TPW Commission
Commission Meeting, May 23, 2024
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
May 23, 2024
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
COMMISSION MEETING
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I would like to take roll. I, Chairman Jeffery Hildebrand, is present. Vice-Chairman Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Abell?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Doggett?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Foster?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Patton?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: We have a quorum. This meeting is called to order, May 23rd, 2024, at 9:07 a.m. Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: A public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas has been filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, as required by Chapter 551, Government Code, referred to as the Open Meetings Act. I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: As a reminder, please turn on your microphones and announce your name before you speak and speak slowly so that the court reporter can hear you. Where is our court reporter today?
MS. DEE HALLIBURTON: Remote.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: First is the approval of minutes from the commission meeting held March 28th, 2024. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell makes a motion.
CHAIRMAND HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor please say “aye”. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Next is the acknowledgment of the list of donations which has already been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: I have a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Next is the consideration of contracts which have also been distributed. Is there a motion for approval?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell makes a motion.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. Now, for the special recognitions and service awards presentation. Dr. Yoskowitz, please make the presentations.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: This is always a great part of our commission meeting process where we get to recognize the service and contribution that our employees have made to the state, providing those recreational opportunities for many generations to come. This year, I would like to start with our recognition of the “James Randy Fugate Memorial Wildlife Division Professional of the Year” and I’m pleased to announce that Fernando “Pablo” Gutierrez, Wildlife Technician at the Kerr Wildlife Management Area, is this year’s recipient of the Fugate Memorial Wildlife Division Professional of the Year.
The Kerr Wildlife Management Area is a place of natural resource diversity with significant research and management accomplishments that serves as a flagship for the division and the agency. Pablo joined the wildlife division in January of 1993, at the Kerr Wildlife Management Area, and has faithfully served in his role as a technician for more than 30 years supporting each project and research effort with an appetite for knowledge and an unwavering support for our mission and our role. this long-term commitment has cultivated successes and built trust with constituents and partners alike. Pablo’s attitude is service oriented, and together with his character, he has served alongside many leaders in our agency and positively influence past, present, and future generation of wildlife Division and agency employees including hosting Carter Smith’s internship many years ago. The combined skills of caring for our natural resources, and the people alike, are an outstanding representation of the trust he captures, and the positive attitudes that he emanates. These qualities attract others, and his network has grown beyond the landowner visitor or current colleague to a place of family. Like this award’s namesake, Pablo “Knows No Stranger” and represents his project, and the department, in an outgoing manner. Always welcoming the opportunity for engagement, he is often sought out by neighbors, landowners, past hunters, and many visitors. In doing so, he has taken on additional duties and serves in the technical guidance role for several landowners in Kerr County with habitat recommendation surveys and deer population and management strategies. This is a rare and special attribute for a wildlife
technician to have, and a very special contribution he makes, as a division representative, above and beyond expectations. Pablo enjoys working across the state meeting new people and assisting in conservation projects, and shared interests in science and learning.
His past travels and job duties have spanned from construction of Bison pins in north Texas, Pronghorn and Big Horn captures in North and West Texas, to alligator research and model duck captures on the Texas coast. Pablo has been a contributing member of the Texas Chapter Wildlife Society for decades and additionally volunteers his time as a Financial Committee Member. He also serves Texas Big Game Awards program as a scoring member and Regional representative for awards Banquets and contributor to Texas Wildlife Association annually. Terry Blankenship, a friend of many of us in here, including me, and past director of The Wildlife Foundation, recently stated that like Randy, Fernando is not usually in the spotlight, but doing the work behind the scenes with a smile and a positive attitude. Former Kerr WMA project leader, Don Frels remarked that Fernando, much like Randy, is a favorite among our constituents and fellow employees, and represents what all Wildlife technicians should strive to be. Please join me in congratulating Fernando for this
well-deserved award.
(applause)
Next, I’d like to recognize some of the retirements that we have coming up. David Gomez began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 2000 at Region 2 Lake Casa Blanca International State Park, which, David, I know well having spent a number of years in Laredo, at TAMU. David started off as a maintenance specialist. One where he grew with the Department to a maintenance specialist three. David’s team saw him as a valued asset, as he was an experienced diesel mechanic, general mechanic, heavy equipment operator, welder, and general maintenance worker. David’s patience and certified knowledge helped many of his fellow co-workers within the community, in both English and Spanish. His work ethic was impeccable, and his customer service was excellent. Not a day went by when David did not help others. David’s retirement is well deserved. Retiring with 22 years of service to the department, and in the state, David Gomez.
[Applause]
Next, we’d like to recognize those that continue to serve the department. Chris Hunt began her career in 1993 as a seasonal. Chris was hiking at McKinney Falls State Park right here, when she saw a large office building across the field, this one, thinking that would be a cool place to work. She applied for a seasonal position and was hired for the summer after college. Chris was then hired full-time as a graphic designer position. Chris is a proud member of the creative and Interactive Services team, producing in everything from printed Publications to magazine ads, to web Graphics. She created the Texas Parks and Wildlife logo, designed the new land and water plan, and helps update the outdoor annual. With 30 years of service, Chris Hunt. I didn’t know you created that’s pretty cool, yes, I misspoke. I’m sorry, it was the State Park logo.
[Applause]
Next, we’d like to recognize Michelle Hagerty. Michelle started with
the Department as a technician in East Texas in 1999. After graduating with a wildlife degree from Michigan State University, she was soon chosen to lead the new idea that became the Texas master naturalist program, which we heard about a bit yesterday, and has skillfully led that program for the past 25 years. Under her supervision, the program has become internationally recognized, spawning similar programs in 29 other states, and three other countries. Her program has trained more than 177,000 volunteers who annually give more than 500,000 hours of service to our natural resources. Since its inception, the program, and its army of dedicated volunteers, has clocked over 6 million hours of service. She also leads the Texas nature trackers program, who engaged citizen scientists in generating research quality data. Just this month, her team inspired teams across the state to generate more than 200,000 plant and animal observations in only 4 days for the annual City nature challenge. Michelle is well known throughout the state and has a unique ability to inspire people to take action to dedicate their time and energy for wildlife, and to pick up the mantle of leadership within their own communities. Michelle and her family are living and loving life on the CER Wildlife Management Area, where her
husband Pablo Gutierrez, together they are raising two future scientists. Not a lot of pressure there. Son, Grant, who is 13, and daughter, Clara, who is eight. With 25 years of service, Michelle M. Haggerty.
(applause)
Nancy Gillespie began her career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on March 5th, 1999. She interviewed for the Wildlife Diversity Assistant Program. She thinks she edged out the competition by mentioning she enjoyed caring for a silver‑haired bat at her previous position. She learned about the wildlife diversity issues and passed that knowledge to patrons that called. She also had the opportunity to help monitor Texas snowbells at Devil’s River and Texas wild rights in San Marcos.
In 2007, Nancy moved to her current position at the Private Lands and Public Hunting. She helps to coordinate the Lone Star Land Steward Awards which is tonight and writing up the specs for big-time Texas hunts and the financial section in the annual big-time Texas hunts business plan, to name a few. And she always keeps us guessing with what hair color she will have this week.
With 25 years of service, Nancy Gillespie.
(applause)
Next, we would like to recognize Derek York who started his career with the department in February of 2004, moving to the Galveston Bay Area from Oklahoma after spending two years orbiting as the Lead Technician for the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife research unit. After starting at the department, Derek helped to manage the Galveston Bay management team’s field sampling and being responsible for their Fleet of sampling-based gifs.
In 2008, Derek was trained to run the research vessel San
Jacinto, and took over the captain’s duties later that year. Derek has been instrumental in developing new ways gain valuable data from larger species of sharks in a safe and efficient manner. Thank you for that, Derek. Collaborating with researchers at Texas A&M University at Galveston to collect data and tag some of these larger sharks for research, Derek was promoted at the Galveston Bay management team’s lead technician where he has been helping the ecosystem leader run day-to-day operations and scheduling the team’s field assignments. After volunteering with the Texas brigades’ programs for five years, Derek and his wife, along with several staff from the department, and other state agencies, started up the Coastal Brigade program in Galveston, which is now celebrating its ninth year in educating our youth about conservation fisheries management, public speaking, and leadership development. After this Summer’s camp, over 270 youth will have graduated from the Coastal Brigade program alone since 2016. With 20 years of service, Derek York.
(applause)
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. One more round of applause. We did a quick calculation. That’s 122 man years and woman years of service. So, thank you guys for your service.
At this time, I would like to inform the audience that everyone is welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting. However, if anyone wishes to leave now, it would be an appropriate time to do so. Thank you for your attendance. Okay, all right, thank you, so, Action Item number 1, revision, recommended adoption of proposed change. Mr. James Murphy.
JAMES MURPHY: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. I’m James Murphy, General Counsel to the department. I’m here to present today on a proposed revision to Commission Policy 001. Commission Policy 1 is titled Overview and Meetings of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission. Establishes the name of this Commission and your duties, the creation of committees, the election of the vice-chair and meeting and public comment procedures.
Since the pandemic, public comment has been available by telephone on action items during commission meetings. Today, we propose to discontinue that requirement in the commission policy, due to its high cost and technical challenges we’ve had integrating it with our new YouTube live stream system, and really a lack of participation since the year 2020 with calling in with public comments by telephone. We’ve phrased this proposal flexibly to allow telephone public comment in the future or when needed, but it would be described in the public notice of the meeting, and ultimately that public notice would describe the different options for submitting public comments.
This is the proposed change before you. We just proposed to take out in‑person or by telephone, again, leaving this language flexible for the future, allowing us to describe the public notice and comment—or public comment procedures in the notice of the meeting.
Just want to highlight that we do have many options for submitting public comment. If this is approved, you can come and speak in‑person, you get three minutes per item. You can submit written comments by mail or hand-deliver those to the department, or we have a public comment option on the TPWD website. This fully complies with all requirements of the Open Meetings Act, the Parks and Wildlife code, as well as a recommendation of the Sunset Advisory Commission during our last review.
As of this morning, again, we are at just four comments, all in agreement. None disagree. However, we do have one person signed up to speak by telephone after I complete my presentation.
So, the recommendation here today is that the Commission adopt the following motion: the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission adopts revised Commission Policy CP‑001, attached as Exhibit A. And I’m available for any questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any questions of James about the Commission? If not. Thank you, James. If not, we have one speaker that signed up, Michelle McBryde. She’s on the telephone. Ms. McBryde, the floor is yours.
MS. CANDICE EVANS (via phone): Thank you, Commissioner.
MICHELLE MCBRYDE (via phone): Good morning, Commissioners. I will be speaking on four separately represented requests for public comment, agenda Action Item, 1, 3, 4, and 5 today.
My name is Michelle McBryde. I’m a businesswoman and grandma, a sixth-generation birthright descendent of some of Kerr and surrounding counties’ original pioneer stock. I’m requesting the Commission policy revision be postponed indefinitely, meaning agreeing not to decide today and to be brought up at a later date, rather than eliminating public comment options but allowing time for staff to seek improvement of all public comment options in order to achieve the highest standards better serving the citizens of the State of Texas.
I understand and believe Texas Parks & Wildlife Department is to serve the State of Texas, its citizens, and employees with the highest standard of service, professionalism, fairness, courtesy, and respect. In order for the Commission to respect the privileges of the public, offering input and comment is an important part of the Commission’s decision‑making process, I believe, and the importance of one’s right as a citizen of Texas to provide and hear public comments. Restricting public comment options is unfair and limiting the citizens of Texas to avenues of which are interpreted and provided by staff or incurring expenses of travel for out-of-towners.
My own personal experiences of providing public comment by telephone and online have been challenging, with instances of not being heard due to a change in teleconference registration date prior to former deadline date without notification and online by [audio dropout] deadline date, accepting a receipt notification received. Yet during staff’s proposal presentation, staff stated there was no public comment provided.
Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing my opinion on behalf of the best interest of the public comment option for the people of our great State of Texas.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Ms. McBryde. Are there any more comments from the Commission or staff? If not, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: PATTON moves to approve.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you. Action item number two banning canned hunts and establishing trapping standards for mountain lions; recommended adoption of proposed rule. Mr. Richard Heilbrun, please make your presentation.
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Heilbrun, and I’m the Wildlife Diversity Program Director. Today, I’ll review the proposal to prohibit canned hunts and establish trapping standards for mountain lions as presented in March and published in the Texas Register. I’ll share public comments received to date, and request to place, excuse me, and pitch it to you for action. Before I launch into my formal presentation, I would like to thank Joseph Fitzsimmons and the entire Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group for their hard work over the past year and a half. They put in a lot of time and effort to find a workable solution for this issue that keeps coming up.
The Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group recommended that canned hunting should be prohibited. They agree that checking traps regularly is an important and ethical practice, that targeted trapping is a useful management tool, and that if the commission were to establish new trapping standards, that it should focus on mountain lions in a way that avoids or minimizes impacts to coyote trapping. The group was split regarding whether to recommend a trap check requirement.
It’s worth repeating that staff also recognized the importance of trapping as a management tool in depredation scenarios and as a recreational and commercial activity. We also know from well-vetted research that public support for trapping is strongest when it is regulated and conducted ethically.
Our objective was to design clear and concise trapping standards focused on mountain lions. Because there’s no trap that only catches lions and no trap that only catches coyotes, we chose an approach that defaults to the knowledge and experience of trappers and ranchers and that gives them flexibility and certainty while minimizing the impact of trapping of other species.
So, staff proposed to prohibit the hunting of lions that have been released from captivity for the purpose of hunting or pursuing with hounds. However, hunting free‑ranging lions and training hounds on free-ranging lions would remain unaffected. It’s important to note that during the stakeholder process, expert houndsmen specifically told us that captive lions are not needed to train their dogs. The proposal also clarifies that it is not canned hunting to dispatch a lion in a lawful trap.
The proposal would prohibit keeping a live mountain lion in a trap or snare for more than 36 hours. That word “live” is key. The 36-hour rule would not apply if the trap kills a lion quickly. We know that some people might wonder, what if a snare intended to be lethal does not kill a lion quickly? To ease this concern, the proposal included a blanket exemption to the 36-hour rule for snares equipped with a breakaway device that disassemble with 285 pounds of force. The 36-hour rule would only apply to keeping a live lion in a trap. If there were no lions present, if a trap killed the lion quickly, or if the snare disassembled, there would be no violation.
As of yesterday, at 5:00 pm, the department received 7,531 total comments of which 91% agreed. 4% disagreed completely, and 3% disagreed specifically. More than half of the people that disagreed specifically requested that the proposal be more restrictive. We received several letters from stakeholders representing a wide variety of Texans: those supporting the proposal, including the almost 7,000 letters I just mentioned, plus the Wildlife Diversity Advisory Committee and Texans for Mountain Lions plus several smaller organizations. We also received several letters that disagreed either in whole or in part with the proposal. Some of these organizations express concerns with impacts to coyote and feral hog control, with impacts to landowner cooperation, a preference for voluntary BMPs over regulation, and some commented on the merits of the breakaway device exemption. However, there were a few organizations that specifically requested broader exemptions for snares on fences: Texas Farm Bureau, Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, Texas Trappers and Fur Hunters Association, and the Sheep and Goat Predator Management Board.
So, to emphasize this point, they asked us to change the proposal, and that’s what we’re doing.
Of the thousands of public comments received, many said that the proposal did not go far enough, some said that it went too far, and some believe it isn’t needed or justified because we don’t have enough data on mountain lions to support it. We received valuable feedback from the ranching and trapping communities regarding that breakaway device exemption I mentioned and that it is not likely to work as intended. Some trappers report that mountain lions caught in snares tend to hunker down and may not attempt to break away.
Also, some expressed concerns with impacts to their coyote trapping programs and wanted more certainty through broader exemptions. Based on this feedback, staff recommend an alternative to the breakaway device exemption that provides more certainty and more flexibility to ranchers and trappers who trap for other species. According to this feedback, the most common scenario in which someone may accidentally violate the law is when setting snares for coyotes, not intending to catch a lion in the first place. Usually, snares set for coyotes are 6 to 8 inches in diameter and up to 10 inches. These snares are hung vertically in the crawl space under fences. Conversely, in the rare situation when snares are set for mountain lions, loops greater than 10 inches are typically used. Therefore, staff recommend replacing the exemption related to the breakaway with an exemption for snares with a max diameter of 10 inches or less to address those public comments and provide more certainty and flexibility to more people at a lower cost and greater efficiency.
In summary, staff recommend an alternative that would replace the breakaway exemption with an exemption for vertically set snares with a max diameter of 10 inches or less. This new language would not prohibit a trapper from setting snares larger than 10 inches. It simply provides an exemption from that 36-hour rule if they have that snare with a max 10 inches. This is a less expensive alternative, exempts more ranching activities from the rule, and should be easier to implement by ranchers and trappers.
Staff recommends that the Commission adopts the proposal, Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to 31 Texas Administrative Code 65.950 concerning mountain lions with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the April 19th issue of the Texas Register.
This concludes my presentation, and I’m happy to address any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Heilbrun. Is there any discussion by the Commission? You’ll have opportunity to discuss again in a moment after the people who have signed up to speak. But any comments now?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton. As a comment generally, I like the direction of going to trapping regulations. I think it’s uh. Nobody really likes the idea of an animal in a trap. And, as I understand it, it will be punishable as a Class C misdemeanor. Is that correct?
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And then I was curious. You know, the other part of this is banning the canned hunt, and assuming it’s banned or passes, what would, but someone chose to have a canned hunt and then, you know, from an enforcement perspective, what would the penalty be for having a canned hunt after it was banned?
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: That would also be a Class C misdemeanor the first time it happened.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay. And going back to the enforceability of the trapping came up with the 36‑hour time limit. Can you explain to me how we arrived at 36 hours?
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: The Mountain Lion Stakeholder Working Group discussed at length what it should be. Those who were for it, said they wanted it daily, or 24 hours, and other folks that were also for it, said that they would be okay with 48 hours. So, there was quite a bit of discussion back and forth and so, in the end they defaulted to um,… there was no agreement by the committee, but they recognized that there was value in making it consistent with the Furbearers Trapping rules, which is currently at 36 hours. So, to provide more clarity and more consistency, that’s why staff proposed the 36.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And then from an enforcement… position, is it, you know, to say prove your case, you know, if I were the defense attorney, would it be incumbent upon the department to have to basically establish the time the animal became trapped and then establish beyond a reasonable doubt that 36 hours would have passed?
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: I’m happy to defer to Stormy King, if you wanna handle that.
MR. STORMY KING: Good morning, everyone. Stormy King, for the record. Can you repeat your question?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: I’m just kind of curious about the—there’s part of me that…I guess what I’m getting at is maybe as we transition from conduct that is not criminal at one moment and hadn’t been criminal, for you know, since time began to going to be a criminal offense the minute this passes — I can’t help but think about the enforceability of it as it’s written. And it seems to me that in order to obtain a conviction, the department or the game wardens are gonna have to show — call it the moment the animal became entrapped, and then you start the clock from that point to a 36-hour period that the animal continued to remain in the trap. Would that be what I would call you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to develop a prima facie case?
MR. STORMY KING: We definitely have a significant burden of proof, and I don’t think it necessarily would require that we know the moment that the animal was trapped. It would require us to be able to prove that the animal had been alive in the trap for that 36-hour period, so…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Can you give me an example of how you’d prove that?
MR. STORMY KING: It will be a challenge, first of all, based on just the geography out there in mostly country, but it’s amazing, the tips that we get from folks, you know, whether it be a landowner who may be leasing their land to a lessee, you know, who maybe’s seen this who’s not necessarily personally invested in the trapping, folks who are along that lines. Lotta stuff in snares and whatnot, cars on the side of a public road. So, there’s any manner of ways we could become aware of a lion being in a trap, and at that point, it would be incumbent upon us to establish some point, and it may be longer than 36 hours at that point. But it’s much more difficult to prove when the lion was trapped than it is to prove when I saw the lion in the trap, if that makes sense. And so, but I don’t think…
There’s definitely a burden of proof on the department, on enforcement, on, you know, the courts, as well, the courts have their say, and the, the, um, you know, the necessity for us to establish the culpable mental state — all these things I think offer a lot of—should offer some peace of mind to folks that it’s not going to be a willy‑nilly, you know…we’re not going to be out just throwing around citations for this stuff. It will require investigation. It will require us to prove our case. So, I hope I’m answering your question.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: You are, and it’s almost just like a discussion, a little bit in my mind, and I don’t…do not and have not run traps for mountain lions. I have been involved in running snares for coyotes, and…I try to initiate a policy that’s not really based on when the coyote became ensnared. But it’s more, if we’re going to run snares, you got to check the snare. I would like to know as the “landowner” that my managers are checking the snare you know within 48 hours, regardless of when the animal became‑‑and that, you know, they don’t supply paperwork to me showing I checked it, I take them at their word. But it is a more finite definite—you know I kinda wonder if the wording shouldn’t be more of when you check versus the amount of time the live animal, it’s in the snare. And maybe your thoughts on that.
And then I guess one thing that I’m kind of getting to, and I know that you have to have — if you don’t have enforcement, then maybe no one cares. But I think the idea here is, and I always think collaboration between the department and landowners is better, and I kind of wonder if we shouldn’t transition from you know, guidelines, and let’s all work together. I don’t think anyone really wants to live in a world with no lions, but I don’t think people want their livestock — whether it’s livestock or wildlife in some cases — want lions, you know, killing, whether it’s sheep or wild or domestic. What it — I guess — I rambled. But what do you think about the wording of the language as it relates to enforcement, whether it should be checking the trap periodically or should be based on when the animal became ensnared?
MR. STORMY KING: I been accused of rambling, too, so… I think the main point there is obviously, it, um, you know, from the commonsense perspective, from the perspective of the people operating the trap, from the people enforcing these laws, you know, the simpler you can make it, the better. So, it’s very simple to say, if you have a trap, you have to check it every 36 hours, and that’s somewhat simpler for us to enforce, because we can sit there for 36 hours if we have to and see if you come and check it.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Not to interrupt, but from the manager — from the landowner perspective that they’re checking it on a time, and I think 36 is a little — but, if it were 48, you could literally take a picture of your time you were at that snare. And you’re running it hopefully not year‑round. You’re narrowly focused and specifically targeting a time. But it provides the department and the landowner the ability to actually show… I have checked the snare, here’s proof of it. I can show it to an officer.
MR. STORMY KING: And I would agree with you that that is a, while still complicated and a challenge, may be a better, you know, may be slightly easier to enforce I guess would be the right way to say it. Not to characterize the other way as unenforceable, but the difference being, the effort here I think is to carve out and specify this standard, whatever it may become, to lions. And without saying what a lion trap is, that’s hard. Because, you know, until it has a lion in it, it’s not a lion trap anyway, basically, if that makes any sense to you.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, okay, it does, but nonetheless, it kinda comes back to what are we trying to accomplish, you know? And I think we all know we don’t want a lion‑‑and quite frankly, whether it’s a coyote or a lion, I don’t want them entrapped, suffering. No one does. But what is the most practical answer? And a lot of this is me just thinking about it kind of how in the heck are you gonna really show a 36‑hour live animal entrapped? Either way, for the landowner or the department.
MR. STORMY KING: You know, I guess to offer some comfort, the reminder would be that it’s not incumbent upon you to show us. It’s incumbent upon us to show you. But I don’t disagree with anything you say. It’s just we’re attempting here to…accomplish a fairly complicated goal, you know —
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay. That’s all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Scott?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Stormy, excuse me, after listening to your well‑thought out ideas over many years, and I appreciate, ‘cause I can tell you always think about these issues very carefully, and I appreciate that. Having — and first I will say I agree with Commissioner Patton’s comments wholeheartedly. Having been a trapper when I was much younger — muskrat, mink, nutria rats and stuff — what I have a concern about, first off, we’re talking about a live animal. Well, when we get into cold weather, that doesn’t necessarily last very long. I mean, they can die…I’m not an expert, but I mean I know they can die in 12 hours or for sure 24. So, you know to me it becomes very complex trying to ascertain these timelines. And I can tell you put a lotta thought into this, but I’m very concerned, as is Commissioner Patton, about how do we delineate or really know, and if we start talking about making any kind of… even if it’s a misdemeanor, it’s still a criminal offense. I have a concern on how do we make sure that we are protecting the landowner, …
MR. STORMY KING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: …and his point also is very valid: suppose they lease out trapping rights, as many people do on hunting, right? So, that is a very valid concern, in my opinion. I just question, how does law enforcement really get their hands around all these timelines?
MR. STORMY KING: And I think it really would go back, and I’ve thought about it as you mentioned, and I appreciate those comments, because I do spend a lot of time thinking about these things because it affects a lot of folks, including ours and me. And, you know, again, we’re talking about the 36‑hour time period that an animal is alive in a trap. So, cause of death, time of death — so, one thing that you may be worried about is we would come up with some sort of, you know, scientific notion of how long an animal had been dead in a trap or the point at which it died. Well, under this regulation, that’s really irrelevant. We have to prove the lion was in the trap alive for some period of that 36‑hour period or longer.
It would really — I think about how I would enforce this, if I received word. I’m a game warden in West Texas where everything’s eight hours away, and I receive a word from whatever source that, you know, trapper John is running traps, and he never comes and checks them. And we’ve seen some lions in those trap that we know have taken a couple of days to die, depending on what time of year it is. I can catch that guy. It’s going to take time, it may take a lot of time, but that’s one thing game wardens are pretty well known for is sitting in the dark. Now, you know, are we going to catch them all? Absolutely not. But we don’t catch everybody who keeps an undersized fish or shoots a deer off the road at night, either. But I think from the enforcement perspective, whether someone agrees with these regulations or not, that or the idea of these regulations or more or less regulation, I think there should be some comfort to the folks that are…you know, maybe afraid that we’re going to come hammer down on them for something that they didn’t intend to do. It would require that they be guilty, basically, for us to be able to convict them, if that makes any sense.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: I appreciate those comments, and I assume, you know, our objective here is not a gotcha and, you know, trying to catch somebody that is living narrowly on the edge or whatever. What we’re trying to do is influence good behavior and, uh… punish really bad behavior. And so, I mean, I’m assuming, and I think you just verified, this is not an effort to just see how many citations we can write. This is an effort to be humane to trapped animals and to try to have some semblance of order, you know. So, I agree with what you said, and I just wanna…I would be very disappointed to find out that we’re out there just trying to see how many citations or how many people we can write up. I don’t think that’s…
MR. STORMY KING: Yeah, I guess just to close, it’s a complicated and it’s a contentious issue. I get it. I’m only answering the questions about enforceability. So, um, but that’s what I’ve got for you.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton. I guess I have another question. It was referenced to the other trapping standards — I don’t remember what it was. Are those trapping standards also punishable as a Class C misdemeanor?
MR. STORMY KING: Those are Class C misdemeanors. Those fall under different statutes. Those come under the furbearer regulations.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay but there’s still — and we are being consistent with that those regulations and in the application of the language of this proposed rule in the…from an enforceability standpoint.
MR. STORMY KING: In the terms of the 36 hours or in terms of the penalty?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Both.
MR. STORMY KING: Well, the non-game—as I mentioned, they come from two separate sections of statute. The Furbearer Regulations are chapter 71 of the Parks & Wildlife code and the Non-game Regulations are chapter 67, I believe. The Furbearer Regulations are Class C. The Non‑game—it’s a broad statement about the penalties related to non‑game violations which, to this point, have been limited to commercial non‑game ranks: buy, sell, trade of commercial wildlife. Those are Class C but are enhanceable upon subsequent offenses.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Vice-Chair Bell.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Stormy — and thanks for how you explained this. What do you think the prevalence, or the activity will be around trapping mountain lions? I mean, is…do you get what I’m saying? So where…is this going to be happening — do we think this is going to happen a lot, has this happened and it’s part of research that we’re trying to do? Do we forecast that it might happen because of predation? I mean, that might be a better question for you, then. What do we think the level of activity is going to be that we’re putting the rule out there?
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: This is not a very popular activity. The folks that are doing it — some folks are telling us that they’re trapping between 60 to 100 lions a year. So, it’s intense where it happens. But, statewide, you know, we don’t have lions in all the counties. We have them in a couple dozen counties in South Texas and West Texas. So, it’s hard to answer that because it’s both uncommon and intense where it happens.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions? All right, Doggett.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Thank you for explaining this to us and your hard work on this front. So, I think at the end of the day, we’re trying to protect the humane capture of lions, right? And what I’ve often found is the best intentions often have very curious results at the end. And I think the last thing we would want to do is implement regulations that we can’t enforce or there’s so much ambiguity around it once you capture somebody that the court’s not going to prosecute or at the end of the day, we’re not going to win that prosecution. And it’s just so much time and energy that were spent chasing that to no avail, in my view, from what I’m hearing.
And so, Commissioner Patton, I think, had a great idea that is enforceable and that I think you would want. You know, if somebody puts out a trap for a lion, you want them checking it every 48 hours. If you’re gonna catch them on 36‑hour rule, they need to be checking it every 48 hours. The photo, which is so easily taken with the cell phone and timed, is something that’s completely enforceable. And since this is not a very popular activity, it’s not that you’re enforcing thousands of folks to comply with that rule. It’s a relatively small pool of trappers. To require them to take a photo every 48 hours of that trap sounds to me like a very enforceable and, at the end of the day, accomplishes what we’re trying to accomplish. And the proof is just the photograph—I’ve checked them all. I think that would be good for everything, good for the trapper, good for the public, that we’re all so concerned about the humane treatment of these animals. But we understand they need to be caught. Where are your thoughts on that front?
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: I have a couple of thoughts, and forgive the pun, but we’ve been running these traps for a while. And one of the things that we ran into is when you get into a straight‑up trap check, you know, inspect the trap, there is no such thing as a lion trap. There are traps that are used to catch lions, but those can also be used to catch coyotes and vice versa. So, when you start to talk about requiring trappers to inspect their trap every 36‑48 hours, you’re going to impact all traps. And so that’s exactly what we were asked not to do. So, we were trying to not burden the coyote trappers of the Edwards Plateau and the coyote trappers of East Texas where there aren’t mountain lions, and so you run into that dilemma quickly.
I think another thing for you to consider, is, um, there are calls for folks — excuse me. There are calls to be more aggressive on doing away with trapping at both the legislative and through the Parks & Wildlife levels. And I think that a regulation that updates the ethics to reflect the ethics of our day also protects trapping as an institution, and therefore, protects hunting as an institution. So, the goal here is to have a huntable, sustainable population of mountain lions that will carry us through without. And keeping that tool in our toolbelt and the rancher’s toolbelt to make sure that’s not taken away from them. So, that’s another part of what we’re trying to do.
I had another thought about the 36‑hour rule that I failed to mention. Where mountain lions are, often we also have bears, and it is illegal to trap a bear. So, the 36‑hour rule helps us, helps trappers, if they find a bear within that first day and a half, oftentimes we can release it and let it go safely. And so, that’s another reason that we suggested the 36‑hour rule is sort of the bonus of being able to catch bears before they die in traps.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: I have one more. I also assume that the idea of checking traps, to actually have to get out of your car and take a picture, we don’t want to be more burdensome than we have to be. And a lot of traps you can see from the road, but if you took a picture, it wouldn’t… you know, if you’re gonna check your traps, you just need to drive by them and make sure there’s not an animal in the trap. But it could be way off in the distance, as long as you have eyesight of it. So, I think a picture requirement would be pretty burdensome, it seems to me.
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: I agree, and that’s why we didn’t suggest that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Last question I’ve got, and then we’ve got several people that have signed up to speak. Did the committee look at all — I mean, game cameras, and once again with the picture thing — game cameras are prevalent and easy. They’re time stamped. Was there any discussion around — and I’m not proposing this today. It’s a question. If you put a game camera on each of the traps, and those records are subject to review from a game warden at any point in time, hey, I want to look at your card in your game camera, and they could spool through it quickly to determine — I don’t know, Stormy, you may have a thought on that. But that seems like a fairly simple way to get about this. But I’m not proposing it.
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: There was a lot of discussion about the electronic trap monitors and game cameras, and what their recommendation was is that if we propose a physical or an inspection requirement that those electronic inspection methods would count. Because we didn’t propose a technical trap‑check requirement, there’s no need to mention that. But that could actually certainly be used to satisfy the requirement here of, hey, I got a ping at 8:00, there was nothing in it. The next morning at 8:00 there was a lion in there, so I went out there. And so now the trapper or the rancher knows it happened in this time period, and so this is my defense. The trouble with requiring it, and of course we don’t want to require that because it’s burdensome, but those are very expensive. So, we knew that people would say, well, where I live, where my ranch is where I trap in the canyons of West Texas, you know, I have to have a cellphone, I have a satellite plan, I have to pay X number of dollars per month, and these are expensive equipment. So, what we wanted to do was design a proposal that could use that but did not require it.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I understand. Okay, thanks. Stormy, last question. So, if you come up on a trap, it has a deceased and decayed mountain lion in it, you’re saying that is not sufficient evidence to say that that animal was in there alive for 36 hours?
MR. STORMY KING: It wouldn’t be. No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, someone’s gonna place a deceased, decayed mountain lion in the trap?
MR. STORMY KING: He could have died in 20 minutes, for all I know. You may assume, obviously, depending on weather conditions, that he was there longer than that alive, but, you know, that’s not evidence.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But clearly—well, the decay…all right. So, it only is to the amount of time they were living in the trap?
MR. STORMY KING: I may be able to prove how long he’s been dead. I can’t prove how long he was alive prior to that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Right. You most certainly could probably do that.
Got it. Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Alright. We’ve got several, um, several people signed up to speak. The first by phone is Mitchell Simpson from Silverton, Texas. Mr. or Mrs. Simpson.
MR. MITCHELL SIMPSON (via phone): This is Mitchell Simpson. I am a professional trapper, and I oppose the mountain lion regulations. My first point comes directly from the Texas Parks & Wildlife website where it talks about its mission and philosophy. It states to rely on the best available science to guide our conservation decisions. There’s no mention of emotions, politics, or opinions. So, I ask today that the Commission ask yourself if your decision is based on science alone.
The next point I would like to make is snares are designed to be a lethal device. Table restraints are designed to hold an animal alive. The two of these are being confused. A snare should be totally exempt because it is supposed to be lethal. There are failures at times when they’re not, but it is supposed to be lethal.
My third point is concerning the Mountain Lion Proposal preamble number three (see Government Code Chapter 2006). Under there, the Texas Parks & Wildlife states it is difficult if not impossible to estimate what the cost might be. However, the department believes it to be less than $500 a year. Usually, ranchers in West Texas split the cost of a lion trapper. This would no longer be possible with a 36-hour rule which would essentially require daily checks. Therefore, a trapper could only service one ranch at a time due to the size of the ranches. This will increase the cost of the ranchers — to the ranchers significantly and it will also decrease the income of the trapper.
I talked with one trapper — one lion trapper who figured his increase in annual fuel cost at today’s market price to be about $6,300 a year by checking them on a daily basis. The reason that Texas Parks & Wildlife states that the impact would be less than $500 a year is if it was greater than $500 a year, for a small business or even a microbusiness, an economic impact statement would be required before regulations to be instated. And I guess that’s all that I have, and I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Ms. Janice Bezanson.
MS. JANICE BEZANSON (via phone): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I’m Janice Bezanson, the senior policy director of Texas Conservation Alliance. I was on the Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group, and I’ve been working with Texas Parks & Wildlife on wildlife issues literally for decades, more decades than I want to admit to. I strongly support what these regulations as proposed this morning, as does Texas Conservation Alliance, as do dozens and dozens of people I have talked to over the few months about this. In fact, people are just really startled when they hear that Texas is the only state with a mountain lion population that has no regulations whatsoever.
Obviously, the enforcement is going to be difficult, but enforcement of all laws are difficult. Whether it’s murder or jaywalking, it’s very, very, hard to find the culprit. And that’s not a reason for not having regulations. That’s not a reason for not having laws. We have them anyway. And, um, this is a step that really, really needs to be taken. We’ve been talking about this for 30 years. And this is — I think of this as an historic occasion if we pass these laws. If we pass these — pardon me, not laws — these new regulations this morning. I support these and I look forward to working with the staff on the management plan as it does go forward over the next two years, and I very much appreciate your time and your taking on this issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, very much. All right, we have several speakers, I believe 24 in person. So, I’m going to line you guys up kind of one at a time, the first ten, so we can move this along. If you will stand in order, Grahame Jones, Karin Saucedo, Jonathan Letz, Warren Cude, Mike Bodenchuk, Rodney Kott, Matt Wagner, Shelby Bobosky, Monica Morrison, and Patricia Harveson. Uh, Mr. Jones.
MR. GRAHAME JONES: Yes, sir. Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz and Parks & Wildlife staff here today. I worked for the department for 27 years, which were some of the best years of my life. I had the honor and privilege to retire as director of law enforcement in 2020 and worked alongside the most dedicated people that I’ve ever known in my life.
I’m an avid hunter and angler, and thanks to you, this old, retired game warden is allowed to stay somewhat officially connected by serving on the coastal regulatory working group—I mean the Oyster Regulatory Working Group, and the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee as well. Thank you for allowing me to do that and stay connected to the agency and the mission that I love.
I would first like to thank every Parks & Wildlife employee here in the room and throughout the state. What you do matters, and it matters more and more every day. I’m here today to express my support for the proposed ban on canned hunting and mountain lions as well as supporting the trapping standards. My reasons for these two measures are really simple. They both coincide with the North American Model of Conservation, and they promote ethical hunting and wildlife management practices.
I would also ask that you please consider some type of harvest reporting of mountain lions similar to deer or turkey harvest logs so our biologists, ranch managers, and landowners can better understand population trends. We hear about the lack of data continually through this issue of mountain lions.
One thing that I wanted to talk about briefly is just, um, some of the questions that you had with Stormy King, and I certainly do not speak for the department, but I’m proud to say that our game wardens come across many different types of situations on a daily basis. They don’t routinely seek out folks that unintentionally violate the law or that have made mistakes, although education and outreach is certainly an important part of what game wardens do. Game wardens have always used common sense in the field and our game wardens understand that life happens.
There are examples of that: a road could wash out, there could be a medical emergency, other things come up. In those situations, the game wardens would certainly consider those extenuating circumstances when enforcing the law. What I’m trying to say is that officer discretion is a huge part of being a game warden, and it always has. There’s a difference between someone that is intentionally not checking a trap that’s putting traps out and not intentionally checking those traps versus someone that’s made a simple mistake.
Having said all of this, I support these trap check standards and snare proposals and respectfully encourage you to vote in favor of this proposal as written. I think it’s been a good discussion so far. I thank you for your service and your dedication to the State of Texas.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Ms. Saucedo.
MS. KARIN SAUCEDO: Good morning, commissioners. I’m Karin Saucedo. I’m a wildlife conservation photographer and a Texas Master Naturalist with the Blackland Prairie Chapter in Collin County. I’m also a member of the Advisory Board for Texas Native Cats and a senior volunteer at In-Sync’s Exotic Wildlife Rescue and Educational Center.
I’ve had hands-on experience working with mountain lions for 13 years, and I have had the honor of caring for and getting to know over 28 individuals. The impact that they’ve had on me both as individual lions and as a species has been immeasurable. Thank you for taking this significant step for our mountain lions. I’m encouraged by the thoughtfulness given to this issue and I’m grateful to be a small part of it. Please help make a change for our Texas mountain lions. These rules are a significant step forward to ensure a sustainable future for these cats.
Mandatory 36‑hour trap checks are essential for humane wildlife treatment and preventing non-target animals from suffering. While trappers who oppose these checks trap to kill, responsible dog trappers, rescuers and researchers, for example, all over the state invest in cameras to monitor traps remotely, and they address unattended captures quickly. These ethical trappers protect animals at their own expense sometimes, showing commitment to high standards of care.
Enforcing a 36‑hour trap check extends this ethic across all trapping activities. This approach reduces harm and fosters a culture of responsibility and compassion towards all living creatures. These majestic animals are a treasure to Texans, and they’re a huge part of our state’s heritage. As a proud Lake Highlands High School Wildcat alumna, I share the sentiment that many others have for their cougar, wildcat, or panther mascots.
Today, we understand much better than we did 50 years ago the crucial role mountain lions play in maintaining healthy ecosystems. We need them to ensure — We need to ensure their future for our state. Thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mr. Letz.
MR. JONATHAN LETZ: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz. For the record, my name is Jonathan Letz, and I’m president of the Texas Wildlife Association (TWA), the statewide association membership with over 6,000 members. We appreciate the work of the Commission and the Parks & Wildlife staff over the past 18 months to seek stakeholder input and welcome the opportunity to provide some input today. Mountain lions are an integral part of the ecosystem in Texas, especially in the areas of West Texas and South Texas. TWA strongly supports additional studies to better understand the distribution, population, genealogy and predation characteristics of the species.
We express our support for the department’s proposed ban on the practice of canned hunting. TWA is an ardent defender of ethical, sportsmanlike pursuit of game, and we believe that canned hunting is not that, and we support that ban. Regulations regarding any species must be based on the best available data. An alternative to new regulations, best management practices, education and voluntary cooperation should always be considered.
Much of what I’ve heard the commissioners speak about today is the concern we have with the current proposed 36‑hour trap check. We feel it is much better and it would be more productive to do a best management practices and establish guidelines and work with landowners on this protection of the species and on trap checks. We think that frequent trap checks is ethical for all species, not just mountain lions, and it should be followed.
But what was said here by Commissioner Patton, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Foster, all go into the heart of, how do you enforce this, and how it’s enforced. And the other thing that has not really been mentioned is the impact it will have on landowners and their cooperation with this department. It is important that we keep a cooperative effort between the department and landowners and doing regulations that are—from what we have heard from many landowners, is gonna hurt that cooperation. I strongly support that we go with best management practices, work with landowners, and do not pass additional regulations at this time, certainly as written right now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mr. Cude?
MR. WARREN CUDE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Warren Cude. I raise cattle sheep and goats south of Ford Stockton, and I managed predators for quite a few years. I’m here to comment as a state director on behalf of the Texas Farm Bureau and the 555,000 members that we represent statewide. Texas Farm Bureau stands firmly against the mandatory 36‑hour trap check requirement included in this rule. It is our understanding that the purpose of this rule is implicate the findings of the Mountain Lions Stakeholder Group. Stakeholders came to the consensus on the number of items related to the need for better science, population data, and the need for management plan and banning canned hunts. No consensus was reached on the need for mandatory trap check intervals, and as such, we do not understand why the 36‑hour mandatory trap check was included in the rule proposal.
In fact, seven members of the stakeholder group wrote an amendment that included in the final report highlighting their concerns with the mandatory 36‑hour trap check. They noted, number one, negative impacts on the tracking of all predator species, number two, increased livestock damages, and number three, loss of trust and cooperation between private landowners and Texas Parks & Wildlife.
They also recommended the development of best management practices for lion trapping in lieu of regulations. Available science and data on mountain lions indicates there’s not an urgent need to make drastic changes. Texas Parks & Wildlife’s last study on mountain lions, entitled “Ecology of the Mountain Lion on the Big Bend Ranch State Park in the Trans-Pecos region of Texas”, states that we believe the mountain lion populations in the Trans-Pecos region as a whole is stable and not in danger of depletion.
As such, Texas Farm Bureau asks the Commission to withdraw the 36‑hour mandatory trap check requirements for the proposal and give Texas Parks & Wildlife time to reassess and gain adequate science to support their decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to share Texas Farm Bureau’s concerns on this rule, and I’d be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Mr. Bodenchuk.
MR. MIKE BODENCHUK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name’s Mike Bodenchuk. I’m a professional wildlife biologist and have worked with mountain lions and lion depredation for most of the past 46 years. I was a member of the Working Group. I authored the Depredation Management chapter in the WAFWA-sponsored book, Managing Cougars in North America. And in January, I retired from a 34‑year career with USDA Wildlife Services. The last 17 years of that, I was the state director for the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Services Program. That agency, by the way, is the agency charged under state law when dealing with livestock damage caused by mountain lions. If that’s not bad enough, I’m also the current president of the Texas Trappers and Fur Hunters Association.
No one cares more for the health and wellbeing of our wildlife than hunters and trappers. The trapping portion of the regulation proposed is designed to address the humaneness of trapping. Trappers and those charged with managing depredation are well aware of the need to be as humane as possible while still providing the service needed to protect and further conservation.
The economic analysis of the regulation is woefully inadequate. It does not meet the standards established in subsection 2006.002. Fully 40% of the cost of the Texas Wildlife Services program is borne by livestock producers and county governments. The regulation will increase those costs substantially. In my letter to the Commission, I detailed many of the costs that will certainly be borne by the program, by landowners, and by private trappers.
I urge the Commission to request that the department conduct a fully — a legally fulfilling analysis of the rule before adopting any regulation. I wanna be clear on the 36-hour trap check. 36 hours is a daily check. It means that if you check it at 7:00 a.m. this morning and 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, you didn’t violate a 24-hour rule. But you can do — it is a daily check. 7 days a week. That is the check for furbearers as well, and for a fur trapper they can hit it pretty hard for 30 days in a row. But for a depredation manager, 36 hours means 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
While the regulation does not specify a 36-hour trap check, it does criminalize mountain lion captures if traps are not checked during that interval. The regulation would require multiple full-time trappers for lion trapping and increase the cost of wildlife services.
I truly appreciate the department’s amended regulation regarding snares that was announced yesterday. The proposed exemption dealing with breakaway devices would have effectively reduced or eliminated the use of snares for feral hogs. With the amendment, a lion accidently caught in a net snare under a fence would not be a violation of the regulation, and a trapper would not fear prosecution by turning in the data associated with that trap and capture. In fact, it’s the unintended conseq —
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, go ahead if you would, Mr. Bodenchuk, and wrap it up. I’ll give you…
MR. MIKE BODENCHUK: All right. There are unintended consequences associated with that, including landowners not allowing researchers on to look for clusters on their property. I asked the Commission to evaluate these comments and those in my —
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you very much. Mr. Kott?
MR. RODNEY KOTT: I’m Rodney Kott, president of Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers. Was on the task force and also a sheep producer in Gillespie County. I want to impress on the commissioners: predators are a serious issue for our industry. It’s kind of like shoplifting to a business. We have a certain amount of loss that’s built into our program, but if we don’t manage it, it’s unattainable. Right now, with good management, we lose 7‑12 percent of our land crop every year to predators, coyotes being the major one. So, it’s almost just exactly like shoplifting.
The other one I want to emphasize is this regulation will apply indirectly to every trap set in the State of Texas. There’s mountain lions scattered all over the state. They’re not endemic in those populations, but they come through. There’s been a mountain lion in Gillespie County three or four years ago, or three or four times a year, and my luck, he’d stumble into my snare if we had this regulation.
As producers, we’re committed to humane treatment, and we encourage our producers to check traps regularly. But that doesn’t always happen. For instance, yesterday, I came, thought we needed to testify, and listened to the comments, thought I needed to stay. My snares didn’t get checked. You know, they needed to be checked this morning under this rule. But they didn’t get that check, or the water trough’s gone. We appreciate the Commission’s comments on a 10-inch snare, but it won’t apply to hog or pig trapping, which is a big issue. And I would suggest that we just eliminate coyote and hog snares sets from the thing. From the deal. Yeah, it becomes a little bit more or less enforceable, but the other one isn’t all that enforceable anyway.
The other thing I want to say is that most of — when we looked at all the things, most of the comments from the other states that we looked at and the plans for mountain lions were from public land states. Texas is a private land state. This regulation will most certainly increase the amount of tensions that we have between landowners and the agency. And I think it could drastically affect the agency’s ability to do the research going forward for the mountain lion plan and a lot of host of other things. So, again, we’re cooperators in this thing.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great.
MR. RODNEY KOTT: And our suggestion was to move to best management practices. We jump on the board—I think you’d get more…
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Understood. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Kott, appreciate it. Mr. Wagner.
MR. MATT WAGNER: Greetings, Chairman Hildebrand, Commission members. I am Matt Wagner, the executive director of the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society. With over 800 members, we are the largest chapter in the nation, composed of professional wildlifers including researchers, ranch managers, agency personnel, and university faculty and students from around the state.
We applaud the department for the formation of the Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group and for the recommendations presented at the Commission meeting in January of this year. Under the thoughtful leadership of Joseph Fitzsimons, 18 stakeholders from diverse perspectives spent a year meeting together to consider five recommendations to the commission in January. Two of those recommendations are included in the current proposed rule being considered today.
In general, we are in agreement with the proposals although some of our members differ on specifics. We don’t know if 36 hours is the right number, but we leave it to the Parks & Wildlife staff to base that on the best available information, including all stakeholder input. All members of the Stakeholder Group agreed with ethical trapping practices. What, exactly, those trapping practices are is being addressed.
However, according to a 2016 study by the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agency, approximately 70% of the state’s reporting require a 24‑hour trap check for furbearers, which include bobcats and other carnivores. Although mountain lions are classified as a furbearer in a single state, North Dakota, this data is the best available information on trapping standards.
We also recommend a 10‑inch snare diameter amendment to avoid impacts on coyote trapping and encourage staff in a commission to monitor this rule if adopted over the next 12 months to see what additional changes, if any, need to be made. And we especially urge you to consider landowner and trapper input now and, in the months, ahead as their cooperation is critical in implementing wildlife management in this state. Thank you for your efforts in conserving natural resources in the state and for the opportunity to make comment.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Ms. Bobosky.
MS. SHELBY BOBOSKY: Thank you, good morning. My name is Shelby Bobosky, and I’m an adjunct law school professor. I teach animal law and wildlife law at SMU Law School in Dallas, Texas. I am here representing myself, but I’m also representing the Texas adjunct law professors who teach animal law and wildlife law for mountain lions. I’m here to thank you for bringing forth these two proposed regulations, and we support both: a ban on canned hunting of the species and a 36‑hour trap check time.
Other states continue to increase their regulations to protect mountain lions. With the non‑game animal classification, Texas is currently the only state in the country with unregulated hunting and trapping of mountain lions. Other states have recognized the benefit mountain lions provide and have taken steps to ensure that they remain an integral part of the ecosystem. These laws range from hunting bans to simple hunting regulations like bag limits and catch disclosures.
Very conservative states like Utah and Idaho have even passed some forms of protection. For example, Arizona manages the female population and does not allow it to exceed 25% of the total mountain lion harvest. Arizona also limits hunters to one mountain lion per season, and each hunting season is closed in the summer, because biologists have found that closing the season during the summer gives them time to research mountain lions when their births are their highest rate.
These other very conservative states are proof that basic regulations work, and they actually do protect mountain lions. The historical and public policies for lack of protection, in our opinion, is pretty outdated, and any action can make a big change in the protection of our most important native cats. And I’ll just add for the first speaker that addressed you all — this isn’t emotion or politics. These are the laws in other states, and it’s time to change. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Ms. Morrison.
MS. MONICA MORRISON: Good morning, commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again today. My name is Monica Morrison. I’m the founder of Texas Native Cats and a coalition member of Texans for Mountain Lions. Texas Native Cats provides education, outreach and advocacy for our five species of existing and historical cats in this state.
Since our inception in 2017, my volunteers and I have spoken to at least 1,000 people, probably more, in Texas about our mountain lion. Most people know very little about this cat, and fewer still know that it has no protection, it can be hunted and trapped and left to die in traps because there’s no requirement to check the traps. Need I say people are shocked and dismayed and asked what can be done and how they can help.
In May 2022, Texas A&M University released its survey, “Texas Residents’ Attitude Towards Mountain Lions and Their Management.” The survey participants overwhelmingly believe that efforts should be made to ensure the survival of this cat in Texas. Respondents included rural and urban residents, livestock producers, and hunters and encouraged and were encompassed by 1,069 respondents.
In 2022, Texas for Mountain Lions submitted a petition for rulemaking to Texas Parks & Wildlife, and two of these petitions are before you today. 2,000 individuals submitted a letter in support of these petition points. And yesterday, we learned that 6,264 individuals agreed with the two proposals for 91% of the comments received. 91%.
88 mascots in Texas high schools are either panthers or cougars. I was a proud Austin High School Panther in El Paso. Panthers, cougars, mountain lions, pumas—whatever name you want to call them — are part of our heritage, culture and pride, and we have a responsibility to them just as we do for all wildlife. There is strong support for change. I ask that you vote in favor of these two proposals before you today. Let’s not kick this can down the road any longer. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Ms. Harveson.
MS. PATRICIA HARVESON: Good morning, Commissioners and Chairman Hildebrand. My name is Patricia Harveson, and I want to start by thanking you for the interest you’ve shown for mountain lion management through the formation of the stakeholder advisory group and your consideration of the proposed rules to ban canned hunting and to set trap check standards for mountain lions.
As a wildlife researcher, I have spent the past 20 years studying carnivores—primarily mountain lions. I know from my own research and research that was conducted or funded by Texas Parks & Wildlife that trapping is a major cause of mortality for lions. Research from two studies have shown that foothold traps are the primary cause of mountain lion mortality in West Texas. In a study on Big Bend Ranch State Park in the 1990s, 15 of the 16 collared lions were trapped and killed. In a more recent study in the Davis Mountains, the majority of the known mortalities of collared lions were from foothold traps.
Snares were also found to be a mortality source for mountain lions in a South Texas study in the ’90s where 25% of known mortalities of study animals were from fence snares.
Mandatory harvest reporting would provide a more complete picture of the mortality causes for lions in all areas across the state. But even without that data, we know from these past studies that mountain lions are dying in traps and snares. This regulation would ensure that this trapping is done ethically. However, the resistance to setting this basic standard underscores the need, because all traps are not checked frequently, resulting in a prolonged death and unneeded suffering.
Based on public comments, trapping regulations are overwhelmingly supported. And while the 36‑hour trap rule may not be perfect, it is a good compromise and one that supports ethical trapping practices for mountain lions in Texas. Thank you for consideration of passing this rule and for your service to the Commission.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mr. Elbroch.
MR. MARK ELBROCH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name’s Mark Elbroch. I am the mountain lion biologist leading the current ICN assessment of the conservation status of mountain lions across their entire range per criteria that contributes to the inclusion of species in Texas’s own list of species of greatest conservation need. I’m also a member of Texas for Mountain Lions and together, with Dr. Patricia Harveson, author of the peer-reviewed science paper called, “It’s Time to Manage Mountain Lions in Texas.”
I would like to thank you for the energy and the attention you’ve invested in Texas mountain lions and, along with staff from TPW, your support and the creation of proposed regulations to better align mountain lions with commercial trapping standards. I support these proposed regulations, and I believe the 10-inch exemption to trap checks is a reasonable accommodation that gives wardens a clear tool with which to assess snares.
What’s important at this time is to get trapping rigs on the books so that we can modify them more easily through future iterations. This is an important first step in building a mountain lion management strategy for all of Texas. Since at least 1992, TPW has expressed the need for a mountain lion management plan, and again, I want to express my appreciation to all of you for your support in seeing the agency move forward to write one.
However, the cornerstone to every wildlife management plan is an understanding of how many animals are out there. And for mountain lions, Texas currently lacks this information. TPW has suggested mandatory reporting for all mountain lion mortality as a means of getting data to estimate their abundance. Mandatory reporting is fundamental to ethical hunting culture and will provide the cheapest, most efficient data to estimate regional mountain lion abundance across all Texas. Further, it will provide answers to Chairman Hildebrand’s question from yesterday of how many cats die in snares every year.
I traveled to Austin today to witness history. I respectfully request that you support these proposed regulations and that you continue to urge TPW to build a defensible mountain lion management plan. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thanks very much. Ms. Harte.
MS. PAM NELSON HARTE: Morning. Good morning, everybody. I’m Pam Nelson Harte, and my husband Will and I are West Texas ranchers. We’re both committed to Texas Parks & Wildlife. Will has served as a trustee for 20 years and sits on the Private Lands Advisory Committee. I have served on the Wildlife Diversity Advisory Committee for 10 years, and I was also part of the Mountain Lion Working Group.
Will and I manage our Davis Mountains ranch for a wealth of resources to promote healthy wildlife there by creating a biodiverse sanctuary for all game, non-game species as well as livestock. We believe in the ethical and wise management of all native species. We don’t trap on our property.
In 2012, we learned of a trapper in our county who, as a practice, set multiple lion traps and never checked them. This really bothered us when we knew that lions and other incidental take died a cruel death.
Today, Will and I support these regulatory changes and prefer no snare or trap exemptions. However, we are willing to compromise with the small percentage of people who are asking for these exemptions for their own personal needs.
Lastly, I want to thank all of the Texans who have stood in my place since 1992, asking the department to fulfill its mission by scientifically and ethically managing mountain lions. I also want to thank the Texas Parks & Wildlife staff who, in 2012, recommended a mountain lion management plan. It has been a long journey filled with anecdotal evidence and myth. The mountain lion is the bogeyman. I’m grateful to be here for them, for me, for Texas, for mountain lions on this important day when we all have, together, a chance to step up for mountain lions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Ms. Harte. Ms. Wilcox?
DR. SHARON WILCOX: Good morning. My name is Dr. Sharon Wilcox, and I’m the senior Texas representative for Defenders of Wildlife, and I speak today on behalf of that organization. Defenders is a national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species in North America. We represent 105,000 members and supporters in Texas. I work on issues related to wildlife conservation and coexistence throughout the state of Texas. I hold a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. I’m trained as a social scientist with a specialization in the human dimensions of wildcat conservation in this state. I’m also a professor of practice at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
Today, I speak in support of adoption of the proposed prohibition of canned hunting and the establishment of trapping standards for the mountain lions. It is important to note that the adoption of this rule is consistent with the recommendations of the Mountain Lion Stakeholder Working Group. Texas Parks & Wildlife is to be commended for facilitating the formation of this group, and we urge you to follow these recommendations as an important step towards management of this species to ensure that it can coexist with our human communities.
As we heard in session yesterday and today, the Working Group is making reasonable, well‑considered and informed recommendations based on the best available science and lessons learned directly from working lands here in Texas. We strongly support the establishment of the 36‑hour trap check rule. This rule represents an important step towards an ethical and humane way of managing lions that does not restrict landowners from predator management. Importantly, this will reduce the number of injuries and fatalities to nontarget species like the state‑protected black bear. Monitoring safeguards are required for other Texas furbearers, and our resident lions deserve to be afforded the same protection.
Canned hunting is a practice that has been banned for many species but not mountain lions. Approval of this rule is needed to eliminate this cruel and unethical hunting practice. As noted by other experts, unethical activities serve to harm public perception of hunting which in turn can harm the future of conservation here in Texas. The action — This action furthers the fulfillment of the department’s statutory duty to protect non-game wildlife. It represents a commonsense approach to wildlife management, demonstrating that we can work towards solutions that can benefit the coexistence of wildlife and communities. We respectfully request that you vote in favor of this measure. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Ms. Meuth?
MS. MEUTH: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Vice-Chairman Bell, Commissioners, and Dr. Yoskowitz. For the record, my name is Mary Pearl Meuth, and I’m here today as president of Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Our society is comprised of over 800 wildlife professionals and wildlife students who stand ready as a network of scientific information and expertise for the department’s staff and leadership.
I would like to commend the biologists, landowners, managers, and resource professionals that participated in the Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group. Additionally, I applaud the Commission for undertaking this serious review of management regulations and strategies for mountain lions.
As Joseph Fitzsimons mentioned in January, and you’ve heard a few times, we’ve been kicking this can down the road for 50 years. Texas Chapter fully supports the ban on canned hunting. We would also like to continue to emphasize the importance of developing trap check standards based off best management practices with the final timeframe determined by scientific process entering agreement with industry professionals.
We are encouraged by the clear and concise approach as outlined by staff yesterday. The alternative snare option presented was a sound reflection of staff’s openness to listening to landowners, the trapping industry and biologists and their development of the proposal in front of you. As a society, we urge the Commission to stay focused on the goal of decision‑making on the collection of reliable scientific data including some form of harvest reporting in the future.
As you heard yesterday, more research is needed to help guide the department’s management of this iconic species. The approach to data collection must continue to align with the agency’s commitment to science, landowner cooperation, and appropriate staffing levels. Commissioners, your decisions and directed actions reflect your continued dedication to responsible wildlife management, engaging all available tools, working alongside biologists and private landowners alike for the betterment of the resource, and we commend you for taking these steps today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Ms. Beckmann?
MS. ANNE BECKMANN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Dr. Yoskowitz. I’m Anne Beckmann, community conservation coordinator of Texas Conservation Alliance. Thank you, Commissioners, for taking on the issue regarding mountain lions. Specifically, we thank you for setting up the Stakeholder Group for the proposals that have been put forth today which we strongly support and for directing the staff to develop a management plan, because we so badly need more data on mountain lion populations in our great state.
Not only are mountain lions iconic and unique creatures for Texans to be proud of, but they’re also integral to ecosystem function. With the rapid increase in human population in Texas, habitat loss and fragmentation pose yet another threat to mountain lions. Research on their distribution and population numbers and reports on mortalities is crucial to the long-term survival of these amazing animals and the health of the ecosystems which they inhabit in Texas and across borders. The implementation of a management plan for mountain lions in Texas has been discussed by Texas Parks & Wildlife for over 30 years, and you’re making that happen. We appreciate your continued leadership on this issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mr. DeFillipo.
MR. JOHN DEFILLIPO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, and Dr. Yoskowitz. I’m John DeFillipo, the executive director of Texas Conservation Alliance, representing over 1,600 members throughout our state for wildlife. Our organization has been a partner with TPWD on many issues over several decades. You heard from our senior policy director earlier on the phone, Janice Bezanson, and she served on the Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group. We were involved in some of those earliest efforts mentioned earlier to achieve these regulations for mountain lions.
As you know, and have heard often, if these measures are passed today, it will be the first time the Commission has voted on any regulations for this magnificent species, and it needs protection in the State of Texas, as you know, that has had no regulations whatsoever for these mountain lions. How is it that the Lonestar state is at the forefront of wildlife conservation and cannot provide protection for this important species?
Our organization strongly supports both prohibiting canned hunts of mountain lions and the requirement that mountain lions be kept in a trap no longer than 36 hours. A special note: we also have the same issues with trapping — trap checks for enforcing on coyotes and other species.
We have one caveat: the language that was circulated yesterday that gave the exemption to the 36-hour rule for the snares with a breakaway device. Now, the proposal has been changed to exempting snares that are 10 inches or smaller. After speaking with trappers and others familiar with trapping mountain lions, we recommend and urge the Commission to lower that exemption to an 8‑inch snare.
Thank you very much for taking your time and taking action to protect Texas wildlife. Over 6,000 people support these recommendations, and we ask for your leadership in approving them. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Mr. Nazor.
MR. CRAIG NAZOR: Hello. Craig Nazor, Conservation Chair, Lonestar Chapter, Sierra Club. I was also a member and the chair of the Austin Animal Advisory Commission for eight years. Item two is a good first step towards managing Texas mountain lions in a sustainable way. Sierra Club supports these changes. Mountain lions belong to the people of Texas. In rural Texas, — to rural Texans, predators may appear to be a liability. They kill the wild animals ranchers may be profiting from through hunting leases, and they may kill the livestock ranchers are raising for profit. However, predators are — also provide valuable environmental services for cities.
Austin is rapidly growing. In the 1990s, a number of dangerous species were discovered in the canyon lands, caves, and aquifers of West Austin. In order to grow, Austin made a deal with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Department. We would set up nature preserves to assure the survival of these endangered species in exchange for developing a portion of this critical habitat. These nature preserves and parks are an integral part of Austin. They improve the quality of city life. They help sustain our aquifers and keep our air and water clean. They provide space for recreation, reflection, and education. They help Austin grow and thrive in a sustainable way.
Still, so close to humans, these lands need management. One of the biggest wildlife management problems is preventing the overpopulation of white-tailed deer and feral hogs. Unlike a large ranch, in a city one cannot just go out and shoot undesirable animals. Trapping is also a problem, as one must worry about park visitors and people’s pets. Because Austin no longer has any of Texas’ historic large predators, deer populations become a problem in preserves, parks, and neighborhoods. We all know the problems that feral hogs present, and yes, they are now entering into the city.
The cheapest and most efficient way to manage these populations is with natural predators. Small predators also become a problem without larger predators. Gray fox can climb a tree like a cat and are a real danger to our endangered species. Mountain lions help keep the smaller predators in check as well.
Game cameras set up in Austin do very occasionally show mountain lions wandering through our parks and preserves, even though they are very, very rarely ever seen by Austin citizens. Austin already has to spend money to remove feral hogs, but with healthy coyote populations and occasional mountain lion, deer populations can be kept in check with minimal expense. Well managed predator populations are an asset to Austin, and I’m sure we’re not the only Texas city that can take advantage of such free environmental services.
The Sierra Club is not an animal welfare organization. The Sierra Club promotes responsible use of the Earth’s ecosystems and resources, and we educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment. The Sierra Club made a request over 30 years ago that mountain lions be managed in a sustainable way in Texas. A statewide survey—
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Alright could you wrap it up, Mr. Nazor?
MR. CRAIG NAZOR: Okay. A survey in California cost about 2.5 —
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I understand. Give me your summary statement.
MR. CRAIG NAZOR: It’s doable. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. And speakers, red, yellow, green…when it turns yellow, start transitioning to your closing. Thanks. Mr. Masters.
MR. BEN MASTERS: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for your service to Texas wildlife. I’m a proud member of Texans for Mountain Lions and I’m an avid hunter and livestock owner, trapped when I was a younger man, and I’ve been filming wildlife now for about 10 years. I’ve had the good fortune to spend several hundred hours of my life filming mountain lions, and I’ve done so across Texas, New Mexico, Northern Mexico, Utah, and I’ve gotten to know them pretty well and their habits.
One of the reasons why I’ve figured out how to film them is the friendships that I’ve developed along the way with trappers and with houndsmen who shared with me a lot of their knowledge. We use the same tools. We’re fascinated by the same cats.
And I think something that’s really changed over the last 10 years or so is the use of trail cameras. This here is a CuddeLink. It’s $160. And I have one very similar to this that’s out on the Pecos River right now, and it’s about 700 feet in elevation below the cellphone service. So, there’s no cellphone service there, but it links to another one where there is cellphone service. And just yesterday morning, it sent me a video of lions down there on bottom of the Pecos River.
And, I say this because I sympathize with the trappers and with the folks that are trying to protecting their livestock in regards to the fuel cost, the time cost, and also not wanting to be a criminal and not checking your traps every day. But we have the technology to get around that. It’s there, it’s affordable. It’s easy to use. It’s easy to implement. And most important, it can avoid what is, in my opinion, the most horrific way to die imaginable of just wasting away for days or, if the conditions are right, for weeks on end. And we can avoid that, and we should avoid that. We should steward our wildlife with respect. And I think you all have the opportunity today to show some dignity and respect to our cats and to pass this proposal as written. Thank you for your time and thank you for your service to Texas wildlife.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you. I assume that’s motion‑detected, so whenever you get motion, it starts filming.
MR. BEN MASTERS: Yes, sir. So, you would set it up and looking at the trap, and if there’s something that walks by, it sends it to your phone immediately and you get a notification, and then you can go to that location and dispatch the animal.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, a hundred…
MR. BEN MASTERS: In my case, I can go there and film it and watch it kill lions or kill like aoudad, deer, and pigs and stuff. It’s fun.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Each camera is $160?
MR. BEN MASTERS: Yes, sir. This is $160 here.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But then the cell service general cost how much?
MR. BEN MASTERS: This is $10 a month—
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Per camera?
MR. BEN MASTERS: No, for 10 cameras it’s $10 a month.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: 10 cameras, $10 a month.
MR. BEN MASTERS: Yes, sir. And for the SpyPoint M cameras, which work with cell service, those are $80 cameras, and those are free to use up to 250 photos a month, which is plenty for checking traps. So, it is…it is an investment. But… it’s also a mountain lion. And if you can avoid that amount of suffering, you should. And I don’t believe the trappers will regulate themselves on this. I really don’t.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Got it. All right, thank you. And great films as well. Appreciate it.
MR. BEN MASTERS: Thank you for your service, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You bet. Mr. Swanson.
MR. ROMEY SWANSON: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, and Dr. Yoskowitz. For the record, my name is Romey Swanson, and I’m the executive director of the Devils River Conservancy. I am a past president of the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society and a gubernatorial appointee to the Texas Farm and Ranchlands Conservation Council. I also had the distinct honor of serving on TPWD’s Mountain Lion Stakeholder Working Group. And today, I’m not representing any organization or any role in particular but sharing my personal perspectives as a professional who works every day with and for private landowners.
Mountain lions are a critical part of Texas’s natural heritage and ecosystems, an almost universal sentiment amongst Texans. Effective wildlife management rules and policies should express our shared values and not singularly those of special interests. The rules you are considering today reflect Texas’s collective commitment to ethical stewardship and conservation.
Canned hunting is undoubtedly inhumane and undermines the ethical hunting principles that we value. Its elimination aligns with our core values of fair chase and responsible stewardship. And currently, there are no regulations requiring checking traps set for mountain lions, and this doesn’t just result in unnecessary suffering, but it almost seems to promote it. Our stakeholder meetings revealed nearly universal support for trapping ethics. With the mutual agreement that ethical trapping includes regular trap checks and quick resolution for those captured animals.
Monitoring traps at least every 36 hours is a more humane approach to resolving wildlife conflict and would better align with the public support and continued support of using this valuable private lands’ tool. It also helps minimize the impacts of accidental capture of non-target species like we’ve discussed today with the state-threatened black bear.
For over 30 years, Texas Parks & Wildlife has recognized the need for mountain lion management but has not taken decisive action. These discussions began in earnest in 1992 and continued in ’98, 2010, and ’12, each time recognizing a need for regulation but failing to act. And here we are in 2024 taking big steps towards those important ends.
Wildlife management rules should reflect our shared values, as I said earlier. And the perceived ambiguity and complexity in instituting these rules are no longer an excuse for inaction. No rule is perfect, and we cannot continue to let the pursuit of perfect solutions prevent us from doing what is right now. By aligning our rules with our shared values, we can ensure the best outcomes for our wildlife and our communities. I would like to thank you for your time and your consideration.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Swanson. Mr. Buchanan.
MR. BRANDT BUCHANAN: Good morning. My name’s Brandt Buchanan. I’m here from Marfa, Texas, and speaking on behalf of JPB Ranches. We’ve got about 106,000 acres in West Texas and South Texas. I manage all of our West Texas ranches where we border Big Bend Ranch State Park.
I’d like you guys to pass these regulations, both the canned hunting, the 36‑hour trap checks. The canned hunting’s a no‑brainer and are the trap checks too. I haven’t had a problem with lions yet, but I’ve had a problem with traps. I’ve hunted lions with hounds in Texas. We run a large hunting operation. I’m very involved in that. But a couple of years ago, my son’s first lion hound went missing. He found him in a snare, strangled to death where he’d been about two weeks. That’s a problem. I don’t know where every trap I’ve set is until that happened, and I had to go back and think about all of those traps. I haven’t found them all.
We’ve got to create a culture that checks their traps. There doesn’t need to be specific exemptions and try and get creative. We just need to make people check their traps. And it’s not hard. I mean, if you wanna see how difficult it is to check my traps…I mean you can look at it on my phone right here. I’ve checked them since we’ve been sitting here. Any excuses that it’s too hard or too expensive — yeah, stuff costs money. And ranching’s hard so, yeah, we don’t need to facilitate negligence. We have a duty to manage wildlife. We have a duty to be ethical as hunters, which I learned in my hunter safety ed class. That’s like the very first thing we cover. So, let’s just do the commonsense easy thing to do and pass these regulations. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mr. Pressey.
MR. AUSTIN PRESSEY: Good morning. How are you guys today? I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. I have extensive experience as a hunter, a trapper, and an outfitter working in Texas and other states. Today, I would like to address the critical issue of wildlife management specifically in relation to the trapping, canned hunting, and would also like to urge you guys to implement a mandatory mountain lion harvest report.
In the other states that I trap and hunt, there are well‑established regulations for trap checks and harvest reporting. These are not burdensome. They are not a problem. It is something that we should be doing every day, every 24 hours, 36 hours, wherever you guys decide there. They provide invaluable data that help us understand and manage various species effectively by ensuring regular trap checks and mandatory harvest reports.
We contribute to the sustainability and health of the wildlife populations in these matters. As a hunter and trapper in this state, one would naturally assume that Texas Parks & Wildlife is diligently managing all of our wildlife resources. After all, that is their fundamental responsibility.
However, in the case of mountain lions, that does not seem to be the case. But that absence is puzzling and, quite frankly, concerning. Effective wildlife management relies on accurate data, and without it, we are essentially navigating this blindly. It is particularly odd that we do not regulate our trapping as our neighboring states do. And by neglecting to enforce these trap checks and things like this, it’s difficult to gather the data we need. I appreciate your guys’ time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Ms. Camino.
MS. MARIE CAMINO: Good morning. Good morning, Chairman and Commission. My name is Marie Camino. I’m the government relations manager for the Nature Conservancy’s Texas Chapter. Our mission statement is to conserve one—excuse me. Our mission is to conserve and protect all of the lands and waters that all life depends on. We’ve been in Texas for the last 60 years now. We have conserved about a million acres of land and 200-plus miles of rivers and streams. Across our 37 nature preserves and more than 178 conservation easements, we provide habitat for 900 animal species including mountain lions.
We’re here to express our support for the canned hunting ban and for the 36‑hour trap check requirement. Essential to the culture and ecology of Texas, mountain lions were once found in every landscape across our great state. Mountain lions are an apex predator. They regulate prey populations and provide carrion opportunities for scavengers. Their ability to prey on larger animals consumed by scavengers at a lower rate increases nitrogen in soils and plants at kill sites, and their presence also impacts where prey populations congregate and forage.
TPWD is a member of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies which champions the North American Model of Conservation. The model states that wildlife resources are owned by all citizens, not just individuals, and that wildlife should only be killed for a non-frivolous purpose. In a 2022 Texas A&M University study analyzing public opinion on mountain lion issues, 60% of respondents stated that they do not support hunting and trapping mountain lions for their fur, and 55% opposed hunting and trapping lions as a trophy animal.
The proposed trap check requirements would not only prevent prolonged deaths, but as many have already mentioned, they would prevent bi-catch of other species. In recent years, TPWD has been notified of 17 black bears caught in traps, which is a significant number for an already small population. Additionally, that same Texas A&M study that I referenced earlier found that 76.3% of respondents supported checking traps every 36 hours or more.
We respectfully urge the Commission to implement these policies, and we support TPWD’s continued efforts to effectively manage this keystone species. Thank you for your consideration on the comments.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Ms. Camino. Mr. Metzger.
MR. LUKE METZGER: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Luke Metzger. I am the executive director of Environment Texas. We’re a nonprofit advocate for clean air and water and parks and wildlife. The TPWD committed to develop the management plan for mountain lions over 30 years ago and never did.
And as our population just continues to boom and our landscapes are increasingly fragmented, it’s critical that we better understand the species and create a management plan to conserve mountain lions into the future. This regulation is an important first step to protect the imperiled mountain lion. Much more is needed, including mandatory reporting of harvest data, more research and public education, and a commitment to seek designation of mountain lions as a game species. The public has spoken and overwhelmingly supports this regulation. We can’t afford to wait any longer without acting. It’s time to finally join all other mountain lion states by adopting some sensible regulations to protect this majestic animal. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you very much. Is there a Ms. Hamilton? Okay. Oh, there she is.
MS. MELISSA HAMILTON: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand and also Dr. Yoskowitz and members of the Commission. My name is Melissa Hamilton, and I serve as executive director of government relations for the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, or TSCRA.
TSCRA is the state’s oldest and largest livestock association. We represent over 28,000 members in Texas and the Southwest, and those members are responsible for the health and wellbeing of over 4 million head of cattle. TSCRA appreciates the hard work of the Mountain Lion Stakeholder Group, and we really appreciate the working relationship that we have developed over the years with y’all and the department and being able to come up with common sense, practical solutions.
Today, I am here to express our concerns about the current rule proposal. While the mountain lion is absolutely a majestic and beautiful animal, we have not seen data to show that there is a threat to the continued viability of the Texas mountain lion population. They are not listed as threatened, nor are they listed as endangered. But we do know that they are a predator. As beautiful as they are, they are a predator, and a predator that is deadly to livestock on our member’s ranches.
Because they are a deadly predator that kills and maims livestock on Texas ranches every year, those ranchers need the ability to manage that threat to their livestock on their private property without being subject to regulations that carry with them criminal penalties.
While the 36‑hour trap surveillance requirement is the most concerning to us, we also do have concerns about the fact that we’re creating regulations with criminal penalties for landowners when we don’t see data that seems to justify that kind of position or that kind of regulation. We would welcome the opportunity to work with y’all, to work with stakeholders to come up with some best practices, but we do think that this is a step too far, and we have some concerns. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you very much. All right, any more comments? I believe that’s it in terms of speakers. Any more comments from the Commission or staff?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell. First off, I’m 100 percent for banning canned hunts. I think we all are and heard nothing to the contrary. I’m not convinced at all that we have the trap check standard… correct, but I think it goes a long way towards moving in the right direction. David, I would just ask that we continue to work with landowners and various stakeholders and with law enforcement and what’s enforceable, workable, ethical, humane. But I think that this… this rule as stated gets us moving in the right direction.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you very much. Any others? Commissioner Foster.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Thank you, Chairman. I too. I agree with Chairman Abell. I’m certainly very supportive of the ban on canned hunts. I’m also supportive of the 36‑hour rule, but I believe we need to monitor it and over time, it may change somewhat. The other thing that is clear to me is that we need to have mandatory harvest reporting, and I realize that’s not on the table today, but I would ask my fellow commissioners and staff to work toward a reasonable rule for harvest reporting. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chair Bell.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I’m gonna… me three on the canned hunt piece. Absolutely think that we should get rid of that piece and not allow that. I do have a concern, just listening to—I’ll call it the frequency—I mean the 36‑hour check rule, I think that’s good, but also, I’m still trying to understand how—and maybe one of the staff can come back up and answer this question—just that rotation, that’s you know, it’s almost a daily check, as someone says. It’s not quite — it’s five times during the week. And there is some technology out there that helps us, but we have to look at whether or not, in wallet, could be a modest cost for some people. What some people consider modest, other people don’t consider modest, right? And so, I do have a concern there.
And I just have a concern that can we get more data just on the animal itself and where they are, what are the numbers, what are the prevalence, and what’s the impact? What’s the number of incidents we’re having with if it’s — for the last lady who spoke from the Livestock Association — how often, you know, how often are ranchers having to take down, um, wildcats over predation? Right? Is that uh — I know it happens, but how prevalent is it, which goes to the reporting of take.
So, there’s still a lot of data questions out there that would make this easier. And is there a way to, and this might sound…inappropriate, or not inappropriate but—I’ll call it innovative. Is there a way to pilot the rule? So that for, if we put the trap check rule in place now, is there a way to pilot that where it may not have an immediate consequence as people adjust to it, and over a time period, say, 18 months as an example? It would become enforceable after the date of implementation — we would enforce more, but we would let people adjust to that and get that cycle in there. And I know that sounds…I don’t know if that violates state law or not. It’s just a question.
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: I’m gonna address the second question first. Unless Stormy would like to come up and join? Okay. While he’s coming up, I’ll address the first question. Yes, we can get more data, and we can understand mountain lion populations much better, but it will require mandatory harvest reporting. That is a very inexpensive, very fast way to monitor survival, reproduction, recruitment and mortality and then find out what are the mortality sources. So, if that’s important to you, then all you have to do is request that we come with a proposal and we’re happy to do that. We’ve already been preparing what those might look like. We’re happy to come back with a proposal related to mandatory reporting.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And because we’re such a big private land state, do you think that landowners would be supportive of that?
MR. RICHARD HEILBRUN: Well, I think the way we are – the way we have modeled it, where we are protecting both the property and the trapper from public ridicule. That information can be completely confidential. I believe there would be support—I believe there would be some opposition. People just don’t like to tell you what’s going on. But in recent commission meetings, you all have passed mandatory turkey reporting, mandatory deer reporting, so there is precedent.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. All right. Thank you. I think we’re—
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I think he was gonna answer the pilot question.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. STORMY KING: Again, Stormy King for law enforcement for the record. And this might — might save me a trip up here later today when we’re talking about some other topics that are on the agenda. In terms of piloting and in regard to enforcement, it’s pretty standard and has been a common practice for the law enforcement division for as long as I’m aware of that any time a new regulation is enacted, we have some informal…call it education. I don’t wanna call it a grace period per se because, you know, obviously, we have different scenarios where people egregiously and intentionally break the law, you know, which…we may address those. But we historically we do have I guess what we call an educational period in terms of a new regulation, any time one is enacted. But once one is enacted, we may do verbal warnings, written warnings…reserving the right, again, like I say, to address whether criminal charge in those cases are warranted. But in terms of an actual, formal pilot program, I think that would be more of a legal question. But it’s not anything that I’m familiar with.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I understand this officer or game warden discretion. I do understand that.
MR. STORMY KING: Right. And that’s what would be applied in those cases. Again, you know, just addressing the enforcement issues.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? David, Dr. Yoskowitz, I would say, from my perspective, I would direct the staff to two things: One is look into what are the issues around mandatory reporting. I know it’s a controversial subject, but I would like some more information on that. And then two is implementation of these trap check standards. As Mr. Masters pointed out there is an electronic means to do this, relatively inexpensive, but once again, we’re always looking for pragmatic, realistic solutions to this. I would just ask, regardless of what occurs today in this vote, is that we do further investigation on trap check standards and on the mandatory reporting side. No time frame, no obligations. I’m just asking the staff to do that.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: We’ll keep moving it forward.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, uh, if there’s no further comments, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Foster. I’ll move.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor?
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Okay. Thank you, guys very much.
(applause)
All right, Action Item Number 3: Chronic Wasting Disease Detection and Response Rules, Containment and Surveillance Zones, Check Stations, and Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions, and Disposal Requirements. Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes, Dr. Hunter Reed.
DR. HUNTER REED: Okay. Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Dr. Hunter Reed, wildlife veterinarian for the wildlife division. Today, we’ll be discussing CWD detection and response rules, containment and surveillance zones, check stations, deer carcass movement restrictions, and disposal requirements.
So, here’s a brief overview of the items being proposed. These are to include implementing statewide carcass disposal measures. Second, deboning of carcasses at location of harvest. Third, modifying CWD boundaries, both reductions and expansions in sizes. Next: removal — surveillance zones 10, 11, and 12, and then lastly, implementing voluntary check stations and procedures.
So, first off, staff are proposing statewide carcass disposal rules — or measures, here in Texas, and it’s known that improper carcass disposal, such as seen in the picture on the slide, has facilitated CWD transmission. Currently, the transmission risk from carcass movement is only managed within our CWD zones and can prevent some inconveniences for hunters there, especially if they’re unfamiliar with the quartering of carcasses.
Furthermore, staff recognize that efforts need to be made to address the risk of CWD transmission from carcasses outside of CWD zones where the disease may be present but not yet detected. While this proposal would regulate carcass disposal for animals outside of the zones, the carcass disposal measures being proposed today would provide hunters within zones a much greater array of carcass movement options compared to current carcass movement restrictions. The options provided under this rule would change nothing for the majority who already properly dispose of their carcasses as outlined under this proposed rule.
So, staff hope that these measures in place — uh, to have these measures in place prior to this next year’s hunting season. And to be abundantly clear, the proposed carcass disposal measures would only apply to deer harvested in Texas and to carcasses or carcass parts leaving the property of harvest. If carcasses or carcass parts are not leaving the property of harvest, then these disposal measures would not apply.
So, staff proposes that if a deer is harvested in Texas and the hunter would like to transport the carcasses or carcass parts from the property of harvest, there are a few options for that hunter. First, the hunter can take the whole carcass or the quartered carcass or, second, as outlined by this proposal and not currently allowed for many properties, the hunter would be allowed to debone the animal at the property of harvest for transport to a final destination.
If the hunter chooses to debone at the site of harvest, three requirements would have to be met. First, all meat from the carcass must be stored in a separate container. That could be a plastic bag, that could be a cooler, that could be separate plastic bags in the same cooler. Second, muscles must remain intact. So, you can’t grind, slice, or chop the meat prior to movement. And third, all required proof of sex and tagged documentation must be retained and accompany each individual carcass.
The hunter can transport the carcass of a harvested animal from the property of the harvest by each of these routes so long as all unused parts are disposed of. And that can be directly or indirectly into a landfill, through a garbage service or a dumpster, or it can be buried and covered at another location at a depth of 3 feet or more.
Of course, the hunter would also have the option to leave as much of the unused carcass as possible at the original site of harvest. These proposed carcass disposal rules will make it easier than ever within and outside of zones to get a deer processed, and additionally this will provide greater clarity to hunters in Texas, but outside of CWD zones, on how to properly dispose of unused carcass parts but still provide an array of disposal options that many hunters are already utilizing.
So, the next item being proposed relates to the size of the surveillance zones surrounding CWD positive deer breeding facilities, and I’ll elaborate on each of these items with visual examples. So, right now, the department’s approach is establish a 2‑mile surveillance zone surrounding a property where a CWD positive breeding facility is located and including all properties partially or wholly within these boundaries. Because of great variability and the size of infected CWD positive and surrounding properties that might be incorporated in a 2‑mile zone, staff propose to first reduce the size of the surveillance zones to a 2‑mile buffer, surrounding only the breeder pens and no longer from the boundary of the entire property. And then second, removing the language, “all properties lying wholly or partially within.”
These changes will reduce the impact of surveillance zones surrounding CWD positive breeding facilities on surrounding properties by more than 155,000 acres while also maintaining important surveillance around the original site of detection. So, as an example of what is proposed in this reduced CWD surveillance zone approach surrounding positive deer breeding facilities, this is what it will look like, and I’ll be using this example from Sutton County. And the blue center outlines the breeder pens.
The image on the left depicts the current approach of establishing a 2‑mile surveillance zone surrounding the entire property where a CWD positive breeding facility is located. And the image in the middle depicts the proposed 2‑mile surveillance zone surrounding just the breeder pens. The image on the right shows the proposed zone overlaying the current surveillance zone for comparison.
So, as you can see, the size and number of properties affected is greatly reduced with the proposed approach. And another example of what the proposed reduced CWD surveillance zone surrounding positive breeding facilities will look like — using the same example from Sutton County — the red outline is positive facility, and the dark gray shading are the 26 properties included in the zone. And the blue center is the outline of the breeder pens. The image on the left depicts the current approach of establishing a 2‑mile surveillance zone surrounding the entire property where a CWD positive breeding facility is located, including the partially or wholly encompassed language. And the image in the middle depicts the proposed 2‑mile surveillance zone surrounding just the breeder pens and still including the partially or wholly encompassed language. And then lastly on the right, this shows the proposed reduced 2‑mile surveillance zone and removal of the “partially and wholly encompassed” language. As you can see, again, the size and the number of properties affected is greatly reduced with this approach. Again, this will remove around 155,000 acres when applied to surveillance zones around positive deer breeding facilities.
Next, is an additional modification to CWD zone boundaries that staff are proposing which would include an expansion in the Panhandle containment zone and surveillance zone. This past sampling season, two detections occurred within the surveillance zone as indicated by the enlarged stars on the graphic on the left. Consequently, staff propose to expand the containment zone to incorporate these latest detections, as well as expand the surveillance zone eastward to incorporate properties where CWD would be expected based on a 25‑mile home range of mule deer. It should be noted that the expanded zone is in an area with relatively low numbers of hunters, low harvest and primarily agricultural land.
And as requested yesterday, staff prepared some additional background information representing testing effort and results in the Panhandle zones. This map shows all of the CWD positive detections within the proposed CWD zone in blue, and the two most recent positives detected in the current surveillance zone are circled in white in subset of the 18 detections that occurred during the past sampling season.
And I would like to emphasize that prior to the CWD detecting the Panhandle surveillance zone, we have not had a need to expand existing containment zones beyond areas where CWD could be considered established, such as the Panhandle zone, Medina County, and Trans-Pecos zones. These three zones account for around 95% of the free-range detections to date; thus, the need to expand this containment zone and continue to test the surrounding surveillance zones for additional positives to ensure the zone—this is to ensure that the zone is of sufficient size to capture and contain the positives that may exist.
This graph – or this slide shows the overall sampling effort, and positives detected to date in the proposed zone. The CWD positives detected—they’re a little bit small—between 2016 and 2022 are outlined in blue. The yellow dots show the location of the CWD positives and the current and proposed containment zones from 2024, and the red dots show the location of not detected CWD sample results in the Panhandle from 2016 to 2024.
This next slide shows the CWD sampling effort within the containment zone and surveillance zones over time as well as the number of CWD positive test results within the containment zone prior to the two additional positives we recently detected in the surveillance zone, as well as this testing positivity rate which you can see has increased significantly over time. To better visualize that, you can better see that on this slide. As you can see, there’s an increasing trend in the positivity within the Panhandle containment zone, and I just wanted to emphasize the importance of increasing the size of the containment zone in response to these recent detections as is consistent with our CWD management plan. And once more, the size of the free-range zones in the Panhandle are determined based on home range sizes of the CWD susceptible species. This is including elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer in this zone and additionally provided the number of individuals of each species that have tested positive for CWD.
In summary, the Panhandle containment zone would expand by approximately 65%, but we would be moving sampling from mandatory sampling to voluntary sampling to reduce the impact on hunters in the containment zone. The Panhandle surveillance zone would be reduced approximately 23% and the sampling would be mandatory still within that surveillance zone to increase our ability to detect CWD if it exists in that area. And then, overall, the net increase in size in the Panhandle zone is approximately 14% in total including both the surveillance zone and containment zone.
The next item staff are proposing is the removal of three surveillance zones: 10, 11, and 12. Surveillance zones 10 and 11 are in Uvalde County and then 12 is in Limestone County. In each of these three zones, the facility owners have cooperated with Texas Parks & Wildlife, Texas Animal Health Commission, and the United States Department of Agriculture by signing and continuing to comply with the herd plan, mitigating the CWD transmission risk on their property. Two of these facilities were depopulated after being allocated federal indemnity funds while the other facility is utilizing a risk — a suite of risk mitigation surveillance strategies while still maintaining a breeding herd with no subsequent CWD detections. In either case, staff are proposing the removal of these three surveillance zones, which amounts to around 38,000 acres, as the CWD transmission risk on these properties, being mitigated through signed herd plan agreements and multiple years of mandatory sampling, has not shown the detection of any free-ranging detections of the disease.
And then, uh, lastly, here, staff propose the creation of voluntary check stations—oops. Voluntary check stations and sampling procedures in multiple zones, and this action is to provide hunters within zones some relief while giving the department greater flexibility in responding to epidemiological information gathered from our CWD zones. Specially for free-ranging zones which require long‑term monitoring, and like the Trans-Pecos and Panhandle zones, may have years of historical sampling effort that may not necessitate mandatory sampling each and every year. And the proposed change would alleviate the impact of carcass movement restrictions within the zones by proposing statewide carcass disposal measures. And similarly, staff also hope to alleviate the impact of mandatory sampling requirements by allowing for the development of voluntary check stations and sampling procedures.
And currently, staff propose to transition the Trans‑Pecos, Del Rio, Lubbock 2020 Kimble County containment zone and surveillance zone to voluntary sampling. But we also propose to transition the Panhandle containment zone to voluntary sampling, however, maintain mandatory sampling within the Panhandle surveillance zone due to recent free-range detections. So, this table shows the number of acres currently in zones and the number of acres if the proposed changes are adopted. While there’ll be around a 28% increase in containment zone acreage, please note that most of these acres in the free‑range containment zones would move from mandatory sampling to voluntary sampling for the next hunting season which would provide a relief to hunters and landowners in those areas. In addition, there would be a 10% reduction in free‑ranging surveillance zone acreage within the majority of this acreage, transitioning to voluntary testing for the next hunting season.
And then lastly, these proposed changes result in a 26% reduction in acreage surrounding CWD positive deer breeding facilities. And this would result in an overall net 4% decrease in zone acreage and move much of this acreage from mandatory testing to voluntary testing.
So, as of, um, as of this morning, we’ve received 45 public comment. 53% have been in agreement, 18% have been in disagreement, and 29% have disagreed specifically with the proposal. Some of the items of specific disagreement include not wanting smaller zones. Second, they believe carcass rules should be stricter. Third, there’s confusion about multiple carcasses in a cooler. We covered that yesterday and mentioned that you can have multiple carcasses within the same cooler. They just have to be individually packaged with their own proper tag and proof of sex requirements fulfilled. Fourth, some folks wanted a republishing of the rule with maps of zones. Next, there are some that specifically recommended an educational campaign versus regulation for disposal and testing rules. And then lastly, there are some folks that prefer that all remaining carcass parts be buried or removed from the property.
And then we’ve also received specific formal public comment from Texas Wildlife Association disagreeing specifically with the item regarding carcass disposal measures, stating that an education campaign versus regulation would be preferred, and they had additional concern that the rules may have potential conflict with current proof of sex requirements. Texas Deer Association also disagrees specifically with the rule. They said that no zones should be instituted since breeder deer have 100% postmortem testing and antemortem testing before movement. And then Deer Breeders Corp generally supported the proposal but also said that if an alternative was needed, they would support constricting disposal rules to just containment zones and public hunting zones. And subsequently, staff recommend that Commission adopt the following motion on the slide. And I’ll take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for Dr. Reed? Yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott. In our last commission meeting, Mr. Reed, I specifically asked you some questions, and I have yet to get an answer on them. David, I would like to get an answer on all those by Friday of next week.
DR. REED: I apologize, but if you can provide those stated questions?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: That’s your job. I gave you the questions at the last meeting. You find the questions. That’s not my job.
DR. REED: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Commissioner Patton.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: This is for my own clarification as it relates to the Trans-Pecos changes…so there’s not gonna be, as opposed to the Panhandle where there’s mandatory and voluntary in Trans-Pecos, it’s gonna be whether you’re in a containment or surveillance—it’s voluntary for both?
DR. REED: Yes. It would be voluntary for both the containment zone and surveillance zone.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay. And then as it relates to carcass movement, if the statewide rules are passed, then there won’t be any… no need to — there’ll be applicable in that containment and surveillance zone with no additional or less burden?
DR. REED: Yeah. Sorry. I think I had a little bit of confusion. So, the first part, were you asking about testing requirements and containment?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Yeah, I started with testing. Trans-Pecos.
DR. REED: Yeah, on the Trans-Pecos, yes. I just wanted to double-check that I hadn’t forgotten—
COMMISSIONER PATTON: No mandatory testing on everything, whether you’re in containment or surveillance was voluntary?
DR. REED: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay. Now, moving — I’m trying to figure out what the net effect is. So, if there’s a statewide carcass disposal passed, then there’s no additional burden. There’ll actually be a decrease, I guess, in carcass movement and disposal. There won’t be any net effect that it’s coming out of a containment or a surveillance zone…because there’s a statewide rule that will supersede the previous rules.
DR. REED: Yeah. Well, even in the containment and surveillance zones, it will provide additional—I don’t wanna say laxity, but additional options for them that they currently don’t have. Outside of those zones, it’s going to have carcass disposal measures that are not currently in place. But those individuals—those options that are available to them are options that we’ve seen to be widely used anyway.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Then I’ll pose the question, and again, it’s only the Trans-Pecos I’m asking. Is there any difference, is there any increased burden or less burden in the Trans-Pecos, whether you’re in a containment zone or a surveillance zone?
DR. REED: Is there any less…?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Any difference? Is there any difference?
DR. REED: Only if you are a deer breeder.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, there’s no deer breeders out there that are currently permitted. Is that fair?
DR. REED: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay. All right. So, is there any reason to distinguish in the Trans- Pecos…a surveillance zone to a containment zone for after we take this vote?
DR. REED: Yeah, so I think the benefit of having the distinction, at least within our rule text, we have distinguished these areas where there has been a CWD positive or where it is very probable that you’ll have an infected animal versus a surveillance zone where we think that there’s an increased likelihood. I think that that serves a benefit to hunters and landowners, to be able to know if they wanted to have their animal tested or not. I think that maybe there is some benefit—or sorry… I think that a zone in general can do that, even if it had the same distinction, but I also think that it does provide a bit more granularity, having both of those zones still remain in place.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any other questions?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Do we have comments on this?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: We do. We have plenty of them. Question. What is the — Dr. Reed, what is the prevalence of CWD in elk?
DR. REED: In elk? So, we’ve had — it’s very, very, low. We’ve had two positive elk.
MR. ALAN CAIN: Two in the Panhandle, and there’s a handful of them in Medina County.
DR. REED: Yeah. I would say that also, um, we’re not the regulatory body of elk. That’s under Texas Animal Health Commission. They’ve recently implemented 100% postmortem testing for harvested elk which is good. It’s gonna get us a better picture. In the past, we’ve historically not had that. So, from what we know, at least in the Panhandle, is very, very low, on the order of we’ve had, um, if we go back a couple of slides… I believe it was of the two, it’s about 1 over 400 or 1 over 350 samples.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, it’s tiny.
DR. REED: Yeah. But that’s out of the total samples. But the amount of elk that we’ve had historically submitted in the past, statewide, is relatively —
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, Texas Animal Health has just implemented mandatory postmortem testing?
DR. REED: Yeah, so we don’t really have that great of a picture, but if you take it as a function of overall CWD susceptible species, it’s still very low.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But you will over time.
DR. REED: Over time, that picture will be better.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Right. Well, I’m always amazed — 45,000-acre range for an elk. It’s hard to contain something that ranges 45,000 acres, so…Okay. With that, we’ve got —
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, if I… before we go into public comments, just two things. One, just wanted to recognize that we received a comment letter from a legislator, Senator Hall. You have that. That will be entered into the record along with all the comments that we get. The second thing—and I failed to do this yesterday—I wanted to recognize Texas Animal Health Commission was here in the audience available for questioning. You all had questions for Dr. Hunter, and he addressed those, but they were here yesterday.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Great. Thank you. All right, with that—yes, sir, Commissioner Patton.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question. I wanna clarify: if I shoot an elk, am I supposed to have it tested by TAHC?
DR. REED: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Since when?
DR. REED: Since last summer, I believe, in August.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, well, not in violation of anything, but how do you-how do you do that?
DR. REED: So, I recently trained last fall a bunch of outfitters that do a lot of elk hunting out — back there, but it’s a very similar technique.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, but I can’t take it to the Texas Parks & Wild — I know that in Van Horn where that is manned, but they’re not accepting samples there from elk, are they?
DR. REED: No. We can take those samples as well.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And then I’d be in compliance with —
DR. REED: Yeah. And they have a CWD submission sheet on their own that you can also submit.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay. Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: When was that elk taken?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Uh, well before the summer.
(laughter)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Stormy? Whew. Okay. All right. Okay, let’s see. Now on the phone, Ms. McBryde. Ms. McBryde, it’s your…
MS. MICHELLE MCBRYDE (via phone): Michelle McBryde, Kerr County. I stand against Action Item Number 3 on basis of opinion. The first order of business must be to address tabled agenda items as listed from November’s commission meeting. This amendment eliminates, shrinks, and enlarges zoning. Also, you say implement statewide carcass processing and disposal. I say interjection of tabled items by statewide carcass processing and disposal measures. Management and postmortem collection techniques used are a blueprint for epidemiological threats and environmental contamination.
You say mitigate disease transmission via depopulation. I say fear-based euthanasia as evident at Kerr WMA facility. Furthermore, as a TAHC-certified postmortem sample collector, I am not an acting agent of the department, nor do I serve as a TPWD sample collection station. Mandatory or voluntary testing of all susceptible species must be economically beneficial. Proper postmortem sample collection techniques, which aren’t being used, and sample submission criteria is designated by the accredited labs of submitter’s choice. And I agree: department should incur all expenses but in aiding prevention of transmitting diseases.
As a mother of two sons whom are avid hunters and fisherman, alongside like‑minded people, I take offense to, and I quote, “ideally eliminating the careless, haphazard or inadequate disposal of potentially infectious tissue.” Cold storage processing facilities and taxidermists rose to requests, obeyed the postmortem sample collection, and their reward is to receive adverse economic impacts which I forewarned of and offered avenues of prevention.
Why refuse consideration of alternative avenues eliminating all zoning, preventing epidemiological spread, and adverse economic impact? Most importantly, aid in preventing transmission of zoonotic diseases. I pray you will make what is unjust just before continued escalation. Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing me.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Ms. Oehmig.
MS. ALICE OEHMIG: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand and Vice-Chairman Bell and Commissioners. Here we go again. I wanna thank everybody for considering the adoption of the removal of several rules, doing away with the tyranny of the tier system in consideration against shrinking areas affected by divisive and very destructive surveillance zones. I listened to Dr. Reed yesterday — clearly, we had to get pulled away for some phone calls — as he presented lots of graphs with colors and all with a straight face, and I was very impressed. I decided I wouldn’t want to play poker with you, Dr. Reed. It was quite obvious.
I just, you know, wanted to think that there’s not a line on a piece of paper that contains anything. I don’t consider that containment, just drawing a piece — a line. Now, Blue Creek already has in place a barrier that is used for containment to protect all deer in Texas from CWD positive deer pen. It’s an 8‑foot- high fence, and better yet, how about two and even three? So, Dr. Reed has admitted that even in areas you were just discussing with the state’s highest prevalence and density of CWD, he doesn’t see the need for more testing in those areas or to gather new data but rather to let the deer breeders do the job for him.
As we have stated, we test 100% of the mortalities. And this has not been a requirement except from several years back. And in less than over two years ago, we were required to test all of our deer before movement. I’m in agreement with that rule. It’s a good rule. It’s the best we have right now so we don’t transport CWD. It just shows us it’s pretty logical to conclude, since CWD has always existed in Texas. When you test enough deer, you’re gonna find a positive. And I know Dr. Reed cringes when I use the analogy of just like COVID, when you look for it, you’re gonna find it. It’s with the agencies overreacting in COVID, in hindsight they have acknowledged what they did and didn’t do by following all the science but rather entrusted their staff to give them good information to act on. Well, we all see how devastating that was in our country, and the ill effects will be evident for years and generations to come.
When a positive is found only in a deer breeding facility, there are only two options that are offered by Dr. Reed and others on your staff: depopulation, and the other is to buy from the company store. You know, to survive. This is not an option for Blue Creek whitetails or any good business to be strong‑armed into. I’m forced to deal with your clerks who aren’t even decision-makers, when I’m wasting valuable time and good will, further demonstrating there is never an attempt for our business to survive but only to be destroyed.
Surveillance zones should be done away with immediately, as they do nothing to protect deer. The reality is the state and the entire state should be considered under a surveillance zone, and if someone other than a deer breeder wishes to have their deer tested, it’s their choice, rather than forcing them to do so when there’s no evidence that any harm will come to anyone that would come in contact with CWD. Demanding people, rather than giving the people free choice, as history has proven, usually backfires on those who enforce such demands. Especially when they’re unnecessary and very discriminatory. The fear mongering must stop, not just toned down. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.
MS. ALICE OEHMIG: God bless Texas.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Oehmig.
MR. BILLY OEHMIG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, all Commissioners. Thank you. Alice and I once again traveled down here to Austin in hopes that we can bring some — a rational, unbiased decision- making to this department. It’s tough to turn a BLCC in the narrows that the deer breeders are being forced to exist. But by your questions today and yesterday, particularly, thank you, there appears to be a slight change of course to the rational side.
We intended to be present as Alice said yesterday, but we got some calls we had to attend to from Washington and others here in Austin. But that’s perhaps all for the best, because I’m not really good as just an audience participant only. I probably would have shown too much emotion or pulled a Joe Wilson had I been here. As you’ve said, with your businesses, you depend on your staff for 100% honesty with the answers to your questions. You don’t get them. Nothing is to be withheld for the record. Nothing is to be misleading or only partial truths told to you. Sometimes all you get is their narrative. How else are you to make good decisions unless you get good, honest answers?
If your staff does not answer you— answer your questions, or, when they do, you only get their spin or an incomplete response, not the whole truth, imagine our world where the regulators don’t answer you for months, sometimes weeks, sometimes months. When they do, their demands are completely unreasonable and unyielding. Yet there’s nowhere for us to turn. There’s no one to appeal to that’s a rational thinker. There’s no one to mediate an untenable position. All you have is an umpire who’s calling balls and strikes and is gonna call you out regardless of what you do. But if you swing at a strike or a ball, and you’re called out, your farm team must give up their — all of their best prospects. But yet, you’ve got to pay their salaries, but you don’t get any gate revenue. Imagine that.
So, we’re here, having Randy Johnson fast balls thrown at our head without anywhere to move. The policies and procedures and herd plans are clearly discriminatory. These staffers are not trying to help white-tailed deer in Texas. You know what they’re out for? They’re on a mission to seek and destroy all deer breeders. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the contradicting policies, read a herd plan, look at the signs, get input that you can trust. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, thank you, Mr. Oehmig. Mr. Letz.
MR. JONATHAN LETZ: Good morning, almost afternoon, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz. My name is Jonathan Letz. I’m president of the Texas Wildlife Association (TWA). Thanks for the opportunity to speak about the proposal. First, we would like to congratulate the department on the proposed removal of three zones. We think the fact that proactive management and heavy surveillance has created a confidence level to remove zones is a big deal. It is something that really needs to be highlighted. This is what we should always be working hard for with any of our CWD management actions. We believe this is a win for the department and congratulate the department and you all.
There’s only one item with the proposed rules that we have an issue with that’s similar to the same issue that we had with the mountain lion rules: it’s the enforceability of the regulation. The carcass disposal rules are complicated to hunters and to landowners, and we feel it’s much better to follow the approach that Commissioner Bell said is to ease into them. Maybe that’ll happen, as Stormy mentioned. But best management practices in our opinion is the best first step to get the rules out, educate the hunters, educate the landowners on carcass disposal rules, and that is the best way forward. Other than that, we’re supportive of the other proposals.
I would like to take a moment to go back to something Chairman Hildebrand said yesterday and that was that Texas is pro-business, or friendly to business, and I agree with that 100%. But businesses — ranches that do deer leasing are also businesses, as are deer breeders. I want to be real clear. TWA is not against deer breeders. I think that is evident by a letter that all of you received a week or so ago that was signed jointly by the Texas Deer Association and TWA. We want to work with the breeding industry. We showed that in good faith, and we continue to do that. That’s all I have to say at this time. I appreciate the work you all’ve done at CWD. It’s a difficult task, and we’re moving forward in our opinion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you. Mr. Wagner.
MR. MATT WAGNER: Chairman Hildebrand, and commissioner members, I’m Matt Wagner, executive director of the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society. We applaud the department for their efforts to manage this complex and ever-changing disease. Each year, the agency continues to invest more resources, money, and staff hours into managing CWD to protect the state’s 6 million deer and $4.6 billion deer hunting economy. Where do these dollars come from? Not from the public taxpayer, as some have alleged. These are hunter dollars paid for from the sale of hunting licenses and Pittman- Robertson funds from the sale of firearms and ammunition, a federal tax that’s been established since 1936.
Given the amount of resources the department has dedicated to managing CWD, we understand the need to reduce the extent of the surveillance zones, especially where breeder cooperation is good. In the Panhandle, however, where CWD has been detected in wild mule deer, it’s prudent to expand the surveillance zone in order to determine the extent of the disease in the local deer population. In addition, as we shrink zones and reduce testing requirements, we believe it’s necessary to require visible ID on all deer released from breeder facilities. We thank you for your continued hard work of the commission and the staff to manage CWD while accommodating the needs of deer breeders and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Mr. Davis.
MR. KEVIN DAVIS: Good afternoon, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. For the record, my name’s Kevin Davis from Texas Deer Association. I’ll be brief. I stand before you today to happily say we support most of this proposal. Our only concern with the proposal is, while we’re appreciative of the reduction in zone size, we’re appreciative the removal of the three surveillance zones, we do believe that when the surveillance zones were created in 2012, the tools to mitigate disease risk and management weren’t available as they are today. And so, since ’21, this commission and staff has made proposals and changes to regulations that moved the deer breeder testing requirement to 100% of a hundred. Meaning, we test 100% of mortalities, 100% of any animal prior to movement. That shift has provided a pathway around zones, and we know, and I’ve seen concern on the face of all the commissioners about creating zones and creating hardship on landowners.
Our position is that there is strategies out there now, and we’re happy to help create and improve those strategies to negate the need for zones so we don’t catch up landowners that aren’t related to the issue at all and put stress on the relationship between the department and the landowner. And we strongly believe that the relationship with the landowner is key to the equation of managing CWD. So, thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Good. Well, with the creation of our landowner liaison position, I think that will be one step in that process.
MR. KEVIN DAVIS: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: You bet. Ms. Knox.
MS. SARA KNOX: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commission. Thank y’all for having me. My name is Sara LeMoine Knox, and I’m an attorney. This is actually really intimidating, so thank y’all for having me. But I’m also more importantly, I’m a landowner. I’m from Coleman, Texas which has just been recently designated as a CWD area. My family owns 30,000 acres in Coleman County. 150,000 acres in Coleman County has been designated, so that’s about 15% of our county. And I just wanna say that my community is so excited, in a not a good way, but we are welcomed to work with the department, and we want to be stewards of the land and protect our white-tailed deer population.
However, the zones, they don’t make sense. They’re arbitrary, they’re confusing, and they have created fear amongst the people in my community. They don’t understand what we’re supposed to do, and there has been a lack of communication with the department to our community. And I do know that’s because the rules are changing, so I will say that. But there’s been a lot of conspiracies and things going on. And what I’m really excited about is what you just mentioned. The landowner liaison I think will really, really help, and it can be utilized. But I believe an education program for the whole state and for these communities that are impacted, and you hit the ground running, telling these people what’s going on, would help alleviate some fear.
Because of that fear, these zones have hurt the economy and stamps my community that has worked so hard for the past 10 years to pull ourselves up from the bootstraps to get our downtown going. We’re afraid we’re going to lose tax dollars, and it’s hurting our economy. And when I say that the thing—it’s for our community to have gotten better, it’s just not our community leaders and our landowners and generous families that have worked hard, but it’s our hunting economy. Our hunting economy in the past 10 years has really brought agritourism and ecotourism to Coleman, Texas.
With that being said, I think that these zones don’t make sense, but that could be alleviated with some education and communication. Most importantly, I’ve created a meeting with Representative Drew Darby in Coleman, so that I would like to formerly invite the whole commission and the department to come to Coleman County and see, grassroots, what’s going on in our community and how beautiful our downtown is, and hopefully, all together, we can work together to solve CWD. So, May 29th, RL Venue, from 4:00‑6:00 p.m. And thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Thanks for the invitation. Ms. Meuth. Sorry.
MS. MARY PEARL MEUTH: It’s “Moit”, but I’m used to it by now. It’s officially afternoon, so good afternoon, Chairman Hildebrand, Vice-Chairman Bell, Commissioners, and Dr. Yoskowitz again. For the record, my name is Mary Pearl Meuth. I’m here today as president of Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, representing over 800 wildlife professionals and wildlife students. We recognize the significant and ongoing impact CWD has and will have on our white-tailed deer populations and their habitat, as well as the litany of other non‑deer-focused industries that rely on a healthy resource, as Ms. Knox just mentioned.
I stated in previous testimonies, but worthy of reminding this commission again, deer hunting in Texas done on both these individual deer breeder release sites we’re discussing today, but also on millions of other privately owned acres that are not in relation to the deer breeding industry is worth over $9.6 billion to the Texas economy. Texas Chapter supports the measures recommended by staff for managing Chronic Wasting Disease in our state as proposed yesterday. We want to continue to stress to the Commission to recognize the different regulations needed for the disease management with our free‑ranging herds and the disease management protocols slated for our breeder-facility-held deer populations. If warranted, to continue avoiding confusion, please consider splitting future proposals based on these two different realities, as Dr. Reed said: free-ranging populations and breeder-contained populations.
Additionally, as tier one facilities are being considered next, Texas Chapter urges the best management practice of retained visible ID for all breeder deer, both while in pens and once set on release sites. We commend the dedication of Texas Parks & Wildlife’s department staff and leadership to stewarding our natural and cultural resources. Their recommendations are grounded in science and offer tangible solutions while considering the broader impacts on our ecosystems.
On a personal note, I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of our Parks & Wildlife biologists, our game wardens, our veterinarians, and our disease specialists tasked with implementing disease management protocols and initiatives. Their commitment to wildlife conservation is commendable and we, as Texas Chapter, stand in solidarity and support of them.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you.
MS. MARY PEARL MEUTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Ms. Price.
MS. RILEY ANN PRICE: Hello. My name is Riley Ann Price. I come from West Texas. I’m always proud to say that I’m an agriculturalist at heart, I’m a conservationist, and I’m a wildlife enthusiast. I like to say that I’m rooted in agriculture and committed to conservation. My family obtains 100% of their income from agriculture. Not just my husband and I, but my entire family—my parents, my grandparents, my brother—everyone in my family. Agriculture, wildlife — those things are important to the great state that we live in.
Previously, when I spoke here, I encouraged you to put this situation in the hands of the producers. And I just want to tell you, thank you. Thank you for allowing the producers to be involved in that. I will assure you that there is no one more motivated than the producers to solve this problem, and by y’all giving them the opportunity to do that, you’ve put each of yourself in a position to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
With that said, I will say that these zones have problems, guys. Someone drawing a line on a map is not going to solve a problem. I have a 12‑year‑old daughter, and a couple of years ago her dad and her went to the local feed store to get some cat food, came home with a deer stand. She spends a lot of time in that deer stand, during deer season and outside of deer season. She enjoys sitting in there in the afternoons and watching the wildlife with her binoculars. She’ll come home and tell me the things she saw and the things she enjoyed. I want that for my child. I want my child to feel safe when she’s observing her natural resource.
Frankly, these zones, containment — what that says in cursive, what that translates to, is contamination. I don’t want a child being raised in fear. Fear of her natural resource. Fear of hunting. These containment zones are deterring hunters, and it’s spreading fear amongst the public, and truthfully, they’re not containing anything. From someone who has fried enough backstrap in a skillet to feed a small army, someone drawing a line on a map doesn’t scare me about my deer.
I believe that you guys are smart enough and y’all realize that the data is there and that the deer breeders are containing behind the fence. We don’t need lines on maps, and they’re not containing anything. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my child with the opportunity to love the outdoors, love her natural resource, and all young hunters alike. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank You. Ms. Phillips.
MS. JODY PHILLIPS: Hello. Jody Phillips. President of the Texas Deer Association. Good morning, Chairman and Dr. Yoskowitz, Commission. It’s hard to follow the Scurry County Cotton Queen, but I’ll do my best. There was a question brought up yesterday regarding practices… good practices behind the fence, and I would like to point out something that I mean you don’t know unless someone tells you, but most deer breeders are double fenced. It’s a common practice. That’s done because of the mindset of “we don’t want the outside deer to touch the deer behind our fence because ours are tested and the ones outside aren’t.” So, the double fence is something that’s been happening for a long time without regulation…to have the fence just because of the regulation that we have.
So, the zones were created long before we had the tools that we do now with all of the testing, and we all know the 100% mortality, etcetera. I feel like zones are a valid argument before we had those tools. We had deer moving across the state—I’ll give that to anyone who argued that. It was true. We had deer moving across the state that weren’t tested. But now, we are. They’re tested. They’re tested before they move from a breeder. They’re tested before they’re removed to a release site.
The zones, as far as landowners go, there’s no reason for ‘em outside of a breeder pen. If there’s a CWD positive breeder pen, obviously we know that. Those deer are not moving. They’re going to be tested or depopulated, whatever the herd plan established, and there really should be no zone around it if it’s double-fenced. It just creates an animosity between the landowner and the deer breeder…and between the landowner and Parks & Wildlife. It’s just not needed.
My second point is what happens to the deer breeder that’s…inside of a surveillance zone or a voluntary testing area if we get a CWD positive outside of that area? You have a deer breeder behind a fence who is doing everything right, testing, everything. You can’t move before you test, all the things — what happens then to the deer breeder? So, it doesn’t really give you incentive to test outside of that fence. So, I do feel like this is, um, chicken and egg kind of thing, but I do feel like there’s a reasonable way to work around zones for landowners and for deer breeders. And with that, I’ll conclude. Appreciate you guys.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mr. Yeates.
MR. DAVID YEATES: Mr. Chairman, Commission. For the record, my name is David Yeates, and I’m a member of the CWD Task Force and the White-Tailed Deer Advisory Committee, and I’m here on my personal behalf. Over the years, I’ve spent a lot of professional and volunteer time working on this issue. It never ceases to amaze me—staff, Commission, Advisory Committee members, people that are neck‑deep in this stuff can still get kind of confused because they are very complex.
I’m here to, I guess, call into question the utility of the zone approach. In 2012, in that, you know, habitat island out in the Hueco Mountains, it makes perfect sense. With the initial detection in Medina County at a breeder facility in 2015, it made perfect sense. We now have 30‑something positive locations we’re taking. Some zones are done on a radius, some are done by county roads, some are where — we have the highest prevalence. We’re now gonna be voluntary sampling. The statement was made by Dr. Reed yesterday. It’s really important to know — to find out where it is. I submit that given the number of trace-out release sites around the state and, you know, kinda head-scratching discoveries like in Coleman County — like how in the world did it get there? How in the world is it showing up in new breeding facilities year over year over year?
I submit that we don’t really know, and therefore, we should be taking a broader approach. I think that it makes perfect sense to…I’m not suggesting backing down in any way, shape or form, but I think a statewide approach would allow the department to allocate staff resources to kinda pulse around, look where we think it might be, but we don’t know. And that can be done without tangling up landowners, impairing property values, impacting local economies, and creating stigmas. So, I just — the term innovation has been thrown around a lot over the last couple of days. There’s definitely some institutional inertia towards maintaining the zone approach, but I submit to you that it may be time to step back and think about that in a more holistic way. And the landowner liaison position is a wonderful step in the right direction. So, I commend you guys for taking that action, and thank you for all your service, and I’m happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you, Mr. Yeates.
MR. DAVID YEATES: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Ms. Malatek.
MS. SHAELYNN MALATEK: Good morning, Chairman Hildebrand and Commissioners. I’d like to start by saying I do think some proposed changes regarding CWD are finally a step in the right direction. However, there is way more progress to be made. Zones around breeding facilities specifically are completely unnecessary. Any breeding facility is immediately made nonmovement upon a positive test result, regardless. And unlike zones, this does prevent spread and mitigate risk. Breeding facilities do have a hard barrier, a fence, and are heavily monitored and tested under a herd plan.
Truthfully, I have a hard time in seeing the benefits of any zone. I understand the issue of CWD is a confusing and difficult one to approach in the wild, but I still think it is extremely important that we are still careful to make regulations — in this case, placed zones for the sake of just appearing to have a solution, especially when those regulations can have such negative effects. It seems these zones try to play on a placebo effect. They are presented in a way that, at surface level, try to make it seem like they solve an issue to mitigate risk or contain, but they don’t.
However, when you look a little deeper, the negative effects are very apparent and real. These don’t seem to be given near as much consideration though. A few of these include the fear and pressure they put on landowners and hunters. Land values, businesses, and the hunting culture in Texas will undoubtedly suffer.
I’d also like to make a quick point on the inconsistency in the voluntary and mandatory requirements for different zones, once again making it increasingly confusing and discouraging for hunters. One comment that stuck out to me from yesterday was that there doesn’t need to be as much testing in an area because we already know it’s there. To that I ask, then what’s the real point? Because that’s the only thing a zone does is potentially increase testing.
I think a simple pros and cons list on these zones would make it apparent just how unneeded and quite frankly detrimental they are. So, I ask that you please continue to focus more on what these zones do when implemented and not simply how they are presented on the screen. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Ms. Dubois.
MS. MEGAN DUBOIS: Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners. My name’s Megan Dubois. My husband and I work for P Bar Whitetails in Bullard, Texas. I think listening to the workshop yesterday, I am more confused about containment and surveillance zones than I was before. I think average hunters will be very confused. In the My Texas Hunt Harvest app, it just shows CW zones. It doesn’t say containment or surveillance. So, I just think the whole situation for everybody is very confusing.
I was pretty taken aback also about Dr. Reed’s comment yesterday that testing in certain zones, moving from mandatory to voluntary. Working in the deer breeding industry, I can imagine Dr. Reed telling a positive facility the tests aren’t necessary anymore because we know CWD is there. A double standard is apparent in that. I do think sharing best practices is a good idea. I am cautious of more regulation, though, I think helpful and innovative ideas are important for any industry. The proposal to remove tiers is a big step in the right direction for our industry. I hope the commission and staff follow this example with other confusing regulations. I appreciate the comments and questions asked by commissioners yesterday. It’s clear you are working on solutions for all stakeholders. Thank you for the opportunity to talk.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Ms. Schmidt.
MS. WENDY SCHMIDT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Hildebrand. My name is Wendy Schmidt. With only three minutes to speak, today, I would like to ask a few questions, and I would like you to consider investigating these questions. And here we go.
Who determines the size of a zone? Would a zone on paper actually prevent CWD? Would a zone on paper actually prevent CWD from passing the zone lines? Why would some zones intentionally avoid certain landowners? If you show a picture of where some of the zones have been, would it look discriminatory? Would it be fair to say that some of the biggest landowners in Texas have chosen not to test for CWD? Would some having to test for CWD versus all landowners be discriminatory? Would being forced to use one testing facility be fair and just trade practice? Would it be unjust, when you have the ability to test for CWD before destroying or depopulating a business? Would it be fair to say that CWD marketing campaign in Texas has only been against the deer breeders? Would it be fair to say that Texas Parks & Wildlife Department rules, guidelines, and restrictions for CWD have not been the same for all breeders? What progress has Texas Parks & Wildlife Department made in order to work towards a solution?
I’m not here today because I’m on a committee or a board. I’m not here because my ranch is shut down. I’m certainly not here because I’m getting paid or funded by someone, nor am I receiving federal funding or grant money. I’m here today to stand up for justice, landowner rights, family and friends. This is a political war, not a disease problem, and the less than 1% over the last 20 years proves that. I’m asking you as commissioners to be the voice we need to make things right. The truth will come out. Be on the right side of the truth. Be the man or the woman that’s proud to stand up against the unjust and know you did what was right and not easy. God bless you. Hey, and I did it in less than three minutes this time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Well done. Well done, Ms. Schmidt. You get an A. Thank you. Mr. Rector. Last speaker.
MR. JORY RECTOR: Howdy, Commissioners. My name’s Jory Rector. You may recall the presentation of this data regarding Chronic Wasting Disease during the November meeting. That data was through the end of 2022. This data that you now should have is through the end of 2023. Does everybody have a copy? Okay. I do remind you that this data was acquired directly from the Texas Parks & Wildlife through open records requests and the department’s website. Those supporting document are included as well as some pie graph charts for some of you who may be more visually inclined.
I would like to direct your attention to 2023 information, the stuff that’s highlighted in red. As you can see, in 2023, breeder deer represented 1.21% of the total population. 67.52% of breeder deer were tested, accounting for 69.02% of total testing which yielded a miniscule 0.36% positive rate. In other words, 8/10ths of a percent of the total Texas deer population suffered 69% of the total testing and 99.64% were shown to have been clear of Chronic Wasting Disease.
As you study the data from previous years, you can clearly see the consistencies and the extremely low positive percentages. The detects have increased, but so has testing. The ratios have stayed virtually the same and from the limited data we have seen for this year, 2024 is trending in a very similar manner. Numerical data is unbiased. Always tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth, has no regard for anybody’s opinion or agenda.
I want to be abundantly clear. I’m not here to complain or criticize, but rather provide you with what I consider to be very vital information which will hopefully aid in your decision-making process moving forward. Hope you get some use out of that, Commissioners. I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you very much. All right, any other comments from the commissioners? With…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell —
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes, sir. Vice-Chair Bell.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: A couple of things, and Dr. Reed, I might need to have you probably— you’re probably — probably these are gonna fall into your bailiwick first. When we had — I’ve got a couple of questions. One involves the surveillance zones the way we have them now. First, like I said yesterday during the work session, I do want to commend everyone for the work that was done because it seems like we’re moving in the right direction in terms of reducing the size of that impacting less people but still trying to keep a focus on the disease.
But I’ve also had the opportunity recently to visit some deer breeding facilities also and take a look at that, and I’ve also tried to study up on paper what our…let’s call it best practices. And I had asked you kind of a little bit about this yesterday. But I did hear someone even say today, if you’ve got a—if you’ve got a double‑fenced facility… and your facility as a deer breeder, and your facility has been — is showing no signs of the disease, it does beg the question, if we put, you know, one, if you’ve got that facility there, then they’re basically operating smoothly. They’re considered part of the natural element. When we start identifying — if we identify the free‑ranging positive deer near them, would that facility be subject to becoming non-movement? If there’s a free-ranging deer near a deer breeder facility…let’s say within our current 2-mile containment zone, would that facility then be non-movement qualified?
DR. REED: Yes.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay. Even though they haven’t done anything wrong, they’re doing everything right, they don’t have any signs of the disease, and there’s no way for that—we’ll say that fits — nothing can get through that physical barrier… Because otherwise, I do know we have issues around whether or not, even from a — say a Texas buzzard flies over and has droppings, it might have — I mean, you can get this from anywhere. So, how are we…what’s our best approach to allowing people to live through all of this and still kind of maintain eyes on the disease? Because the prevalence — some of our own stats are saying the prevalence is low.
DR. REED: In some areas, yes. So, I mean…the real question is how to facilitate movement of breeder deer out of containment zones. Is that…Because that would be the only place where that would be applicable.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: That’s one answer, because that’s a specific scenario.
DR. REED: Yeah, so we have engaged with that discussion, at least with the CWD Task Force, and they’ve all agreed that certainly a time component would be helpful, but certainly additional testing. It’s more of the nuts and bolts of what would be required. Additional ID requirements. Does testing have to be performed at a certain time point or frequency within those facilities compared to others?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: But they’re not positive to begin with. They didn’t have a positive test on the facility, but a positive test in the area, outside of the…
DR. REED: True, but they’re at increased risk compared to other facilities for getting exposed to the disease, and if we facilitate that movement, we would be potentially opening up another facility to receive that same disease. Granted, I know that those animals are going to be antemortem tested before movement. But we do know, and we have several examples of this, where antemortem testing fails to even find a positive and infected animal on the same day that the animal would be postmortem tested and found to be positive.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: It seems like we’re stretching…on that.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, John Silovsky, Wildlife Division Director. I think the containment zone conversation is good. I remind the group that I think, uh…I think prior to the March commission meeting, we received a petition for rule‑making to address the situation of ability of a breeder within a containment zone that is movement qualified — what would that look like to you know make them eligible to move outside of the containment zone? The current rule structure allows a movement qualified deer breeder to move deer within that containment zone but not outside of the containment zone.
The petition for rule-making that the commission and we received was to further address, you know, opportunities — at some point in the future to address, like, some have said today, the additional rules that we have in place, the additional testing. Do we, as an agency, as a group, feel safe moving deer out of the containment zone? We had that discussion at length with that particular individual or various advisory committees where staff continues to work through that process now and what that would look like to change our existing rule structure that would allow movement from a containment zone from a movement qualified deer breeder.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Because I’m starting to question if a facility is double fenced — and I’m not pro-deer breeder or anti-deer breeder. I’m just kind of pro-let’s get the right information out here, let’s get the data. But if you’ve got a facility, and that facility has done everything correctly…if now — let’s say there’s a positive on that facility. I even understand shutting down that facility. How big a buffer do we need to put around that? Do we need to have — it’s double‑fenced already. It got in there somehow. I don’t know how it got in.
But, you know, it is…how arbitrary are we appearing to be to people is my question? Because, you know, we’ve just come up with a rationale now where we can reduce this because it makes sense. We’re trying to impact less landowners. Should we be trying to impact even less landowners, like only the person that was actually impacted by the test? Because it’s going to lead me to my next question about that 6-million-acre zone that we have up north in the Panhandle, right? That’s just a lot of land to take out. I wish I had 6 acres, okay? And we’re talking about 6 million. By the way, I do have 6 acres. But that’s just—you know, we’re…we’re challenging people’s common sense with some of the stuff we’re putting out here.
How are we going to make it so that we all seem to be in agreement, common purpose, common cause, moving in the right direction, having a commonsense approach to disease management, at the same time not adversely impacting a business opportunity for someone, not adversely impacting families…but protecting…also protecting people from a disease that we don’t know jumps from animals to people yet?
DR. REED: Yeah, so, I guess my two cents on it is that what we’re trying to do, and a lot of the rules that we have moved forward with, especially since 2021, is to be more proactive and preventive in how we’re moving deer, and we’re moving deer in a more risk‑mitigated fashion. So, this…restricting that movement would be consistent, but if the commission believes that the movement of deer out of containment zones needs to be looked at, we can continue those discussions which we’re already engaged with, at least with one individual and then also our advisory groups.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: You know it’s kind of interesting, because these are our own rules, and now we’re starting to almost like say we’re limiting ourself with our own rules. You know, we’ve come up with this terminology — by the way, as I thought about it today, and it just didn’t strike me, but containment — that sounds really bad, right? I mean, it really does, I mean, it just struck me when I heard someone say that out loud. I mean, that sounds — it doesn’t sound good.
So, how do we…how do we positively impact people and manage this process especially when, literally, it can pop up anywhere? We’ve got our area up here in the Panhandle. What if we had… what if we had a couple of positives pop up on the eastside? Would we take out $6 million—I mean 6 million acres in Northeast Texas if we had a couple of positives over here? And if we had another couple down here, we’d take out another 6 m—’cause, pretty soon, we could make the whole state a containment zone.
DR. REED: So, Commissioner Bell, what I’m trying to say here—I mean, the places that you are talking about have completely different species that are involved. So, we adapt our containment and surveillance zones to fit the species in those areas. We understand that there are movement restrictions related to breeder deer when talking about free‑ranging zones. But the fact of the matter is, the greatest risk of transferring this disease is the movement of animals, live animals, and we’re trying to acknowledge that risk with these rules.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: But with the free-ranging deer, we have no control over their movement, correct?
DR. REED: True. But they’re not going to be put on a trailer or possibly expose another facility. Which, in itself, will also be able to transfer deer across the state or even internationally.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I’ll hold for a second in case anybody else has a question. I have to think.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I’ve got a question. So, with the carcass disposal rules that we’re contemplating today, doesn’t that mitigate the risk, substantially, of the spread of it in the free‑ranging environment? Because there is a distinction — breeding facilities versus free‑range — and I think 6 million acres versus a 2‑acre rad — or a 2‑mile radius…that’s a huge difference. So, all around this free‑ranging and creating these containment zones, what are we really doing other than requiring testing? Because you’re not moving deer only through…carcasses. So, how does that interplay work? Carcass disposal and the creation of these zones.
DR. REED: So, yes, I would say that carcass disposal does continue to mitigate some of that threat of the zones. I think the biggest—or movement of carcasses that could be infected within zones. I think the greatest benefit, though, of carcass disposal rules statewide is that it is in areas outside of zones. So, we already know that CWD can be an incredibly difficult disease to find initially, especially when a low prevalence or a very recent introduction. That’s where we’re being more proactive in managing the areas where we know there might be a detection of the disease that we’re missing.
So, I mean I do get that, really, our options are limited with free-range…the containment or control of CWD in free-ranging deer, but that’s not a problem just specific here in Texas. That’s a problem everywhere throughout the United States. And, I would say that we don’t implement the same types of procedures that other states have implemented, such as bait bans and —
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right, hypothetically, if we did away with containment zones and surveillance zones for free‑ranging deer… what’s the impact of that?
DR. REED: Well, we — really, hunters would not know where we would actually really have infected deer present. That’s something that hunters should know, especially from public health guidance, from international and national organizations. But then, also, we use these zones to really help target and, I don’t know, inform our decisions about what the population status is, at least with white‑tailed deer and mule deer. It gives us more intense data where we’re able to track distribution and prevalence of that disease through time, and that’s gonna better inform us when we start to see population-limiting impacts which, as I mentioned yesterday, can be around the 15‑20% mark.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: So, really, what you’re talking about is you need the test data to understand it more.
DR. REED: Yes. And it helps delineate those areas and really outline to hunters where we’re concerned, where they should at least be informed. But it would be—well, depending on whether they’re in voluntary or mandatory testing, whether they can at least have the decision, decide if they wanna test their animal. And then also that’s gonna better inform us and have a greater intensity of sampling data to actually make management decisions if things change down the road.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But you did say something — from a public health perspective. I mean, the data has demonstrated that there is no transfer from the animal to humans and that there’s been no negative effects on the eating of venison on an infected deer, correct?
DR. REED: There are no confirmed cases of this in humans, but the public health recommendation is to test animals in areas affected by this disease.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: I understand. So, but—just hypothetical—if we went to maybe an incentive program…if we did away with surveillance zones and containment zones fully but we incented hunters to test their deer for data, would that be beneficial to us?
DR. REED: I think the more information we have, the better. Um, but, really, in terms of areas where the disease is…well, at least, initially, when we start to see the introduction of the disease, it’s really important we have that mandatory sampling. So, I see mandatory sampling at least being a component somewhere in all of this discussion.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. All right. Understood.
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: I may add to that conversation. If the Commission were to approve the voluntary sampling that is proposed in some of these existing zones, you know, I think that will give us a measure, you know, of really what the interest is from hunters and landowners to test voluntarily or not. In some of these zones we have as little as three or four years of sampling, and in some of these we have ten or twelve years of sampling that’s been mandatory. So, we’ll have a comparison, really, what that interest is, for voluntary sampling in some of these zones if this proposal is approved, and we move forward with that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: But if you’re not incenting people to voluntarily test…the vast majority are not going to test, correct? I mean why would you?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: I don’t disagree. Voluntary testing across the country for CWD has—I’ll call it, limited participation.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Correct. So, instead of the club, let’s use the carrot. We should just think about this notion of incenting people for the test data so that, um, we extract, you know, a better subset of information. So, we’re not going to solve this today. We’re here to talk about this motion. So... anyone else?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Mr. Chairman, I’ll kind of throw in to both points being discussed. If out in West Texas it was not mandatory for me to test my deer that were shot, and there’s not a deer breeder issue out there, it’s just free‑ranging, I would probably never test under a voluntary. Now, because I’ve got a number of years, I don’t remember how long ago it was, but as long as I’ve been out there, it was mandatory, and now all of a sudden, miraculously, it’s gonna be voluntary — oddly enough, I’m happy. I know that we will continue to voluntarily test every deer shot out there, and maybe even more, you know, willfully than I would have been last season, and that’s nothing more than just condition and education, and I don’t need an incentive other than the awareness.
But I do think having an awareness that you have free‑ranging deer…it’s something I would wanna be aware of. I do think it’s interesting. But the discussion about containment and surveillance, particularly where there’s not even a distinction between the two, maybe removing containment out of — not leaving it as containment in the western part of it and just call the whole thing a surveillance zone is a little bit more benign and it is more representative of what we’re trying to do, which is to survey the population out there. So, that’s just my two cents worth.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Doggett.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I’d just like to briefly say—yes, Doggett. That for me, it keeps coming back to us talking to a real estate agent who sells ranches, and he said — I asked him about the CWD, the zones and he said, I can’t get guys to look at ranches in those zones. That was really impactful to me. And I said, so, I thought maybe that this was a one-off, so I talked to two—for this purpose—talked to two or three. Same result.
The economic impact of the zones is pretty serious stuff to a lot of these ranchers, right? And even the lady from Coleman said their town is sort of being revitalized in the tourism — hunters from deer hunting is very impactful for the town. And then now declare a third of the county is in a zone, so it’s impacted that materially.
And I always weigh that against what—even what Commissioner Hildebrand was saying is that you can eat the venison and there’s no negative impact known. He said, we got to notify the hunters that they’re in a zone and there’s a potential health‑‑well, I’m not sure there is a health problem, definitively. So, you weigh that, well, there’s really no health benefit, uh, detriment to killing the deer versus the severe impact — economic impact on the value of property…there’s got to be, and what Jeff was referring to — maybe there’s another solution. Another solution for us to look at.
And so, I would propose that we really, I mean, the idea of not having zones but having — I think mandatory testing would be more appealing than zones. I mean, I know it’s onerous and it’s a lot of activity, but I think mandatory testing — people would much prefer that over zones. Not that this is a proposal, but I think it’s certainly worth extensive thought and research and evaluation on that front.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I have one last thing. I’m sorry.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: No, you’re fine. Go ahead.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: So, here’s what I think we really need to think about. We are — we’re almost trapped by our own terminology. We’re kinda trapped — what was a very proactive initial practice, trying to be protective, trying to get in front of this thing has actually somewhat worked really well for us. Because now we’re showing, by our own data, we’re showing a relatively lower incidence overall. Maybe what we need instead of surveillance and containment, we need communication.
And if we have a point of contact in each county, we can still have the information flowing, but now we tell folks, you know, we’d get out there and say, hey, you do know that you have this in your area and come up with whatever that innovative program is so that people are aware, they can test. But this…the prevalence…we’re all still trying to learn this. We know it’s going to be higher on a breeder facility if it happens because it’s a closed loop, right? But the other — I don’t know how many million acres we got in Texas that stuff is running over — we’re just not finding it like that.
So, what other thing could we come up with, Dr. Hunter, here that would be…that would make this livable for everyone? What other ideas besides the proposal we have on the table today? What could you recommend?
DR. REED: I mean, that’s a hard question. I don’t think I can design a surveillance system on the spot right now. But, I mean, we can look at options to solicit greater statewide sampling. But I got to urge that it’s really important that we continue to monitor the disease where we’ve detected it. So, we can do a better job, perhaps, of trying to get voluntary sampling opportunities for greater awareness amongst those that are not outside CWD zones. We know we have areas in the state that we need greater sampling. I think there’s avenues to do that. But at least as it pertains to the items today for how we’re surrounding deer breeding facilities and at least in free‑ranging zones, continuing to have some component of mandatory sampling there is really important because of the two different epidemiological realities that we’re trying to assess.
VICE-CHAIRMAN-BELL: But I guess, do we have to be married to zones? I have to be married to my wife, ‘cause one, I love her, wonderful, and she will do terrible things to me if I try to leave. But do we have to be married to these zones? Is there another way to manage this so that we can be… we can have more favorable impact on all of the people involved? And also, I was very touched by the young attorney from Coleman as well in terms of the adverse impact that’s going on there, as well as I think the one lady was referred to as the Cotton Queen — her comments about her kids and whatnot. So, you know, how do we make this livable for everyone?
DR. REED: So, I mean… I stand firm in the fact that I think we have to have at least some sort of delineation letting hunters know where we would expect that disease to exist. I can tell you that for those that perceive this to be somehow detracting to hunting and scaring people from hunting, I can tell you that there are also a side of the equation where people want every deer they test—or every deer they harvest tested by the department. And they’re not in a zone or they’re…they might be in a zone, and they might already be required to. But they’re doing it because of their own concern. And so that might not — that could be completely independent of any sort of public health argument that someone would want to make. That’s because they actually — they want to know at least on their ranch or at least in their population of white-tailed deer.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman…Chairman, can I maybe make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Absolutely.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay. So, what I’m hearing, I think from the commission, and I want to encapsulate this, and it started yesterday with your recommendation, Vice-Chairman, about what are best practices in breeding facilities? And let’s look at that. And that was brought up a bit today in the discussion. So, you know, double fencing, use of equipment, etcetera, the rules that we have in place. And that leads to thinking about, then, what does a zone look like, and that’s what I’m hearing today. Because what does a zone look like that we can move forward after today, because we do — the commission does need to consider today’s action — moving forward today, get back to you in the future, with…not today’s proposal—continue to move on today’s proposal, if the commission chooses to do that — but well thought out with our stakeholder committees, with our advisory committees to put a roadmap forward on what changes and zones and terminology might look like. That’s a commitment that we need to do to get back to y’all.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That sounds great, Dr. Yoskowitz. This notion of an outside the box solution on how do we do away with surveillance zones, containment zones in full? Maybe we go to a mandatory testing, I understand, you know, RT-QuIC, and there’s all kinds of entrepreneurial solutions that the market will respond to. So, I would just ask that the department…and take a clean sheet of paper on this. Because I don’t — as Commissioner Doggett said, we’re diminishing the value of 6 million acres in the State of Texas. That’s a lotta acreage. And it’s real and so…we sympathize with that, and we want to find the best solution. So, that is my direction if the department would proceed forward with vigor on that.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yes. Yes. After today—yes.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Yes. That’s fine. So, we’ve got a motion to adopt the proposed changes to the CWD section of response rules regarding containment, surveillance zones, check stations, deer carcass movement restrictions and disposal requirements. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton moves to approve.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is a there a second?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Foster. Second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Nay.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. The motion carries. Thank you very much, Dr. Reed. All right. Action item number four, CWD detection and response rules, CWD testing requirements at deer breeding facilities. Recommended adoption of proposed changes. Dr. Reed.
DR. REED: I think we’re good afternoon now. Chairman and Commissioners, name is Dr. J Hunter Reed, wildlife veterinarian for the wildlife division. Today, I’ll be discussing CWD testing requirements at deer breeding facilities. This is a quick overview of the three items being proposed today. First is removal of tier one rules. Second is implementing a requirement for the removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive deer, and third is non-substantive housekeeping changes, um, really to comport rules with rule-making that took earlier…took effect earlier this year. And I’ll elaborate on the first two.
So, for the first item proposing the removal of tier one rules, I’d like to briefly clarify what tier one rules are addressing. Following the detection of a CWD positive facility, the department initiates an epidemiological investigation which traces all facilities that transferred deer into and out of a CWD positive facility within the last five years. All breeding facilities that receive a deer from a CWD positive facility within the five-year period are considered trace-out facilities.
These trace-out facilities in turn may have transferred out deer out of their herds if they received a CWD exposed animal. These animals, termed “tier one animals”, could be infected with CWD and may be the source of transmission to other herds. As a result, tier one facilities or breeding facilities that have received deer from a trace-out facility within five years of positive detection are converted to nonmovement qualified status until that disease risk can be evaluated through postmortem and antemortem testing.
While these rules provide an extra layer of protection to breeder herds until sufficient information is gathered to assess a particular disease exposure, staff are proposing that these tier one rules be removed in light of improvements in our surveillance system for breeding facilities, such as 100% postmortem testing and increased postmortem substitution requirement, antemortem testing prior to release, and antemortem testing prior to transfer to another breeding facility.
These combined improvements provide the department with greater confidence that CWD infected herds are being detected—are quickly and reliably being detected across Texas. And this also means that trace herds are being converted to nonmovement qualified status in an appropriate period of time and that there’s a very small likelihood of any animal being exposed in a trace-out facility and still being transferred to a tier one facility under our current surveillance system. Furthermore, the removal of tier one rules would return 30 facilities that are currently open and otherwise not epidemiologically connected back to movement qualified status. It would simplify and expedite epidemiological investigations as well as redirect staff resources to more concerning areas of CWD management. So, consequently staff propose to remove tier one rules.
Next, the second item proposed would be to require the removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive deer with enhanced antemortem testing surveillance for Texas breeder herds. The department has encountered situations where CWD positive animals may still be present in herds. Currently, our rules only require epidemiologically linked facilities to remove and postmortem test confirmed positive animals. Additionally, herd plans, developed in cooperation with TAHC, or Texas Animal Health Commission, Parks & Wildlife, and United States Department of Agriculture and the facility owner require the removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive animals. However, there’s no requirement for the removal and postmortem testing of confirmed CWD positive animals that are not epidemiologically linked or have yet to sign a herd plan. So, staff propose to address this gap to reduce the risk of CWD transmission within and outside the breeding facility.
And the last item addressed nonsubstantive changes transferring rule text from transition provisions to other sections.
As of this morning, received 233 public comments. 91% of those were in favor. 6% disagreed with the proposal and 3% disagreed specifically with the proposal. Those that disagreed specifically with the proposal thought that tier one testing should continue. Others thought that requiring visible ID on deer released from tier one facilities should be required. Texas Wildlife Association also submitted a formal comment. They agreed but recommend that retained ID be required for all released deer, especially for tier one deer. Texas Deer Association agrees with the removal of both items and Deer Breeder Corp also agrees with the removal of both items…or removal of tier one rules and removal of CWD positive deer, as does the Texas Deer Association. So, um, subsequently, staff recommends that the commission adopt the following motion as seen on the slide. And thank you for your attention.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you, Dr. Reed. Any questions for Dr. Reed? You’ll have a chance as well after the speakers. All right, so, we have several signed up. Michelle McBryde on the phone. Ms. McBryde, you’ll get points for being quick, so…
MS. MICHELLE MCBRYDE (via phone): Hello again, Commissioners. Michelle McBryde of Kerr County with McBryde Private Consulting Service. I stand against proposed amendment to CWD, comprehensive rules, agenda Action Item number 4 for many reasons. Basis of my opinion. Firstly, the first order of business must be to address the tabled, not postponed agenda items as listed for November’s commission meeting. Rule‑making and adoption needs to be done diligently, eliminating the created necessity of transferring provisions.
Secondly, scientific evidence as a zoonotic potential is mentioned yet not confirmed by diagnosis of human CWD. It’s important to understand and mention human diagnosis requires human postmortem samples. In my opinion, based on my own research, variants of rabies will prove beneficial in problem‑solving zoonotic potential. Why does the department premise to stand on scientific evidence refuse avenues aiding and preventing transmission before diagnosis of human CWD?
Thirdly, the department states epidemiological concern of spread warrants euthanasia, yet disposable instruments aren’t being used and biohazard waste disposed of in dumpsters. These two contributing factors of epidemiological spread overshadow movement of individual animals; therefore, warranting the halt of euthanasias and use of proper postmortem sample clutch and techniques.
Fourthly, postmortem testing is not required in fawns, though scientific studies show evidence of placental transfer. Postmortem testing should have been a requirement in fawns prior to restricting operation of micro and small business nurseries. I have hope you will hear by your inner ear and postpone this action item, either to a certain time after addressing tabled items, or indefinitely, to be brought up again as presented at a later date. Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate your time today.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Mr. Wagner.
MR. MATT WAGER: Chairman Hildebrand and Commission members. I’m Matt Wagner, executive director of Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society. We have concerns that the elimination of tier one designation will immediately create many movement qualified breeder facilities. The department should require visible I.D. for all deer released from these and other breeder facilities. This is simply standard disease management protocol followed by animal health agencies around the country.
Chairman Hildebrand, at the Commission meeting in January, you said that regulation is a necessary element of all industries and that businesses find a way to make it work and that TPWD is trying to
strike a healthy balance between commercial interests and the greater good. We should reflect on that term a minute, the greater good. We are the only state that allows release of breeder deer on private ranches that are not themselves breeders or shooting operations. There is no other state that allows more flexibility in this activity and is more landowner and breeder friendly. White-tailed deer are a public resource that have been commercialized for private gain, and when you overlay a complex disease like CWD on top of this relationship, shouldn’t we do everything we can to stop the artificial spread of this disease? Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Mr. Davis?
MR. KEVIN DAVIS: Good afternoon again, Chairman Hildebrand, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz. For the record, again my name is Kevin Davis with the Texas Deer Association. I just want to state the Texas Deer Association’s support for this proposal. I want to acknowledge that this proposal was brought forward by TPWD staff. Dr. Yoskowitz, thank you for you and your staff bringing this proposal forward. It is an important one, scientifically supported. And we just…we appreciate it. I want to take just a second. Dr. Wagner is my friend. We have been colleagues for over 25 years, working at Parks & Wildlife. I’d just like to, you know, acknowledge his comment about visible I.D. and just remind everyone that that is a decision for the state legislature to make. For that, I’ll close.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you very much. Mr. Chancey?
MR. JASON CHANCEY: Thank you, Commissioners. I want to second what Mr. Davis just had to say. Thank you for your consideration on removing the tiers. As a deer breeder, that is a much-needed relief within this industry. It is a step in the right direction. There is still work to be done, as far as being able to get breeders movement qualified quicker, ‘cause there are flaws in the rules and regulations that we are still currently affected by. CWD positive sources, positive facility, has more options to keep their deer alive than what a trace-out facility does.
I was a trace-out facility. The only way I could reach movement qualification, again, was to euthanize deer that were in my facility that came from a forced facility. That same facility, if those deer were still in that facility, they still have an option to be alive right now to this day. $100,000 economic impact to me for those deer that I had to euthanize. That goes a long way in to paying for my three kids to go to college here in the next four years is when that’s going to start.
An economic impact of $100,000 doesn’t mean a whole lot to a lot of people. It means a lot to me. That is part of my life savings that went down the drain when I had to take those deer out in order to regain movement qualification status. And I’m still not movement qualified because I’m caught up in a tier. So, the removal of the tier, the tier regulations would get me closer to being able to be a viable business again after being shut down for over a year now. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Mr. Barley.
MR. TRENT BARLEY: How is everybody doing today? Thank you for having us here, Commissioners, Chairman. I’m actually going to give you my executive summary of the tier system. Thank you for putting it on the docket to remove. I’ve got facilities A — I’m A — B, and C. Okay? I did business with B. They are shut down because they did business with C. In the middle of all this, as a proactive breeder, I have purposefully removed my animals, you know, and working with B who I’m also tied up with directly, they have removed their animals. And then C, you know, I have no — never done business with C. So, removing this is going to help me very much and getting back to making an income, hopefully, after this adventure. That is a different story. Anyways, I’m in favor of removing the tier and trace statuses. Thank you all very much. Like Ms. Coleman said, this is very intimidating.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Thank you very much. All right, Commissioners. Any follow-up questions or comments? All right. If not, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell. So, moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carries. Thank you. Dr. Yoskowitz, on item three, just a clarification. I was referring to surveillance zones on free-ranging—the free-ranging element of it and mandatory testing. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Action item number five. Disease management. Special take authorization rule. Recommended adoption of proposed rule. Mr. Stormy King. Please make your presentation.
MR. STORMY KING: Okay, again, for the record, Stormy King, Assistant Commander Wildlife Enforcement for the Law Enforcement Division. Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. I’m here today on behalf of staff to recommend adoption of proposed amendments to the Texas Register, related to special take authorizations associated with disease management.
During the 88th Texas legislative session, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3065, which was signed into law by the governor and became effective on September 1, 2023. The resulting amendments to Parks & Wildlife Code allow the take of wildlife by persons authorized by TPWD as part of a program or event designated by the executive director to be for purposes of the diagnosis, management, or prevention of a disease in wildlife.
These authorizations will facilitate the more timely and efficient collection of wildlife that historically would had to have been conducted either by TPWD staff or under the provisions of a recreational hunting season and in accordance with bag limits, means and methods restrictions, tagging requirements, etcetera. Such authorizations can be of benefit to both the department and to landowners by, for example, providing for the quicker clearance of a release site in a trace scenario.
House Bill 3065 granted the Commission authority to adopt rules to implement provisions
of the new law. While many species can legally be taken year-round, day or night, by licensed hunters, this is obviously not the case with our deer in Texas. It is obvious that at least at the current time, deer also present the most likely need by the department to address the disease concern and, as such, pose the most likely need to provide a special take authorization to a landowner.
As perhaps the most iconic of Texas wildlife, it is imperative that we develop rules to govern these authorizations that reflect the economic and cultural value of deer to the state. The rules as proposed would create processes for application and issuance of authorizations, specify requirements for disease testing and reporting and provide reasonable limits on activity conducted under the authorizations to protect the integrity of the intended purpose and provide accountability by enforcement action for noncompliance.
As of this morning, we still 32 comments from the public on this item with 69% agreeing completely, 28% disagreeing completely, and 3% disagreeing with a specific element of the proposal. There were a total of eight written comments summarized as follows: two conveyed support based on the opinion that the proposal would facilitate disease management and data collection. Six written comments were either not germane to the proposed regulation or raised a concern that is addressed in the proposal.
With that, staff recommend that the Commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission adopts new 31 Texas Administrative Code 65.907 concerning special take authorization—White-tailed and Mule Deer as listed in Exhibit A, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the April 19, 2024, issue of the Texas Register.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. King. Any questions? All right. We’ve got one speaker signed up. Ms. McBryde.
MS. MICHELLE MCBRYDE (via phone): I am Michelle McBryde, a birthright native of Kerr County. I will begin with clarity of stand, which is against the department’s rulemaking, not against our game wardens. I have the utmost respect for the work they do and truly feel they are our Texas rangers of wildlife. My stand against Action Item number 5 is on the basis of the same opinion as my March the 28th public comment stand against item number two, stating that first order of business must be the necessary requirement of immediate action needed on five provisions listed as tabled, not postponed from Action Item number 5 during November’s Commission meeting, formerly presented as statewide carcass disposal movement restrictions, also titled as Amendments to Disease Management and Response Regulations. Contained and recently updated February 21, 2024, chapter 65, wildlife, subchapter B, disease detection and response. Proposed for action on March the 28th in statewide hunting and migratory bird proclamation. By agenda item number two, pronghorn antelope name change and reclassification to deer.
The modifications were made after publicly adopting March 28th Action Item number 2. The same attempted interjection of November’s tabled items are being proposed in special authorization to take provision by new subsections G and I. The newly proposed subsection J restricting reporting hinders the documentation process of proper postmortem sample collection techniques used by McBryde Private Consulting Service. Furthermore, I believe this proposal is written for assistance and compliance with former rules which are hindering game wardens’ abilities of enforcement. I believe it is necessary to address the hindering rules as written, to achieve resolve, not propose new rules which will lead to further confusion and escalation of controversy, eventually, involving other entities of law enforcement. I pray you will seek the Lord’s guidance in consideration of my request for first order of business to be actioned on tabled items as listed in November’s Commission meeting.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: And second?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. Thank you. Action Item 6. Public hunting program. Establishment of an open season on public hunting lands. Approval of public hunting activities in state parks. Mr. Kevin Mote.
MR. KEVIN MOTE: Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, my name is Kevin Mote. I’m the Private Lands and Public Hunting Program Director in the Wildlife Division. Today, I will be requesting your approval of two items related to public hunting program. In order to provide hunting activities on public hunting land, the Commission must provide for an open season. For this purpose, staff requests your approval to establish an open season on public hunting lands that will run from September 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025.
The Commission has also asked to approve specific hunting activities on units of the state park system detailed in the corrected version of your Exhibit A included in your briefing materials.
As of this morning, the department has received a total of 15 comments: 80% agreed completely, zero disagree, and 20% disagree specifically on a particular item. Staff recommends the Commission adopt these proposed motions. Number one, the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes an open season on public hunting lands to run from September 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025. And the second, the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes the public hunting activities described in Exhibit A, and corrected Exhibit A, to take place on units of the state park system. That concludes my presentation if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Thank you, Mr. Mote. Any questions? So, motion one. Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes an open season on public hunting lands to run from September 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025. Do I have a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Commissioner Abell so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell second that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Motion two is the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes the public hunting activities described in Exhibit A to take place on units of the state park system. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER FOSTER: Foster. Move.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Action Item 7: Texas statewide recreational trail grants funding. Recommended approval of trail construction, renovation and acquisition projects. Mr. Chris Sheffield.
MR. CHRIS SHEFFIELD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Chris Sheffield. I serve as the state parks trails coordinator for the Recreation Grants office. For the record, this is Chris Sheffield, state parks trail coordinator for the Recreation Grants office. This afternoon, I have our recommendations for funding for the 2024 round of recreational trail grants. These are derived from the fuel tax that off-highway vehicle users pay when they fill up their tank. Those are returned to the states to support recreational trails. Our 2024 apportionment is $3,954,874. We will spend $279,638 of that for program administration. We have an additional $900,000 available from prior-year projects that came in under budget or were canceled. We have also $1 million in state sporting goods sale tax that are marked for the recreational trail fund. We stand ready to fund further down this list if additional funds become available.
46 projects were presented for us to review, totaling over $10 million in requests. We have the State Trail Advisory Board that’s made up of representatives of the various trail user groups like the equestrian community, motorized, hiking, mountain-bikers. They score that, and we present the recommendations to you. Some of the criteria they use are presented here.
We also, as we have done in prior years, have used that $900,000 in project savings on our own state park sites to fund trail improvements. Some of those sites slated for improvements are also presented here.
We’ve received five comments. As a gift to you, they were all in agreement with the recommendations here. We have two motions for you. The first one to approve, the 16 projects in the amount of $3,671,666 as listed in Exhibit A, and for the state park trail improvements in the amount of $900,000. And then a second motion approving funding for projects listed in Exhibit A in the amount of additional rec trails funding that would be made available. And I can answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Mote? All right. We have one speaker on the phone. Ms. Stanley.
CLERK: They are not on the line.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: She is not on the line. Okay. We will move on. I believe that is it. Elizabeth Carrera? That says, "read into the record." Does not wish to speak. Have we read that into the record?
MS. DEE HALLIBURTON: Yes. She’s for it.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: She’s for it? Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Motion one: Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission approves funding for the 16 construction projects in the amount of $3,671,666, as listed in Exhibit A, and for state park trail improvements in the amount of $900,000. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott so moved.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Motion two is Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission approves funding for projects listed in Exhibit A in the amount of additional NRTF funding that is made available in the current fiscal year. Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton moves to approve.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you very much. Dr. Yoskowitz, we’ve got 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. All that refer to — reference acquisitions. Can we just do this in batch and approve these kind of in batch? Versus...well, I…
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Chairman, I’m just confirming whether or not we have any speakers registered at this time.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: There are not.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Correct, um, Chairman, normally I would recommend in this case a very abbreviated presentation from staff at least to just get the entry on the record with the basic —
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: That is fine. Just do all presentations at one time.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right? Got it. Then we will remember what that presentation... Go ahead.
MR. TREY VICK: Okay. All right. For the record, my name is Trey Vick. I’m with Land Conservation. Item 8 is an acquisition of approximately 43 acres at Bastrop State Park. It’s located in Bastrop County outside of the town of Bastrop. Bastrop State Park consists of about 7,700 acres. It was acquired in the 1930s. It was created by the CCC. It is an extremely popular park for Central Texas. Staff has identified a 43-acre tract adjacent to the boundary of Bastrop State Park. Here is an outline of the state park. The subject tract outlined in yellow.
As of this morning, we have had 17 responses. 17 in favor. One opposed. Staff recommends Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 43 acres in Bastrop adjacent to Bastrop State Park. No questions?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you, Mr. Vick. We will move on to Item 9, acquisition of land, Harrison County. Approximately 1.1 acres at Caddo State Park.
MR. TREY VICK: Great. Thank you. This acquisition is in Harrison County. Outside of Caddo — or within Caddo Lake State Park. It sits approximately 15 miles northeast of Marshall. The park now totals about 460 acres. Staff has identified a 1.1-acre tract adjacent and within Caddo Lake State Park. The acquisition has high operational value. It would close up part of an inholding and prevent future development. Here is an outline of the state park. The subject tract is where the yellow pin is. Here is a close-up of the subject tract. As of this morning, it is the same. 16 responses. All in support. Staff recommends the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopt the following motion: The Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire 1.1 acres in Harrison County adjacent to Caddo Lake State Park.
There’s no further questions, I’ll move on to the next one.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: That’ll be Item 10. Acquisition of land, Limestone County, approximately 3 acres at Fort Parker State Park.
MR. TREY VICK: Yes, sir. For the record. Trey Vick, Land Conservation Program. Item 10, it’s in Limestone County, Fort Parker State Park. Fort Parker State Park is outside the city of Mexia. The park currently totals approximately 1,500 acres. It was constructed by the CCC and opened to the public in 1941. Staff has identified a 3-acre tract adjacent to Fort Parker State Park. Currently, access to the tract is through the park. Acquisition of the subject tract would eliminate potential access issues, plus add future development to the park.
Here is a map of the state park. The subject is identified at the yellow pin. Same as of this morning. 28 responses all in support. Staff recommends the Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 3 acres in Limestone County adjacent to Fort Parker State Park.
If there’s no questions, I will move on to the last item. Item 11. I’ll backup.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Item 11 is acceptance of donation of land, Bastrop County, approximately 49 acres at Bastrop State Park.
MR. TREY VICK: For the record, Trey Vick, Land Conservation Program. Bastrop State Park again. Outside of Bastrop. A 7,700-acre park. We are always looking for inholdings and adjacent properties. Staff has — The owner of a tract of land, adjacent to the south boundary of Bastrop State Park, told me 49 acres, approached staff with the intention to donate the tract to Texas Parks & Wildlife. Acquisition of this property will fill a gap in the park and join two recently acquired tracts. Here is an outline of the park. Subject tract is identified in yellow. Here, as of this morning, we have received 15 responses, 14 in support, one in opposition. The motion today for this one would be the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission accepts the donation of approximately 49 acres in Bastrop County adjacent to Bastrop State Park. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Nope. Let’s see Action Item 12. Acquisition of land. Anderson County. 6,900 acres. Middle Trinity River ecosystem.
MR. JASON ESTRELLA: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jason Estrella with the Land Conservation Program. And today is talking about acquisition of land. 6,900 acres in Anderson County. Northeast Texas. Here we see a map of the four other WMAs comprising the Middle Trinity River Ecosystem Project (MTREP). The green star is the subject tract for the proposed acquisition. MTREP was created to compensate for habitat losses associated with the construction of Richland-Chambers Reservoir. As I mentioned, MTREP consists of four WMAs within the Middle Trinity River—Richard Creek, Gus Engeling, Big Lake Bottom, and Keechi Creek. The subject tract has been owned by the same family for many decades. The acquisition would keep a very large parcel of land intact in perpetuity. The acquisition would also add valuable native habitat and strategic operational value to the project area, and staff do regard this property as a high priority.
As of last count, we have received 32 responses: 30 in support and two in opposition. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following motion: Parks & Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire approximately 6,900 acres of land in Anderson County for addition to the Middle Trinity River Ecosystem Project.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. Any questions? Great piece of property. What are we going to do with this 6,900 acres?
MR JASON ESTRELLA: Well, it will... you want to answer that, John?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Commission, for the record, John Silovsky, Wildlife Division Director. As you saw on the maps that Jason presented, you know, it is going to be part of a complex there. There is significant wetland potential and development on this site as well as bottomland hardwood restoration. There is, you know, about a thousand acres that is considered upland that doesn’t typically flood, but the flood frequency on the rest of that property is significantly high, so the best opportunity is going to be for wetland management—waterfowl, shore birds, things like that.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Are we going to allow the general public on the property?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Yes, sir, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Good. All right. Perfect. All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton. Just to clarify, it is going—is it going to be a WMA, a state park, or an SNA, or some other—?
MR. JOHN SILOVSKY: Right. It’s a wildlife management area.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Great. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Can we approve all of the motions in batch?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, sir. If you would like to have one motion for approval of all of those and a second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: All right. Is there a motion for approval for Action Items
Number 8 through 12? Do we have a motion?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell makes a motion. Approval of Items 8-12.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ABELL: Abell present. Second.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay. All in favor, please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes)
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. I think that is it. Dr. Yoskowitz, I think we had some good conversation today, and let’s iterate, let’s get better. Let’s try to get a better handle on CWD, on all the issues we talked about and challenge the staff to think outside the box in that regard.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: That is right, Chairman. Continuous improvement.
CHAIRMAN HILDEBRAND: Okay, great. Absolutely. Get better every day. Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its business. I declare us adjourned at 2—is that right? At 1:30 p.m. So, okay. Thank you very much, everybody. We are adjourned.
(Commission Meeting Adjourns)
In official recognition of the adoption of
this resolution in a lawfully called public meeting of
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, we hereby affix
our signatures this _____ day of ______________,
________.