Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Regulations Committee
January 24, 2001
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
1
7 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the
8 24th day of January 2001, there came on to be
9 heard matters under the regulatory authority of
10 the Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the
11 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks and
12 Wildlife Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis
13 County, Texas, beginning at 2:57 p.m., to wit:
14
15
16
APPEARANCES:
17 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION:
Chair: Lee M. Bass, Fort Worth, Texas
18 Dick W. Heath, Carrollton, Texas
Nolan Ryan, Alvin, Texas (Absent)
19 Ernest Angelo, Jr., Midland, Texas
John Avila, Jr., Fort Worth, Texas
20 Carol E. Dinkins, Houston, Texas
Alvin L. Henry, Houston, Texas
21 Katharine Armstrong Idsal, San Antonio, Texas
Mark E. Watson, Jr., San Antonio, Texas
22
THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT:
23 Andrew H. Sansom, Executive Director, and
other personnel of the Parks and Wildlife
24 Department.
25
.
2
1 JANUARY 24, 2001
2 *-*-*-*-*
3 REGULATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
4 *-*-*-*-*
5 CHAIRMAN BASS: Regulations
6 Committee.
7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: BRIEFING - CHAIRMAN'S
8 CHARGES.
9 CHAIRMAN BASS: Mr. Sansom, would
10 you brief us on Chairman's charges?
11 MR. SANSOM: Yes, sir. One of the
12 charges that you gave this committee was optimized
13 license management of the commercial fishery. And
14 I'm happy to report to you as of December the 8th,
15 426 commercial fin fish licenses have been issued.
16 The records indicate that a thousand individuals
17 are eligible to purchase these licenses.
18 As of this date, ten have been sold
19 and transferred by the original holder. Nineteen
20 individuals have filed appeals with the Finfish
21 Review Board. The first buyback application
22 period for crab licenses resulted in a total of 15
23 purchases, ranging from $1500 to $45,000. An
24 eighth round of shrimp license buyback was
25 completed. There were 304 bid applications
.
3
1 submitted ranging from $2500 to $65,000. We
2 purchased 17 licenses -- excuse me -- 77 licenses
3 for $467,000.
4 I'd like to point out here that as
5 we testified before the Senate Finance Committee
6 yesterday, we were caught in a peculiar situation
7 in that we had the money to buy another million
8 dollars worth of licenses because of the fees that
9 we placed on saltwater fisherman. But we could
10 not do it because we didn't have the authority.
11 And so one of the things that we
12 are seeking from the Legislature is to restore
13 what we've called the entrepreneurial rider that
14 would allow us to spend revenue that we generate
15 and thus avoid this kind of situation. Because we
16 rarely would have the opportunity to purchase that
17 many licenses, and we're really sorry to see it
18 slip by. Thank you.
19 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: ACTION - EXOTIC SPECIES
20 RULES.
21 CHAIRMAN BASS: All right. Exotic
22 species rules.
23 MR. DUROCHER: Mr. Chairman,
24 members, my name is Phil Durocher. I'm with the
25 Inland Fisheries division. It seems like at
.
4
1 almost every Commission meeting Mr. Gray comes
2 before you with amendments that are harmful or
3 potentially harmful to exotic fish, shellfish and
4 aquatic plant rules.
5 Several of you have asked questions
6 about why these frequent changes are needed. This
7 morning before Mr. Gray -- this afternoon before
8 Mr. Gray addresses you on the current proposed
9 amendments to the rules, I'd like to spend a few
10 minutes talking about this set of rules and how we
11 are forced to operate in a reactive as opposed to
12 a proactive mode.
13 As written, the statute requires us
14 to provide a list of harmful exotic organisms.
15 Once listed, their possession is prohibited unless
16 specifically permitted in the rules.
17 Historically, this has not been an issue. In
18 recent times, though, because of technological
19 advances and the increased mobility of the world's
20 population, we've seen more and more exotic
21 organisms, some which have the potential to be
22 really destructive have entered our environment.
23 For example, within the last few
24 years, we've had potentially threatening shrimp
25 viruses in aquaculture facilities. We've noted a
.
5
1 spread of exotic plants in public waters, and fish
2 farmers are continuously looking for new exotic
3 species for aquaculture purposes.
4 Now, fortunately, most of these
5 exotic species are harmless and listing is not
6 required. Our current rules allow exotics to be
7 imported if they are not listed. Several years
8 ago we recognized the potential for serious damage
9 to our environment and began looking at ways to
10 change the rules to be more proactive. We formed
11 a task force containing fish farmers, members of
12 academia, zoo curators and the pet industry to
13 look at these issues.
14 One of the options we brought to the
15 table was to change from a prohibited list to a
16 nonprohibited list. In other words, we would work
17 with the involved participants to develop a list
18 of exotics which were allowed in Texas. Organisms
19 not on the list would be prohibited. Segments of
20 the task force, particularly the pet trade
21 representatives, opposed the proposal. They
22 argued that there are currently so many tropical
23 and exotic fishes on the market, there is no way a
24 comprehensive list could be prepared.
25 After considering their concerns,
.
6
1 the staff backed off from the proposal. Because
2 the industry would be continually asking for
3 additions to the new list, which would require
4 Commission actions, we felt like we could actually
5 be adding to the problem, coming to you more often
6 than less frequently.
7 Now, since these earlier meetings,
8 our staff has developed an excellent rapport with
9 not only the pet industry but all interested
10 parties. We have been promoting public awareness
11 concerning the importance of protecting our public
12 waters against the release of exotics.
13 However, periodically new
14 threatening species will occur that will require
15 your approval to add to our list. Now, we want to
16 assure the Commission that we will do everything
17 we can to decrease the frequency of these changes.
18 And we will continue to explore ways of changing
19 these rules to put us in a more proactive mode.
20 And with that said, I'll introduce Mr. Gray.
21 MR. GRAY: Chairman, committee
22 members, my name is Joedy Gray, and I'm a staff
23 support specialist with inland fisheries. Staff
24 is proposing amendments for the harmful or
25 potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish and
.
7
1 aquatic plant rules. These amendments are
2 intended to clarify the permitting and reporting
3 procedures and provide additional protection of
4 native aquatic species.
5 The first proposed amendment will
6 add the channeled applesnail to the list of
7 prohibited shellfish. Applesnails are medium
8 large snails with two to six inches in height.
9 Channeled applesnails appear in the pet trade and
10 are typically called mystery snails when sold by
11 pet stores. They will feed aggressively on many
12 types of aquatic and terrestrial plants including
13 commercial crops. In Hawaii and Southeast Asia,
14 they have caused significant damage to rice
15 fields.
16 In July of this year a reproducing
17 population of channeled applesnails was discovered
18 in the American Canal south of Houston. There is
19 concern because this canal is centered in the
20 heart of the Texas rice belt.
21 I have personally contacted the pet
22 industry in Texas, the Joint Pet Advisory Council
23 and all major pet distributors to inform them of
24 this potential danger and that we would be seeking
25 approval to add this species to our prohibited
.
8
1 list, and I've received no opposition.
2 The second proposed amendment would
3 allow permitted fish farmers to continue to posses
4 black carp provided the fish are certified as
5 triploids. Black carp are used to consume snails
6 and other mollusks that may be disease vectors in
7 hatchery situations.
8 Concerns have been raised recently
9 about the potential harmful ecological threats
10 these fish would cause should they accidentally
11 escape. By requiring the use of triploids, we
12 will assure there will be no reproduction should
13 they ever escape into Texas waters.
14 CHAIRMAN BASS: Can you tell me the
15 differences between the black carp and the grass
16 carp?
17 MR. GRAY: The grass carp is going
18 to focus mainly on vegetation. The black carp is
19 used by Mississippi cat fish farmers to control
20 vectors which get into the catfish. So they eat
21 snails and things like that. And our concern
22 is --
23 CHAIRMAN BASS: They don't eat
24 vegetation?
25 MR. GRAY: No.
.
9
1 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Is a grass carp
2 also a triploid?
3 MR. GRAY: Yes.
4 MR. DUROCHER: Yes. We require that
5 they be triploids only.
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you.
7 MR. GRAY: Following the term
8 Aquaculture license will be incorporated into the
9 rules to be consistent with the Texas Department
10 of Agriculture rules, and we'll correct an
11 inadvertent deletion of triploid grass carp in the
12 exception section of the rules. The proposed
13 amendments were published in the Texas Register,
14 and no public comment has been received to date.
15 Staff recommends the Regulations
16 Committee of the Parks and Wildlife Commission
17 refer the proposed amendments concerning harmful
18 or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish and
19 aquatic plants to the full Commission for adoption
20 and consider placing this item on the consent
21 agenda. We'll answer any questions.
22 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move approval.
23 VICE -CHAIR DINKINS: Second.
24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Motion is seconded.
25 Any further discussion? All in favor? Any
.
10
1 opposed? Thank you, Mr. Gray.
2 (Motion passed unanimously.)
3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: ACTION - LEGISLATIVE
4 REGULATIONS REVIEW.
5 CHAIRMAN BASS: All right.
6 Legislative regulations review.
7 MR. McCARTY: Mr. Chairman,
8 Commissioners, my name is Gene McCarty. I'm Chief
9 of Staff at Texas Parks and Wildlife. I've come
10 today to introduce the continuation of our
11 Regulations Review Program. If you remember, that
12 Senate Bill 178 of the 76th Legislature directed
13 all state agencies to review existing regulations
14 no later than every four years ever after the rule
15 has become final.
16 The review is an assessment of
17 whether the reasons for initially adopting the
18 regulation has continued to exist. TPWD currently
19 has ten chapters in its Administrative Code. And
20 in November we reviewed or you adopted our review
21 of the Executive chapter, Fish and Wildlife
22 chapter, Law Enforcement chapter, and design the
23 Construction chapter.
24 We have today three additional
25 chapters that have been reviewed. That's Chapter
.
11
1 53, Finance; Chapter 59, Parks, and Chapter 69,
2 Resource Protection. I would like to have Suzy go
3 ahead and come up and go through the review of
4 Chapter 53, Finance, followed by Walt Dabney, to
5 talk about Chapter 59, Parks, and Robert Sweeney,
6 to talk about Resource Protection.
7 MS. WHITTENTON: Staff across all
8 the divisions has reviewed Chapter 53 and has
9 recommended some fairly minor housekeeping type
10 amendments. And I have some highlights here of
11 these changes. They resulted in very minor
12 things, including changes to reflect the new
13 license point of sale system.
14 We've updated the text and the fees
15 and have eliminated references to surety bonds and
16 letters of credit which are not going to be
17 required in the new system.
18 Another amendment would require
19 senior Louisiana residents fishing in Texas waters
20 to possess a valid Louisiana fishing license.
21 This change basically reinstates a reciprocal
22 fishing agreement for seniors and is something
23 that the Commission had already approved.
24 Also eligibility requirements for
25 special resident licenses for both hunting and
.
12
1 fishing are clarified to better reflect the
2 eligibility as stated in the statute.
3 For example, general commercial
4 fishermen are no longer listed as eligible for the
5 discounted special resident fishing license to
6 ensure consistency among commercial license
7 fishing holders. Otherwise, the eligibility
8 requirements for the discounted licenses are just
9 listed. They're added to the rules in this
10 amendment.
11 The proposed amendments also add and
12 remove references to license, permit and transfer
13 fees. This is basically for housekeeping purposes
14 to more accurately reflect the current statutory
15 authority. There are also proposed changes to the
16 Lifetime License Endowment Fund, the investment
17 policy. The proposed change specifies that
18 investment of the fund will be in accordance with
19 the investment policy already approved by the
20 Commission.
21 Other changes include changes
22 dealing with Subchapter B, stamps. The previous
23 language exempted the nongame and endangered
24 species stamps from the provisions regarding the
25 sale of obsolete stamps.
.
13
1 There are also some changes dealing
2 with the Texas Fresh Water Fishery Center. The
3 proposed amendments dealing with the Center
4 basically eliminates the specific fee schedule and
5 replace it with a not-to-exceed number, $6, as
6 determined by the Executive Director.
7 And finally, there were just some
8 changes for general cleanup, such as removing
9 redundant language, relocating text and other
10 minor edits.
11 In addition, just need to mention a
12 minor revision to Subchapter B. This revision was
13 not published in the Register, but since it is not
14 a substantive change, it can still can be adopted
15 today. The change just clarifies that individual
16 stamps and the collectors edition stamp package
17 can be sold at different prices. And that -- for
18 example, that they can be sold either at face
19 value or at an established fee for the package.
20 And that quickly summarized the
21 changes to Chapter 53. And if there are no
22 changes, I can turn it over to Walt.
23 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions?
24 Thank you, Suzy.
25 MR. DABNEY: Chairman,
.
14
1 Commissioners, I'm Walt Dabney, State Park
2 Director. I've got a few changes in our
3 regulations to share with you today. The first,
4 as it relates to historic structures, generally
5 speaking we do not go in and make alterations to
6 historic structures for convenience purposes, that
7 sort of thing. What this allows us to do in cases
8 of health and safety or ADA, handicapped access,
9 this gives us the ability to make some
10 modifications. Is my hair standing up?
11 CHAIRMAN BASS: We're looking at the
12 picture over your --
13 MR. DABNEY: I came out a while ago
14 and looked like Alfalfa, so I thought it popped
15 back up there.
16 CHAIRMAN BASS: We'll let you know
17 when it does.
18 MR. DABNEY: And I'll whack it back
19 down.
20 Section 103, selection of
21 concessionaires, this gives us the authorization
22 to -- first of all, it removes the automatic right
23 of renewal preference which gives us a better
24 ability to bid new these contracts. It creates
25 specific process for selection of concessionaires
.
15
1 which basically describes a panel of folks so that
2 we can evaluate each concession bid proposal.
3 The next one, Section 104, types of
4 concession contracts, it requires us to have a
5 long-term contract for a major concession.
6 Secondly, it provides us an option to have a
7 two-year contract for small concessions like
8 vending machines. People don't want to bid on a
9 one year, so this extends that to a more
10 reasonable level.
11 Section 105 adds an option for
12 extending a major contract. If somebody comes in
13 and has major investment that they're putting into
14 a site, we want to give them a reasonable
15 opportunity to recoup their costs on that
16 investment. And as I said, on the other one, it
17 allows us to go to two years on the smaller --
18 smaller contracts.
19 Franchise fee rates. Currently, we
20 cannot assess a penalty. And we've had problems
21 in the past with folks that just did not pay their
22 franchise fee. This gives us the ability to
23 collect those fees and assess a penalty on them,
24 which is very important. It also gives us the
25 opportunity, if someone is having a legitimate
.
16
1 problem, a flood situation or something like that,
2 it gives us the ability to waive or postpone those
3 franchise fees to a more reasonable time.
4 We had -- the only thing that may
5 come up tomorrow, I think, as we open this up for
6 discussion in Part 63 and 64, where it lists the
7 activities that you can participate -- participate
8 in or do in a state park. We got 16 comments that
9 suggested that folks would like to come and hang
10 glide. And the two places specifically that they
11 were talking about are Enchanted Rock in the state
12 parks and Elephant Mountain Wildlife Management
13 Area out west.
14 Before Enchanted Rock was a state
15 park, there was hang gliding. And of course,
16 there wasn't anybody else out there. Now
17 Enchanted Rock is so busy that we're turning
18 people away at the gate. The folks that wrote to
19 us said that they need an acre to launch and at
20 least five cleared acres to land if they can hit
21 the five. And some probably can, and some
22 probably can't.
23 Our recommendation is that we don't
24 get into that. Enchanted Rock is already just an
25 anthill. We would have safety problems. We could
.
17
1 not keep any particular place cleared for these
2 things coming out of the air, assuming that we
3 knew where we needed to clear. And so I think it
4 would open a can of worms that we don't have any
5 need to get into.
6 I talked to Gary about it at
7 Elephant Mountain, and I think the primary issue
8 there is not one related to visitor safety. It is
9 truly a recovering big horn sheep population, and
10 a hang glider would have a stress effect on the
11 big horn sheep population that we don't think is
12 appropriate.
13 In addition, Enchanted Rock is a
14 natural area. This doesn't add to that
15 experience. So our recommendation is no changes
16 to that.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Where do people
18 that enjoy this go?
19 MR. DABNEY: There's lots of places
20 to go. It's another issue where probably in many
21 cases it's on private land, and they go there. I
22 don't know of any urban parks where that's going
23 on. It's just not very compatible. It's
24 really -- when you have crowded areas, it's a
25 tough deal. I dealt with that in Yosemite years
.
18
1 ago, and it was just a --
2 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I don't
3 disagree with your conclusions. I'm just curious,
4 where do people go hang gliding?
5 CHAIRMAN BASS: The Executive
6 Director at Chinati, maybe. A long way out there,
7 but you're not going to be in anyone's way.
8 MR. DABNEY: That's true.
9 The last group have to do with minor
10 language changes. There's a series of these that
11 are in your book. An example of that would be it
12 changes the terminology of rock art, which is not
13 acceptable to the Native American population, and
14 inserts the words petroglyph or pictograph, which
15 are proper archeological terms that are more in
16 keeping with where it should be.
17 Another example is that it removes
18 cultural systems from the terminology that
19 describes sustainability. Sustainability
20 generally applies to natural systems. It doesn't
21 apply to cultural resources, so we've simply
22 pulled that out. And I think that's the last one
23 we have.
24 And if there are any questions, I'd
25 be glad to answer. You may have someone here
.
19
1 tomorrow that wants to speak on behalf of the hang
2 gliding community. I don't know that they're
3 flying in or driving in, but they may be here.
4 CHAIRMAN BASS: How many spots do we
5 have to keep clear in the parking lot for them?
6 MR. DABNEY: I haven't got that
7 request yet.
8 CHAIRMAN BASS: Questions? Thank
9 you, Walt.
10 MR. SWEENEY: Good afternoon,
11 Commissioners. I'm Bob Sweeney. I am the closer
12 on this deal. I chose a baseball metaphor, but,
13 unfortunately, Commissioner Ryan is not here to
14 hear it, so...
15 This is Chapter 69 that we're doing
16 now, review and readoption of. And there are 11
17 subchapters of Chapter 69 that are administered by
18 various areas in the agency. So we're going to
19 keep a score card, and I'm going to keep referring
20 back to this list and -- as we go through them and
21 show you where we're proposing readoption without
22 any changes. And those will be highlighted in
23 green. And where we're proposing readoption with
24 changes, those will be highlighted in yellow.
25 Moving on to the first kind of
.
20
1 overview of the situation, we've got six
2 subchapters of Chapter 69 that are administered by
3 Resource Protection Division. And one of those
4 subchapters, Subchapter B, fish and wildlife
5 values, is also administered in part by law
6 enforcement. It says coastal fisheries
7 administer, Subchapter F. That's actually inland
8 fisheries even though it's a coastal species,
9 native shrimp that's a concern. So that should be
10 inland fisheries administer Subchapter F. And
11 then the Wildlife division administers A, C, J,
12 and K.
13 So six resource protection
14 subchapters, three of them are for proposed for
15 readoption without changes. So green, those are
16 proposed for readoption without changes.
17 Now, there are three other resource
18 protection chapters, G, H, and I, that deal with
19 sand and gravel permits, shell permits and that
20 sort of thing, and those are proposed for some
21 changes to correct erroneous cross-references and
22 typographical errors and confusing language,
23 nonsubstantive changes, no new regulatory
24 requirements just some cleanup to correct some
25 errors that have crept in over the years. So G,
.
21
1 H, and I, readoption with changes. A little over
2 halfway. No changes proposed to Subchapter F.
3 Readopt that one, please, without changes.
4 Now, going to the Wildlife chapters,
5 four of them. Two of those subchapters are
6 proposed for readoption. No changes except for
7 changes to 69.8. And that's just kind off the
8 table here. That's addressing separate
9 regulations committee item. I think it's Item 7.
10 So we're just -- the motion that we're going to
11 propose doesn't concern 69.8 at all. Every other
12 section of A and K should be readopted with no
13 changes.
14 So much for A and K. The other two
15 chapters are the subchapters of Chapter 69. There
16 are some proposed changes. These are Wildlife
17 Division matters. Let me summarize real quickly.
18 These are under the authority of the Parks and
19 Wildlife Code Chapter 43 and for the purposes of
20 scientific research and other purposes. Changes
21 were published in the December 22nd Texas
22 Register, and no comments were received in these
23 changes.
24 To Subchapter C, the changes that
25 are proposed are refusal of a permit to any person
.
22
1 finally convicted of violating a wildlife law; and
2 requiring the permittee to release wildlife as
3 soon as it is capable of surviving in the wild.
4 It's sort of to fulfill the objective of
5 rehabilitation, make that clear.
6 The changes they proposed to
7 Subchapter J requires applicants for scientific
8 permits to document compliance with the Federal
9 Animal Welfare Act, by one of two methods, and to
10 require smaller caging for smaller raptors because
11 they don't need the cages as large as provided for
12 currently in the rules. So we've completed our
13 score card. We've gotten all the readoption
14 without changes there and the readoption with
15 changes. So I'll move on to our motion.
16 And as I said, I'm the closer on
17 this deal. So the motion concerns all three
18 chapters that you have heard about: Finance,
19 Parks, and Resource Protection. And it asks also
20 for consideration of placement on the consent
21 agenda. And I'm available for any questions.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions? The
23 Chair would entertain -- we have a motion. The
24 Chair would entertain --
25 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Second.
.
23
1 CHAIRMAN BASS: Actually, we have a
2 proposed motion. The Chair would entertain a
3 motion and a second. I have a second. Do I have
4 a motion?
5 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So moved.
6 COMMISSIONER HEATH: So moved.
7 CHAIRMAN BASS: Motion and a second.
8 All in favor? Opposed? Thank you, Bob.
9 (Motion passed unanimously.)
10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: ACTION - STATEWIDE HUNTING
11 AND FISHING PROCLAMATION 2001-2002.
12 CHAIRMAN BASS: All right.
13 Statewide hunting and fishing proclamation, next.
14 MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman,
15 Commissioners, my name is Paul Hammerschmidt,
16 Program Director for the Coastal Fisheries
17 Division.
18 Today I will review regulatory plans
19 of the Coastal Fisheries Division for statewide
20 hunting and fishing proclamation. During this
21 regulation cycle, Coastal staff will propose an
22 increase to the daily bag limit of Spanish
23 Mackerel in State waters from seven fish to 15
24 fish. This increase has already been implemented
25 in federal waters by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
.
24
1 Management Council.
2 Certainly, establishing rules
3 consistent with those in federal waters will
4 enhance law enforcement and reduce angler
5 confusion. Moreover, recent stock assessment have
6 showed that Spanish mackerel populations in the
7 Gulf are fully recovered from their previously
8 depleted state and are at a level where the
9 available harvest is not being taken. In Texas
10 waters our routine monitoring data also echo these
11 improvements as you can see in the graph.
12 This tremendous improvement in the
13 surplus of Spanish mackerel gives fishery managers
14 a rare occasion to increase fishing opportunities
15 to anglers in the state. And in addition, we get
16 a secondary benefit by redirecting anglers to
17 focus on Spanish mackerel, we might be getting
18 them to focus off of fish that are still of
19 concern, which are king mackerel and red snapper.
20 Finally, we have a housekeeping
21 issue. Staff proposes new language regarding the
22 color of floats required on commercial crab traps
23 used by commercial finfish fishermen. The color
24 of the float is currently yellow, and it's
25 supposed to be white. It was inadvertently made
.
25
1 the same color as what is required on trot lines.
2 And so at that I'd be happy to answer any
3 questions. Thank you.
4 MR. KURZAWSKI: Good afternoon,
5 Commissioners. My name is Ken Kurzawski. I'm
6 Regulatory Coordinator for Inland Fisheries
7 Division, and today I'd like to review with you
8 the freshwater fishing regulation proposals that
9 we're presenting to you for your approval to take
10 to public hearing.
11 We have three areas that are the
12 focus of our proposed changes. First is improving
13 and maintaining fishing quality. The second deal
14 with some regulation simplification, and the final
15 one deals with regulation standardization.
16 Starting out with proposals to improve or maintain
17 fishing quality, these deal with harvest
18 regulations for large-mouth bass on three
19 reservoirs. And our goal there is to improve or
20 maintain some excellent and above average fishing
21 that we already have in these reservoirs.
22 The first concern is Lake
23 Sweetwater, a 630-acre reservoir in Nolan County.
24 It currently has a 14-inch minimum length, and we
25 are proposing to change it to a 14-to 18-inch slot
.
26
1 limit. The reservoir currently has a decent
2 population of largemouth bass, exhibits some
3 excellent growth, and it's producing some good
4 fishing. It is one of the best bass spots near
5 Abilene. And staff there recognizes that it has
6 potential to possibly produce even some better
7 quality fishing for these anglers.
8 What I'd like to review with you is
9 what the population looks like currently. It's
10 typical of what we see in our population,
11 reservoir populations of largemouth bass with the
12 14-inch limit. We'll see a pretty good group of
13 fish around ten inches. These are usually age
14 zero or some one plus fish. Moving up closer to
15 the minimum length limit, I still have a pretty
16 good abundance of fish. These fish usually range
17 in age from age one to two plus.
18 Once we exceed that minimum length
19 limit, the numbers of fish are greatly reduced.
20 Even though catch and release is very popular
21 among anglers, we still do see some -- a number of
22 fish leaving due to harvest. It really doesn't
23 matter where that minimum length limit is. If
24 it's 14 inches, 16 or 18, we see a similar type
25 population structure where we have a buildup of
.
27
1 fish below the minimum length limit, depending the
2 number of fish we have exceeding that 14 inches
3 depends on a number of factors, such as growth
4 rate of the fish, productivity of the reservoir.
5 Also in some of our larger
6 reservoirs, such as Rayburn or Falcon or on the
7 border, when it was full, larger reservoir, we
8 seem to see a few more fish escaping, so to speak,
9 across that 14 inches, and anglers are catching a
10 few more fish. But in a smaller reservoir such as
11 Sweetwater, it usually requires a little bit more
12 protection to enhance that good quality fishing.
13 What we would hope to produce here,
14 when we put that 14 to 18 inch slot, we want to
15 see a reduction in the number of fish below 14
16 inches. We want anglers to remove some of those
17 fish, protect those fish within the slot, 14 to 18
18 inches, sort of an overall reduction in bio mass
19 with the fish removed below the slot, and it will
20 maintain good growth through the slot and then
21 hopefully produce some fish above the slot for
22 those anglers to catch.
23 So our goals there at Lake
24 Sweetwater is to restructure that population with
25 the slot and then increase abundance of those
.
28
1 quality sized bass, those bass a few more inches
2 and produce a few more fish even up to trophy size
3 for the anglers.
4 The next regulation change we have
5 is on Pinkston Reservoir which is in Shelby
6 County. It currently has a 14-to 18-inch slot,
7 and we are proposing to move it to 14-to 21-inch
8 slot with a restriction that only one bass over 21
9 inches can be harvested. The overall bag of five
10 fish will remain for both, from the previous slot
11 limit. This reservoir also has the potential to
12 produce some big fish.
13 The fish pictured here is a 16.9
14 pound bass that was caught in '86 which was for a
15 short while a state record fish. So staff there
16 recognized that this reservoir has produced and
17 has the potential to produce some excellent
18 fishing for bigger bass.
19 What we see there currently in that
20 population is similar to what we were shooting for
21 in Lake Sweetwater. We see an abundance of fish
22 within the slot and some fish being produced over
23 that 18-inch limit. What we're hoping to do, by
24 moving that length limit up to 21 inches, is to
25 produce a few more fish to provide some protection
.
29
1 for some fish under that slot and also produce --
2 allow a few more fish to be caught above the slot.
3 So what we're going to do there is,
4 again, restructure that population and increase
5 the abundance of quality and trophy-sized bass.
6 The last bass regulation we have, largemouth bass
7 regulations is for O.H. Ivie which when at full
8 pool, which it is not at now, is around 19,000
9 acres. It currently has an 18-inch minimum length
10 limit which it has had since 1990, when it was
11 first opened. We're proposing sort of a
12 modification of that to a no minimum length limit
13 and only allowing -- and allowing anglers to
14 harvest two fish less than 18 inches of the total
15 five fish bag.
16 This reservoir also has been
17 producing some excellent fishing. It produced
18 three share lunchers in spring of 2000. Those are
19 fish 13 pounds and over. So it does have the
20 potential to produce some good quality large size
21 fish. But what we're seeing there the last few
22 years is an overabundance of 14 to 18 inch bass,
23 and we're seeing some very slow growth among that
24 group of fish. And this is sort of heightened by
25 the low water conditions, and it is currently at
.
30
1 about 58 percent of capacity.
2 What the population looks like out
3 there now is a good group of fish, as I said,
4 between 14 to 18 inches. And we're seeing fish in
5 that group that range in age from age two up to
6 age eight. Typically, we wouldn't see fish much
7 over five years of age in that group. And what
8 we're hoping to do by allowing to harvest some of
9 those fish less than 18 inches is overall reduce
10 the abundance of the population, increase the
11 growth of these fish below 18 inches and maintain
12 movement of fish above that 18-inch minimum as we
13 had before.
14 So our goals there, as I said, is to
15 remove some of those fish, improve the growth of
16 remaining fish and maintain that high quality
17 angling that we have there now.
18 Under regulation simplification, we
19 are proposing to change regulations for smallmouth
20 bass on seven reservoirs. We currently have an
21 18-inch minimum which we've had on them since
22 1994, and we're proposing to roll that back to the
23 statewide limits for largemouth and smallmouth
24 bass of 14 inches and five fish.
25 Since we've had that 18-inch minimum
.
31
1 on these reservoirs, we've been surveying them,
2 looking to see if we were seeing any gains under
3 the 18-inch minimum, and we just haven't seen any
4 benefit. We were hope ing to see an increase in
5 population abundance out there, and we were hoping
6 that would lead increased angler catch and also
7 with a larger sized population and improved
8 reproduction in the population. We just haven't
9 seen that. They are acting just like they did
10 before, under the 14-inch limit. So we don't see
11 any reason, since we're not getting the benefit of
12 that, we can simplify the regulations here and
13 move back to the 14-inch limit.
14 The final category, regulation
15 standardization, we have two small reservoirs in
16 the Caddo National Grassland. We've proposed to
17 prohibit the use of trotlines, throw lines and jug
18 lines. Our staffs there are working with the
19 National Grasslands' staff which is administered
20 by the U.S. Forest Service to improve catfish
21 angling. They have had some regulations
22 prohibiting certain means and methods.
23 And we want to go in there and
24 standardize those between the two agencies and
25 also add the benefit of reducing some of the
.
32
1 harvest for catfish, restricting it to pole and
2 line only and hopefully build up that catfish
3 population.
4 As far as the public input so far,
5 mostly it's been favorable. For the bass
6 regulations, we've contacted the local groups,
7 bass groups in these areas. We've also done some
8 mailout survey work for Inks and Sweetwater to get
9 a little larger sample of input. That all was
10 mostly favorable.
11 Overall, O.H. Ivie probably has the
12 highest profile. It's one of the better bass
13 lakes out in West Texas. It gets a lot of
14 attention. Anglers will be looking to see what we
15 do there.
16 I think most of them recognize we
17 need to do something. They see the problems we're
18 having with the small, the slow growing fish. And
19 they think a change certainly is needed there. We
20 may receive some comments on the smallmouth bass
21 change.
22 Some anglers may interpret that that
23 we're lessening our protection for these fish.
24 But I think our rationale has found there that we
25 really aren't seeing any benefits from that 18
.
33
1 inch so we can achieve the same biological
2 objectives with the 14 inches.
3 Those are all the changes we are
4 proposing. Now, if you have any questions, I'd be
5 certainly happy to answer them.
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any questions?
7 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: You may have
8 said and I missed it. How long has that 18-inch
9 been in on the smallmouth --
10 MR. KURZAWSKI: Since 1994. We do
11 have a special project to evaluate that to make
12 sure we kept a close look at it.
13 CHAIRMAN BASS: I think it's
14 interesting that at the same time we have lakes
15 proposing to become more restrictive or in a
16 sense, we have some proposed -- we have an
17 instance where we've seen it. It didn't work the
18 way we thought it would, so let's go back to being
19 more --
20 MR. KURZAWSKI: Over the last few
21 years, we've had a number of lakes, some slot
22 limit lakes that we've returned to statewide for
23 that reason.
24 CHAIRMAN BASS: I think it's an --
25 interesting that it's all in the same presentation
.
34
1 that we're trying things, if they don't work, give
2 up on them and go back and try it somewhere else.
3 Active management. Good. Thank you.
4 DR. COOKE: Mr. Chairman and
5 members, my name is Jerry Cooke, Game Branch Chief
6 of the Wildlife Division, and I will be presenting
7 to you the recommended changes for the statewide
8 hunting and fishing proclamation.
9 Our normal process in the Wildlife
10 division during the summer months is to identify
11 issues for your consideration in November. These
12 are issues that we feel are related to the
13 Chairman's charges in maximizing hunting
14 opportunity, land owner flexibility while
15 protecting the wildlife resources for which we are
16 all responsible.
17 We've presented these issues to you
18 in November to ensure that the changes that we're
19 developing were those that you consider
20 appropriate and to allow you the opportunity to
21 identify issues important to you that would be
22 further developed.
23 Also, we will be meeting with the
24 MLD TTT Task Force February 5th to continue those
25 discussions. And we hope to continue to use this
.
35
1 group along with the Hunting Advisory Committee
2 and the Private Lands Advisory Committee for
3 sounding boards for issues in the future.
4 Our first proposal was the result of
5 a petition for rule making by ^ Mr. Rampor who
6 opened the quail season one week earlier. We feel
7 this will have no either positive or negative
8 impact biologically on the quail population. And
9 we would recommend that we place this before the
10 public for comment.
11 CHAIRMAN BASS: I would expect that
12 will generate some comment in that there is a
13 Cadre that is very concerned about quail
14 populations, et cetera. I'm not saying that I
15 agree with them, but I'm just saying --
16 DR. COOKE: The substantial fraction
17 of the comments that I've had in the X number of
18 years that I've been here is that it opens too
19 early now. But rather than tell the petitioner
20 that, we'll let the public tell him that.
21 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Well, you
22 know, the primary argument in favor of doing it
23 was to prevent the quail season and the deer
24 season from opening on the same weekend which
25 occurs every maybe three or four years and
.
36
1 prevents the quail hunters from being -- or people
2 from being able to do both on opening day.
3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Two-day weekend.
4 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: One on one day
5 and one on the other.
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: One before noon and
7 one after. I've done that. Anyway, I think -- I
8 guess one thing that we should -- I know we've
9 talked about this before. When we go forward with
10 the things such as this, make it clear that this
11 is, you know, not necessarily a position the
12 Department is taking but a topic for discussion.
13 DR. COOKE: Absolutely. Absolutely.
14 A proposal that is part of the rule review process
15 but one that would potentially affect many hunters
16 is changing the proof of sex of the turkeys. And
17 this was another comment from the public, but it
18 sounds like a good one.
19 A beard on a turkey is not a good
20 indicator of sex. There's a substantial fraction
21 of hens who will have a beard. And maintaining
22 the beard intact makes it difficult to maintain a
23 turkey in a very sanitary condition following
24 cleaning. So to address this, we would propose to
25 change the proof of sex, very similar to what we
.
37
1 have for a pheasant, which is to have one leg and
2 a spur attached to the turkey and accompanying the
3 turkey would be a patch of skin with breast
4 feathers attached to the skin because this would
5 be proof positive.
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: What does the skin
7 with feathers accomplish?
8 DR. COOKE: Jakes sometimes don't
9 have a spur developed very well at all, but the
10 breast feathers will positively identify it as a
11 gobbler or a hen. We could probably do it with a
12 spur alone. But if we're going to lay it out to
13 change it, let's change it ideally and see what
14 the comments are, if you agree.
15 In Houston, Rusk, Smith, Upshur and
16 Wood --
17 CHAIRMAN BASS: Maybe that could be
18 an alternative to just having the beard attached?
19 Never mind.
20 DR. COOKE: You have very broad
21 flexibility, sir, in your adoptions.
22 In Houston, Rusk, Smith, Upsher and
23 Wood Counties, we propose a standard spring season
24 for eastern wild turkeys. This would be the
25 Monday nearest April 14th, for 14 days, one
.
38
1 gobbler in the bag, shotgun, archery or crossbow
2 would be the only legal means, no baiting would be
3 allowed and check stations would be required in
4 the counties.
5 This would raise to 37 the number of
6 counties that have an Easter wild turkey season
7 should it be adopted. We propose a Javelina
8 season in Archer County. It would be October 1
9 through the last Sunday in February two Javelina
10 in the bag. All other aspects of the regulation
11 would be similar to surrounding counties that have
12 an open Javelina season.
13 Currently, antlerless and spike-buck
14 control -- deer control permits are a valid during
15 the period in which any regular season is open on
16 a property. The purpose of ADCP is to allow a
17 landowner to reduce a deer herd that imminently
18 endangers or itself or its habitat and where
19 conventional hunting would not be effective to
20 accomplish the reduction.
21 Because this focus in most instances
22 is at cross-purposes for the focus of Level 2 and
23 Level 3 MLDPs where these population conditions
24 would not be expected to exist, populations with
25 the greatest need for harvest are provided only in
.
39
1 the county's general season, which is much
2 shorter, to accomplish a much more difficult
3 harvest goal at a time later than would be optimal
4 for maximizing the benefit of the habitats. This
5 proposal would establish a period in which ADCPs
6 are valid, which would be the Saturday nearest
7 September 30th through the last day of any open
8 season on the property.
9 In November we discussed with you
10 the possibility of proposing that muzzle loaders
11 using U.S. Forest Service lands, Corps of
12 Engineers, Trinity River Authority lands or Sabine
13 River Authority lands would be required to have an
14 MLD permit for their hunts.
15 Subsequent investigations by our
16 staff and the staffs of those agencies that I just
17 mentioned and our law enforcement Division has
18 determined that this is not a problem. It was a
19 concern beforehand, but they believe that it would
20 be inappropriate for the restriction on them at
21 this time. And we would withdraw this proposal to
22 be included in January.
23 In Fannin, Hunt and Rains County, we
24 would provide LAMPS permits for landowners in
25 those counties, there being no other change in the
.
40
1 regulations. Fourteen counties north of the
2 Edwards plateau we would add one doe to the bag
3 and provide them a 14-day antlerless and
4 spike-buck season following the general season.
5 These counties were previously four deer, no more
6 than two bucks. So we will be adding one doe.
7 We have two proposals from South
8 Texas in the 12 counties in yellow will be moving
9 to a five-deer no more than a three-buck bag and
10 provide the South Texas 14-day antlerless and
11 spike-buck late season in those counties. And
12 also in all the counties in yellow, we would
13 change the opening date to the first Saturday in
14 November, which would provide a statewide opener
15 for white-tailed deer in Texas.
16 CHAIRMAN BASS: Whereas, currently
17 there's two different opening days?
18 DR. COOKE: Correct. This would
19 also include turkeys, not just white tail but
20 everything that's valid in fall season.
21 This proposal would ensure that
22 landowners and hunters are equally protected from
23 risk if they are not in violation. Currently, a
24 hunter is required to have an MLD permit to hunt
25 deer on an MLD property.
.
41
1 This proposed change would make it a
2 violation for a landowner to allow hunting on a
3 property, an MLD property without issuing the
4 permits to the hunters and would require a daily
5 log to be kept, which is basically a receipt, so
6 that if the permits had been issued to the hunter,
7 the hunter is liable for not using; if the permits
8 were not issued to the hunter, then the landowner
9 would be liable for the lack of issuance.
10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Let me ask on this.
11 Is it -- refresh my memory. Is it only the
12 landowner that can apply for an MLD or --
13 DR. COOKE: Correct. Or his agent.
14 CHAIRMAN BASS: Or his agent.
15 DR. COOKE: Correct. And the
16 wording of the regulation is landowner or agent.
17 CHAIRMAN BASS: So it's a lessee.
18 It's something that would be -- basically, it
19 would be the permit holder rather than landowner.
20 Is that --
21 DR. COOKE: The person in violation
22 would be the one liable.
23 CHAIRMAN BASS: The permit holder?
24 DR. COOKE: Correct. Thank you.
25 That was a part of the proposal.
.
42
1 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Now, Jerry, is
2 this --
3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Actually your
4 wording in the slide is different than your
5 proposal. Because the permit holder is not the
6 landowner, it will not be the landowner that's in
7 violation?
8 DR. COOKE: It would be whoever is
9 responsible for the property. If you as a
10 landowner have assigned an agent to run the hunt,
11 they have signed fir the permits. They're
12 responsible for issuing them to the hunters.
13 CHAIRMAN BASS: The permit holder.
14 DR. COOKE: Correct. So in that
15 instance, this slide is incorrect as compared to
16 the actual proposal.
17 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Is this a
18 different log than we have to keep now?
19 DR. COOKE: Yes. This would
20 basically be a receipt so the landowner could
21 prove he's issued a permit to the hunter or the
22 hunter could prove that one was not issued.
23 Otherwise, it would never even come into play
24 unless a violation took place.
25 CHAIRMAN BASS: So it's the log --
.
43
1 there's a log for issuance and then a log for use
2 of the permit?
3 COMMISSIONER WATSON: I mean,
4 there's a log currently.
5 DR. COOKE: David? I don't believe
6 so. There's not a log required. That was
7 required by statute, but it was repealed in '97.
8 I mean, routinely landowners maintain a log of
9 their own, but it's not required by our
10 regulations or by our law.
11 CHAIRMAN BASS: So this log, it
12 would not be a log of actual kill,. It would be a
13 log of issuance?
14 DR. COOKE: Permit issuance.
15 Correct.
16 CHAIRMAN BASS: Okay. Now, would
17 that, therefore, mean that once it's issued, the
18 permit could no longer be transferable?
19 DR. COOKE: No. It could be
20 returned to the landowner.
21 CHAIRMAN BASS: If you issue it to
22 me, I can't give it to him? I'd have to give it
23 back to you?
24 DR. COOKE: I don't think that I've
25 thought about that, to be very fair. We were
.
44
1 making provisions for the hunter to return the
2 permit to the landowner or the agent, whoever that
3 may be, through the log, so it's essentially a
4 receipt arrangement.
5 COMMISSIONER HENRY: So I
6 understand, a lessee would be an agent?
7 DR. COOKE: Only if the landowner
8 appointed him to be so.
9 CHAIRMAN BASS: Whoever applies for
10 the permit and receives it is the person we're
11 talking about having this burden?
12 DR. COOKE: Of issuing to the
13 hunter.
14 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Permit holder.
15 DR. COOKE: The permit holder.
16 CHAIRMAN BASS: And what would be
17 the penalty? What kind of violation would it be?
18 What kind of penalty?
19 DR. COOKE: David? I'm sorry, Jim.
20 MR. ROBERTSON: Jim Robertson,
21 Director of the Law Enforcement Division. Of
22 course, the violation would be a Class C
23 misdemeanor, maximum fine of $500.
24 But what we're seeing here and what
25 we've dealt with in the past is lessees that have
.
45
1 permits that do not issue them to hunters.
2 Hunters leave the property, not knowing that they
3 should have had an MLD.
4 What this process will do will
5 absolutely show that the person responsible for
6 the MLD program on that property will issue the
7 permit. If it's not utilized, the hunter will
8 give it back, and there will be a transaction
9 there. But if the hunter does use it, then he's
10 got the MLD permit in hand. And he attaches it to
11 the deer, and everything is fine, so you don't
12 have this unsuspecting person that could violate a
13 regulation, not knowing that he should have had
14 that. And that's the purpose of the law.
15 CHAIRMAN BASS: I'm aware of one
16 case where that's happened rather egregious, that
17 it was numerous transgressions by the same permit
18 holder in the same year. Have we had other
19 problems with this elsewhere?
20 MR. ROBERTSON: We have had other
21 cases where other people have harvested deer on
22 MLD properties without the permits but not near as
23 heinous as the one case that you've mentioned. By
24 the way, that one is still being adjudicated.
25 CHAIRMAN BASS: Well, Jerry, you
.
46
1 have a meeting February 5th with the task force?
2 DR. COOKE: Correct. I'm sure we'll
3 have input.
4 CHAIRMAN BASS: That's the perfect
5 time for enlightenment.
6 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Will that
7 meeting be here?
8 DR. COOKE: It will be here in this
9 room.
10 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thanks.
11 DR. COOKE: Thanks, Jim.
12 At the November Commission meeting
13 we were directed to investigate the possibility of
14 allowing hunters to take more than one buck from
15 the one buck limit compartment in Texas. This
16 compartment exists because of severe harvest
17 pressure on bucks. For example, it's not unusual
18 in counties for -- from 50 to 65 percent of the
19 bucks harvested in a given year to be yearlings,
20 which is a very intensive harvest rate. In the
21 past providing another buck in the bag has been
22 linked to reductions in buck harvest rates.
23 For example, in those 11 counties in
24 southeast Texas, when their harvest rate fell
25 below 25 to 30 percent, we allowed another buck in
.
47
1 their bag. However, staff proposes an experiment
2 which may increase opportunity without
3 significantly impacting harvest rates. IH-35 will
4 be shown on the following maps because it provides
5 a natural break between the peaks and spatial
6 distributions.
7 The map shows two circles. These
8 circles are common, whether you're looking at a
9 map of a number of hunters in Texas in this
10 compartment, the number of hunter days, the buck
11 harvest, or the white-tailed deer population.
12 Using these data as a guide and --
13 CHAIRMAN BASS: I'm sorry. Go back
14 to your circles. Tell me again what they
15 represent.
16 DR. COOKE: If you're looking at a
17 spatial distribution, these circles represent
18 hills in that spatial distribution. In other
19 words, a very high concentration of hunters,
20 hunter days, bucks harvested in the white-tail
21 deer population itself.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: So within the red
23 counties those are the two hot zones for those
24 statistics?
25 DR. COOKE: Hot zones. And there's
.
48
1 a very distinct deep valley between them that I-35
2 essentially runs through. What we would propose
3 is to create two one-buck compartments using the
4 counties that lie along I-35, the entire county,
5 and those counties east would represent one
6 compartment, and the counties west of those
7 counties would represent a second. This would
8 allow a hunter to take one buck from the western
9 zone, for lack of a better term, and take one buck
10 from the eastern zone. And we'll see what the
11 comment is from there.
12 CHAIRMAN BASS: And you would
13 propose to use entire counties rather than east
14 and west of I-35?
15 DR. COOKE: Correct. There are
16 counties in the Edwards plateau where west of the
17 county are four/two -- well, five now -- five/two.
18 Excuse me. I'm having trouble getting my own bags
19 straight -- and a one buck limit to the east. And
20 in those counties only the eastern portion would
21 go into the compartment. That's why we chose to
22 go east because we could use all the counties on
23 I-35 to go into a reasonably consistent
24 compartment.
25 Another proposal is the potential to
.
49
1 expand the youth-only season for deer and turkey
2 for modern firearms during the weekends of October
3 and January. Currently youth hunts can be
4 conducted by archers during October, muzzle
5 loaders during January and with modern firearms on
6 Level 2 and Level 3 MDL properties during both
7 periods and, of course, during any weekend in the
8 general season.
9 This proposal would not affect any
10 of these opportunities currently available.
11 However, there are -- there is no potential for
12 landowners who are not participating in any of
13 these special seasons or permit options to expand
14 youth hunts during October and January.
15 The original treatment of this issue
16 identified all weekends of October and three
17 weekends of January as potentially available for
18 this expansion. The purpose of the public
19 comment -- for the purposes of public comment nd
20 to provide the Commission the broadest latitude
21 for possible adoptions, we will leave this
22 proposal as it is unless you otherwise direct us.
23 There is concern among some field
24 staff that overharvest of either bucks, does, or
25 both could result in parts of Texas where deer
.
50
1 populations are not strong or where hunting
2 pressure currently is intense, depending, of
3 course, on how the proposal is eventually adopted.
4 Also, there will probably be
5 opposition to expansion -- to expanding the youth
6 season to additional weekends in October by
7 archers.
8 To show the impact of the current
9 youth weekend, shows in 1996 -- and this is the
10 chronology of license purchases by individuals
11 younger than 17 because this is the year before
12 there was any organized youth hunting at all in
13 Texas. You'll see there's a peak at the dove
14 opening -- just before the dove opening, and
15 there's a peak in the north zone deer opening.
16 In 1999, you'll see there's still a
17 peak for the doe opening. There's still a peak
18 for the north zone opening, but there's a distinct
19 peak, it's actually stronger, just before the
20 opening of the current youth season. This
21 difference represents about 17.7 percent increase
22 in the sale of licenses to youth. They don't just
23 buy licenses. They use them.
24 You can see the peaks of the harvest
25 reported by youth in our big game survey to show
.
51
1 the opening of the youth season, the opening of
2 the north part of the deer season, Thanksgiving,
3 Christmas are all heavily used.
4 At the November meeting, we
5 discussed migratory proposals, however, at that
6 time, we were simply asking permission --
7 CHAIRMAN BASS: Can we back up
8 before we move on? Basically, on this what we're
9 proposing is, rather than having one weekend of a
10 youth season, having as much as -- as many as
11 seven or -- I guess, if October falls right, you
12 would have five weekends?
13 DR. COOKE: Up to that. In other
14 words, the proposal, the proposal is to expand the
15 youth weekend. And these are the potential areas
16 for expansion, up to that maximum.
17 CHAIRMAN BASS: Okay. Up to that.
18 I guess my gut instinct is going from one youth
19 weekend to seven or eight is probably too big a
20 jump. I don't know. I don't know whether there
21 is any discussion from anyone else. But as
22 opposed to it kind of becoming an annual
23 traditional event, it becomes so diluted that it
24 kind of loses some meaning. But maybe that's too
25 big an increment to take on some something that
.
52
1 we're not sure where the right place is.
2 DR. COOKE: If --
3 CHAIRMAN BASS: I'd almost be in the
4 position of having not done enough than saying,
5 oops, now I feel like we need to take -- as a
6 Department, take something back from the youth.
7 DR. COOKE: Right. The spirit of
8 the proposal would be if you added one weekend, it
9 would have to be one of those in order to provide
10 this new opportunity.
11 CHAIRMAN BASS: So once again, the
12 slide is not really reflective because it says
13 include all of the weekends --
14 DR. COOKE: As potential for
15 expansion. Correct. In that instance -- if I can
16 figure out how to make this work --
17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: What you're
18 saying is we could pick any one of those weekends
19 or all of them.
20 CHAIRMAN BASS: We could add from
21 those or add all of them?
22 DR. COOKE: Yes. Or do nothing.
23 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: That's the way
24 it will be published?
25 DR. COOKE: That's the way it will
.
53
1 be published.
2 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, you
3 know, Jerry, I don't think that you can have too
4 many because I think these kids are our future.
5 And we had three youth hunts this year, and I wish
6 we had had more, but we just ran out of time. And
7 there's so much competition for the kids' time
8 that if -- I'm sure TWA would echo that, too, that
9 anything we can do to get these kids set, I'm
10 totally in favor of that.
11 DR. COOKE: At the November
12 Commission meeting, we laid out migratory changes
13 as well. But at that time we were asking
14 permission to take those proposals to public
15 hearing for comment. And there will not be
16 discussion at this time unless you wish to discuss
17 any items of those.
18 CHAIRMAN BASS: The only thing of
19 that regard I think I'd add is, as I recall that
20 particular discussion, the potential change of the
21 dove late season was adding some days at the front
22 of end of it, is what the slides read. And I
23 think on further thought on my part, as well as
24 all the feedback I've gotten from two dozen
25 different comments just casually to me, is that
.
54
1 strong support but preference for the extra days
2 to be added on the end of the late season,
3 especially in South Texas, where people feel it
4 would be more beneficial and in lean quail years
5 and provide -- take some pressure off in corporate
6 hunting situations where they're committed to
7 entertain people for a weekend, but it gives them
8 something to focus them on other than only quail.
9 In fact, over half the people that
10 have said something to me positive about expanding
11 the late dove season, it's been because they see,
12 as much as it increased hunter opportunity, a way
13 to alleviate pressure on quail populations in
14 years that they're worried about them.
15 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I want to add
16 something to that because it's a little different.
17 The parents and children that I've talked to
18 regarding the change asked if -- I thought it was
19 a pretty good question. Why don't they do the
20 dove season and the late season according to what
21 the public school Christmas vacation is, or more
22 or less what the public school Christmas vacation
23 is?
24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Is that uniform
25 statewide?
.
55
1 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Within a few
2 days, I'd say so. And the private schools kind of
3 track with that, not perfectly, but close.
4 DR. COOKE: Again, this proposal was
5 related to south zone only. Is that still --
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: I believe that's
7 what -- I don't remember whether that proposal was
8 related to south and central zone.
9 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I think it was.
10 DR. COOKE: It was for only the
11 south zone. It could be published more generally
12 if you desire.
13 CHAIRMAN BASS: Obviously, we don't
14 have a late season in the north zone. We do in
15 the central zone, and I don't remember what the
16 November proposal was in that regard.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I think it
18 was -- I think I remember the proposed change
19 being roughly December 15th to January whatever it
20 is currently, wasn't it?
21 CHAIRMAN BASS: Well, it currently
22 starts December 26th.
23 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Right.
24 CHAIRMAN BASS: The day after
25 Christmas.
.
56
1 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Right.
2 CHAIRMAN BASS: And as I recall, in
3 November the proposal to take to the public for
4 comment was that it go from the 60 days/15 bag to
5 70 days/12 bird bag, take the extra ten days and
6 add them on the front end of that, in other words,
7 start the 16th. And all the comment I've had is
8 don't do that, start on the 26th and add them in
9 January. That's just the feedback I've gotten.
10 MR. SANSOM: I agree with that. The
11 other issue that I think that we need to consider
12 here is that if you don't propose it uniform, then
13 you could end up in a situation where you have
14 different bag limits and seasons for the different
15 zones. And we discussed ideally having the same
16 number of days in the same bag statewide if we
17 could.
18 DR. COOKE: It could be taken for
19 public comment in that way, any way you choose
20 because it has not been published as of yet.
21 Okay.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: And I'd be
23 interested in what the Hunting Advisory Committee
24 feedback on these issues was.
25 DR. COOKE: We intend to bring this
.
57
1 up to the Hunting Advisory Committee later.
2 CHAIRMAN BASS: And private lands,
3 too.
4 DR. COOKE: The recommended motion
5 is the Regulations Committee of the Parks and
6 Wildlife Commission authorizes staff to publish
7 the proposed 2001-2002 Statewide Hunting and
8 Fishing Proclamation contained in Exhibit A, with
9 changes, in the Texas Register for public comment.
10 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move approval
11 of the recommendation.
12 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Second.
13 CHAIRMAN BASS: Further questions,
14 discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank
15 you.
16 (Motion passed unanimously.)
17 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: ACTION - AMENDMENTS TO THE
18 PUBLIC LANDS PROCLAMATION AND PROPOSED HUNTING
19 ACTIVITIES ON STATE PARKS.
20 CHAIRMAN BASS: Public Lands Hunting
21 Proclamation. Herb?
22 MR. KOTHMANN: Good afternoon,
23 Mr. Chairman and members of the Regulations
24 Committee. My name is Herb Kothmann, and I'm the
25 Director of Public Hunts. I will be presenting
.
58
1 proposed changes to the Public Lands Proclamation
2 and the 2001-2002 public hunts on state park
3 lands.
4 The first portion of this
5 presentation deals with the proposed changes to
6 the Public Lands Proclamation. Staff proposes to
7 update the application section to clarify the
8 units of public hunting land to which the rules
9 apply. This would include adding two recently
10 acquired units, Lake McClellan Recreation Area
11 which is a U.S. Forest Service area in the
12 Panhandle and the Nannie Stringfellow WMA near
13 Houston in East Texas near the Peach Point area.
14 Current rules waive the access
15 permit requirement for a nonhunting adult who is
16 assisting a permitted minor in a youth-only hunt.
17 This waiver of access permit requirement for an
18 adult is not in compliance with the terms of our
19 public hunting lease agreements with cooperating
20 landowners. The discrepancy in the access permit
21 requirements has become a problem with a
22 significant expansion of the youth-only hunting
23 seasons and the youth-only hunt days on the public
24 hunting lands.
25 Staff proposes to standardize the
.
59
1 access permit requirement on our public hunting
2 lands for adults supervising minors in youth-only
3 hunts. The proposed change would require all
4 supervising adults to possess a valid access
5 permit.
6 Staff proposes a change which would
7 allow the Department to retain application fees
8 submitted with invalid applications for a special
9 permit. This change is needed to defray the costs
10 of handling applications and be more compatible
11 with the current procedures for processing
12 applications and handling revenue received in the
13 mail.
14 Revenue is now removed from the
15 incoming mail in the mail room and immediately
16 deposited; therefore, it is no longer possible to
17 return the personal checks along with the invalid
18 applications to the applicant. The cost of making
19 a refund under the current system is generally
20 several times larger than the $2 for individual
21 application fee.
22 Some public hunts for small game are
23 conducted by regular permit, which means a daily
24 permit. The $10 regular permit fee is waived for
25 youth and for persons who possess the $40 annual
.
60
1 public hunting permit. However, current rules
2 require that all participants in these hunts be
3 issued a regular permit. This delays the check-in
4 procedure and creates unnecessary paperwork.
5 Consequently, staff proposes to
6 waive this requirement for issuance of a regular
7 permit to individuals who already possess the
8 annual public hunting permit on these hunts and to
9 the youth under their supervision. The proposed
10 change would streamline the check-in procedures by
11 eliminating the need to unnecessarily issue a
12 second permit to many participants.
13 Staff proposes a change to clarify
14 that preference points of a selected applicant
15 will not be reinstated if, due to an error in
16 processing applications, an application should be
17 awarded a public hunt other than the one they
18 applied for and chooses to participate in that
19 hunt. On occasion, an error is made in computer
20 entry of the hunt category code or the hunt date
21 code from the handwritten applications we process.
22 However, the applicant often wishes
23 to accept the hunt that they were drawn for in the
24 majority of cases. Our current rules state that
25 if they were awarded a hunt other than the one
.
61
1 they had indicated on our application as
2 acceptable, we have to reinstate their preference
3 points. This would allow us to award that
4 selected hunter the hunt he was erroneously
5 awarded. These would be just a few cases, but it
6 would keep our customers happy.
7 Staff proposes to clarify that all
8 participants in public hunts conducted under the
9 streamlined regular permit issued procedures must
10 comply with the check-in and check-out
11 requirements. This is just a tweaking of a
12 verbiage here. Our current rules state that
13 everybody hunting under a regular permit must
14 check in and check out. We have some people with
15 the APH permit and not the regular permit. We
16 simply want everybody to participate in the
17 check-in and check-out.
18 Staff proposes to establish hunter
19 education training requirements for youth under
20 age 17 who participate in public hunts by special
21 permit. These are our drawn hunts. Staff has
22 become concerned with the increasing number of
23 very young children, some as young as two years of
24 age who apply and are selected in the public hunt
25 drawings. For instance, this past season we had
.
62
1 198 applicants for drawn hunts that were under
2 eight years of age. Thirty-three of those youths
3 were drawn for a hunt, five of which were under
4 six years of age.
5 Approximately only 6,000 big game
6 hunt positions are awarded each year through the
7 public hunt drawings, among over 70,000
8 applicants. To promote the safety of all
9 participants in these drawn hunts and more
10 effectively utilize the limited number of special
11 permits, staff proposes to require youth to
12 possess documentation of successful completion of
13 hunter education training. That would be either
14 the full certification of going through the hunter
15 safety training course, or, if they're under 12
16 years of age, they get and -- and they
17 successfully complete it, they can get this
18 certificate of successful completion. This is not
19 certification, but this authorizes them to hunt
20 without adult supervision under our state laws.
21 CHAIRMAN BASS: Herb, let's stop
22 here and talk about this, please. If a child gets
23 that second permit, he can get it -- back up.
24 In order to be certified, you have
25 to be 12 to take the course?
.
63
1 MR. KOTHMANN: That's correct.
2 CHAIRMAN BASS: So children under 12
3 cannot be certified.
4 MR. KOTHMANN: That's correct.
5 CHAIRMAN BASS: But what you just
6 showed us is an alternative that a child under 12
7 can do. But once he reaches the age of 12, he
8 still has to go take that course to get to be --
9 MR. KOTHMANN: To be certified.
10 CHAIRMAN BASS: To be certified,
11 which he has to be certified by the time he
12 reaches age 18 to legally hunt.
13 MR. KOTHMANN: That's correct.
14 CHAIRMAN BASS: With or without an
15 adult? Is that --
16 MR. KOTHMANN: I'm told by our
17 hunter education folks that generally kids that
18 are issued this certification of successful
19 completion are probably nine years of age or
20 older. There is not a fixed age minimum here.
21 CHAIRMAN BASS: I'm -- yeah. One
22 thing that's interesting to me is, I have three
23 kids under 15, and this is the first time I never
24 knew that existed. But it's kind of one thing
25 that's -- I don't think it's well publicized at
.
64
1 all. I think most people, should we pass this,
2 will say, well, then the kid has got to be 12
3 years old because they won't know that exists.
4 And we'll be throwing out of the youth deal all
5 the kids that are under 12.
6 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is the concern
7 that some of these that are not really being drawn
8 for youth, and it's a subterfuge, or is it you're
9 concerned about the safety?
10 MR. KOTHMANN: We're concerned about
11 having kids out there that are not of the physical
12 development or hand-eye coordination to be
13 responsible for handling a large caliber rifle
14 that they're supposedly using on that drawn hunt.
15 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Do we know that
16 they're out there, Herb, or is it because -- go
17 back to Ernie's question. Do we think that
18 someone is trying to get a permit for somebody
19 that, as I see here, is one year of age? Do we
20 really think that one-year-olds are out there
21 or --
22 MR. KOTHMANN: We've had a
23 two-year-old out. I don't know that we've had a
24 one-year-old. But currently there is no minimum
25 age applied.
.
65
1 COMMISSIONER HEATH: But are they
2 there, is my question. I understand they're
3 selected. Are they physically there? Do we know
4 that?
5 MR. KOTHMANN: Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER HEATH: They are?
7 MR. KOTHMANN: This proposal was
8 developed by the area manager in our Chaparral
9 Wildlife Area that brought it to my attention and
10 asked for it.
11 CHAIRMAN BASS: Are all of these
12 drawn hunts deer? Are some of them smaller game?
13 MR. KOTHMANN: All of these are big
14 game, either deer, feral hog, alligator.
15 Alligator, I think you'd have as much concern
16 about as youth as anything. Turkey would be the
17 only what you might call small game. Basically,
18 you're talking big game.
19 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Is there a
20 problem? And if so, what is the problem?
21 MR. KOTHMANN: The problem is an
22 increasing number of very small kids that, for all
23 appearances sake, are not capable of utilizing
24 that opportunity that we're awarding, a very
25 limited opportunity.
.
66
1 COMMISSIONER HENRY: As a result of
2 that, what has happened to make it a concern, I
3 guess is what I'm asking?
4 MR. KOTHMANN: We've had more
5 applying in the drawings, more being selected. I
6 think one of the reasons, possibly, we're seeing
7 more applicants is that the preference points
8 interest. People, almost from the date of birth,
9 are trying to get their kids on the applications
10 with them, accrue preference points so when they
11 get into their teens --
12 CHAIRMAN BASS: When they get old
13 enough, they have a chance to get drawn, increased
14 chance to get drawn.
15 MR. KOTHMANN: And we may want to
16 consider some way to allow that youth to continue
17 to accrue preference points but not be eligible
18 until they qualify.
19 CHAIRMAN BASS: If we do want to
20 create an age cutoff, I'd rather just go ahead and
21 do it by saying you have to be X years old to
22 apply rather than saying that you have to get this
23 secondary Hunter Education Certificate. Because
24 that's just an impediment to getting the kid -- am
25 I going to find a class, haul my kid to it and in
.
67
1 two years are going to have to go back and do it
2 again with him because then he's 12, and he can
3 get the real thing?
4 I think that's a barrier to entry.
5 I agree. Two years old is a little over the top.
6 But if we want to say you have to be six or seven
7 or eight or whatever it is, I think it would be
8 far better to just straightforward say you cannot
9 apply for deer, alligator, feral hog until you're
10 eight years old or whatever the right number is.
11 MR. KOTHMANN: Incidentally, this
12 bar chart shows from the past years of public hunt
13 drawings the number of applicants that were under
14 age 17 by year of age. And you can see that it's
15 very small until you get up to about the eight or
16 nine years of age, and then it really picks up.
17 This -- there were a total of 3,625
18 youths under age 17 that applied in our public
19 hunt drawings this past year.
20 CHAIRMAN BASS: How many?
21 MR. KOTHMANN: 3,625. They were
22 ages two through 16. We did not have a one year
23 old this year.
24 Restriction of these applicants to
25 those age eight or older would have kept 198 or 5
.
68
1 percent of these youth from entering the drawing
2 this year. And 33 of those youths were drawn this
3 year of those 198 that were on -- that were eight
4 or -- restriction to age nine would have kept 366
5 or 10 percent of the youth from entering the
6 drawing.
7 So you're speaking about a fairly
8 small section of the youth, but it's important,
9 with all the emphasis on attracting youth to
10 hunting, that we study, I think very closely,
11 before we step into this thing.
12 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Are they now
13 required to be with an adult? They are, are they
14 not?
15 CHAIRMAN BASS: Yes, they are.
16 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: There's a lot
17 of fathers that take six and eight-year-olds out
18 and hunt, so I mean I don't think you want to make
19 it any lower than -- I mean any higher than eight.
20 MR. KOTHMANN: The original proposal
21 that was sent in from the field from Chaparral did
22 suggest a fixed age of eight. The person read our
23 news release yesterday and phoned me back and was
24 quite dissatisfied with the proposed tack that we
25 have taken because he thought it would be a
.
69
1 restriction on kids coming down and participating
2 without having that certification or that
3 documentation of successful completion, for what
4 it's worth.
5 I mean, this -- the proposal we put
6 forth, keying on hunter certification or
7 documentation is virtually exactly what Louisiana,
8 the State of Louisiana has in their public
9 requirements.
10 CHAIRMAN BASS: That's enough reason
11 to do it different.
12 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Well, why not
13 make it eight years and have anybody below that be
14 able to earn points but not to get drawn, if
15 they're doing it for that reason, to earn
16 preference points? I mean, if there is any
17 advantage to that. I don't know if there is or
18 not, any desire for that.
19 MR. KOTHMANN: And it would be eight
20 at the time of application in order for our
21 computer to check if it's valid or invalid.
22 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Seven is first
23 grade, more or less?
24 CHAIRMAN BASS: Six is first grade.
25 Seven is second grade, typical.
.
70
1 COMMISSIONER WATSON: But this is
2 only applicable to hunts on public --
3 MR. KOTHMANN: Only to our
4 departmental drawn public hunts. This restriction
5 would not apply to our APH permit hunts, Type 2
6 hunts as some people call them, under the annual
7 permit or the daily permitted hunts. These are
8 only the 6,000 drawn positions, roughly, that we
9 award each year.
10 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Herb, excuse
11 me. But would you just give me, then, what would
12 be the publicly-stated reason for us making this
13 restriction?
14 MR. KOTHMANN: I think certainly
15 safety is something that we could put at the very
16 top when we're having very young kids out there
17 handling large bore rifles and a group of people
18 who report to these check stations for these
19 hunts. To me, utilization of a precious, limited
20 commodity, the only 6,000 positions that we have
21 to somebody that we feel is really capable of
22 utilizing those.
23 I would say that we question the
24 veracity of some of the hunt members, but it
25 appears that our four and five-year-olds have had
.
71
1 equally good marksmanship to what the elder --
2 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Now, you get
3 to the subterfuge that I was wondering about to
4 begin with.
5 COMMISSIONER HEATH: My concern just
6 is impression, just what the impression is. As
7 the Chairman said earlier, having another
8 certificate, I think, is confusing. And I just
9 think we want to be real careful in what we say.
10 Granted, it's for the -- for public lands. But I
11 think we want to be very careful that we're not
12 sending a message that we don't want youth
13 involved. And I think we're all having a
14 challenge here trying to grasp just what this is
15 and what the purpose is.
16 CHAIRMAN BASS: Is anyone
17 uncomfortable with the approach of saying seven or
18 eight years and older, you have to be at least
19 that age to apply for a big game hunt?
20 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I just can't
21 imagine being -- and I shot at a very young age.
22 Seven is as young as I would be comfortable with.
23 CHAIRMAN BASS: That's how old I
24 was.
25 COMMISSIONER HENRY: Most of the
.
72
1 programs I'm familiar with and have been over the
2 years sort of use eight as a breaking point. I've
3 worked and handled youth programs for 30 years,
4 and generally this is the break that was used as
5 far as program activities are concerned.
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: If we say eight and
7 older, we're cutting, what, maybe 6 percent of the
8 number out.
9 MR. KOTHMANN: 5 percent. If you
10 had a minimum of eight to qualify, you would
11 eliminate 5 percent of what we had apply this year
12 under these -- this circumstance.
13 COMMISSIONER HEATH: When is the
14 application made?
15 MR. KOTHMANN: Applications are made
16 in late summer, generally starting about the
17 middle of July. And they will continue up
18 until -- well, for deer hunts, up until about the
19 first of September or early September. Of course,
20 some of the later hunts, feral hog and such that
21 occur in the spring, turkey hunts, and you have
22 Christmas.
23 CHAIRMAN BASS: Let me tell you
24 something. David Langford? David? I don't know
25 whether you just walked in the room or you've been
.
73
1 listening to this.
2 MR. LANGFORD: I've been.
3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Since TWA is so
4 closely involved in Texas Youth Hunting
5 Association, I'd be interested if you have any
6 input in this or an opinion.
7 MR. LANGFORD: It's a little bit
8 different than the public hunt drawing situation.
9 The youth hunting program, since it concentrates
10 on safety and mentoring and education, I mean,
11 it's about the things that hunting is about as
12 much as it is about hunting, if that makes any
13 sense. We require either of the two permits for
14 liability considerations and for safety
15 considerations and for education considerations.
16 So they have either got to be
17 certified or they have to have the other permit
18 that they have actually been through the class.
19 But it's a whole different deal than --
20 CHAIRMAN BASS: Right. You're
21 dealing with liability taking them on private
22 lands instead of -- thank you. Do we need to
23 discuss this more, or do I have --
24 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Just one more.
25 Do our hunter ed people have any thoughts on this,
.
74
1 on what's an appropriate age for a young girl or
2 boy to start shooting a rifle?
3 MR. LANGFORD: I've got one more
4 thing. We do have a minimum of nine in the youth
5 hunting program. They have to have both
6 certificates, and they cannot be younger than
7 nine.
8 CHAIRMAN BASS: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. LANGFORD: We occasionally have
10 eight and six years old, but they kind of come
11 help. They are there to help lift and tote to be
12 a part of the experience.
13 CHAIRMAN BASS: Thank you.
14 I'm sorry. Katherine, your question
15 was?
16 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Whether our
17 hunter education people had any thoughts on this,
18 what's an appropriate age to start.
19 MR. KOTHMANN: They will couch it
20 with the preceding statement that all kids develop
21 at a slightly different rate.
22 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Right.
23 MR. KOTHMANN: And of course,
24 training has a lot to do with it. But of course,
25 eight is pretty well the level at which the
.
75
1 physical development, the hand-eye coordination
2 gets to the point where you would feel fairly
3 comfortable with most children, kids being able to
4 handle a firearm. Some kids, at age nine, some,
5 unfortunately, never achieve that level.
6 CHAIRMAN BASS: Okay. I would
7 propose that we use an eight or older cutoff for
8 this rather than the staff proposal. And if --
9 MR. KOTHMANN: Could we say at the
10 time of application, Mr. Chairman?
11 CHAIRMAN BASS: When does the
12 application period close?
13 MR. KOTHMANN: The deer hunts close,
14 like I said, about the first part of September.
15 CHAIRMAN BASS: Yeah. I think
16 that's fine. Eight or older at the time of
17 application.
18 COMMISSIONER HENRY: TWA uses nine?
19 CHAIRMAN BASS: They use nine, but
20 that's a different program, as he pointed out.
21 They use nine.
22 COMMISSIONER HENRY: I know. But
23 that has to be --
24 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I'm comfortable
25 with eight.
.
76
1 COMMISSIONER WATSON: I think eight
2 is okay.
3 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: I am, I must
4 say.
5 CHAIRMAN BASS: Everybody
6 comfortable with eight? Please proceed.
7 MR. KOTHMANN: Thank you. The
8 second portion of this presentation deals with the
9 proposals for the 2001 and 2002 public hunts on
10 state park lands. A total of 45 units of the
11 state park lands have been identified as candidate
12 sites of those public hunts during the 2001-2002
13 season. This is three more than the 42 units
14 which were approved by the Commission for public
15 hunts last season.
16 This includes two new sites, Cooper
17 Lake State park, the South Sulphur Unit, which has
18 not been hunted as a public hunt area before and
19 the Lake Bob Sandlin State Park, which has not
20 been in the public hunt program before. Also
21 Dinosaur Valley State Park has proposed to come
22 back into the program for deer hunts which it
23 hasn't been previous years.
24 The following is a series of three
25 slides which lists the names in alphabetical order
.
77
1 of the 45 state park units recommended as
2 candidate sites. I will not belabor you and go
3 through the reading of this as I made the mistake
4 of doing in prior years. But this first slide
5 shows 14 of those 45. Cooper Lake, the South
6 Sulphur Unit shown in yellow is one of the
7 proposed new units.
8 The second slide shows the next 17
9 candidate parks. This includes Dinosaur Valley in
10 yellow and Lake Bob Sandlin is listed here.
11 The third slide lists the final 14.
12 You might notice here that Pedernales Falls Annex
13 is listed as a separate site from Pedernales Falls
14 State Park proper. I don't want to be accused of
15 subterfuge of artificially listing too many parks.
16 But we hunt these two portions of Pedernales Falls
17 as two separate units. The portion north of the
18 park is a walk-in event, that they walk in and
19 camp, and they camp there. And we draw for a
20 whole different area as opposed to the hunts on
21 the developed park proper.
22 Staff recommends the following
23 two-part motion: First is the regulations
24 committee of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
25 Commission authorizes staff to publish the
.
78
1 proposed amendments to 31 TAC Subsection 65.190,
2 65.193, 65.197, 65.198 and 65.202 concerning the
3 Public Lands Proclamation in the Texas Register
4 for public comment.
5 The second part would be the
6 Regulations Committee of the Texas Parks and
7 Wildlife Commission authorizes staff to solicit
8 public comment concerning the hunting activities
9 proposed for units of the state park system
10 contained in Exhibit B, which would be the listing
11 of the 45 parks that are shown on the screen. Is
12 there any questions?
13 VICE-CHAIR DINKINS: Yeah. You're
14 not putting the dates on this. Is that right?
15 MR. KOTHMANN: The dates are,
16 frankly, being developed as we speak still. We're
17 doing some fine-tuning to resolve differences
18 between parks that are in the same geographic area
19 to try to avoid overlaying those on concurrent
20 dates as much as possible. This is a big chore,
21 frankly, in the Hill Country, where we have Inks
22 Lake, Pedernales Falls, Enchanted Rock, that we do
23 not hunt these areas on weekends of developed
24 parks. We do not hunt them on major holiday
25 dates.
.
79
1 So if you're targeting weekday dates
2 during the fall and winter season that meet that
3 criteria, you have very few dates to fit those in.
4 And I think we've done a quite good chore of doing
5 that. In some cases we may have, say, three out
6 of five, six, or seven parks that actually will
7 have hunts on the same date in a geographic area.
8 But there will be usually at least as many or more
9 parks that will be open.
10 I did get several comments this past
11 year, again, primarily Enchanted Rock, Inks Lake,
12 Pedernales Falls, that people were frustrated
13 during that week after Christmas that they found
14 that those had hunts ongoing and were not open to
15 general visitation.
16 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Was that
17 Pedernales Falls?
18 MR. SANSOM: All at the same time.
19 VICE-CHAIR DINKINS: Yeah. Well,
20 that's what my concern was. I've expressed it
21 before because I heard a lot of grumbling in the
22 Hill Country when I was visiting parks at that
23 same time, and I thought it was quite valid.
24 MR. KOTHMANN: It is. Like I say,
25 it's a big chore. And when we have these folks
.
80
1 develop their recommendations and send them in,
2 number one, they will indicate that they have the
3 resource and the opportunity to provide a hunt,
4 what type, where they say a deer, exotic, feral
5 hog or whatever, where they say firearms hunt, an
6 archery hunt. And then we go to trying to fit the
7 dates into a schedule that will not block out
8 geographic regions on certain calendar dates.
9 We do have -- I do have a draft as
10 it exists at this time. And this will probably
11 evolve as soon as I get back to my desk. If
12 you're interested at looking at seeing where we're
13 at right now, just -- just hand it to her? But I
14 was on the phone with some of the park
15 superintendents this morning, and we're still
16 working to resolve this schedule. We feel we know
17 probably where most of them are.
18 VICE-CHAIR DINKINS: Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN BASS: Any further
20 discussion? The Chair would entertain a motion.
21 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So move.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: Second?
23 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Second.
24 CHAIRMAN BASS: All in favor? Thank
25 you, Herb.
.
81
1 (Motion passed unanimously.)
2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: BRIEFING - SEVENTY-SEVENTH
3 LEGISLATURE OVERVIEW.
4 CHAIRMAN BASS: Legislative
5 overview.
6 MR. SANSOM: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Park
7 is in the back, and I would like to introduce him
8 to you. We also have now working with us a
9 gentleman named Harold Stone. I don't believe
10 Harold is in the room, but some of you have met
11 him.
12 My purpose in discussing the
13 Legislative session is twofold, one to give you a
14 glimpse as to what our principal objectives are in
15 the Legislature and, two, is to try to get some
16 feedback from you as to how you would like for us
17 to provide you with legislative information during
18 this session.
19 Obviously, I think the most -- the
20 biggest issue that we're facing in this session is
21 the successful passage of our sunset bill which
22 would reauthorize the Department. As you all
23 know, the Sunset Commission came out with a very
24 favorable report on the Department. And our goal
25 principally will be to make sure, if we can, that
.
82
1 there are not more onerous things attached to it
2 as it goes through the session.
3 Beyond sunset, the second issue that
4 will occupy virtually all of our time is the
5 appropriations process. As I mentioned to you
6 earlier, we did appear, along with Commissioner
7 Henry and Commissioner Watson, before the Senate
8 Finance Committee yesterday. I've been informed
9 in the last hour that our appearance before the
10 House Appropriations Committee will be February
11 the 1st. And so if any of you can possibly attend
12 that, that would be most helpful.
13 Our appropriations objectives are
14 very simple. First, we have asked for an
15 additional $8 million per year for our maintenance
16 program. And as I -- you recall, I mentioned this
17 morning that would put into our base an amount of
18 money necessary to bring our annual repair program
19 up to a level that would keep us from sliding back
20 into a significant backlog situation.
21 We have also asked for an additional
22 $5 million per year for operation of state parks.
23 This number represents the balance of the
24 shortfall identified by the State Auditor prior to
25 the last legislative session, which was $10
.
83
1 million. And this would -- this would take care
2 of the balance of that and provide some much
3 needed support in parks, particularly those that
4 are underutilized.
5 The second principal objective is
6 the restoration of what we call the
7 Entrepreneurial Rider, or Rider 17. Rider 17 was
8 a function of our appropriations pattern for most
9 of this decade. And what it did was, it allowed
10 us that if we could issue a license plate and
11 successfully generate income on that or use other
12 techniques to become entrepreneurial and thus
13 increase our revenues, then we could capture the
14 benefit of that. The rider was removed from our
15 bill pattern in the last session, and so we seek
16 to restore it.
17 Once again, I think I can point to a
18 couple of situations within the last 12 months in
19 which we could have really used it. The first, of
20 course, being the opportunity to purchase a whole
21 lot of shrimp boat licenses when we had the funds
22 to do it but we did not have the authority.
23 Just as significant, as you-all
24 recall, last summer our state park revenues were
25 substantially above what our projections have
.
84
1 been. And we desperately wanted to put that money
2 to work in state parks where we had -- we had some
3 operating deficiencies. And once again, we were
4 unable to do it because of the lack of that
5 entrepreneurial flexibility.
6 We have a request specifically to
7 restore -- or to get the authority to spend the
8 money that we would -- that comes from the
9 increases in recreational and commercial fishing
10 licenses specifically for the buyback program. If
11 the Entrepreneurial Rider passed, that would be
12 unnecessary. But we must have the ability to buy
13 those shrimp licenses back because that's why we
14 passed the extra fees, for that purpose.
15 We have a couple of other riders
16 that are not so significant, but that I would
17 provide you in written form so you can take a look
18 at it. I want to call your attention to the fact
19 that one of the issues that we have been facing in
20 previous sessions that you-all are familiar with
21 is the -- we get into these discussions, sometimes
22 very contentious, with the staff members of the
23 Legislative Budget Board and the Comptroller over
24 our balances.
25 I do not believe that will be the
.
85
1 case this year. First and foremost because Suzy
2 Whittenton and her staff have worked very
3 diligently with those organizations to try to
4 reconcile the conception of our balances; but
5 secondly, because they're simply not there.
6 That we have been much more
7 efficient in expenditures in this biennium than
8 previously because, as you-all recall, our culture
9 here for most of this decade was to reward
10 managers for saving money. But when the
11 Legislature began to look at those balances as an
12 opportunity, we kind of switched gears, and,
13 frankly, we were successful. And so I believe
14 that that will not be as much of an issue as
15 before.
16 We -- a couple items of note. You
17 recall in the last session the Legislature
18 appropriated a $5 million item in our bill pattern
19 which was called Conservation Education Projects.
20 They viewed that at the LBB as a one-time
21 expenditure, and so it was removed from the bill
22 pattern this time.
23 So we were restricted from spending
24 $5 million in Fund 9 that we had available to us
25 in the last session. I believe that it will be
.
86
1 necessary to try to recapture that money just from
2 the standpoint of increased operating costs,
3 increased salaries and other costs that have been
4 incurred on us since that time.
5 During our Finance Committee hearing
6 yesterday, it became apparent that, number one,
7 there are a number of constituencies from
8 various -- that represent various state parks,
9 hatcheries and wildlife management areas and other
10 facilities around the state that are going to be
11 coming to the Legislature and asking for specific
12 line items for those communities.
13 In some cases, we've actually
14 visited with one delegation that will be seeking
15 direct appropriations through Parks and Wildlife
16 for local parks within that community.
17 It is our hope and I believe the
18 hope of at least those members of -- that have
19 considered it, that if there is some consideration
20 of substantial capital expenditures, that they do
21 not go back and do that by line item, but that
22 they give us some increased bonding authority or
23 other capacity so that you-all could set the
24 priorities for what those expenditures would be.
25 I'd be happy to answer any
.
87
1 questions. I just want to reiterate again how
2 helpful it is to us if those of you who can be
3 there when these critical hearings take place,
4 it's an immense help to us, and also say that
5 we're tracking now, Joey, how many bills?
6 MR. PARK: Two hundred.
7 MR. SANSOM: Two hundred pieces of
8 legislation, which of which affect us
9 substantially and others which affect us very
10 minimally.
11 In times past, you know, we have
12 provided you-all with updated material on every
13 single bill, including the amendments, you know,
14 that have been added to them. I don't know
15 whether that's helpful or not. But at the same
16 time, I would like to find some comfortable level
17 for you so that we can provide you with
18 information that's timely.
19 One of the things that we could do
20 is on about a weekly basis we could distribute to
21 you a list of legislation that we're tracking by
22 title. And so if you saw something there that was
23 of interest to you, you could get in touch with us
24 and we could provide you with greater information.
25 But I'll be happy -- we'll be happy to do it any
.
88
1 way you like. We are in the process of tracking,
2 as you say, over 200 pieces of legislation.
3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Andy, I think it is
4 something we've struggled with getting right, of
5 how to get information in a usable form to the
6 Commission. In my time here we've swung from no
7 information to so much that it was effectively no
8 information because it was just too much to wade
9 through. And I'm not sure exactly what the best
10 way is.
11 Some Commissioners may wish to have
12 more than others. I think if we were to provide
13 everybody with something that basically, you know,
14 had a -- an ID like House Bill 1 --
15 MR. SANSOM: Sponsor --
16 CHAIRMAN BASS: As short as
17 possible, what it pertained to, like, you know,
18 pertaining to hunting in state parks or pertaining
19 to whatever else it might be, that could be
20 something that might be concise enough that
21 everybody could sit down and in a short amount of
22 time look at it, then get to, get back to your
23 office -- you know, I want more on these 14. You
24 could then send some kind of an -- I assume we
25 have kind of an ongoing bill analysis --
.
89
1 MR. SANSOM: Yes, we do.
2 CHAIRMAN BASS: Or something that
3 Joey has that we could --
4 MR. SANSOM: Provide.
5 CHAIRMAN BASS: -- provide and then
6 go from there. That might be a usable approach.
7 And I'd be --
8 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: That sounds
9 good to me.
10 COMMISSIONER HENRY: One thing I'd
11 be particularly interested in -- I think most of
12 us would -- bills that would directly affect our
13 budget.
14 MR. SANSOM: Yes, sir.
15 CHAIRMAN BASS: And I think that's
16 basically going to be the appropriations bill.
17 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Can you send
18 out some sort of a legislative alert on things
19 that there is no question that it should be of
20 interest to us?
21 MR. SANSOM: Yes.
22 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: And then fax
23 them to us with an alert on top?
24 MR. SANSOM: Yes. And I'm going to
25 work with Lydia to sort of tailor the Commission
.
90
1 brief on Mondays to the session as well, so that,
2 you know, you're getting a regular weekly fax
3 that's kind of newsy.
4 VICE-CHAIR DINKINS: If you are
5 doing any of it electronically, it's --
6 MR. SANSOM: We can do that.
7 VICE-CHAIR DINKINS: It's an easy
8 way to get it and to respond to it.
9 CHAIRMAN BASS: And I think there is
10 an electronic way to access the text of all the
11 bills that are filed. I'm sure Joey or someone
12 can provide us with that -- that address so that
13 when we got your list, if we just wanted to see
14 the bill instead of get in-house analysis of it or
15 something, we could just go straight to the
16 capital Web site and read it. Why don't we
17 proceed that way?
18 MR. SANSOM: Sounds good, starting
19 next week.
20 CHAIRMAN BASS: I imagine to do the
21 initial list will take a few days. It's just
22 going to take some time.
23 Anything else on that, Andy?
24 MR. SANSOM: Nope. I appreciate it.
25 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: ACTION - ENDANGERED,
.
91
1 THREATENED AND PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT
2 REGULATIONS.
3 CHAIRMAN BASS: Endangered,
4 Threatened and Protected Native Plant Regulations.
5 Jerry Cooke, could you come here for a moment,
6 again, please? I have one more question. I will
7 just ask you. I won't interrupt the proceeding.
8 Go ahead.
9 MR. HERRON: Chairman Bass and
10 Commissioners, my name is John Herron. I am the
11 Branch Chief of Wildlife Diversity. Today I'm
12 going to present you with some changes we're
13 proposing to the threatened and endangered plant
14 regulations. This is an action item. I'm
15 requesting the adoption of these regulations at
16 the full Commission meeting tomorrow.
17 This is going to be a very brief
18 item because actually the Commission has heard
19 this briefing before. We brought this before you
20 all in August and asked you for an adoption then.
21 We thought we had adopted it, but afterwards we
22 realized this item had not been properly published
23 in the Texas Register. Since then we have
24 republished the item, reopened the public comment
25 period and are bringing it back to you basically
.
92
1 for consideration again today.
2 We did hold the public hearings
3 required by law this past summer and did properly
4 notice that meeting. We did not receive any
5 written comment at the time and to date we have
6 not received any other comment on these
7 regulations, either.
8 The changes we're proposing
9 basically mirror changes that the Fish and
10 Wildlife Service has already done to their
11 threatened and endangered species list. Very
12 briefly, we're proposing to remove from our
13 threatened plant list the McKittrick pennyroyal
14 and to add the Pecos sunflower to the threatened
15 species list. We're also proposing two changes to
16 the endangered plant list, removing the Lloyd's
17 hedgehog cactus and adding the Zapata bladderpod.
18 With that, I'd be very happy to take
19 any questions. I basically request that the
20 committee forward this to the Commission tomorrow
21 for consideration and also add it to the consent
22 agenda for consideration tomorrow as well.
23 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: John, do you
24 and your people do the research on this for the
25 feds, or do they do it for you, or do you
.
93
1 cooperate? How does that work?
2 MR. HERRON: It's a combination,
3 sir. We rely on each other quite a bit,
4 particularly in regards to threatened and
5 endangered plants. Neither this -- the Department
6 nor the Fish and Wildlife Service really have very
7 many botanists on staff.
8 Our three botanists are very active
9 doing field surveys on a number of these species,
10 and those surveys are really matched up with the
11 surveys being done by the federal government as
12 well. We share our data with both the Fish and
13 Wildlife Service and the Nature Conservancy and
14 use whatever other academic sources we can, as
15 well, for current data.
16 VICE-CHAIR DINKINS: I move approval
17 that it go to the consent agenda.
18 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second.
19 COMMISSIONER HEATH: All in favor?
20 (Motion passed unanimously.)
21 MR. HERRON: Thank you very much.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: The only other item
23 I have is -- that concludes this.
24 CHAIRMAN BASS: But I'll go back to
25 the Commissioner Avila license plate. And since
.
94
1 he had to depart for another meeting, in his
2 stead, I think what he discussed with me was in
3 some form or fashion having on here Parks and
4 Wildlife.
5 You know, with our current horned
6 frog plate, you know, there's no real connection
7 to the casual observer that it's this Department
8 or our mission that they're supporting, unlike
9 University of Texas license plates or even state
10 of the arts license plates.
11 His initial thought was taking
12 something such as this little logo and putting it
13 up here or something. But he and I quickly
14 determined that the car behind couldn't read it
15 any better than you can, Lydia, from there. The
16 thought we then progressed to was down here,
17 change this verbiage to Parks and Wildlife. You
18 see, you've got Texas Parks and Wildlife, with the
19 icon and the plate number or letters.
20 And that way people start saying,
21 "Oh, there's the Parks and Wildlife horned frog.
22 There's a Parks and Wildlife bluebonnet. There's
23 a Parks and Wildlife largemouth bass or whatever."
24 And there might be people who buy it, instead of
25 for the logo, the icon, they're buying it for
.
95
1 Parks and Wildlife.
2 But it helps identify it with the
3 Department and -- well, I like Keep Texas Wild,
4 too. But we're just kind of -- where do we run
5 out of places to put something. So that was the
6 thought, in his absence, that I'll pass on or open
7 for discussion.
8 MS. SALDANA: We're limited on the
9 design portion to that to the four-inch corner.
10 So that was the one issue. We also, in the
11 research that we did, we actually tested the tag
12 lines, and we tested Texas State Parks, and Keep
13 Texas Wild came up very high because I think it's
14 a call to action. It's catchy. But certainly, I
15 think that's something we could look at, is going
16 ahead and identify --
17 CHAIRMAN BASS: I wonder if the
18 people that we tested already knew it was Parks
19 and Wildlife; whereas, the car behind you at the
20 stoplight doesn't have a clue.
21 MS. SALDANA: That's true.
22 CHAIRMAN BASS: So as we go forward
23 with this design, we can discuss that further or
24 talk to Commissioner Avila or --
25 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Our marketing
.
96
1 genius.
2 COMMISSIONER HEATH: Parks and
3 Wildlife.
4 CHAIRMAN BASS: We've heard from our
5 marketing guy. Pass that thought on. Any other
6 business? We stand adjourned until in the
7 morning. Thank you.
8 *-*-*-*-*
9 (MEETING ADJOURNED.)
10 *-*-*-*-*
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
97
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF TEXAS )
3 COUNTY OF TRAVIS )
4 I, MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, a Certified
5 Court Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do
6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing 96
7 pages constitute a full, true and correct
8 transcript of the minutes of the Texas Parks &
9 Wildlife Commission on JANUARY 24, 2001, in the
10 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks &
11 Wildlife Headquarters Complex, Austin, Travis
12 County, Texas.
13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that a stenographic
14 record was made by me at the time of the public
15 meeting and said stenographic notes were
16 thereafter reduced to computerized transcription
17 under my supervision and control.
18 WITNESS MY HAND this the 24th day of
19 February, 2001.
20
21
MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, RPR, CSR NO. 3226
22 Expiration Date: 12-31-02
3101 Bee Caves Road
23 Centre II, Suite 220
Austin, Texas 78746
24 (512) 328-5557
25 EBS NO.