Regulations Committee
Wednesday, 9:00 a.m., May 28, 2003
Commission Hearing Room4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
| Item No. |
Subject | Public Hearing Agenda Item No. |
|---|---|---|
| Approval of the Committee Minutes from the previous meeting. | ||
| Summary of Minutes | ||
| 1. | Chairman's Charges (Oral Presentation) | Committee Only |
| 2. | Fish Guide
Regulation Staff: Paul Hammerschmidt |
7 |
| 3. | Mule Deer
– MLDP Staff: Scott Boruff, Clay Brewer |
8 |
| 4. | Oyster Dredge Regulations Staff: Clayton Wolf |
Committee Only |
| 5. | History of Grass Carp
in Texas Staff: Phil Durocher |
Committee Only |
| 6. | Surplus Deer Staff: Scott Boruff |
Committee Only |
| 7. | Statewide Fur-Bearing
Animal Proclamation Staff: Scott Boruff, Doug Humphreys |
Committee Only |
| 8. | Other Business |
Summary of Minutes
Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Regulations Committee
April 2, 2003
BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the 2nd day of April 2003, there came to be heard matters under the regulatory authority of the Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the commission hearing room of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis County, Texas at 9:02 a.m., to wit:
I. REGULATIONS COMMITTEE:
Joseph Fitzsimons, Committee
Chair
Katharine Armstrong, Chairman
Ernest Angelo, Jr.
Al Henry
Phil Montgomery
John Avila, Jr.
Donato D. Ramos
Kelly M. Rising, M.D.
Mark E. Watson, Jr.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion: Commissioner
Second: Commissioner
Motion carries.
III. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE:
1. CHAIRMAN’S CHARGES
The chair recognized Executive Director Robert L. Cook. Mr. Cook reported that the department had accomplished each of the chairman’s charges for the current biennium.
Next Mr. Cook provided an update on the department’s crab trap clean-up day, reporting that staff and volunteers had retrieved almost 4,000 abandoned crab traps from coastal waters.
Deputy Executive Director Scott Boruff then apprised the committee of the status of the department’s Chronic Wasting Disease management plan. Mr. Boruff noted that the effort was broad-based, involving large and small landowners, conservationists, and other state agencies. He provided current data on the areas of the country where CWD had been detected, noted that over 2,000 deer had been tested in Texas without a positive result, and offered a detailed breakdown of the geographical particulars of the testing effort in Texas. Mr. Boruff also mentioned that the United States Department of Agriculture had indicated that the Texas effort was a model system for dealing with CWD in the future. Mr. Boruff then introduced Dr. Ken Waldrup of the Texas Animal Health Commission, who provided expert interpretation of the epidemiological significance of the testing statistics. Chairman Armstrong asked about possible strategies for greater involvement by private landowners. Mr. Boruff replied that the hope was that as time went by, more landowners would choose to get involved. Mr. Cook then asked about the rate of prevalence in other states and Dr. Waldrup provided a detailed summary. Commissioner Angelo asked if the increasing detection of CWD in other states indicated that it had been around a long time and was only just now being detected. Dr. Waldrup stated that it was too soon to draw any conclusions, owing to the relatively short time span that officials had been actively looking for CWD. Commissioner Fitzsimons asked if the testing samples could be stratified in terms of captive versus free-ranging animals. Dr. Waldrup responded that due to confidentiality protection, the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab did not release data from which such statistics could be derived. Dr. Waldrup then provided a detailed analysis of the particulars of testing protocols in captive herds. Commissioner Ramos asked if it would be possible to establish CWD-free status for deer herds, as is done for brucellosis in cattle herds. Dr. Waldrup replied that it would only be possible for captive herds. Commissioner Ramos then asked how testing would be done after deer season was over. Dr. Waldrup responded that testing would continue throughout the year, primarily on incidental mortalities, herds being tested as part of the application process for certain permits, and on animals showing clinical signs of infection. Commissioner Rising asked about the significance of low sampling rates in New Mexico. Director Cook responded that mule deer densities were quite low in most parts of the state that bordered New Mexico. Commissioner Watson asked why, if there was a state-offered certification for tuberculosis-free herds of exotic ungulates, there couldn’t be the same certification for captive herds of native ungulates. Dr. Waldrup replied that CWD simply isn’t well enough understood at this point in time, for instance, in terms of incubation times and transmission rates. Chairman Armstrong asked about the status of the development of a live-test for CWD. Dr. Waldrup stated that a live-test had been developed for mule deer, and that a live-test for white tails was still being developed but was at least two years away from being certified as efficacious.
Director Cook then introduced Mr. Clay Brewer, program leader for mule deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope. Mr. Brewer provided a status report on potential changes to the Managed Lands Deer program involving mule deer. He stated that several landowners in the Trans-Pecos region had requested that the department look into the possibility, and sketched a timeline of department efforts to work with landowners in the region to develop an acceptable program. He then reviewed the MLD program as it currently affected white-tailed deer, and pointed out the similarities and differences with respect to expanding the program to include mule deer. Commissioner Angelo asked about the nature of opposition to the proposed expansion of the program. Mr. Brewer responded that primarily there was concern about the fragility of the population and the advisability of allowing hunting during the rut. A general discussion then ensued, with Mr. Brewer pointing out that all harvest would be controlled by the required wildlife management plan, but that there would be a question about a finite harvest quota with respect to age structure in the buck segment, although in any event the quota itself would be quite conservative.
Mr. Boruff then addressed the department’s efforts with respect to the issue of surplus deer. He began by providing background information on various department initiatives to ameliorate problems caused by burgeoning deer populations in certain parts of the state, including efforts to remove deer and provide the meat to charitable organizations, the control permit program, and various transplantation options. He then reviewed the positives and negatives associated with each. Commissioner Angelo inquired about a legislative initiative that would allow communities to trap and transplant deer without regard to department disease-testing regulations. Mr. Boruff responded that he had testified at legislative hearings and communicated the department’s concern that the bill would dilute the commission’s regulatory authority and perhaps pose resource problems if all communities were granted such authority. Commissioner Angelo and Mr. Boruff then discussed some of the issues relating to local sentiment with respect to deer removal, as well as the department’s efforts to find solutions. Mr. Boruff pointed to department efforts to use surplus deer to feed prison inmates. Commissioner Ramos asked how the pending legislation would affect the department’s efforts to manage deer populations with regard to disease. Mr. Boruff responded that the bill did not address those issues. Chairman Armstrong commented that the bill reflected the communities’ exasperation at the deer problem. Commissioner Fitzsimons seconded Commissioner Angelo’s observation that many communities had been reluctant to employ lethal solutions to deer population problems. A general discussion then took place on the economics of various methods of removing deer.
2. Statewide Hunting and
Fishing Proclamation
The Chair recognized Mr.
Ron George, deputy director
of the Wildlife Division.
Mr. George presented the
various rule proposals sponsored
by the Wildlife Division,
including changes affecting
resource possession documentation,
the content of wildlife
management plans, deadlines
for applications for Antlerless
and Spike-buck Control permits,
deer bag limits in Harris
County, the implementation
of a muzzleloader season
in certain East Texas counties,
permanent marking of bighorn
sheep skulls, lengthening
of pheasant season in the
Panhandle, elimination of
pheasant season in four
mid-coast counties, closure
of the prairie chicken season,
and the addition of Mearns’ quail
to the aggregate bag limit
for quail. As he reviewed
the proposals, Mr. George
provided a summary of public
comment for each. He also
noted that staff recommended
withdrawing the quail proposal,
based on limited biological
data and strong public opposition.
Commissioner Fitzsimons
asked about land-use differences
in the two regions of the
state where the prairie
chicken season would be
closed. Mr. George responded
with the requested information.
Commissioner Angelo asked
what was driving the changes
to the population and what
kinds of department efforts
could assist landowners
interested in managing habitat
for prairie chicken. Mr.
George described the history
of land use, the economic
realities associated with
each, and the department’s
ongoing efforts to assist
landowners. Commissioner
Fitzsimons asked about perhaps
implementing some type of
permit program that would
offer incentives for habitat
management. Mr. George replied
that in that part of the
state, landowners derived
little income from the leasing
hunting opportunity in comparison
to agricultural activities.
Commissioner Angelo stated
that his thinking on the
proposed closure had changed,
from being in favor to concern
that closure wasn’t
the solution. Director Cook
stated that the issue wasn’t
the impact of hunting. A
general discussion on different
ways to provide incentives
for habitat management then
followed, with Commissioners
Fitzsimons and Montgomery
expressing doubts about
the efficacy of closing
the season. Commissioner
Angelo enquired about the
negative public comment
concerning the proposed
lengthening of the pheasant
season. Mr. George responded
that generally, landowners
opposed the proposal but
hunters supported it, and
noted the basis for each
position. Commissioner Ramos
asked about the biological
impact of lengthening the
season. Mr. George stated
that there was none. Commissioner
Fitzsimons asked if there
would be any biological
drawback to leaving the
bag at three cocks. Mr.
George stated that the proposal
had come about as a petition
that requested a longer
season with a reduced bag
limit, but that no, leaving
the bag at three wouldn’t
have an impact. Commissioner
Ramos asked if the longer
season would generate an
economic benefit. Mr. George
responded that generally,
increased opportunity created
the possibility of increased
revenues for landowners,
outfitters, and guides.
The Chair recognized Mr. Hal Osburn, director of the Coastal Fisheries Division. Mr. Osburn noted that the central issue concerning his division was the spotted sea trout fishery. He provided historic biological and economic data concerning commercial and recreational use of the fishery, and noted previous legislative and regulatory actions that had influenced the resource, as well as ongoing monitoring efforts and the probable biological results if the proposal were to be adopted. With respect to the current proposals, Mr. Osburn provided a detailed description of the agency’s outreach and public information efforts, and the results of public comment. Commissioner Montgomery asked about the proposed boat limit and its effect on license allocation. Mr. Osburn replied that anyone would be able to obtain a guide license, and that the proposed rule would not affect the number of boats that could be employed on guided trips, just the number of fish that could be taken per boat. Commissioner Henry asked about how the staff’s recommendation compared to the recommendation of the Sea Trout Working Group. Mr. Osburn replied that a majority of the working group wanted to be more restrictive than did staff. Commissioner Henry asked if guides had been represented in the working group, and Mr. Osburn replied that indeed they had. Commissioner Henry then asked Mr. Osburn to respond to concerns raised by persons opposing the proposal. Mr. Osburn responded that the two main organizations that represented guides fully supported the proposals and that every licensed guide in the state had been surveyed and the results showed that more than 60% of the respondents supported the proposal. Mr. Osburn then suggested that perhaps although those in opposition were small in number, they were very vocal in stating their opposition. Commissioner Ramos and Mr. Osburn then discussed the issue of the use of live croaker for bait and its impact upon angler success. Mr. Osburn noted that legislation had been filed to impose size limits on live croaker used as bait. Commissioner Henry and Mr. Osburn then discussed the particulars of perception and reality with respect to croaker use in various areas of the coast. Commissioner Fitzsimons then asked about the benefits and drawbacks to managing sea trout on a bay-by-bay basis. Mr. Osburn replied that he felt that it could be done, although there would be some minor problems to work out, but that first and foremost it would have to occur with local support.
The Chair then recognized Mr. Ken Kurzawski, with the Inland Fisheries Division. Mr. Kurzawski reviewed the proposals affecting freshwater fisheries, including changes to statewide white bass regulations, largemouth bass regulations on two reservoirs, and boundary definitions for Toledo Bend Reservoir. Mr. Kurzawski also provided a summary of public comment for each of the proposals. Commissioner Angelo asked about the response of freshwater guides to the proposed guide fee increase. Mr. Kurzawski responded that generally, full-time guides supported the proposal, while part-time guides opposed it. Mr. Phil Durocher, director of the Inland Fisheries Division, stated that there was a perception that the proposed guide regulations were intended to deal with issues on the coast and that freshwater guides were being dragged into the issue. He further stated that freshwater guides and saltwater guides could be treated separately, in terms of regulations. Mr. Durocher also noted that freshwater guides were not concerned about boat limits. Commissioner Fitzsimons enquired as to the last time the commission had increased the guide fees, and Mr. Durocher supplied the requested information. Commissioner Angelo asked Mr. Durocher about imposing fees on fishing tournaments. Mr. Durocher responded that the department lacked solid data on the number of tournaments and their biological impacts. Commissioner Ramos asked how other states regulated fishing tournaments. Mr. Durocher replied that approximately 15 states had some sort of tournament permit. Commissioner Fitzsimons asked if those states gathered data on tournaments. Mr. Kurzawski stated that data gathering in those states was for the most part a result of voluntary reporting. Commissioner Fitzsimons expressed his concern that, given the significant number of tournaments, the department had no firm grasp of the biological impacts. Commissioner Henry requested that staff conduct research on other states’ approaches to tournament fishing. Commissioner Ramos stated that he felt it would be a good idea to include the issue as part of the Chairman’s Charges for the next year.
3. Candidate State Parks
For Public Hunting and Establishment
of an Open Season on Public
Hunting Lands.
The Chair recognized Ms.
Vickie Fite, public hunting
coordinator. Ms. Fite addressed
staff proposals for state
park hunts in 2003-2004
and reviewed public comments
in response to the proposals.
Commissioner Fitzsimons
asked if there was anything
that would prevent the addition
of components of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife refuge
system to the public dove
lease program. Ms. Fite
responded that she was not
aware of any impediments
to such additions. Commissioner
Avila asked if deer were
hunted under the public
hunting program on national
refuges. Ms. Fite replied
that for the most part,
public hunting on the refuge
system was handled by the
federal government. Commissioner
Ramos stated his concern
that the department continue
to aggressively implement
youth hunting opportunity.
He asked if the public hunting
program prioritized youth
hunting over adult hunting.
Ms. Fite responded that
the department sponsored
hunts specifically for youth,
and that youth could also
hunt during the general
season.
4. Scientific Breeder Proclamation.
T he Chair recognized Clayton
Wolf, white-tailed deer
program leader. Mr. Wolf
began by providing historical
background on recent Commission
actions involving the
Scientific Breeder Proclamation,
and then outlined proposed
regulations to eliminate
the required fawn report,
require additions to or
enlargements of holding
pens to be reflected on
a diagram filed with department,
and conditions for the
release of deer to the
wild. Mr. Wolf also reported
on the public comment
received at various public
meetings sponsored by
the department. Commissioner
Ramos asked if new diagrams
would be required for
the subdivision of existing
pens. Mr. Wolf replied
in the negative. Commissioner
Fitzsimons asked if scientific
breeders would be, in
effect, on the honor system
for releases. Mr. Wolf
replied that the department’s
recordkeeping and reporting
measures were believed
to be sufficient to prevent
or detect illegal activities.
Mr. David Sinclair, director
of Wildlife Enforcement,
stated that the procedure
used to activate permits
would place the permittee
in the position of having
to positively affirm that
deer are or are not from
an approved facility.
Commissioner Ramos asked
if deer meeting entry
requirements had to stay
within a facility for
any period of time prior
to release. Mr. Wolf replied
that deer meeting entry
requirements could be
released at any time,
since the entry requirement
is a herd-status measure
equivalent to herd-status
certification in Texas.
5. Migratory Game Bird
Proclamation.
The chair recognized Mr.
Dave Morrison, waterfowl
program leader. Mr. Morrison
began by noting that there
were relatively few changes
proposed for migratory bird-hunting
seasons this year, although
he did provide the caveat
that the federal frameworks
could conceivably cause
considerable changes in
the department’s proposals.
Mr. Morrison then reported
that the current proposal
would shift the opening
date of teal season one
week later, and that the
duck and goose seasons and
bag limits would remain
essentially the same, albeit
adjusted for calendar shift,
the sole exception being
the potential for a season-length
reduction in the western
goose zone as a result of
federal actions. Mr. Morrison
then spoke briefly on the
effects of the conservation
order on light geese populations,
stating that the situation
on the breeding grounds
appeared to be improving.
He then outlined proposed
falconry seasons. Commissioner
Angelo and Mr. Morrison
discussed the nuances of
implementing the opening
and closing dates of duck
season based on the federal
frameworks offering 9-day
and 16-day teal seasons.
Commissioner Fitzsimons
asked if there had been
much comment on the South
Texas late season. Mr. Morrison
replied that public sentiment
seemed to be split, with
some people preferring the
earlier hunt and some people
in favor of a later hunt.
Commissioner Fitzsimons
then asked about the dove
call-count issue. Mr. Morrison
stated that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service was
looking into additional
indices, such as survival
rates and banding programs
to generate more data.
6. Six-County Antler Restrictions
Update.
The Chair recognized Mr.
Bob Carroll, district leader
with the Wildlife Division.
Mr. Carroll began by describing
an extensive survey effort
to determine hunter and
landowner satisfaction following
the first season of experimental
antler regulations in a
six-county area. He also
provided harvest and population
data accumulated by check
stations during the season,
pointing out items of statistical
significance with respect
to the department’s
predictions of the impact
of the rules on age structure.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Fitzsimons then adjourned the meeting.
Committee Agenda Item No. 1
Regulations Committee
Chairman's Charges
May 2003
(This item will be an oral presentation.)
Committee Agenda Item No. 2
Presenters: Paul Hammerschmidt
Regulations Committee
Proposed 2003-2004
Statewide Hunting and Fishing
Proclamation
Fishing Guide License – Required
Documentation
May 2003
(This is Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 7.)
Committee Agenda Item No. 3
Presenters: Scott Boruff,
Clay Brewer
Regulations Committee
Mule Deer – MLDP
May 2003
(This is Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 8.)
Committee Agenda Item No. 4
Presenters: Larry Young, Robin
Riechers
Regulations Committee
Proposed 2003-2004 Oyster
Fishery Proclamation
Commercial Fishing – Multiple
Dredges On Board
May 2003
I. Discussion: Responsibility for adopting rules covering the taking, attempting to take, possession, purchase, and sale of oyster resources in the salt waters of Texas is set forth in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 76 Oysters. This item proposes amendments to 31 TAC Chapter 58, Subchapter A (Statewide Oyster Fishery), Section 58.22 (a) Gear Restrictions. Currently it is unlawful to use more than one dredge while taking or attempting to take oysters. It is unlawful to have on board any dredges other than the one connected to a winch, chain, or other lifting device, unless it is secured below deck or on the wheelhouse or to the deck in such a manner that it is not readily accessible for use. Difficulties of enforcing the current one dredge rule were discussed at a recent Oyster Advisory Committee Meeting. In order to maintain the flexibility of having a second dredge on board to replace a damaged or lost dredge, the advisory committee suggested language that would only allow the chain and lifting block, which is connected to the oyster dredge in use, to be out of storage. By eliminating the opportunity for the rigging of a second dredge to be in place and ready for use, it should provide a greater deterrent to the use of a second dredge and provide greater opportunity for law enforcement to enforce the current one dredge rule.
Attachment – 1
1. Exhibit A – Oyster Fishery Proclamation
Commission
Agenda Item No. 4
Exhibit A
Statewide Oyster Fishery Proclamation
§58.22 Commercial Fishing
(a) Gear Restrictions. It is unlawful while taking or attempting to take oysters for pay or the purpose of sale, barter, or exchange or any other commercial purpose to:
(1) use more than one dredge;
(2) use a dredge which exceeds 48 inches in width and a two-barrel capacity;
(3) have more than one
dredge connected in any
manner to a winch, chain
or other lifting device
during the open public
season; or
(4) have on board
any dredge(s), other than
the one connected to a the winch,
chain, or other lifting
device and in use,
unless secured below deck,
to or on the wheelhouse,
or to the deck in such a
manner as to not be readily
accessible for use;
(4) have on board any wench chain(s), other than the one connected to the dredge in use, unless secured below deck, to or on the wheelhouse, or to the deck in such a manner as to not be readily accessible for use; or
(5) have on board any lifting block(s), other than the one connected to the dredge in use, unless secured below deck, to or on the wheelhouse, or to the deck in such a manner as to not be readily accessible for use.
Committee
Agenda Item No. 5
Presenter: Phil Durocher
Regulations Committee
History of Grass Carp in
Texas
May 2003
I. Discussion: Staff will brief the Commission on the history of Grass Carp in Texas. The briefing will include discussions on Grass Carp arrival in the U. S., the Lake Conroe controversy and the events that led to the current status and policy on the use of triploid Grass Carp in controlling and managing invasive plants in the State.
Commission
Agenda Item No. 6
Presenter: Scott Boruff
Regulations
Committee
Surplus Deer
May
2003
I. Discussion: Numerous suburban areas, primarily on the eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau, have overpopulations of white-tailed deer. Their situations typically are exacerbated by landscaping efforts, deer feeding by residents and the lack of predation and hunting to control the populations. In addition, some municipalities and ranches have identified that current regulatory programs authorized by TPWD do not meet their needs, or are too inefficient in their current form.
Staff has identified several options for the Commission’s consideration that would provide alternatives for landowners with surplus deer. Options were developed under the following criteria: (1) the option will not result in habitat degradation; (2) the option is enforceable; and (3) the option can be implemented by the Commission under current statutory authority.
Staff will present options for the management of surplus deer to the Commission and seek their guidance on implementation.
Committee
Agenda Item No. 7
Presenters: Scott Boruff,
Doug Humphreys
Regulations Committee
Statewide Fur-bearing Animal
Proclamation
May 2003
I. Discussion: Under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71, the Commission may regulate the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, sale, and offering for sale of fur-bearing animals, pelts, and carcasses as the Commission considers necessary to manage fur-bearing animals or to protect human health or property. Worldwide, several species of otter are listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as threatened with extinction. Though the only species of otter native to Texas (Lutra canadensis) is not listed, its similarities to listed species has necessitated a federal requirement that all otter pelts leaving Texas be tagged with a CITES tag to authenticate lawful take. In response, staff has crafted a proposal that would require all otters taken in the state (approximately 900 in 2002) to be tagged. Additionally, the proposal addresses housekeeping changes to streamline the regulatory structure of the proclamation to make it more user-friendly.
Attachments – 1
Exhibit A – Proposed Statewide Fur-bearing Animal Proclamation
Commission
Agenda Item No. 7
Exhibit A
Statewide
Fur-Bearing Animal Proclamation
Proposal Preamble
1. Introduction.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of §65.380, amendments to §§65.372, 65.374, 65.376 - 65.379, and new §§65.381, 65.383, and 65.385, concerning the Statewide Fur-bearing Animal Proclamation. The repeal of §65.380, concerning Penalty, would allow that section to be redesignated as new §65.385, and is necessary to create room within the existing numbered sections to accommodate new §65.381 and §65.383.
The amendment to §65.372, concerning Definitions: adds a definition of ‘consumer,’ adds clarifying language to the definition of ‘commercial harvest,’ adds clarifying language to the definition of ‘finished product,’ and creates a comprehensive definition of the term ‘fur-bearing animal.’ The amendment is necessary, respectively, to: create a definition of a class of persons who are end-users of fur-bearing animals and to whom no documentation or licensing requirements apply; to make clear that commercial harvest is that harvest which takes place during the commercial trapping season; to comport the regulatory definition of ‘finished product’ with the statutory definition of ‘pelt’; and to create a definition of ‘fur-bearing animal’ that allows the term to be used in an inclusive sense (i.e., applying to parts of fur-bearing animals, pelts, carcasses, etc. as well as to an entire animal) so as to obviate repetition of terms and the creation of tedious regulatory language.
The amendment to §65.374, concerning General Rules, would eliminate subsection (b), remove the reference to ‘civet cat’ in subsection (c), remove the word ‘undried’ from subsection (d), replace the word ‘pelts’ with the term ‘fur-bearing animal’ in subsection (e), prohibit the sale of fur-bearing animals by trappers during certain times of the year, and eliminate subsection (g). The amendment is necessary, respectively: to remove a redundant regulation, since the Parks and Wildlife Code provides that each bird, animal, or fish taken in violation of the code is a separate offense; to eliminate the term ‘civet cat,’ which is another term for the spotted skunk, from a rule that prohibits the possession of skunks generally; to correct a conflict caused by the term ‘undried pelt,’ which is problematic because the statutory definition of ‘pelt’ in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71, includes green and dried skins; to replace the term ‘pelt’ with the inclusive term ‘fur-bearing animal’; to prevent the take of fur-bearing animals during times of the year when their fur is not prime (and thus not as saleable) or when to do so would interfere with the bearing and weaning of young (thus affecting future supply) by prohibiting the sale of fur-bearing animals by trappers; and to remove a regulation that will expire on its own terms on September 1, 2004.
The amendment to §65.376, concerning Possession of Live Fur-bearing Animals, would remove the provision for a waiver of facility inspection for persons who possess live fur-bearing animals under a propagation permit but who do not engage in commercial activity; eliminates subsection (e), which is being redesignated as new §65.383; and implements new subsection (g) to prohibit the take of fur-bearing animals from the wild by propagation permit except during the open commercial trapping season. The amendment is necessary to ensure that all facilities used to hold live fur-bearing animals are inspected for compliance with facility standards and to confine collection impacts on wild populations to the commercial season.
The amendment to §65.377, concerning Sale or Purchase of Fur-bearing Animals, restructures the section and adds language to increase clarity. The amendment is necessary because although the current content of the section is accurate, it relies on deduction for the sake of brevity. Accordingly, the new structure and additional clarifying language will plainly state the various privileges afforded by each license type.
The amendment to §65.378, concerning Importation and Release, would eliminate a reference to release. The amendment is necessary because this rulemaking creates a new §65.381 to deal specifically with nuisance fur-bearing animals.
The amendment to §65.379, concerning Reporting Requirements, would require permittees to maintain records for a period of two years following the period of validity of a permit and to make the records available to department employees acting within the scope of official duties. The amendment is necessary to make the provisions of the subchapter consistent with recordkeeping requirements of other subchapters, and to ensure that factual documentation of all activities is available to the department during the time period that the statute of limitations is in effect for offenses under the subchapter.
New §65.381, concerning Nuisance Fur-bearing Animals, consolidates all provisions applying to nuisance animals in one section and adds a clarifying reference to regulations of the Texas Department of Health applicable to certain fur-bearing animals. The new section is necessary to provide and easily locatable, single-subject regulation that can be quickly consulted by persons involved with removal and release of nuisance animals.
New §65.383, concerning Taxidermy, consolidates in one section all provisions applying to possession of furbearing animals by taxidermists. The new section is necessary to provide a convenient, single-subject reference for taxidermists.
New §65.385, concerning Penalty, states where the penalties for violation of the subchapter can be found in the Parks and Wildlife Code. The new section is necessary because the provisions of the new section were previously in another section, which, because of this rulemaking must be redesignated.
2. Fiscal Note.
Robert Macdonald, regulations coordinator, Mary Fields, Chief Financial Officer, has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state and local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.
3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.
Mr. Macdonald also has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be clearer and more user-friendly regulations, as well as the enhanced ability of the department to discharge its statutory obligation to conserve fur-bearing animal resources by means of improved recordkeeping.
(B) There will be no adverse economic effect on small businesses, microbusinesses, or persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.
(B) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies.
(C) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.
4. Request for Public Comment.
Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Doug Humphreys, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas, 78744; (512) 389-4992 (e-mail: doug.humphreys@tpwd.state.tx.us).
5. Statutory Authority.
The repeal, amendments, and new sections are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71, which authorizes the commission to regulate the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, sale, and offering for sale of fur-bearing animals, pelts, and carcasses as the commission considers necessary to manage fur-bearing animals or to protect human health or property, and to provide for permit application forms, fees, procedures, and reports
The repeal affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71.
§65.380. Penalty.
The repeal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.
Issued in Austin, Texas, on
The amendments and new sections are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71, which authorizes the commission to regulate the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, sale, and offering for sale of fur-bearing animals, pelts, and carcasses as the commission considers necessary to manage fur-bearing animals or to protect human health or property, and to provide for permit application forms, fees, procedures, and reports
The amendments and new section affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71.
§65.372. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. All other words and terms shall have the meanings assigned in Subchapter A of this chapter (relating to Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation) or Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71.
(1) Consumer - A person who purchases fur-bearing animals or products made from fur-bearing animals for personal use or consumption and who does not sell, resell, trade, or barter the fur-bearing animals or products made from fur-bearing animals in exchange for anything of value.
(2) Commercial harvest—The take of a fur-bearing animal under a trapping license during the season for commercial harvest established in §65.375 of this title (relating to Open Seasons; Means and Methods).
(3)[(2)]
Finished product—The
tanned pelt of a fur-bearing
animal or any part [item
manufactured from the pelt]
of a fur-bearing animal (or
its resulting products)
that has been treated to
prevent decomposition and/or
packaged for sale. A
dried pelt is not a finished
product.
(4) Fur-bearing
animal – The animals
listed in Parks and Wildlife
Code, §71.001, living
or dead, including their
parts, carcasses, and
pelts. (5)[(3)]
Nuisance fur-bearing animal—A
fur-bearing animal that
is depredating or a threat
to human health or safety.
(6)[(4)]
Recreational harvest—The
take of a fur-bearing
animal under a hunting
license at
any time, or
under a trapper's license
outside of the season
for commercial harvest.
§65.374. General Rules.
(a) No person may take fur-bearing animals on public roads and highways or their rights-of-way.
(b) [Each fur-bearing
animal or pelt taken
or possessed in violation
of this subchapter shall
constitute a separate
offense.]
[(c)] No
person may possess a live
skunk [or civet cat]
without a letter of authorization
from the wildlife division.
(c)[(d)]
No retail fur buyer may
possess [undried]
pelts during the period
May 1 through October
31.
(d)[(e)]
No wholesale fur dealer
or retail fur buyer may
purchase a fur-bearing animal [pelts]
from a trapper from April
6 through October 31.
(e)[(f)]
No trapper may sell a
fur-bearing animal from
April 6 through October
31. [Nuisance fur-bearing
animals may be taken in
any number by any means
at any time.]
(f) No person shall possess, buy, sell, trade, or export the pelt of an otter unless the pelt has been tagged with a department-issued CITES (Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species) tag. All otter pelts imported into this state must be accompanied by evidence of lawful take or possession.
[(g) There is
no open season on furbearing
animals in any state-owned
riverbed in Dimmit,
Uvalde, and Zavala counties.
The provisions of this
subsection cease effect
on September 1, 2003.]
§65.376. Possession of Live Fur-bearing Animals.
(a) No person other than the holder of a fur-bearing animal propagation license may possess a live fur-bearing animal at any time, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) A propagation
license may be issued
following an initial facility
inspection by the department.
Additional inspections
may be made at department
discretion. [For persons
not engaged in selling
or trading fur-bearing
animals, there is no initial
facility inspection; however,
inspections may be performed
at the discretion of the
department.]
(c) The holder of a fur-bearing animal propagation license shall provide the following for each animal in possession:
(1) a sufficient supply of fresh water at all times;
(2) shelter from heat and inclement weather; and
(3) an enclosure of at least 20 inches in height and eight square feet in area. Enclosures shall be cleaned daily.
(d) Offspring of fur-bearing animals held under a propagation permit may be kept with their parents or siblings for up to 120 days from birth in an enclosure meeting the height and area requirements for a single animal.
(e) [Nothing
in this subchapter shall
prohibit a taxidermist
from possessing for
taxidermy purposes a
fur-bearing animal or
the pelt of a fur-bearing
animal lawfully taken
or possessed under this
subchapter, provided
the animal or pelt is
accompanied by a wildlife
resource document as
prescribed by Subchapter
A of this chapter (relating
to Statewide Hunting
and Fishing Proclamation).]
[(f)] Live
fur-bearing animals may
be taken and possessed
for three days or less
for instructional or demonstration
purposes pursuant to a
letter of authorization
from the wildlife division.
(g) No person shall take a fur-bearing animal from the wild under a propagation permit except during the season provided for commercial harvest in §65.375(b) of this title (relating to Open Seasons; Means and Methods).
§65.377. Sale
or Purchase of Fur-bearing
Animals [or Their Pelts].
(a) Sale.
(1) No
person other than licensed
trappers, retail fur buyers,
wholesale fur dealers, or
fur-bearing animal propagators
may sell fur-bearing animals
[or the pelts of fur-bearing
animals, and no person
other than licensed retail
fur buyers, wholesale
fur dealers or fur-bearing
animal propagators may
purchase fur-bearing animals
or their pelts].
(2)[(b)]
Live fur-bearing animals
may be sold only:
(A)[(1)]
by persons who hold a
valid fur-bearing animal
propagation license; or
(B)[(2)]
to persons authorized
by permits issued under
Parks and Wildlife Code,
Chapter 43, Subchapter
C, or another licensed
fur-bearing animal propagator.
(b) Purchase. Except as provided in this subchapter:
(1) no person other than licensed retail fur buyers, wholesale fur dealers or fur-bearing animal propagators may purchase fur-bearing animals; and
(2) a consumer may purchase pelts or carcasses only from a retail or wholesale dealer, but is not required to possess a license or to maintain documentation.
(c) Finished products. Finished products may be bought, sold, and possessed by anyone.
(d) Live animals. No person shall sell or export live fur-bearing animals outside this state without possessing a letter of authorization from the wildlife division. A request for authorization shall include written documentation verifying that the recipient of the live animals is in compliance with applicable regulations in the destination state. A copy of the completed authorization shall accompany the animals at all times during shipment or be attached to the shipping container used to export the animals.
§65.378. Importation
and Release of Fur-bearing
Animals [or Their Pelts].
(a) No person may import live fur-bearing animals into this state from another state or country unless:
(1) a permit has been issued by the department for such importation and a copy of the completed permit accompanies any live fur-bearing animal being imported or is attached to any container used to import live fur-bearing animals;
(2) the imported animals are accompanied by a health certificate signed by a veterinarian accredited in the state of origin; and
(3) if the imported animals are foxes, raccoons, or skunks, a signed letter of authorization issued by the Texas Department of Health.
(b) Imported live
fur-bearing animals and[,]
live fur-bearing animals
previously held in captivity[,
and fur-bearing animals
live-trapped as nuisances]
may not be released into
the wild without a letter
of authorization from
the wildlife division
and the owner of the property
where the release occurs.
Animals released under
provision of this subsection
must be accounted for
in a report filed with
the department on or before
the tenth day of the month
following the month of
release. The report shall
list the species, number
captured and released,
date and location of capture,
date and location of release,
and name and address of
person authorized to release.
§79.379. Reporting Requirements.
(a) Any person licensed as a retail fur buyer or wholesale fur dealer must complete and file an appropriate annual report with the department by May 31 of each year.
(b) Any person licensed as a fur-bearing animal propagator must complete and file an appropriate annual report with the department by August 31 of each year.
(c) The department reserves the right to refuse permit issuance to any person not in compliance with this section.
(d) All records required by this section shall be retained and kept available for inspection upon request of a department employee acting within the official scope of duty for a period of two years following the period of validity of the permit under which they are required to be kept.
§65.381. Nuisance Fur-bearing Animals.
(a) Nuisance fur-bearing animals may be taken in any number by any means at any time.
(b) The provisions of 25 TAC Chapter 169, Subchapter A (relating to Rabies Control and Eradication) apply as necessary to fur-bearing animals.
(c) the provisions of §65.378(b) also apply to persons in possession of nuisance fur-bearing animals.
§65.383. Taxidermy.
Nothing in this subchapter
shall prohibit a taxidermist
from possessing for taxidermy
purposes a fur-bearing
animal [or the pelt
of a fur-bearing animal]
lawfully taken or possessed
under this subchapter,
provided the animal [or
pelt] is accompanied
by a wildlife resource
document as prescribed
by Subchapter A of this
chapter (relating to Statewide
Hunting and Fishing Proclamation),
or, if the fur-bearing
animal was taken outside
of Texas, evidence of
legal take, purchase,
or possession from the
state or country where
the fur-bearing animal
was taken.
§65.385. Penalty. The penalties for a violation of this subchapter are prescribed by Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 71.
Top of Page