Regulations Committee

Wednesday, 9:00 a.m., August 26, 1998

Commission Hearing Room
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
Subject Public Hearing
Agenda Item No.
  Approval of the Committee Minutes from the previous meeting.  
  Summary of Minutes  
1. Chairman's Charges (Oral Presentation) Committee Only
2. Fish Pass Proclamation
Staff: Robin Riechers
3. Possession and Propagation of Threatened and Endangered Species
Staff: Peggy Horner
Committee Only
4. Migratory Game Bird Proclamation
Staff: Vernon Bevill
5. Other Business  

Summary of Minutes
Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Regulations Committee
June 3, 1998

BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the 3rd day of June 1998, there came to be heard matters under the regulatory authority of the Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the commission hearing room of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis County, Texas, beginning at 11:00 a.m., to wit:


Lee M. Bass, Chair
Mickey Burleson
Nolan Ryan
Richard Heath
Ernest Angelo, Jr.
Carol E. Dinkins
Susan Howard-Chrane


Chairman Lee Bass began the proceedings by entertaining a motion by Commissioner Burleson to accept the minutes of the April 15, 1998 meeting of the Regulations Committee. The motion to approve the minutes was seconded by Commissioner Heath.


1. BRIEFING: Chairman's Charges
Presenter: Andrew Sansom

Executive Director Andrew Sansom discussed status of the committee's first charge the implementation of the authority and direction from the 75th legislature. At the end of this week's meetings, ten provisions will have been adopted. The one remaining provision covers rules relating to parklands passport that will be discussed this coming August. The Water Safety Act, HB 966, is now in full implementation. Mr. Sansom discussed the second charge that covers regulatory reform. One regulatory issue is the scoping process and how to reduce the staff time in attending meetings with little attendance. Staff is investigating using other techniques, such as surveys, to gather public input. Also, all internal administrative procedures are due to be sunset on December 31st of the year. Staff will be submitting proposals to revalidate those that are necessary, and this should result in a reduction in red tape.

Mr. Sansom also discussed the recent Lone Star Land Stewards Awards ceremony that has become a significant program and event in conservation in Texas. Unfortunately, this success has not occurred in the implementation of the Central Texas rare species conservation plan. This plan was discontinued because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not assure us the confidentiality of the information on private property could be maintained.

Mr. Sansom introduced Dr. Larry McKinney, senior director for aquatic resources, to update the Commission on Senate Bill 1. Dr. McKinney outlined the department's initial strategy of working with the 16 regional planning groups. The Texas Water Development Board has appointed 11 members to each of these groups. In an effort to get information to these groups, our staff scheduled five informational workshops around the state. Because of some schedule changes by the TWDB, the schedule was compressed, but the workshops have been valuable nonetheless. The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Freshwater Anglers Association have assisted us with these meetings. This initial round of meetings will be followed by a second round of more involved meetings this fall. Commissioner Angelo asked how much knowledge the public has of this process. Dr. McKinney replied it varies by region and, while still low, is increasing. Commissioner Angelo commented this issue has the potential to impact lots of people and followed by asking if the information is getting to the public. Dr. McKinney said these efforts are just getting started and should increase in the future. Mr. Sansom commented that TPW is participating in the formation of the Texas Water Foundation, which has as its goal increasing awareness on water issues. Unfortunately, people's interest decreases when it rains.

Mr. Sansom stated the final charge for the committee is aquatic habitat. Dr. McKinney and his staff recently held a successful conference on aquatic vegetation in Athens and will soon be testing a mechanical harvester on Lake Bastrop. Commissioner Howard-Chrane asked how the harvesters work and who is letting us use the machine. Dr. McKinney replied the harvesters basically just cut a path. The machine that TPW will test is from the Tennessee Valley Authority. Commissioner Howard-Chrane asked if the TVA has been successful with the use of harvesters. Dr. McKinney said harvesters are just one of the tools that are available for use. Although the TVA has ceased using chemicals, others continue to treat vegetation. Unfortunately, the harvester will only be in Texas for 2 days. A longer period would be needed to conduct a thorough evaluation.

Mr. Sansom concluded the briefing on the charges.

2. ACTION: Commercial Nongame Permits
Presenters: Ron George and John Herron

The Chairman recognized Ronnie George, Deputy Director of the Wildlife Division, who introduced John Herron, Director of the Nongame and Urban Wildlife Program. Mr. Herron presented background information on the trade in nongame species and the historical lack of information on the impacts of that trade on nongame populations. Mr. Herron then addressed the salient features of the regulatory package before the Commission, including changes to the proposal that staff felt were necessary in light of public comment. Mr. Herron next informed the Committee about public comments received by the department in response to the proposed rules. Chairman Bass asked if captive-bred animals were still affected by the regulations. Mr. Herron responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Ryan inquired as to how the department would prevent persons from purchasing permits at point-of-sale locations if they hadn't met reporting requirements. Mr. Herron replied that it was possible to program the point-of-sale system to lock out any persons not in compliance. Commissioner Ryan then asked Mr. Herron to estimate the number of permits the department expected to issue. Mr. Herron responded that due to the lack of historical data the department could make no reliable estimate of demand for the permits. Commissioner Howard-Chrane asked how the department intended to fund the program. Mr. Herron responded that permit fees should fund the majority of the administrative cost of the program. Commissioner Howard-Chrane inquired as to how the proposed regulations might be related to Teaming With Wildlife. Mr. George responded that staff would conduct a later briefing on Teaming With Wildlife. Commissioner Angelo stated that he had received correspondence indicating that the proposed rules were being promulgated in order to qualify the agency for federal money under Teaming With Wildlife, and asked Mr. Herron if that was indeed the case. Mr. Herron responded that it was not. Commissioner Angelo expressed concern that widespread resentment of the proposed rules could lead to noncompliance. Mr. George responded that such noncompliance could lead to insufficient data, which in turn could lead to more drastic management options if a species were found to be in danger. Commissioner Angelo asked how the proposed rules would affect rattlesnake roundups. Mr. Herron responded that representatives of the rattlesnake roundups had been involved in the process, understood that they would be required to possess permits if they exceeded possession limits or engaged in commercial activities, and in his opinion, were generally supportive of the initiative. Commissioner Ryan sought clarification on the ramifications of point-of-sale to reporting requirements. Mr. Herron responded that the regulations could be altered to make the dealer's permit available only through an applications process. Chairman Bass expressed concern that by exempting government employees from the regulations, the department was exempting itself from rules it expected everyone else to obey. He also wanted clarification on possession limits. Commissioner Angelo asked how the rules would work if collection activities were not regulated. Mr. Herron asked James Robertson, Law Enforcement Division Director, to respond. Mr. Robertson explained that possession limits function to help wardens identify persons who are engaged in activities of sufficient magnitude to be of significance from a data collection standpoint. He continued by stating that without possession limits, wardens essentially would have to observe persons in the act of selling wildlife in order to determine that permit requirements apply. Commissioner Burleson asked for clarification on whether the possession limits applied to individual species or to all species? Mr. Herron responded that the possession limit was an aggregate limit. Commissioner Burleson stated that she wished there were some way of removing captive-bred animals from the applicability of the proposed rules. Mr. Herron responded that he hoped for some sort of technological development that would enable the department to quickly and easily differentiate captive-bred animals from wild animals, but in the absence of that the department had no option but to include captive-bred animals. Executive Director Sansom asked Mr. Herron to explain the staff's rationale for seeking an exemption for government employees. Mr. Herron responded that it was largely a response to those government employees engaged in predator control. Commissioner Howard-Chrane expressed concern that as possession of an animal changes hands, the department would be gathering duplicate data. Mr. Herron responded that since an animal is tracked from the time of collection through the time of acquisition, the data from permittee's reports could be filtered to remove ambiguity. Commissioner Dinkins stated that the regulations could always be amended in the future as glitches were discovered. Commissioner Howard-Chrane stated that she continued to have problems with possession limits and felt that they were burdensome. Executive Director Sansom asked Mr. Herron if there was anything in the proposal that would prevent the department from offering permits in formats other than point-of-sale. Mr. Herron replied that there weren't. Mr. Sansom then asked if the possession limits could be altered. Mr. Herron replied certainly they could be. Mr. George concurred. Mr. Robertson stated that game wardens would use common sense and discretion in enforcing the rules. Commissioner Angelo stressed the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of the program through time. Chairman Bass polled each of the commissioners to ascertain what they felt were adequate possession limits. Commissioners Angelo, Howard-Chrane, Ryan, and Heath indicated the possession limits should be expanded. Commissioner Burleson stated that she wouldn't be opposed to higher possession limits so long as a possession limit of ten specimens per species was established. A discussion ensued between Chairman Bass, Commissioners Howard-Chrane, Burleson, and Heath, and Mr. Robertson about the nuances of enforcement with respect to possession limits. Commissioner Heath asked if the issue of an exemption for government employees had been resolved. After discussion, Commissioner Heath suggested that such an exemption be dropped. After further discussion on possession limits, Commissioner Heath indicated that he would prefer a possession limit of 25 in the aggregate, no more than ten of any species. Chairman Bass entertained a motion from Commissioner Heath to forward the item for the consideration of the full Commission. Commissioner Howard-Chrane seconded the motion, which passed without opposition.

3. ACTION: Managed Lands Deer Permits
Presenter: Robert Cooke and Dr. Jerry Cooke

The Chairman recognized Jerry Cooke, Director of the Upland Wildlife Ecology Program. Mr. Cooke outlined the staff proposal and the biological rationale supporting it. He then reviewed the public comment received by the department on the proposal. Chairman Bass entertained a motion by Commissioner Ryan to forward the item to the full Commission for adoption, and that the item be placed on the consent agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Angelo and passed without opposition.

4. BRIEFING: Deer Management Permit; Fees
Presenters: Robert Cooke and Dr. Jerry Cooke

The Chairman recognized Jerry Cooke, Director of the Upland Wildlife Ecology Program. Mr. Cooke outlined the legislative action that created the permit and explained the statutory and regulatory provisions relating to capturing, detaining, and breeding of deer. He then presented the public comments received by the department in response to the proposal. Commissioner Angelo asked how long the yellow paint used to mark deer would remain on the animal. Mr. Cooke responded that the paint would be shed with the animal's pelage. Commissioner Howard-Chrane asked about the particulars of any special management options. Mr. Cooke responded that special breeding plans would be possible, and would involve detention of deer for longer than the ten-month period otherwise specified in the regulations, but they would have to be approved, on a case-by-case basis, in advance by department biologists, and would be carefully scrutinized. Commissioner Burleson inquired as to provisions for the harvest of deer. Mr. Cooke responded that there were none. Commissioner Burleson commented that there had been earlier discussions about public hunting opportunities on properties with a deer management permit and asked if that idea had been dropped. Chairman Bass responded that it was his impression that harvest provisions were the province of the Managed Lands Deer Permit system. Mr. Cooke stated that Chairman Bass was correct. Commissioner Dinkins asked if the number of public comments was unusual. Chief Operating Officer Robert L. Cook responded that the public comment was not unusual for an issue like this. Commissioner Dinkins stated that while she felt staff had done a good job with the proposal, she was troubled by the precedent being set. Commissioner Angelo indicated that he felt the department wasn't authorizing anything that was radically divergent from current practice, although close-monitoring was called for in order to ensure proper oversight. Commissioner Howard-Chrane stated that she felt the department should proceed and see how things worked out. Commissioner Burleson asked how the proposed permit articulated with the four existing permit systems relating to deer. Mr. Cooke replied that by going to a single permit, administrative complexity could be reduced. Mr. Cooke then explained how each of the four existing permit systems authorized only pieces of the broad activities that would be authorized under a deer management permit. Commissioner Heath stated that the Commission had no authority to regulate fencing. Commissioner Ryan stated that felt public opposition to the permit wasn't about the permit, per se, but about high-fencing. Commissioner Burleson asked if the opposition to the proposed permit was confined to a few categories. Mr. Cooke responded that it was not. Chairman Bass stated that deer would remain regulated by the state. Commissioner Heath commented that provisions prohibiting the transport and sale of deer under the permit would prevent abuse. Chairman Bass then entertained a motion by Commissioner Heath to forward the proposed rules to the full Commission for adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ryan and passed without opposition.

5. ACTION: Migratory Gamebird Proclamation
Presenter: Vernon Bevill

The Chairman recognized Vernon Bevill, Director of the Wetland Ecology Program. Mr. Bevill then outlined the specific provisions of the proposal, and the staff rationale supporting them, that differed from the previous year, including the qualified delegation of rulemaking authority to the Executive Director, an extension of the September Teal-Only Season, a change to the opening date of Dove Season in the South Zone, elimination of white-wing dove sanctuaries, and full implementation of the Harvest Information Program. Mr. Bevill continued with a discussion of the public comment received by the department in response to the proposed regulations. Commissioner Heath asked if a 70-day, 15-bird dove season would offer more hunter opportunity than the 60-day, 12-bird season currently in effect. Chief Operating Officer Robert L. Cook responded that additional days would certainly offer more opportunity, but on the other hand, the higher bag limit for the shorter season would do the same. Mr. Bevill commented that public perception of opportunity varied. Commissioner Burleson stated that the dove hunters who had contacted her wanted more days. Mr. Bevill replied that survey results corroborated Commissioner Burleson's statement. Commissioner Ryan asked if the rationale behind moving the South Zone opening date for dove season was to provide an extra weekend of hunting. Mr. Bevill replied that indeed was the case. Chairman Bass, Commissioner Ryan, and Mr. Bevill then discussed the nuances of weather in relation to federal frameworks and the opening date for dove season in the South Zone, and the various permutations of zones and splits available to Texas under current federal law. Chairman Bass requested that staff conduct scoping and survey activities to ascertain whether any changes to the current dove season were in order. He then entertained a motion from Commissioner Angelo to forward the proposed rules to the full Commission for adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Burleson and passed without opposition.

6. ACTION: Fish Pass Proclamation
Presenters: Robin Riechers and Dr. Larry McKinney

Chair recognized Robin Riechers, Coastal Fisheries Division, who outlined proposals affecting Cedar Bayou fish pass. The proposed rule changes prohibits the placement of any type of trap within the course of Cedar Bayou and prohibits the anchoring or mooring of any vessel for a period exceeding two consecutive days within the pass. The area in the pass will be from a point defined by Department marker or sign on the Mesquite Bay mouth to the marker or sign erected by the Department indicating the restricted activity area near the Gulf of Mexico mouth of the pass.

Chairman Bass asked about the enforceability of the anchoring and mooring provision. Mr. Jim Robertson, Director of Law Enforcement Division, explained that the area could be checked periodically by enforcement and that enforcement would be able to react to specific complaints and would then have to document that the vessel is anchored or moored for longer than the required period. Mr. Andrew Sansom, Executive Director, discussed issues surrounding a permit system for the area and indicated staff would be evaluating that type of system in the future. Chairman Bass asked about whether the current proposal addressed commercial activities in any special way. Mr. Robin Riechers indicated the legislation nor the current proposal addressed commercial activities. Chairman Bass asked about the public comment to the proposal and Mr. Riechers responded that the public comments received were in favor of the proposal. Chairman Bass called for a motion. Commissioner Dinkins moved that this item be published in the Texas Register for public comment, Commissioner Burleson seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

7. Other Business - None.


There being no further business, Chairman Bass adjourned the June 3, 1998 meeting of the Regulations Committee of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission at 2:50 p.m.

Committee Agenda Item No. 1
Presenter: Andrew Sansom

Regulations Committee
Chairman's Charges
August 1998

(This item will be an oral presentation.)

Committee Agenda Item No. 2
Presenter: Robin Riechers

Regulations Committee
Fish Pass Proclamation
August 1998

(This is Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 10.)

Committee Agenda Item No. 3
Presenter: Peggy Horner

Regulations Committee
Possession and Propagation of Threatened and Endangered Species
August 1998

I. Discussion: Prior to 1997, Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68 (Endangered Species) contained no provision to prevent the take of endangered species. The provisions of Chapters 67 and 68 originally were codified at Article 913a, Penal Code. Revisions enacted by the Sixty-fourth Texas Legislature in 1975 split Article 913a into the present Chapters 67 and 68; however, no effort was made to ensure that each was able to function fully independently of the other. A consequence of this was that Chapter 68 contained no authority to prevent the take of species of fish or wildlife listed as endangered. In response to this problem, the state list of endangered species in 1996 was modified to include only those species designated by the federal government as endangered. All species that appeared on the state list but not on the federal list were redesignated as state-threatened to afford them more protection against take, because Chapter 67 of the Code authorizes the Commission to establish limitations on the take, possession, propagation, transportation, importation, exportation, sale, and offering for sale of nongame fish and wildlife. As a result of that action, confusion has arisen concerning persons possessing animals under Endangered Species Propagation permits. ESP permits are established by statute in Chapter 68 of the Code. When state-endangered species were transferred to the protection of Chapter 67, specimens possessed under Endangered Species Propagation permits were grandfathered. Persons who possessed specimens under ESP permits were allowed to continue in possession so long as they renewed their permits at $550 every three years, submitted annual reports, and had facility inspection performed by a licensed veterinarian. Permittees were also prohibited from propagating or acquiring additional specimens. The problem that has arisen is that a person could move to Texas with the animal and would be under no regulatory obligation other than maintaining a valid permit from the state of origin.

Staff has concluded that the most effective solution would be simply to eliminate permits, inspections and reporting requirements, and instead allow any person to possess a species listed as threatened or endangered, provided that person can prove the specimen was legally acquired, and in the case of specimens entering Texas, lawfully possessed in the state of origin at the time of transport into this state. Persons possessing threatened or endangered species would be, however, required to permanently tag or mark any specimens, and would be prohibited from propagation except as specifically provided for by Chapter 68 of the Code. Staff has also determined that because House Bill 2542, enacted by the 75th Texas Legislature, amended Chapter 68 to prohibit the take, capture, or killing of endangered species, the provisions of 31 TAC §§65.180 and 65.181 are superfluous and may be repealed without any diminution of protections for endangered species. Section 65.180 lists the species declared by the federal government to be endangered, and §65.181 simply reiterates the penalties provided by statute for violations.

II. Recommendation: The staff recommends the Regulations Committee adopt the following motion:

"The Regulations Committee of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes staff to publish proposed amendments to 31 TAC §§65.171, §§65.173, and 65.174; proposed new §§65.175 and 65.176; and the proposed repeal of §§65.180 and 65.181, concerning Threatened and Endangered Species, in the Texas Register for public comment."

Attachment - 1

1. Exhibit A – Proposed Regulations

Committee Agenda Item No. 3
Exhibit A

Threatened and Endangered Species
Proposed Preamble

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of §65.180 and §65.181, amendments to §§65.171, 65.173, and 65.174; and new §§65.175 and 65.176, concerning Threatened and Endangered Species. The repeals, amendments, and new sections are necessary to eliminate regulatory inconsistency with respect to threatened and endangered species, to provide for documentation of lawfully held specimens, and to remove unnecessary and redundant regulations. The repeals, amendments, and new sections will function to provide uniform regulations governing the possession of threatened and endangered species; set forth identification standards, and establish penalties for violations.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Wildlife Division regulations coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the proposed repeals, amendments, and new sections are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules.

3. Public Benefit - Cost Note.

Mr. Macdonald also has determined that for each of the first five years the proposed repeals, amendments and new sections are in effect:

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the rule as proposed will be simpler regulations that are less burdensome to the public while executing the commission’s statutory obligations to manage the wildlife resources of this state.

(B) There will be no effect on small businesses. There are no economic costs to persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.

(C) The department has not filed a local impact statement with the Texas Workforce Commission as required by Government Code, §2001.022, as this agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies.

(D) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

4. Request for Public Comments.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Peggy Horner, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 912-7047 or 1-800-792-1112.

5. Statutory Authority.

The repeals, amendments and new sections are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67, which give the commission the authority to establish any limitations on the take, possession, transportation, exportation, sale, and offering for sale of nongame fish and wildlife necessary to manage those species, and Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68, which provides the Commission with the authority to establish regulations governing the take, possession, transportation, and propagation of endangered fish and wildlife.

The new sections affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 67, and 68.


§65.171. General Provisions [Closed Seasons].

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter or Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 67 or 68, no person may:

(1) take, possess, propagate, transport, export, sell or offer for sale, or ship any species of fish or wildlife listed in this subchapter as threatened or endangered; or

(2) possess, transport, import, export, sell, or offer for sale goods made from fish or wildlife listed [in this subchapter] as threatened or endangered[, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section].

(b) Any person may possess, transport, import, export, sell, or offer for sale goods made from fish or wildlife listed in this subchapter as threatened, provided the person possesses proof that the goods were obtained from lawfully taken animals.

§65.172. Threatened Species. A threatened species is any species that the department has determined is likely to become endangered in the future. The following species are hereby designated as threatened species:


Bat, Rafinesque’s Big-eared- Corynorhinus rafinesquii

Bat, Southern Yellow- Lasiurus ega

Bat, Spotted- Euderma maculatum

Bear, Black- Ursus americanus

Coati, White-nosed- Nasua narica

Dolphin, Atlantic Spotted- Stenella frontalis

Dolphin, Rough-toothed- Steno bredanensis

[Jaguar- Panthera onca ]

Margay- Felis wiedii (extirpated)

Mouse, Palo Duro- Peromyscus truei comanche

Rat, Coues’ Rice- Oryzomys couesi

Rat, Texas Kangaroo- Dipodomys elator

Whale, Dwarf Sperm- Kogia simus

Whale, False Killer- Pseudorca crassidens

Whale, Gervais’ Beaked- Mesoplodon europaeus

Whale, Goose-beaked- Ziphius cavirostris

Whale, Killer- Orcinus orca

Whale, Short-finned Pilot- Globicephala macrorhynchus

Whale, Pygmy Killer- Feresa attenuata

Whale, Pygmy Sperm- Kogia breviceps


Becard, Rose-throated-Pachyramphus aglaiae

Eagle, Bald- Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Egret, Reddish- Egretta rufescens

Falcon, Arctic Peregrine- Falco peregrinus tundrius

Hawk, Common Black— Buteogallus anthracinus

Hawk, Gray- Buteo nitidus

Hawk, White-tailed- Buteo albicaudatus

Hawk, Zone-tailed- Buteo albonotatus

bis, White-faced- Plegadis chihi

Kite, American Swallow-tailed- Elanoides forficatus

Owl, Ferruginous Pygmy— Glaucidium brasilianum

Owl, Mexican Spotted- Strix occidentalis lucida

Parula, Tropical- Parula pitiayumi

Plover, Piping- Charadrius melodus

Sparrow, Bachman’s-Aimophila aestivalis

Sparrow, Botteri’s-Aimophila botterii

Stork, Wood- Mycteria americana

Tern, Sooty- Sterna fuscata

Tyrannulet, Northern Beardless— Camptostoma imberbe


Gecko, Reticulated- Coleonyx reticulatus

Lizard, Reticulate Collared- Crotaphytus reticulatus

Lizard, Texas Horned- Phrynosoma cornutum

Lizard, Mountain Short-horned- Phrynosoma douglasii

Rattlesnake, Timber- Crotalus horridus

Snake, Speckled Racer- Drymobius margaritiferus

Snake, Northern Cat-eyed- Leptodeira septentrionalis

Snake, Scarlet- Cemophora coccinea

Snake, Black-striped- Coniophanes imperialis

Snake, Indigo- Drymarchon corais

Snake, Brazos Water- Nerodia harteri

Snake, Concho Water- Nerodia paucimaculata

Snake, Smooth Green- Liochlorophis vernalis

Snake, Louisiana Pine- Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni

Snake, Big Bend Blackhead- Tantilla rubra

Snake, Texas Lyre- Trimorphodon biscutatus

Turtle, Chihuahuan Mud- Kinosternon hirtipes

Turtle, Alligator Snapping- Macroclemys temminckii

Turtle, Green Sea- Chelonia mydas

Turtle, Loggerhead Sea- Caretta caretta

Tortoise, Texas- Gopherus berlandieri


Frog, Sheep- Hypopachus variolosus

Frog, White-lipped- Leptodactylus labialis

Newt, Black-spotted- Notophthalmus meridionalis

Salamander, Blanco Blind- Eurycea robusta

Salamander, Cascade Caverns- Eurycea latitans

Salamander, San Marcos- Eurycea nana

Salamander, Comal Blind- Eurycea tridentifera

Siren, South Texas (Large Form)- Siren sp.1

Toad, Mexican Burrowing- Rhinophrynus dorsalis

Treefrog, Mexican- Smilisca baudinii


Blindcat, Toothless- Trogloglanis pattersoni

Blindcat, Widemouth- Satan eurystomus

Chub, Rio Grande- Gila pandora

Chubsucker, Creek- Erimyzon oblongus

Darter, Blackside- Percina maculata

Darter, Rio Grande- Etheostoma grahami

Gambusia, Blotched- Gambusia senilis (extirpated)

Goby, Blackfin- Gobionellus atripinnis

Goby, River- Awaous tajasica

Minnow, Devils River- Dionda diaboli

Paddlefish- Polyodon spathula

Pipefish, Opossum- Microphis brachyurus

Pupfish, Concho- Cyprinodon eximius

Pupfish, Pecos- Cyprinodon pecosensis

Shiner, Bluntnose- Notropis simus (extirpated)

Shiner, Bluehead- Notropis hubbsi

Shiner, Chihuahua- Notropis chihuahua

Shiner, Proserpine- Cyprinella proserpina

Stoneroller, Mexican- Campostoma ornatum

Sturgeon, Shovelnose- Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

Sucker, Blue- Cycleptus elongatus

§65.173. [Permit] Exceptions. [No permit is required to]:

(1) Any person may [take or] transport threatened or endangered species [listed in this subchapter] to the nearest Department of Health or medical facility if the species poses an immediate threat to human safety or welfare.[;]

[(2) transport within this state mounted or preserved specimens of species listed in this subchapter, provided that any transfer is: ]

[(A) without monetary consideration and is between educational or research institutions, nonprofit municipal zoological gardens, or nonprofit foundations or associations; and ]

[(B) the specimens were originally obtained under a valid scientific or zoological permit. A copy of the voucher or other evidence of transfer shall be forwarded to the department within 20 days following the transfer, and shall specifically indicate the types and numbers of specimens transferred.]

(2) [(3)] Any person may possess or transport lawfully obtained live, mounted, or preserved specimens of threatened or endangered species, including specimens acquired [collected] in another state, provided the person also possesses:

(A) [, except that] a copy of an [a valid] out-of-state permit authorizing the possession of the specimens in the state of origin, valid at the time the specimen enters Texas; [must accompany each specimen during transport within this state and must be retained by the person or institution possessing the specimen.]

(B) a bill of sale identifying the source of the specimen; or

(C) a notarized affidavit stating the source of the specimen and that the specimen(s) was legally obtained.

§65.174. Special Provisions [Exceptions. Persons who as of the effective date of this subsection lawfully possessed an endangered animal that as of the effective date of this subsection became designated as threatened nongame may continue to possess the animal for the duration of the animal's life, provided those persons continue to renew the permits authorizing such possession. Offspring conceived by permitted animals prior to the effective date of this subsection may also be lawfully possessed, but offspring conceived after the effective date of this subsection shall not be retained by permittees.] No person [authorized to possess a threatened nongame animal by the provisions of this subsection] may[:]

[(1)] release a threatened or endangered species except as specifically provided by the department in a letter of authorization issued prior to release. [acquire additional threatened or endangered animals unless authorized to do so under a permit issued under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C; or

[(2) transfer possession of animals affected by this subsection, other than to:

[(A) a person authorized to receive such species under the terms of a permit issued by authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C; or

[(B) an out-of state destination.]

§65.175. Permanent Identification. Every specimen possessed under the provisions of this subchapter or the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68, shall be permanently tagged, tattooed, banded, or implanted with a passive inductive transponder (PIT) tag.

§65.176. Violations and Penalties. Penalties for violations of this subchapter involving:

(a) the species listed in §65.172 of this title (relating to Threatened Species) are prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67; and
(b) species listed in accordance with Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68, are prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68.

[§65.180. Endangered Species. The Provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68, apply to the following species of fish and wildlife.


Bat, Greater Long-nosed Leptonycteris nivalis

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes

Jaguarundi Felis yaguarondi

Manatee, West Indian Trichec hus manatus

Ocelot Felis pardalis

Whale, Black Right Eubalaena glacialis

Whale, Blue Balaenoptera musculus

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus

Whale, Sperm Physeter macrocephalus

Wolf, Gray Canis lupus (extirpated)

Wolf, Red Canis rufus (extirpated)


Crane, Whooping Grus americana

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis

Falcon, Aplomado Falco femoralis

Falcon, American Peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum

Flycatcher, Southwestern Empidonax traillii extimus

Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis

Prairie chicken, Attwater’s Tympanuchus cupido attwateri

Tern, Interior Least Sterna antillarum athalassos

Vireo, Black-capped Vireo atricapillus

Warbler, Bachman’s Vermivora bachmanii (extirpated)

Warbler, Golden-cheeked Dendroica chrysoparia

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis

Woodpecker, Ivory-billed Campephilus principalis (extirpated)


Turtle, Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Eretmochelys imbricata

Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Sea Lepidochelys kempii

Turtle, Leatherback Sea Dermochelys coriacea


Salamander, Texas Blind Eurycea rathbuni

Toad, Houston Bufo houstonensis


Darter, Fountain Etheostoma fonticola

Gambusia, Big Bend Gambusia gaigei

Gambusia, Clear Creek Gambusia heterochir

Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis

Gambusia, San Marcos Gambusia georgei (extirpated)

Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery Hybognathus amarus (extirpated)

Pupfish, Leon Springs Cyprinodon bovinus

Pupfish, Comanche Springs Cyprinodon elegans

Invertebrates (Mollusks)

Mussel, Ouachita Arkansia wheeleri


[§65.181. Penalties. Penalties for violation of this subchapter are prescribed by Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 43, Subchapter C; Chapter 67; and Chapter 68.]

This agency hereby certifies the rules as adopted have been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority.

Issued in Austin, Texas on

William D. Harvey, Ph.D.
Regulatory Coordinator
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
1-800-792-1112, extension 4642 or 512-389-4642

Committee Agenda Item No. 4
Presenter: Vernon Bevill

Regulations Committee
Migratory Game Bird Proclamation
August 1998

(This is Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 7.)


Top of Page