instituting new requirements for guides and nonresidents.
Senate Bill 448 heads to the governor's desk after passing off the House floor with a nearly unanimous vote while Senate Bill 208 heads to the House floor moving through a committee Wednesday.
The first, authored by Rep. Jim Grego, R-Wilburton, would require nonresidents to schedule and obtain written permission before hunting at any refuge or wildlife management area operated by the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission.
A lottery system would be used, if necessary, to distribute permits to nonresidents to hunt. These permits would come at a cost of $100 and the lottery would be used to help ease overcrowding on public lands, Grego said.
Micah Holmes, a spokesperson for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, said the agency supports the bill because it offers another tool to deal with overcrowding.
The agency fields complaints of overcrowding on more 'popular' publicly managed lands, he said.
Holmes said 'this is a good problem to have,' and it speaks to the 'excellent' land management done by the department.
The agency is also looking into other options to monitor how many people are utilizing public lands, including electronic check-ins and road counters, he said.
Senate Bill 208, authored by Rep. Ty Burns, R-Pawnee, would require the Wildlife Department to create a licensing and registration system for anyone providing 'guiding services' on public lands. Guides are trained professionals who help hunters locate game, navigate terrain and provide other services.
The bill excludes 'commercial hunting facilities' and landowners that offer those services on private or leased property.
The measure does not outline any fees or guidelines for implementation, but allows the department to create any rules necessary to carry out the legislation.
Rep. Nick Archer, R-Elk City, who voted against it, said he's concerned that the bill's language provided no enforcement authority to require these licenses and registration.
This measure is eligible to be heard on the House floor. If approved and not amended on the full chamber, it will head to Stitt's desk.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Medicaid spending in Mass. has nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years. It needs reform.
Advertisement Medicaid was The cost of this is staggering. The budget for the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth, has to over Advertisement But this explosion in the cost of Medicaid begs the question: Has all this spending led to better health outcomes? Surprisingly, Despite these findings, even modest Medicaid reform in Republican proposals before Congress — like encouraging community engagement through volunteering or work, preventing duplicate payments to insurers, and closing state-level However, it should be noted that the current proposals in Washington — which the House passed last week and are now in the Republican-controlled Senate — will result in more Medicaid spending over 10 years, not less. The bill merely slows the rate of growth. Only in Washington, D.C., is more spending decried as a cut. The fundamental issue remains: Are we prioritizing the right goals? Advertisement The evidence on the power of connection is . Past state-level experiments with work engagement in programs like food stamps and welfare cash assistance offer a promising road map. A Medicaid reform could similarly refocus state efforts on connecting enrollees with community engagement rather than solely maximizing federal funding. Encouragingly, these past reforms also saw a halving of the time individuals needed to stay on public assistance. Shouldn't we celebrate if someone like J.D. could earn enough to transition to employer-based or ACA coverage? Sadly, too often, critics characterize any transition off Medicaid as Advertisement While Medicaid reform often faces bipartisan heartburn, paradoxically there's longtime bipartisan agreement that major entitlement programs are growing unsustainably. If we can't at least slow the rate of growth, in part by delivering better outcomes, then our fiscal house of cards may fall, which hurts the most vulnerable. Our leaders must shift the debate from simply protecting the flow of federal dollars to ensuring that every Medicaid dollar genuinely improves patient health. Current inertia seems more about preserving the status quo than addressing the health impact on individuals like J.D. Meanwhile, our communities suffer as we miss out on J.D.'s contributions to society. The federal proposals provide a crucial moment to discuss opening doors of opportunity rather than defending a system that requires poverty for coverage. It's time to move beyond simply paying insurance companies for a card in J.D.'s pocket and focus on reforms that foster human thriving.
Black America Web
2 hours ago
- Black America Web
Rep. Jasmine Crockett Announces Run To Chair House Oversight Committee
Source: Jemal Countess / Getty Rep. Jasmine Crockett — one of the few Democratic leaders who has truly been dedicated to keeping her foot on the neck of the Trump administration, and calling it the band of 'idiots' that it is — bid to become the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, a position that was vacated when the late Rep. Gerry Connoll died last month. 'Our country is in an existential crisis driven by an out-of-control Executive with a flagrant disregard for our Constitution, our way of governance, and our very way of life as citizens of a democratic republic,' Crockett said in a letter to Democratic colleagues obtained by POLITICO. 'We must pull back the curtain on the unmitigated chaos under Trump 2.0 and translate our findings to the American people in a way they can digest.' Crockett is now the fourth contestant in line to chair the Oversight Committee, which is expected to take on the Trump administration's autharatorian agenda, especially if Democrats win a House majority after the midterm elections, which might just happen if the MAGA-fied GOP's approval numbers continue to decline due largely to the White House's abysmal leadership. 'From the pulpit of the Oversight Committee, the Ranking Member must lay out our case against Trump 2.0 and his accomplices, the Republicans in the House, and discharge this message across the nation,' the 44-year-old wrote. 'Our work cannot be solely reactive.' The other Democrats who are campaigning for Connoll's spot are Reps. Robert Garcia of California, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland. Again, Crockett, who is currently serving in her second term representing Texas in the U.S. House, has been lauded by progressives and Democratic voters as one of the up-and-comers who can truly give the Democratic Party the image refresher that it sorely needs. The question is: Will the party embrace change, and is it ready to let leaders like Crockett take up the reins? SEE ALSO Rep. Jasmine Crockett Announces Run To Chair House Oversight Committee was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has emerged as a highly vocal critic of Trump's "big beautiful bill." The sweeping budget proposal could add $2.4 trillion to the US deficit, the the CBO said this week. Here's what top economists have been saying about the legislation. Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests." Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
