TPW Commission
Commission Meeting, May 28, 2026
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
May 28, 2026
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
COMMISSION MEETING
CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: Good morning, everyone.
Before we begin, I’d like to take roll call.
I, Chairman Paul Foster, am present.
Vice-Chairman Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN OLIVER BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Doggett?
COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner McCall?
COMMISSIONER JOHN A. McCALL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling?
COMMISSIONER BLAKE ROWLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Scott.
COMMISSIONER DICK SCOTT: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?
COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
This meeting is called to order on May 28, 2026, at 9:03 a.m. Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: 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.
And Chairman, as well, I would like to make a reminder as we move through the action items this morning and we have public comment, that each member that is providing public comment will have a limit of three minutes for that comment.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Before we proceed, I’d like to announce that Commission Agenda Item No. 3: Mountain Lion Harvest Reporting– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes– has been withdrawn from today’s agenda.
First is the Approval of the Minutes from the Commission meeting held March 26, 2026, which have been distributed.
Do I hear a motion for approval?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And a second?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That motion passes.
Next is the Acknowledgement of the List of Donations, which has also been distributed.
Again, I would entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: McCall.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
And a second.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Second, Timmerman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That passes.
Next, Consideration of Contracts, which have also been distributed.
Again, a motion.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
And a second?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Bell, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That passes.
And next is the Approval of Nonprofit Partner List Update, which has also been distributed.
I would entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Motion, Timmerman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Second, McCall.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That passes.
Now, for the Special Recognitions, Retirements and Service Award Presentations. Dr. Yoskowitz will make the presentations, and I’ll join him.
DEE HALLIBURTON: He is not here.
Here is not here.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.
Before I begin, this is a…
You know, every Commission meeting, five times a year, we have the opportunity to recognize great work and great partnerships that are happening within and outside of the department. But before I begin, we also have the opportunity, at least a couple of times a year, where we have students joining us to observe how wildlife and fisheries policy, conservation policy is being made in Texas.
And so today they will be joining us here in a moment in the room. But today we have students from Texas A&M Kingsville, Caesar Kleberg Institute, Texas A&M College Station, Texas State, and Sul Ross.
And Charlie Booher is the leader of that policy workshop.
So, we’ll be joining… they will be joining us here in just a minute. And I want to recognize that.
The first recognition I want to make today is with the Mender, who is corporate partner of Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation.
And Mender and that partnership with Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation has been led by that co-founder and CEO, Kent Taggart.
It’s a Texas-based IT asset disposition company.
And their focus is on aiding businesses with solutions to minimize their environmental footprint, and contribute to a greener future one technological asset at a time.
In two short years, as part of its annual giving pledge, Mender has donated $50,000 in support of Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation’s Texas Desert Bighorn Sheep Coalition.
Mender’s generous show of support is fueling critical research and restoration of this iconic species across West Texas. It also reflects the company’s mission-driven approach to mend the relationship between corporations and our natural world. The dedication to green business solutions and to conservation across Texas will pay dividends for the future generations of our Texas wild, including Texas majestic bighorn sheep. With that, Kent Taggart was going to be here today to join us in this check presentation, but was not able to make it.
So, we have David Yeates representing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation to commemorate Mender’s support of the desert bighorn sheep.
Thank you.
Would you like to come up, David?
DAVID YEATES: Sure.
[ applause ]
CHASE FOUNTAIN: Perfect.
Gentleman, here we go.
On three.
One… I don’t think you can tilt that one. Hold on.
Something weird here.
[ camera clicks ]
MR. YEATES: He’s here!
MS. HALLIBURTON: Oh, perfect
MR. YEATES: Squeeze in.
Come squeeze in.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Just in time.
[ camera clicks ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay, here we go.
That was weird.
One, two and three.
Again.
Got one.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Now that was an entrance.
Right on time.
[ laughter ]
I’m pleased to announce that Todd Pilcik, Wildlife Biologist for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in Wildlife District 9 since 2002 has been selected as this year’s recipient of the Fugate Memorial Wildlife Division Professional of the Year Award.
Todd has been serving Brazoria, Matagorda Counties, and more recently, Southern Jackson County.
He consistently brings a positive, upbeat attitude to his work, and genuinely loves what he does. Much like Randy Fugate, Todd maintains a light-hearted approach, is quick to smile, and is always ready to assist wherever and whenever needed.
With 30 years of experience at the Department, Todd serves an important role and link between long-tenured staff and newer team members.
He contributes wealth of historical knowledge, hands-on experience, and strong relationships between that span those generations.
Todd has provided, and continues to provide, valuable mentorship to employees beginning their careers with the department.
He routinely goes the extra mile for both his colleagues and the constituents that he serves.
He regularly assists with prescribed burns on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department wildlife management areas, and supports public hunts.
He treats the priorities of his co-workers and constituents as his own, makes staff feel welcome, and takes the time to connect with constituents on a personal level. Todd is trusted by staff and stakeholders alike, because they know he truly cares.
Please join me in congratulating Todd Pilcik with this well-deserved recognition.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: You want to come up?
MR. FOUNTAIN: It’s not going to flash, but I’ve adjusted for it.
Okay?
Here we go.
One, two…
One more.
[ camera clicks ]
Thank you.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: So now we’re going to get into our Service Awards and time serving the department in the State of Texas.
But Chairman and Commissioners, after last Commission meeting I asked Human Resources Division to do a little research for us. And so, I want to thank Jada and Melissa for coming up with these statistics. I wanted to get a sense of, out of all the full-time employees that we have in the department right now, what is that total of years of service of that?
So, we have 28,508 total years of service to Texas and the department with the current number of employees that we have.
So, I think that’s a pretty outstanding number. And I want to appreciate.
[ applause ]
First, we have Sergeant Cynthia Guajardo-Echols, who began her career with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 1996 from the Game Warden Academy, and after graduation was stationed in Cherokee County.
In 2002, she was promoted to Sergeant Special Investigations, where she served 23 years. For the last 20 years, Sergeant Echols has been involved in peer support for first responders and their families across Texas and throughout the United States. She assists families of officers who have suffered line-of-duty deaths.
She also has responded to numerous mass casualty events, including Santa Fe, Uvalde, and Kerrville, helping establish first responder assistance centers and providing critical emotional and logistical support.
In 2025, Sergeant Echols transitioned from Special Investigations to become the Peer Support and Officer Wellness Program Coordinator.
With 30 years of service, Sergeant Guajardo-Echols.
[ applause ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, here we go.
One three.
One, two, and three.
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
Perfect.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: James Edwards began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on March 1, 1996, working as a park ranger at Possum Kingdom State Park.
In 2000, James was hired as a district biologist covering Parker, Palo Pinto, and Erath counties. James has been part of numerous large-scale research and relocation projects, including buffalo trapping and relocation on the JA Ranch and Palo Duro Canyon State Park.
James has closely worked with younger generations of Texans by helping and coordinating hunts at multiple wildlife management areas, state parks, and Corps of Engineers lands.
For many years now, he has helped local 4-H and Future Farmers of America organizations by relating knowledge of wildlife management for local youth, including wildlife contests. James has built a great relationship with landowners by providing recommendations for habitat management projects, species-specific management techniques, and has served as a liaison for multiple landowners with wildlife management associations.
With 30 years of service, James Edwards.
[ applause ]
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Congratulations.
MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay, here we go.
One, two…
[ camera clicks ]
I’m sorry.
Everything is going weird today.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Just pass a phone we can use.
Yeah…
[ laughter ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: Yeah.
Okay, here we go.
One, two, and three.
[ camera clicks ]
Excellent.
Thank you.
[ applause ]
JAMES EDWARDS: Thank you.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Gaylon Williams began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on February 1, 2001, in Information Technology Division.
Throughout his tenure, Gaylon steadily advanced through the organization, ultimately taking on the responsibility of managing the desktop team.
In May of 2015, he transitioned into his current role as the Network Operations Manager, where he continues to make profound impact.
Gaylon oversees the statewide telecommunications network that supports more than 200 field sites across Texas, as well as the Austin headquarters. His team ensures the reliability and security of essential data, voice, wireless infrastructure, and network services that the agency relies on every day.
Galyon also leads major initiatives including Internet service procurement, network modernization, fiber optic expansion, wireless upgrades, and driving improvement that strengthen connectivity for staff across the state.
With 25 years of service, Gaylon Williams.
[ applause ]
Right on, man.
GAYLON WILLIAMS. Thank you.
MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, here we go.
On three.
One, two…
[ camera clicks ]
Thank you.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Congrats.
[ applause ]
Oh, this is a tough one, next. Justin Rhodes began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in March of 2001, as a park ranger and state park police officer.
As he grew in his roles, he has drawn to the principles of conservation and how they intersected with the business operation of state parks.
This interest guided Justin toward park management, where he served as park superintendent at several state parks across Texas, including Purtis Creek, Tyler, and Martin Dies. Justin was later hired as the Region 4 Director of State Parks, leading a mix of 18 state parks and historic sites in Southeast Texas, including Battleship Texas.
In 2018, Justin was selected as Deputy Director of Texas State Parks, where he currently oversees the operation of 90 parks, the State Park Budget Program, and the Texas State Park Police Program.
Reflecting on his 25 years of service, Justin is proud of the opportunities he has had to mentor others and witness their success within the agency.
Most recently, he has been instrumental in helping to manage and select prospective new parks through the Centennial Parks Conservation Fund process.
His leadership and behind-the-scenes work will influence Texas State Parks for generations to come.
And Chairman, also he is a super fan of the iconic Mexican avocado dish that most people have no trouble pronouncing.
[ laughter ]
With 25 years of service, Justin Rhodes.
[ applause ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay, here we go.
On three.
One, two, and three.
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
One, two, and…
Excellent.
Thank you.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: I’ll give you a chance to clear the air right now, but maybe…
[ laughter ]
Okay, maybe not.
Arlene Kalmbach began her career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 2006, working on the first Texas State Wildlife Action Plan.
She transitioned to Coordinator of the Landowner Incentive Program later that same year.
And in 2013, she became the Administrator of the Pastures for Upland Birds Program.
During her tenure, both for the Land Incentive Program, she has accomplished conservation projects on over 228,000 acres across the state.
And for the Pastures for Upland Birds Program, she has helped enhance native prairie on over 15,000 acres.
She’s looking forward to many more years of serving the department managing those programs.
With 20 years of service, Arlene Kalmbach.
[ applause ]
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Congratulations.
ARLENE KALMBACK: Thank you.
MR. FOUNTAIN: Perfect.
Here we go.
One, two, and three.
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
One, two…
[ camera clicks ]
[ applause ]
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Congrats.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: And last, we’d like to recognize Dustin Barrett, who began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as a Texas Game Warden Cadet in October of 2006, graduating from the Texas Game Warden Academy in May of 2007.
After graduation, Warden Barrett was stationed in El Paso County for three years. He transferred to Val Verde County in August of 2010, serving for 14 years.
During that time, he was known for building, facilitating, and cultivating relationships with landowners, ranchers, members of the community, water, recreational constituents, hunters, fishermen, both local and out of state.
Additionally, during that time Warden Barrett spent approximately two years as part of the Marine Theft Investigation Unit as Marine Theft Investigator for the Trans-Pecos area.
In November of 2022, he transferred to Nueces County and then to Kerr County to be closer to home and family.
Warden Barrett was awarded a Director’s Citation by Texas Parks and Wildlife Law Enforcement Division Director for his actions during the tragic floods of 2025; and also, Game Warden of the Year of 2025 by the Kerr County Rotary Club for his service.
With 20 years of service… and helping keeping me in the boat,
by the way, thank you, Warden Barrett. With 20 years of service, Game Warden Dustin Barrett.
[ applause ]
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Congrats.
DUSTIN BARRETT: Thank you.
MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, here we go.
One three.
One, two…
One more.
[ camera clicks ]
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, that concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
That’s always one of my favorite parts of the meeting, is recognizing the incredible service from all the dedicated people in the state.
At this time, I would like to inform the audience that everyone is welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting. But if anyone wishes to leave, now would be an appropriate time to do so.
So, I’ll pause just for a moment in case there are some people— looks like there’s a few— who are ready to leave.
Thank you.
All right.
Action Item No. 1: Texas Statewide Recreational Trails Grants Funding– Recommended Approval of Trail Construction, Renovation, and Acquisition Projects.
And Mr. Matt Fougerat, I think.
MATT FOUGERAT: Good morning, Chairman Foster, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Matthew Fougerat.
I’m the Recreational Trails Grant Coordinator in Recreation Grants, a branch of the State Park Division. This morning, I’m requesting your approval of our 2026 Recreational Trails Grant recommendations.
The federal funds for this program originate from the gasoline tax paid by recreational off-highway vehicles, or OHV users. These funds are rebated back to the states for use on recreational trail projects.
We have over $4.5 million in federal funding to award to eligible trail projects.
An additional set-aside of sporting goods sales tax funds, totaling just over $1.5 million, is available to award through this grant program, leaving a total of over $6 million to award. 48 project proposals were submitted by our February deadline, requesting nearly $13 million in funding.
The projects were scored by our State Trail Advisory Committee in March, and rated for quality, cost effectiveness, recreational impact, and geographic distribution.
As we’ve done in prior years, we’re also including funding for various state park trails, including a $900,000 allocation to improve trails across the park system.
Some of those recent or ongoing projects include new or renovated trails at the Texas State Parks Division sites listed here.
This slide shows the geographic distribution of this year’s applicants, shown as blue dots. And here we see the location of projects recommended for funding.
Projects recommended for federal funding are shown in green. And those recommended for funding with Texas State sporting goods sales tax are shown in orange.
We received 20 total public comments on this item, with the majority, 75 percent, agreeing.
Areas of disagreement include: General concern over higher taxation and project budget overruns. The use of grant funds at a university that is believed to already receive enough funding.
A general preference for hiking trails over motorized.
And a preference to use more program funds on motorized over non-motorized projects.
In response, it is worth reiterating that the Recreational Trail Program is funded through excise taxes on recreational OHV gasoline purchases.
The applications are scored competitively by an independent scoring committee based on application merit.
The award amount recommended by the scoring committee and approved by this Commissioner cannot be increased due to budget overruns.
All awards are reimbursement-based, with reimbursement requests required to adhere to strict auditing principles and final inspections performed on all projects prior to grant closure. 30 percent of the program’s federal funds are required to go to OHV projects, regardless of the ratio of OHV to non-motorized applications.
It is rare for OHV applications to exceed the 30 percent requirement, and often fall below in a given year. Fortunately, we are allowed to average the 30 percent requirement over multiple cycles.
As a result of our general shortage of OHV applications required to meet the program mandate, we provide outreach efforts aimed at increasing awareness of the OHV program.
We have two recommended motions.
Motion 1: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission approves funding for 21 trail projects listed in Exhibit A, and a $900,000 allocation for state park trail improvements, for a total amount of $6,170,455.”
The second motion allows us to fund further down the list if more funding becomes available.
Motion 2: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission approves funding for the projects listed in Exhibit A in the amount of additional funding that is made available in the current fiscal year.”
This concludes the presentation for Item 1.
Thank you.
I’m now available to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Thank you.
Do we have any questions or comments?
We do have, I think, just one person signed up from the public to speak on this subject.
MR. FOUGERAT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, I would…
Thank you for your comments.
I would invite George Cofer to the microphone.
George Cofer?
Good morning.
GEORGE COFER: Good morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I’m George Cofer, lifelong resident of Travis and Uvalde Counties.
I’m here this morning on behalf of an applicant, Hill Country Conservancy. Hill Country Conservancy is a nonprofit land trust working with landowners in Central Texas to preserve their family lands. Been in business 26 years.
We realized many years ago that a good way to get people out into nature is on trails.
I’m here today on behalf of Hill Country Conservancy as the project manager for the Violet Crown Trail, a trail extending from downtown Austin into Hays County.
We have received three recreational trail grant awards over the past 20 years.
Thank you.
It’s an excellent program.
I commend the staff.
They’re great people.
Good to work with.
We are applying now – have applied – for your consideration for what would be our fourth award, if awarded. And that will extend the Violet Crown Trail further down into Hays County.
We’re working closely with the Hays County Commissioners Court and all the appropriate authorities. Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I have a quick question.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. COFER: Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: So, what is the main… where is the main thrust into Hays County?
MR. COFER: So, as we leave State Highway 45 southwest, as the trail leaves State Highway 45 southwest headed south, it goes to Bliss Spillar Road, Mr. Scott, if you’re familiar with that road, crosses Bliss Spillar and on into various tracts of land owned by the city of Austin Water Quality Utility, what they call their “wild lands preserve.”
It will go down to FM 967, the East/West County Road from Buda over to the Salt Lake, and then on down toward Onion Creek. This particular application will get us perhaps not quite to FM 967, but that’s the goal.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Which county Commissioner precincts does that hit, do you know?
MR. COFER: Well, it has been Commissioner Walt Smith.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yeah.
MR. COFER: And, as you may know, Walt’s not going to be there again.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Retired, yeah.
MR. COFER: So to be determined. We’ve been working closely with the entire court. But on funding, primarily Commissioner Lon Shell, who’s also no longer there. Full disclosure, Lon’s on the board of Hill Country Conservancy now. So whoever replaces Commissioner Smith will be our lead. And of course we work with their parks department.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay, thank you.
MR. COFER: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
All right.
Any more questions or comments from the Commission?
All right.
Motion...
We’ll go ahead and do these motions?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Motion No. 1: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission approves funding for 21 trail projects listed in Exhibit A, and a $900,000 allocation for state park trail improvements, for a total of $6,170,455.”
Do I hear a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Second.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Timmerman, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That passes.
That is good.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission…
This is Motion No. 2: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission approves funding for projects listed in Exhibit A in the amount of additional funding that may be made available in the current fiscal year.”
Do I hear a motion?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Second?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: McCall, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: McCall, thank you.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
And any opposed?
That passes.
Next is Action Item No. 2: Public Hunting Program– Establishment of an Open Season on Public Hunting Lands and Approval of Public Hunting Activities on State Parks.
And Mr. Kevin Mote.
KEVIN MOTE: Morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Kevin Mote. I’m the Private Lands and Public Hunting Program Director.
Today I’ll be requesting your approval of two items related to the Public Hunting Program.
In order to provide hunting activities on public hunting lands, the Commission must first provide for an open season. For this purpose, staff request your approval to establish an open season on public hunting lands that will run from September 1, 2026 to August 31, 2027.
The Commission is also asked to approve specific hunting activities on proposed units of the state park system detailed in Exhibit A included in your briefing materials.
As of 5:00 yesterday, the department had received 60 total comments– 53 agree, which includes a letter addressed to the Commission expressing the Texas Chapter of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers’ appreciation for your continued efforts to provide hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands. In addition, four disagree completely and two disagree specifically.
And reasons for the disagreement include: Unsafe and irresponsible to allow public hunts on state parks. And disagree specifically, there were two commenters that voiced concern about insufficient public hunting opportunities in the state.
So, with that, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motions:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes an open season on public hunting lands to run from September 1, 2026 to August 31, 2027.”
The second motion: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the public hunting activities contained in Exhibit A to take place on units of the state park system.”
And that concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. Do we have any comments or questions?
McCall?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, just a question.
Commissioner McCall.
Have we not allowed hunting on these lands up until now?
What was our status up until now?
MR. MOTE: Yes.
Many of… most, if not all, of them were hunted before.
Except we have three new state parks. So every year the Commission has to renew the hunting season and approve the hunting on the state park units.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.
Got it.
MR. MOTE: So, it’s just an annual renewal.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Got you.
MR. MOTE: Yes, Sir.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.
Just one thing.
One of the comments, the disagreement comments just referenced safety.
Can you just in general describe, you know, that process. You know, what we’re doing… or is there someone on the staff that could just describe for the public how that works to show actually how safe it is?
MR. MOTE: So most, if not all, state parks are actually closed to the general public during the period of the hunts. It’s not an open the gates, free for all. They’re drawn hunters.
So, there are specific people who have the privilege of hunting on a specific state park during a set time period. And those are supervised hunts.
In other words, they have to check in with state park staff, get an orientation on where they’re going to hunt, how the hunt’s going to be taking place, and then they check out. And like I said, those parks are closed during the period that the hunt is taking place. So, there’s no other park visitors out there.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MOTE: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other comments or questions?
We do have two people signed up to speak on this topic.
Thank you, Mr. Mote.
First I’ll call Jake Walker.
Welcome.
JAKE WALKER: Thank you.
Morning, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Jake Walker. I’m the Policy Chair for the Texas Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a lifelong Texas resident, and I live here in Austin.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a national nonprofit that advocates for public land and water access and science-based wildlife management.
We represent some 25,000 members nationwide. On behalf of Texas BHA, I’d like to offer my sincere gratitude to this Commission and to Texas Parks and Wildlife for their continued efforts to ensure opportunities for hunting and fishing on public lands.
Texas has a reputation in our community for its lack of public land.
And while it’s true that we don’t have the same expansive public lands network as some of these western states, we’re proud of the work that’s been done to protect what we do have. We have over a million acres in dove leases and state parks and WMAs available for us to hunt. We have 1.2 million acres of freshwater lakes and reservoirs.
We have nearly 200,000 miles of rivers and streams for boating and fishing.
And depending on how you measure, we have over 3,000 miles of shoreline that acts as our own backcountry to explore. We’re proud of the resources that are available to us, and we will continue to advocate for them.
But attacks on public land at all levels of government are becoming more frequent. We fought and prevented massive public land sell-offs by our federal government, and continued pressure to dispose of those lands to state governments or carve them up for extractive industries. We’re currently fighting to restore access to the Trinity River Cutoff in Northeast Texas, where people have hunted and fished with their families for nearly 100 years, thanks to the Texas legislature of 1931.
“The people of this state shall have full right to hunt and fish in these waters,” the law said. That right was wiped away overnight after a wealthy and well-connected landowner built a pipe fence to block access.
And with all the direct attacks on public land, we also have to look out for the more subtle – the threats of decreased funding for our voluntary public access program and available funds needed just to maintain what we have.
Now, despite all that, we remain hopeful and know that for as long as this Commission and this department prioritizes places for the public to hunt and fish, we will continue to build a community of people who care about it generation after generation after generation.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Next, I’d like to call Brandt Buchanan.
Welcome.
BRANDT BUCHANAN: Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Commissioners.
So, I came here today initially thinking we were going to be able to speak about mountain lions.
But since I’ve come all the way across the state from the north border of Big Bend Ranch State Park, I figured I’d at least comment in support of the Public Hunting Program.
I did notice that for Big Bend Ranch State Park they’ve added “and exotics” to the back end of it, and I hope that they’re referring to aoudad and elk and other species that, in my opinion, the park wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars mowing down with helicopters and AR-15s for a real negligible effect, something that has a negative impact on our ranch whenever helicopters are about.
And, you know, luckily the park staff is getting pretty good about notifying me, or at least picking up the call whenever I notice that you guys are flying around and doing the aerial gunning.
And I’ve spoken with park staff, and I think I even spoke with your director at a bighorn symposium, trying to get more aoudad hunting on public lands. You’ve got Black Gap, Big Bend Ranch State Park, Chinati Mountains State Natural Area. And, as of now, there hasn’t been any aoudad hunting publicly available. It would be one of the most sought-after public hunting opportunities in the state.
Other than that, I hope next meeting you guys get around to that mandatory harvest reporting. It’s… any opposition would be easy to squash. I’ve talked with a lot of people on both sides of that aisle. Maybe it needs to be worked up a little bit. But I hope to see that on the next Commission meeting, although I don’t think I’ll be able to make it all the way out here again for that one.
So, thank you, guys.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Comments or questions?
Thank you.
With that, I would entertain a motion to approve.
Sorry.
[ clears throat ]
Excuse me.
Motion No. 1:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes an open season on public hunting lands to run from September 1, 2026 to August 31, 2027. All right.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Timmerman gives approval.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And a second?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
None.
So that passes.
And Motion No. 2:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the public hunting activities described in Exhibit A to take place on units of the state park system.
Again, I’d entertain a motion.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Second.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
All right.
So that passes.
Next was… Action Item No. 3 was Mountain Lion Harvest Reporting. And as we mentioned before, that item has been withdrawn.
Item No. 4: Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Mr. Richard Heilbrun is here to present.
Thank you.
RICHARD HEILBRUN: Good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners.
My name is Richard Heilbrun.
I’m the Deputy Director of the Wildlife Division. Today, I’ll be proposing changes to the Wildlife Rehab Permit Program, and summarizing changes that we recommend based on public comment. We started this project ten months ago, and developed a proposal with significant input from wildlife rehabilitators, especially the Wildlife Rehab Council.
Texas has approximately 200 permitted wildlife rehabbers and an additional 1,700 subpermittees, which I will often refer to as “subs.”
Wildlife rehabilitation has evolved into a highly complex and technical field.
We have many experienced rehabbers that are talented and knowledgeable. But in thinking about the future, there is very little way for us to transfer that knowledge to new rehabilitators. We cannot currently require any practical experience for new applicants.
Today, a new applicant can become a wildlife rehabilitator by watching a two-hour video on YouTube and taking a ten-question exam.
Staff are seeing a troubling trend where many people see this permit as a way to keep wildlife as pets or to generate social media content, which is not allowed under current law. It’s important to note that this is a trend in new applicants only, and does not reflect on current experienced rehabilitators.
This proposal would create a mentor-mentee relationship to facilitate that knowledge transfer. And staff expect an increase in rehabbers available to help the public, and expect no additional cost to existing rehabbers.
Just a little background for you. This is a list of the top 10 species seen in our wildlife rehab program. They treat a wide variety of species. Opossums make up 60 percent of all patients statewide, followed by cottontail rabbits, fox squirrels, White-winged dove, raccoons, et cetera.
As you can see, the top 10 species overlaps considerably with our urban species.
Staff are faced with several overarching challenges, including requests for staff to intervene in dispute between rehabilitators, poorly supervised satellites, and subs in some cases, the fact that the vast majority of authorized users do not fall under the direct supervision of the department, and the fact that rehabilitation outcomes are generally poor. We see about a 35 percent success rate for wildlife rehab patients.
In addition, we are developing a new permit database to support the program to expedite their reports and their permit requests. It’s important that we try to update the program rules before we start building this new database, which could be relatively expensive.
These photos exemplify challenges that we see with subpermitees. The photo on the left is a photo of a person in a bar that’s being allowed to hold a beaver.
The photo on the right is a photo of a poorly supervised subpermittee and the conditions in their home. Unfortunately, the animals and the children were removed from this facility.
We have other photographs showing similar problems that could be corrected with better training.
There’s a big difference between subpermittees and volunteers. Today, and as part of this proposal, rehabilitators and subs can use unlimited volunteers. That won’t change.
A subpermittee is someone that can act in place of the rehabilitator with the full force and authorization of the rehabilitator.
They can make medical decisions and supervise volunteers. Subs have all the same authorizations as rehabilitators, but we need to make sure that they’re being supervised because subs do not have the same training, examination, inspection, reporting, or oversight as the permittees themselves.
Think of subs not as an assistant but as a stand-in. They can take animals off-site, they can supervise volunteers, they can direct care, they can intake and euthanize wildlife. They can be in the same facility or they can run an off-site satellite facility.
Again, both permittees and subs can have unlimited volunteers.
We propose this package for several reasons. We’d like to increase efficiency and to ease reporting requirements.
We believe we can allow rehabilitators to shift their focus to clinical care rather than supervising dozens of subs and satellites.
With this proposal, we’re trying to ensure that new rehabbers are well-trained by existing rehabilitators. And based on how we’ve structured the proposal, we expect a rapid increase in rehabbers from the approximately 1,700 already registered and trained subpermittees in the program. We do not expect to increase costs. Our proposal would require new applicants to do an apprenticeship of 800 hours over at least two years. We also propose to make a more comprehensive exam. Therefore, we propose to ease the score requirement from 100 percent down to 80 percent.
The proposal also changes the letter of reference requirement. Currently, code requires a letter attesting the personal knowledge of the applicant.
And we propose to change that to a letter attesting to the applicant’s clinical skills. We also propose a minimum age of 18 for subs, and to ask them to take a very basic exam. We do not propose to set a minimum age for volunteers. That can be any age set by the rehabilitator themselves.
Currently, a relationship with a veterinarian is not required. The proposal would require a letter from a vet stating their willingness to consult if consultation is needed.
We also propose that diseases that must already be reported to other agencies must now be reported to Parks and Wildlife. And lastly, in the event of a wildlife disease outbreak, such as New World screwworm, we clarify that our Executive Director can limit the intake and release of wildlife.
We also clarify that the permittee is responsible for all their subs and satellites. It moves the reporting requirement from the satellites to the permittee, eases inspection requirements to only apply when wildlife is present, and changes reporting for all activities from quarterly to annual reporting.
Currently, rehabbers have to take one class every three years.
We propose to change this to eight hours annually. Currently, permittees have to inspect their satellites year-round, every four months.
And as I just said, we propose to ease this requirement to only when wildlife is present. In the earlier photo I showed a beaver that was taken to a bar.
That would be a non-releasable animal. These are typically ambassador animals or injured animals used to help rehabilitate other wildlife.
Currently, they don’t have to be restrained, and they can be touched by the public. While the vast majority of educational programming is safe and appropriate, we’ve had several examples where animals have been taken to bars and grocery stores and allowed to be held by customers.
In one recent example, someone took an animal to a festival and was charging $20 per photograph to hold the animal under the guise of an educational program. It’s our belief that allowing the public to hold these animals sends the wrong educational message.
Our proposal would also require that these individuals are housed at the primary facility rather than at a satellite, and that they’re required to be restrained during educational programming. There’s been a trend recently of rehabbers that want to house wildlife in apartments and townhomes.
Taking care of wildlife has inherent risks to both people and wildlife, including diseases that result from long-term exposure to wildlife. Rehabbers are aware of these risks, but their neighbors often are not.
We propose to limit the registration of new facilities in residential spaces that share common space or air handling equipment. Existing registrations would be grandfathered, so we would not lose any existing facilities.
In March, at the request of local law enforcement, we proposed that permittees would need to register their facility with local animal control, and that animal control would have to acknowledge that registration.
However, today’s proposal removes that acknowledgement requirement.
Currently, new rehabbers can immediately supervise unlimited subs and satellites the day that they’re permitted. This package proposes a new structure that changes supervisory ability based on years of experience.
A brand-new rehabber would start at Type A. After two years, they’d move to Type B. And after five years, they could become a Type C. We also propose to create a Type D permit given to rehabbers with five years of experience that operate large clinics as a full or part-time employee that see at least 3,000 animals a year.
As of last night, we’ve received a total of 1,403 comments – 5 percent agree, 87 percent disagree completely, and 7 percent disagree specifically.
There was quite a bit of concern that the proposal would decrease the number of available rehabilitators. Many commenters asked us to update the rehabbers on our website, which we of course can do.
And the primary reason for disagreement is concern about having a limit to the number of satellites and subpermittees allowed for Type A, B, and C, which I’ll address in the next slides. Most comments discussed fear of losing rehabilitators and subs, and a potential loss in overall rehab capacity statewide, as well as additional burden on existing rehabbers. We received letters for and against by individual rehabbers.
Based on public feedback, we propose to provide more flexibility to Type D facilities. These clinics shared with us that because of turnover they need to be able to lean on licensed veterinarians to take on the role of lead rehabber. We agree with this idea, as it allows for operational continuity.
Also based on public comment, we’re now proposing to ease reporting requirements from quarterly to annual for everyone, rather than just those wildlife rehabbers that may or may not have “D” on their permit.
In March, at the request of local law enforcement, we proposed that permittees would need to register their facility with their local animal control, as I mentioned. This slide is intended just to clarify that change in writing.
We also propose to require an apprenticeship of 800 hours over two years. There was several comments that misunderstood this, and they wanted to know is this only over two years or is this over at least two years?
So, we clarified that this can happen over two or more years. And so, someone does not have to get 800 hours in just 24 months. It can be over any period of time that spans at least two years.
We also clarify that non-releasable animals would not be able to be handled by the public, and we propose to exempt birds from the restraint requirement when they are doing free flight demonstrations. This would allow rehabbers to free fly birds during educational programs, which we think is a good idea.
And so now the meat and potatoes of the conversation today. As a result of public feedback, we propose to increase the number of subs allowed for brand-new rehabilitators from 0-2, which would allow them to use additional people to care for wildlife.
Similarly, the feedback we heard was a request to increase the number of remote satellite facilities that a permittee can supervise.
We propose to increase the number of satellites from five to 15 for type C and from 0-1 for Type B.
The majority of rehabbers will be unaffected by the changes to the number of subs and satellites. Currently, the number of satellites statewide for an individual rehabber ranges from 0-55, and subs range from 0-202.
80 percent of our current rehabilitators have 15 or fewer subs, and 92 percent have 15 or fewer satellites. We estimate statewide about 30, 33 rehabilitators would need to decrease the number of either subs or satellites.
We presented this proposal to our advisory committee in April, and they supported the proposal. They did ask that we relax the restraint provision for free flying bird demonstrations, which we have done.
Staff recommend that the Commission adopt the motion on the slide with an effective implementation date of September 1, 2027, to give the rehab community plenty of time to adjust to the changes.
And that concludes my presentation.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
I’d like to open it up to questions from the Commission. I mean, we discussed this some yesterday, but I have a large number of comments that are not in support.
And it’s my understanding that a lot of the changes that you’ve made to these proposals were in response to those public comments.
Is that correct?
MR. HEILBRUN: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And you feel like that we’ve addressed the lion’s share of those?
MR. HEILBRUN: After the March Commission meeting, we held two webinars, and then we went on a bit of a virtual listening tour where we met with individual rehabbers that asked to meet with us to hear their concerns. And whenever they expressed a concern, we said, “Well, what would you recommend? What would you like to see in this?” And for the vast majority of those conversations, we simply took what they asked for and put it into the proposal.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Commissioner McCall?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah.
Commissioner McCall.
Yeah, we got debriefed on this yesterday, and I think we were at six percent approval. And then we made some changes and we dropped to five percent approval. So we didn’t get a whole lot of that one, did we?
MR. HEILBRUN: [ laughs ]
Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And we did talk about this yesterday. But, you know, we’re going from a very short course and a little questionnaire at the end of it to 800 hours over two-plus years.
A couple of questions.
800 hours is eight hours a day.
That’s 100 days.
That’s… that’s a lot.
And you said two-plus years.
What… I’m confused with that.
What does that mean?
Over two years, over ten years?
What does two-plus mean?
MR. HEILBRUN: It means spanning at least two calendar years. And so, for instance, if a sub has received 800 hours over five years or ten years, that would be fine. We just didn’t want to concentrate it in just one year.
And so, under the current language, if someone got an hour in year one and 799 hours in year two, that would be fine. Similarly, if they come to us and they say, “Well, I don’t work as a sub for 400 hours a year, but I’ve been doing this for ten years and collectively we have 800 hours,” that would be fine, too.
So, it just eases… it just clarifies that we’re not trying to limit to just two years. We’re trying to give people credit for as much experience as they come to us with.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, but if somebody starting out, they’ve never done this before, what do they have to do before they can have to… they have to do the 800, or they have to show that they’re working towards the 800?
MR. HEILBRUN: They would need to be a subpermittee for 800 hours over at least two calendar years.
They would need to take a class that we approve.
And they would need to take an exam.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Before they could be a rehabber?
MR. HEILBRUN: Before they can be a rehabber.
And once they’re a rehabber, then they have full autonomy to take care of those animals and direct the medical care. We kind of… it’s a very hands off. Once they become rehabber, they can handle the rehab.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I realize we’ve got some issues here that would need to be solved. We really do. I mean, it’s a pretty compelling story there. But we swung the pendulum pretty far. And we addressed a lot of issues and we went down one percent on approval.
So, you know, I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, we might just need more time on this.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I’m not quite following.
Did we take another public…
I don’t understand what you’re…
MR. HEILBRUN: Yeah, so I think that the comment is that from yesterday to today we lost a percentage of approval.
And I’ve read a lot of the comments and I’ve read a lot of the news stories, and it talks a lot about the changes and the burden on the rehabbers.
But the news about bureaucratic rules don’t sell well in reports, and so oftentimes those articles don’t include the reason that we’re trying to do this and what we’re trying to fix. And so, I… personally, I did not expect a big change from yesterday to today given the volume that we’d already received. I will say that we did a review of other states. And other states, some other states require 1,000 hours. Some states require 500 hours per year for two years. And so, we’re in line, if even a little bit more less restrictive than other states that have this apprenticeship requirement.
For instance, Pennsylvania requires that you do a two-year apprenticeship, and then after that you can’t be a sub anymore. You have to become your own rehabilitator.
So, they’re trying to fast track people on that pipeline. We didn’t want to take that approach. We wanted… if people want to be a sub, we want to let them remain a sub. But we’re trying to encourage subs to get their own permit because then we have a little bit more accountability.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.
Just to kind of tag on to Commissioner’s comments.
It does… It seems like just the way we’ve worded that is a little bit confusing.
So, if we had clarity around the 800 meters is– I’m sorry, 800 meters– 800 hours is so that someone could advance to a subpermittee status. It’s not to be in a volunteer…
MR. HEILBRUN: The 800 hours…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: …it’s not to be in a participation status. I mean, so if I’m a volunteer and I’m doing this, how much time do I have to have as a volunteer just to participate under…
MR. HEILBRUN: So, if you want to walk in today to any rehabilitator and sign in as a volunteer and clean cages or assist under the direct supervision, you can do that today with no training, no permit, nothing.
You just show up and say, “I’d like to help.” And both permittees and subs can take advantage of that. You just have to sign in on a log and that’s it.
So, there’s no requirement to do that. If you want to be a subpermittee today… or under the proposal, you would simply have to take a ten-question exam that we would provide study materials and kind of publish the questions so people know what we’re asking.
And then you get to have almost the full force of the permit. The 800 hours is the next step. So, if you are a subpermittee and you want to become your own permittee, we just need you to be a sub for 800 hours and learn from that primary rehabilitator to get all the knowledge transfer.
Because once you’re a rehabilitator, you can take in and direct the care all by yourself.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And then just for… again, to follow on and clarify, because I think I understand what you’re talking about on the 800. The math doesn’t quite work. The flow of the math on the 800 hours in the explanation…
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: …isn’t quite clear.
I’ll put it to you that way.
And so, in other words, if someone had… if I have 200 hours…
MR. HEILBRUN: Mm-hmm.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: …what does that do for me?
Because when you… you went 800 hours over two years, or 800 hours.
Is it 800 hours over two years, is it 800 hours over ten years?
I can’t...
That’s the part where I have the disconnect.
It’s either… And if it’s 800 hours over ten years, what’s the minimum hours I have to have for two years, I guess would be the question.
MR. HEILBRUN: So, the idea here is to become a rehabilitator we need some training.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Sure.
MR. HEILBRUN: And we need to impart the knowledge from the primary to the sub.
And so, we want to set a training period where people that want to become their own… get their own permit, that they’re exposed to that knowledge. And so, we thought 800 hours you’re going to learn what you need to learn.
It can be over two years or more if you want. We just didn’t want someone to say they’re volunteers…. they’re being a sub for 800 hours over the course of two months and then say, “I’ve learned enough.”
And so, it can be two years or it can be longer years. Basically, you just need 800 hours to become your own permittee.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, you have to have a minimum of two years experience…
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …with at least 800 hours.
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And if we word it like that, I think that’s my point. If we word it, like the Chairman just said it, that’s clearer because otherwise it seems like… it seems a little bit it’s in brackish water just on the explanation side, not on…
The requirement makes perfect sense to me. I’m just trying to clarify the explanation.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay, well, we can absolutely make sure that’s clear in TAC if this passes.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, we’ve got that, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.
All right.
Thank you.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay, thank you.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I do have one other comment I think is important. The other… when you mentioned the, like the residential setting.
MR. HEILBRUN: Yes.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Just for… kind of for public information I think it’s important that we mention. You know, we just had that cruise ship incident where they had Hantavirus as an example of what went on there. So, we do have some things that we… I do think that people need to be very conscious of if they’re bringing animals in close quarters and close proximity to other people. Because we’ve got Hantavirus options. We’ve got New World screwworm.
You know, there may be some other… some other agricultural diseases that we have out there in our world that may transfer over. So, I do think it has the emphasis to say we do want to be safe there. So, I think that’s a step in the right direction, in particular, on that part of the proposal.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: We have seven people signed up to speak on this.
Some for and some against.
And I’m anxious to hear from each of you.
And in particular, I know you already have a plan what you want to say, but I’d like to hear you comment on whether or not the changes that have been made… or have helped you to either become either stronger for it or against it, or whatever. I’d just like to hear your comments based on the changes that have been made, or if you think there are more changes that need to be made.
So first, I’d like to call Jenna Ross.
Welcome.
JENNA ROSS: Hi, I’m Jenna Ross.
I did not put public speaking on the resume I handed you, so I’m going to try to read from my notes and read quickly. I am against the proposal.
I think that it would go back… if it went back and was truly a collaboration, it would come to you much stronger and be something that we could all be proud of. So, I’m going to go fast now to try to respect the three minutes. I’m co-founder of Fort Bend Wildlife Rescue.
I began volunteering at a wildlife center 11 years ago, and have been fully permitted for eight years. I have 14 satellites who have applied… or who are on my permit now, or have applied to be on my permit. Home rehabilitators do not need subpermittees.
My husband would not be happy if there were ten people coming into my house when I wasn’t there to do rehabilitation activities.
Subpermittees as a category is not useful for home rehabilitators. Home rehabilitators need satellites who they can take… who we can stabilize the animal and then I give it to my satellite who’s kind of an apprentice, and then she can learn that way. That’s the way the system works now, and that works well.
I have a 90 percent release rate. That’s because I specialize in squirrels. I did 124 squirrels last year.
I live in Fort Bend, and it’s long been apparent that there are not enough rehabilitators to meet the needs of the public or the wildlife.
In 2023, Kristi Norman and I decided to start Fort Bend Wildlife Rescue. Every center is started by a coalition of wildlife rehabilitators. So, we became a coalition with the express goal of creating a center.
We need a center to help the rehabilitators, not replace them. Our goal is to open a center next year. But our plans will have been made under the current, not the proposed, regulations. There is no place for us as Fort Bend Wildlife Rescue in the proposed tiers before you. There is no place– I’m not exaggerating– there is no place for creating a starting small or medium-sized center.
Class D is only for large wildlife centers. And if you read the rules it says centers that have a three-year history of taking in 3,000 animals a year. That will not be us to start out, and we need somewhere to start out.
There is actually only one center in Houston that would qualify as a Class D center.
And we have been looking, and we can only find three to five others in the whole of Texas that would qualify under the current definition for Class C.
So ,we suggest the Class D[sic] be broken into tiers that will include centers starting out like us, and those that take in under 3,000 animals. Our center model… business model assumes satellites. We don’t have the money for all the outdoor space to do outdoor caging. We need… After the animals go for a baby care program and for rabies vector species, we need individual satellites. We need rehabilitators to mentor satellites.
We would like new rehabilitators can mentor three satellites easily. Those that have two years experience they can easily mentor five.
In our documents you’ll see that only 44 percent of volunteer rehabilitators that we surveyed said that they would do six to eight hours continuing education a year to maintain a permit. That is why we are worried about losing satellites in the future.
We don’t want them to see the eight-hour requirement and then discontinue their permit. There’s also many, many good one to two hour continuing ed courses already on the state website. I really love education, but I do not want us to mistake credentialing for education.
I also believe that the current three-year requirement to keep an educational ambassador is sufficient. Educational ambassadors really help us spread Fort Bend Wildlife Rescue’s message that we should peacefully coexist with our wild neighbors.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Thank you.
That’s very well said.
Thank you.
MS. ROSS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Next…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Add “public speaking” to your resume.
[ laughter ]
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Next, Kristi Norman.
KRISTI NORMAN: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Good morning.
MS. NORMAN: My name is Kristi Norman. I’m Vice President of Fort Bend Wildlife Rescue. I’ve been rehabilitating wildlife for 12 years, the last ten of which were on my own permit.
I’m considered to be an expert rehabilitator, especially with the species that I specialize in. And I have rehabilitated almost 1,500 animals at my home with the help of satellites. I have 18 satellite facilities currently or applied for.
So, I’m one of the 11 percent of rehabbers that oversees more than ten satellite locations.
My success rate this year so far is 69 percent, not including delays. I had really hoped that the new proposal would have allowed for up to 20 personal satellites to facilitate the formation of our wildlife center in my community. But it is still capped at 15 for a Class C permit.
My fellow permit holders, many of whom spent years subpermitted, have asked me to tell you that waiting five years to have more than a single satellite is too few. They stand to lose more help than I do, especially those who are alone in their areas and being referred large numbers of animals by game wardens. I co-founded the nonprofit wildlife rescue in my county three years ago.
Last year, our small group accepted over 1,000 animals with the help of our satellite locations. This is now more intakes than we can handle in our private homes.
We plan to open a small wildlife center within the next year. We were planning to rent a building without land to keep our costs down and let our satellites continue to provide outdoor caging at their homes, as we have individually been doing for the last decade.
The center is intended to be a supplement for home-based rehabbers. If we are limited to 15 satellites for each permitted rehabilitator we will not have enough outdoor caging for the intakes that the volunteers at the center will raise. This means we will have to buy property and spend a few hundred thousand more dollars to construct outdoor cages and enclosures at our wildlife center. This severely restricts us from operating a small wildlife center because we do not have the money for land.
The proposed cap of satellites on Class C permit will not allow us to grow from a wildlife center from small to medium sized. There is no path from a Class C permit to a Class D permit. The jump from 15 satellites to unlimited satellites needs to be tiered, as Jenna said.
We have provided you with statements from previous center directors from the TWRC Wildlife Center where we got our experience.
In some years they were able to take over 3,000 wild animals. In other years they took under 3,000. In 40 years of operation they were not able to consistently intake over 3,000 animals for three consecutive years as required for a Class D permit. TWRC Wildlife Center had between 60 and 70 satellite facilities when I was there. When the number fell below that, the wildlife center ultimately failed.
I’m only aware of three to five wildlife centers in Texas that take more than 3,000 wild animals annually. It’s not a realistic number for a Class D permit. There needs to be a path to create a small wildlife center with more satellites than was proposed.
We recommend a tiered system based on intake numbers to allow transition from a Class C to a Class D permit, and allow the creation of small wildlife centers that have the potential to grow. Please take a look at the documents we provided each of you before you vote. The future of wildlife rehabilitation is depending on you.
Please don’t restrict our efforts to save wildlife. We are the ones doing the work. Thank you for your attention.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you very much.
Next, we have Kurt… Kate Rugroden.
Not sure, I said that well, but correctly.
Welcome.
KATE RUGRODEN: Good morning.
Thank you.
I pronounce it Smith.
[ laughter ]
It’s much easier that way.
My name is Kate Rugroden.
Mr. Chairman and the members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
I am speaking on behalf of myself and Bat World Sanctuary in support of the proposed regulatory changes for wildlife rehabilitation.
And I will note that I am also in that 11 percent that is affected by the changes.
I have been a permitted rehabilitator in Texas for 20 years. When I first became involved, there was no requirement for training at all. Permit applicants could fulfill the training requirement by joining the international or national wildlife rehabilitator associations, by completing the International Wildlife Rehabilitators Coalition basic class, or by attending a state or national wildlife rehabilitation symposium.
Certainly, the first option was the easiest and least expensive, with dues running about $40 a year. However, being a member of an organization does not provide any kind of hands-on training or confer any practical knowledge. I could write a check for $40 all day long and not learn anything – not know anything about wildlife care. The letters of recommendation that were to be submitted needed to be from someone who had known the applicant for at least two years. But they were not required to attest to their knowledge of that individual skill and ability. There was no requirement for continuing education.
In 2021, the regulations were changed to require an approved training course. And although not required, it was recommended that the applicant have at least two years of hands-on training as a subpermittee.
There were no restrictions on the numbers of subpermittees or satellites that an individual could supervise, and no standards for what that supervision might look like. The continuing education requirement was added with permittees needing to complete at least one approved training course every three years.
There was no minimum number of hours required for training. In the 20 years that I have been a permitted rehabilitator, I have encountered a number of individuals who have more experience than I do in this field, but who still were demonstrating a profound lack of knowledge about the animals in their care.
Training is the foundation of what we do. And the art and science of wildlife care is continually evolving. If we have no standards and no requirements to continue to learn and to improve our methods and techniques, we are no better than the average layperson who takes in an animal with no prior knowledge and experience and relies on the information they find on social media and less than reliable internet sources.
As a permitted rehabilitator with a substantial number of satellites and subpermittees, I have a responsibility for ensuring that the people whom I supervise have access to the training and resources that they need and that they know, understand, and follow the regulations established by the department.
If we do not police ourselves as a community of wildlife rehabilitators then it falls to the department to set limits. We have rehabilitators who are either unaware of the current regulations or who choose to ignore them.
If we are to earn the respect and the support of our communities and our peers, we owe it to them and to ourselves to know better and to be better. And if we cannot do that, then we have not earned the privilege of caring for these animals that are such a vital natural resource to the State of Texas.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Jules Maron.
Welcome.
JULES MARON: Good morning.
My name is Jules Maron, and I’ve been a rehabilitator for ten years.
And I’m also the Executive Director of a very large wildlife rehabilitation center that takes in over 10,000 animals a year. That means we are also helping 10,000 members of our community each year with very stressful situations from time to time.
And I’m so excited to be such a part of such a dynamic profession of wildlife rehabilitation.
We are the front lines of disease management, cutting edge medicine, and environmental conservation. This is an all-encompassing and extraordinary profession.
There’s no rehabilitator that I could think of that would not view this work as a profession, including those who may be against these proposals today.
But you cannot be a profession without quality standards. And that is what these proposed regulations offer to us. This is not about limitation. This is about elevation to the professional level that wildlife rehabilitation deserves. To not have a veterinarian available to consult at the very least– that is not unprofessional, that is negligence.
Wildlife medicine is ever-evolving. Current education: it keeps everyone safe – animals and people. I don’t quite buy into the fact that this would lead to fewer rehabilitators.
I believe that the regulations would encourage subpermittees and satellites to become fully permitted rehabbers. New rehabbers will be quality rehabbers, properly representing the rehabilitation profession.
I fully support modernizing our regulations as proposed to support wildlife rehab as a profession. And I know from yesterday’s meeting there has been the large concern, and today, about that 6 percent or 5 percent, and how it could possibly be justified to approving something with such a low percentage. I don’t have a good answer for it, but I do have a question for it.
If you were having a wildlife emergency, what kind of rehabilitator would you want to reach out to help for?
Someone who calls it a profession or someone who practices as a profession?
I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Cindy Haskett.
Welcome.
CINDY HASKETT: Hi.
I’ll be reading, too.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Cindy Haskett, and I am speaking on behalf of myself and Magnolia Hills Wildlife Rehabilitation. I am in support of the wildlife… of the regulatory changes that are proposed.
Over the last 11 years working in wildlife rehabilitation, I have served in leadership roles at two large centers, including as Program Manager, Rehabilitation Coordinator, and a Veterinary Lead.
Before… I did that before operating independently for my own 501 C3 as the Executive Director. Those experiences provided me extensive hands-on training over multiple species and stages of care.
I continue now to work with my veterinarian for any instances of medical help that is beyond what I am trained for. Throughout those years, I have witnessed significant gaps in oversight, in training, and in accountability within portions of the rehabilitation community.
I have seen wildlife placed with individuals who were not properly trained, who were not appropriately added to permits, or who were operating with very limited supervision.
In many cases, satellite permittees were left seeking guidance from outside rehabilitation… or rehabilitators because the oversight from their supervising permit holder was inadequate. I have also seen situations where satellite facilities were located hours away from the primary permit holder, making meaningful supervision, training, emergency transport, and facility oversight extremely difficult.
These are not isolated concerns, and ultimately the animals suffer when accountability and hands-on oversight is lacking. I believe limiting the number of satellites under a single permit holder is a positive and necessary step toward improving standards of care.
It encourages permit holders to be more directly involved with the animals and facilities, and strengthens the accountability and places greater responsibility on each rehabber to ensure proper training and facility approval before wildlife is accepted into care.
I also strongly support the proposed continuing education requirements. Increased access to advanced training and ongoing education will benefit both new and experienced rehabilitators, and ultimately improve the quality of care provided to Texas wildlife. Over the last month, I have asked many rehabbers what number they… of satellite facilities they feel like would be acceptable for them. And many have said ten to 15.
Texas Parks and Wildlife has listened to our concerns. They started off with five. They listened. They met with people, to my knowledge, and they raised that number to 15. They are trying to work with us.
In closing, I believe the rehabilitation community needs a stronger oversight, clear accountability, and higher standards so that we can be the program that the public, that our fellow rehabilitators, and that the Commission can be proud of.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
And… was that Christine that was just up here?
MS. HASKETT: I was Cindy Haskett.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Cindy Haskett.
Okay.
My apologies.
[ laughter ]
So, next is Christine McCully.
Welcome.
CHRISTINE McCULLY: Hi.
Good morning, Commissioners.
My name is Christine McCully, and I’m here today in support of the proposed wildlife rehabilitation regulation changes.
I began wildlife rehabilitation in 2015 with a deep passion for helping wildlife. But passion alone does not make someone qualified to rehabilitate wild animals.
I learned very quickly that this work requires education, mentorship, hands-on experience, and a commitment to constant learning.
Since then, I have worked hard to become a better rehabilitator. I have taken classes, attended trainings, earned certifications, and put hours into continuing education because I believe the animals deserve competent and knowledgeable care.
I also earned my U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service migratory bird permit, which took three years of work, mentorship, and experience to obtain.
That process exists for a reason. It ensures rehabilitators are prepared before caring for protected species independently.
Today, I run a small nonprofit organization called MoonShine Wildlife Rehabilitation, where I see firsthand the level of knowledge, commitment, and responsibility this work truly requires.
Because of my own journey, I strongly support these proposed changes.
I support requiring new rehabilitators to gain experience before working independently.
I support stronger mentorship requirements. And I absolutely support increasing continuing education requirements from one hour every three years to eight hours annually.
In my opinion, eight hours annually is not excessive at all for the level of responsibility wildlife rehabilitators carry.
Wildlife rehabilitation is medical care, husbandry, public education, disease prevention, and wildlife conservation all combined into one field. Standards matter, education matters, and experience matters.
These proposed changes help protect wildlife by encouraging rehabilitators to build a strong foundation before taking on the immense responsibility of this work.
Good intentions are important, but good intentions without knowledge can harm animals. I believe these changes move wildlife rehabilitation in Texas toward a more professional, accountable, and educated future, and I fully support them.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you very much.
And next we have Albert Bryant.
Welcome.
ALBERT BRYANT: Good morning, gentlemen.
I’m not a very good speaker.
I am a rehabber.
My heart and soul goes into this.
These ladies that have been up here speaking, they are 110 percent correct on about 50 percent of this. The big thing we need to think about is the animal.
Okay?
And the public.
If that animal is with the public, then we have no control over disease.
We have no control over them getting bit.
There is no way to regulate nothing.
So if we… that 800 hours, that scared all you guys.
That number scared all you guys.
Why do we have to have a number?
Why can’t it be two years as a sub?
Then, at that point, have that permittee sign off on.
These… Richard and Lauren did a great job.
They’ve got the bones.
Now we just need to fine polish this.
We have volunteered to work with them on continuing education.
We will be more than happy to make classes.
We will be more than happy to work with them and get this where it needs to be.
Texas is a big state.
Houston has 7.9 million people.
Austin, 2.6.
Dallas, 31.3.
Okay?
So why are we putting a category on every rehabber in the state when…
If you got someone that’s in Hempstead, Texas, guess what the population is there?
I don’t know it because there’s not enough there that… there’s probably not five rehabbers in that area.
I rehab in Houston.
My number of subpermittees is high.
I’ve got 21 as of last year.
21.
And my least one that did animals did 60 animals.
We did over 2,000 last year.
And that’s helping them keep those animals out of the public.
That’s what we need to strive for.
We need to save Texas animals because Texas owns them animals.
That’s something that we hear from our game wardens and from Texas Parks and Wildlife all the time.
So, what you don’t understand, centers – they close at 6:00.
Who is the public calling after 6:00?
They’re calling someone off their list.
Okay?
So, the way I have mine structured.
If a person calls in Porter, Texas, I’ve got someone in Porter, Texas, that can take that animal.
I want to get that animal out of their hands within an hour.
I get pictures of all my animals weekly.
I am kind of real strict on that.
Because I’m in it for the animals – not for the glory, not for anyone else, just the animal.
So, if we limit that number of people, we are leaving that animal in the hands of public and they have no knowledge at all.
There is… they’re going to get bit.
They’re going to be walking around Walmart with it.
Because they don’t know.
So, I am against parts of this, but I am for parts of it.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, before you leave. I want to understand…
You’re obviously very passionate and very qualified, and all. I want to understand which parts, if you… if this was your…
MR. BRYANT: Continuing education needs to be relaxed a little bit.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, the 800 hours is too much?
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
That being said, I’ve been up since 4:00 this morning. I fed my animals and I drove down here from Magnolia. When I go home, I’ll have to feed animals again. And it’s like this till the end of the year. I have not had a vacation. Me and my wife, we do stuff separately so we can actually have someone there with the animals. We’ve not had a vacation. Last time I took a vacation, we took a weekend and got married.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay, this is Commissioner Doggett.
I think what we’re trying to understand is what is it… what provisions in this proposal did you not like, and how would you change it?
MR. BRYANT: Okay.
Their tier system.
Okay?
There is no room for someone… I mean, okay, so to start with, you have to be subpermitted for two years to get your license, okay?
On that, that’s experience, correct?
So, coming into his tier system – I don’t have it up there– when you first get your license, you’re at a zero, he says. You have no experience.
But you do have experience because in order to get your license you have to have that two years.
So, I mean, this is all just… it needs to be sat down and fine-tuned.
So, coming in… if you get your license, you’ve got two years experience. But you can have zero satellites, zero subs.
Okay?
The next one up is three years, and I think he said two subs? Well, that person’s got five years experience right there because they have two as a subpermittee and three as a license. So, I mean, the numbers don’t add up just in the tier system.
Okay?
Hours?
Would any of you like to take 800 hours?
But now if I say, “Hey, you have to be subpermitted for two years and you have to have your permittee sign off for you.” Guess who is responsible for that subpermittee? That permittee. That’s who should be answering that question. Is this person capable of having their own permit, yes or no?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, thank you.
Is there any other questions for Mr. Bryant?
Thank you.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And thank you for your passion.
So, I’d like to open it back up to questions for the Commission.
This is obviously a… yeah, and for Richard. So how do you respond to the comments you just heard?
MR. HEILBRUN: We spoke with several rehabilitators, including some of the people that spoke today. And we asked them the very same question.
And the initial request was unlimited satellites. And if we said, when we said, “If you had to put a number on it, what would that number be?”
And we were told ten to 15, is what we were told. So that’s what we did.
I believe it’s important to create a pipeline, a pipeline from volunteers to subs and subs to a primary.
And once someone gets a primary, I think it’s important that they have a little bit of time before they create this massive structure of people under them.
So, a year or two, or five, where they can learn the craft, they can become a professional, really hone their medical care, and then they can have a whole mess of people underneath them to train and supervise and mentor. And that’s what we proposed.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Help me understand the distinction between a satellite and a subpermittee.
MR. HEILBRUN: Yes, Sir.
When we embarked on this, we learned that if you have 40 rehabbers in a room you have 40 different ways of doing business. And that’s fine.
Some people have a home, in-home clinic ,and some people have a larger clinic where people come to them. And so, you can have a sub that comes to your clinic or your home. And you can be gone. So, a sub can do all the things that you can in your backyard with you gone for the weekend.
A sub can also do that off-site.
When they do it off-site, now they are running a satellite facility. So, a satellite is always run by a sub.
And so, the thought is: can we get some of these subs and/or some of these subs that run a satellite to run their own shop?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: How do these guys generate revenue? How do they fund all this? Who pays for these services?
MR. HEILBRUN: Yeah, I think there’s… there’s a… it’s almost all donations or out of their own pocket.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: They don’t charge a fee to the people that bring the animal?
MR. HEILBRUN: They’re not supposed to, no.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
So, getting bigger is not necessarily creating a big business?
That’s what I’m trying to understand.
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s my understanding. Now, there is some… You know what, I don’t want to get into how they fundraise because that’s not my area of expertise.
There’s pros and cons for having a lot of animals through your doors.
And the more rehabbers that you have with you, then the more people that are out there seeking donations.
But the model that we’re proposing allows that to continue. It just ensures that the people you’re supervising get the full benefit of your time and get enough access to the mentorship.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, but there’s no government support?
MR. HEILBRUN: No, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: There’s no cities and counties?
MR. HEILBRUN: That I don’t know.
But Parks and Wildlife does not provide any funds.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, all right.
Other questions?
Commissioner McCall.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, I’d like…
So, I got the sub.
And they’re off-site.
They’ve got their own satellite center.
Is the 800 hours for that sub to become a primary?
Or is that 800 hours just to get to be a sub?
MR. HEILBRUN: Once they become a sub… We’re proposing only a simple, short, ten-question exam to become a sub. Once you’re a sub and you’re either a sub on-site or you’re running a satellite, all the hours that you amass doing that work would count if you want to become your own permittee.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And explain to me what a volunteer is.
MR. HEILBRUN: A volunteer is someone that is directly supervised. And so, if you walk in the street, or if your son or daughter walks in off the street and says, “I’d like to clean cages today, I’d like to help feed,” as long as there’s a permittee or a sub there directly supervising, they can do that work.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, but a volunteer cannot have an animal on their own?
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, they’re just helping. But a sub can?
MR. HEILBRUN: A sub can.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And a sub is easy to get into.
MR. HEILBRUN: Today, all you have to do is be added to a permit. And that’s a request to our staff. With the proposal, you would add a short ten-question exam basically saying, “Do you understand these basic laws?”
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And that would still give that sub the ability to have a satellite, have their own animal?
MR. HEILBRUN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: They’re just… a primary is overseeing them…
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: …so to speak.
Okay, I just want to...
The way it first came out, and I guess Commissioner Bell and I were equally as confused, it almost looked like you need 800 hours before you can get your foot in the door.
And that’s kind of like saying, “I’m going to teach you religion before you get in church.”
MR. HEILBRUN: Right.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And that’s kind of hard to do.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: So I don’t want to do anything that would slow down or prohibit somebody from being a rehabber.
MR. HEILBRUN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And so I just try to get my arms around that.
So, it’s pretty easy. You can be a volunteer.
You can become a sub under a primary.
Because I’m assuming that’s your passion.
And then you can be off-site and have a satellite.
And then you start accumulating the 800 hours if you say, “I want to be a licensed primary.”
MR. HEILBRUN: Right.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And then oversee people.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct. And if you don’t want to do that, that’s fine, too.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: You can stay a sub.
MR. HEILBRUN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And you don’t have to add up your hours. You can still rehabilitate animals. You just answer to somebody.
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I’ve got a better grip on it now.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And your limitation of 15 subpermittees is just because you feel like one person can’t oversee more than that?
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct. We get a lot of calls from the public, from rehabilitators, from law enforcement. And there’s a significant portion of those calls that are related to the people who have several dozen subs or several dozen satellites.
And so, we thought: can we create a structure that focuses their supervision so that they have time to mentor those 15 people and provide appropriate oversight, but also provide training?
Because if it’s limited…
So, one of the individuals, Ms. Rugroden, is a fantastic trainer. And so, her plan is: as she trains people, she wants them to graduate and stop being a sub and become their own permittee. And so, this would allow them that pipeline to be encouraged.
Because you get your 15, you train them, and if you have new people, then theoretically those older subs that have gotten that training would then go on and become their own permittee.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So if we were to pass this today, what would happen to somebody like Mr. Bryant?
If he’s already got more than 15 subpermittees, is it immediate? Does he have some time to transition?
MR. HEILBRUN: Right.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: What’s the thinking there?
MR. HEILBRUN: It kind of depends on when Mr. Bryant’s permit expires. If he has… right now he has 47 subs and satellites on his… allowed on his permit.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. HEILBRUN: That would continue until his permit expires. And I don’t know when his permit expires. But if it expires in 2029, that allowance, we’re not going to cancel a permit. So, when he renews in 2028 or 2029, he would then fall under… he would have to reduce his number down to 15.
And so, he basically has at least 15 months, but up to a couple years, to kind of figure out who stays and who goes and who wants to apply.
And incidentally, those people that are on his permit now, if they want to become a rehabber next week, they can do that without the 800 hours.
And so, they have 15 months to decide if they want to come on without any additional training than what’s required today.
So, there’s this nice long on-ramp for people to figure out how to restructure their operation.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.
I was looking at Slide 4.
And so that we’re again straight on the language. It says “subpermittees allowed.” So, the revised proposal… And again, since I don’t have the narrative here under Type A, but it says basically I’m assuming this means a permittee is allowed this number of subpermittees. Is that the way that is?
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: So then if they’re new, they can have… if they’re a new permittee, they can have up to two subpermittees.
MR. HEILBRUN: So, this is Slide 4, you said?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Slide 21.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Am I on the wrong one?
JAMIE McCLANAHAN: Item 4.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I’m sorry, Slide 21. I’m on Item 4, Slide 21.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay, I’m sorry, I’m with you now.
[ laughter ]
INDISTINGUISHABLE SPEAKER: This is his first day…
[ laughter ]
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Am I supposed to read from the left to the right or the right to the left, right?
You know, the… But what it indicates here, it would seem like a new person could have… a new permittee could have two subpermittees.
If they’ve been a permittee for two years, they could have up to five.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: If they’ve been a permittee for between two and five, it seems like they would have 15. And if they’ve been a permittee five years or more, it says “unlimited.”
So I’m trying to…
MR. HEILBRUN: So, okay, let me…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: What’s “unlimited?”
MR. HEILBRUN: Unlimited is for Type D, and that’s for those large clinics. And these are folks that see 14,000 to 17,000 animals.
And so we do not want to prescribe a limit. The Type C is what a lot of the conversation is about today. And so once you have five…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: So 3,000… Type C is our 3,000 animals?
MR. HEILBRUN: Type D is that.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Okay.
MR. HEILBRUN: So Type C is for folks that have… that don’t operate the large clinic. They have five years of experience as a rehabber.
We propose they be allowed 15 subs and 15 satellite… which can also be 15 satellites.
And so this is proposing the max number of people that can be added to their permit.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: But I guess if we do the multiplier math, too, on this, so that subpermittee Type C could have… I mean, the permittee could have 15, up to 15 subs.
MR. HEILBRUN: Right.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And then the sub has a satellite facility.
Or the sub…
They’re not interchangeable, satellite and sub, right? Because I’m trying to see if we’re adding more numbers on Slide 22.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay.
So to operate a satellite, you must be a sub.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Right.
MR. HEILBRUN: And so it’s not 30. It’s… you can have 15 subs, which means that they can either come into your home or you can have them go out and operate their own facilities.
So those 15 subs are the same if you have 15 satellites. It just depends on how you set up your operation.
Do you want people to come to your home, or do you want to use their homes?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I got it.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, Mr. Chairman.
The only other thing – Commissioner McCall– that I guess gives me a little bit of concern is the gentleman who spoke a while ago was very passionate about what he does. He’s got 47 subs? Is that what I heard?
MR. HEILBRUN: On his permit, he does, but he testified that he has 21 active subs.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, let’s go with 21 then. Have we considered: once your permit runs out, if you can show that all your subs have done a good job or something, some type of grandfathering to keep them going where you don’t have to say, “Six of you just can’t do this anymore?”
MR. HEILBRUN: So we explored the idea of a case-by-case basis. And I’m sure you can understand, with 200 and potentially more rehabbers that became unwieldy very quickly.
And so we weren’t comfortable with a case-by-case. But we felt that letting the permit run out before we set them up under this new limit was as much of a transition that we could administer.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And a permit is how long?
MR. HEILBRUN: Three years.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Three years.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So the objective, the desired outcome would be that you end up with more permittees.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That some of these, in his case, some of his 21 would, over the next couple years before his permit expires– I don’t know when his permit expires– but that some of those people would qualify as a permittee.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there any flexibility in the 800 hours? Because that seemed to be a big concern as well.
MR. HEILBRUN: Yes.
Sure.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: No, I’m just asking.
I mean, is it important to have 800 hours? That sounds like a lot to me. But I’m not in that business.
MR. HEILBRUN: Yeah, the way we got to that was one Saturday a week, one day a week for two years was 800 hours.
And we thought, well, that gives them plenty of time to be exposed to their mentor and run into all the different unique situations.
Like I said, other states have set 1,000 hours over two years. And some states have said 500 hours, you know, per year. It just depends on what you want it to do.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, David Yoskowitz. If I could maybe offer up a suggestion for Richard to embellish upon.
And that is: could you answer the question, if there are currently subpermittees, are they accruing those hours that could then be used to a future permit process through this?
MR. HEILBRUN: Yes. So as soon as someone becomes a subpermittee, that clock starts.
And so, we don’t want to say, you know, only experience before a certain date or after a certain date.
So, if there are folks that are subpermittee and have been for the last five years, they probably already have it.
As people have testified, sometimes this is a round-the-clock commitment. And so, you rack up hours very quickly.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And this is 800 hours of experience or of training?
MR. HEILBRUN: Of experience, of working as a sub.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So how does an hour qualify?
MR. HEILBRUN: They would just keep a log and then have their supervising permittee just sign off that they worked this many hours, you know, on wildlife care.
We didn’t want to manage that process and create this big government structure.
We trust them to take care of animals. We trust that they can keep a log.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Anybody else?
The thing that gives me some comfort is knowing that there’s an on-ramp or an off-ramp, whichever way you describe it.
And that, you know, you’re not going to wake up tomorrow morning and have a bunch of subpermittees unable to do their work.
800 hours.
If we pass this today, what I would like to do is have you come back to us at a future meeting, not necessarily the next one, and kind of... I’d like to get some more feedback from the rehabber community about whether or not 800 hours is actually a good number. Does that bother you?
MR. HEILBRUN: So, if that’s the hang-up, then we’re happy to propose 600 hours. We can decrease that.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.
MR. HEILBRUN: There wasn’t some magic math. It was just, you know, a day a week for two years. That sounds about right.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
So, I’d be happy with that, but…
COMMISSIONER McCALL: One issue I still have, or question I’ve got, is this would go into effect when?
MR. HEILBRUN: September 1 of 2027.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: That’s when it goes into effect.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: 15 months from now.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But if your permit goes beyond that, then it’s even longer.
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, so it’s a minimum of 15 months.
MR. HEILBRUN: Mmm-hmm.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So if you renew your permit between now and then…
[ laughter ]
I’m just asking.
I want to understand.
MR. HEILBRUN: Permits expire in January.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. HEILBRUN: And so anyone that renewed their permit this past January, basically they would have their current number of authorizations until 2029.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: And someone who renews in January of 2027 would have theirs until ‘30.
MR. HEILBRUN: If you all decide to pass this proposal, then our thought is that we would not give someone authorization.
If it’s a new applicant that comes in after today, we would say, “You can have up to, you know, 15,” because that’s sort of the spirit of...
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So you’d make sure that they’re going to be subject to the new rules.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
MR. HEILBRUN: Yeah.
What we did not want to happen was a lot of subs to be suddenly without a supervising permit.
And so, if, for instance, someone has 18, and so they need to offload three subs, then according to our math 90 percent of permittees are under that number.
And so those three people could become a sub under someone else, we believe, relatively easily– If they did not want to become their own permittee.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Or they could, yeah, attain permittee status.
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Give me that number again.
90 percent fall under what would be passed here today?
MR. HEILBRUN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: In other words, that 21 would be the 10 percent.
MR. HEILBRUN: That’s correct. I’ve got a slide right here.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.
MR. HEILBRUN: 80 percent of wildlife rehabilitators have 15 or fewer subs, and 89 percent have ten or fewer. And so, if you bump that up to 15 like we’re proposing, it’s actually 92 percent. So, we’re impacting a smaller segment of the rehab community.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. HEILBRUN: Okay.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
So, I would entertain a motion to approve this subject to the change that he suggested, making it 600 hours instead of 800 hours. And so, I would entertain such a motion.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Do we need further discussion?
All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
Okay.
Thank you all for your input. That passes.
And I think that’s a good outcome.
Action Item No. 5 has to do with Land Acquisition in Aransas County – Approximately 0.8 acres at Rockport State Park Region 2 headquarters.
JACOB ASTON: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Just a second.
MR. ASTON: Oh, yeah, sorry.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: We’re kind of clearing a room, so…
Thank you all.
All right.
Okay, Mr. Aston.
MR. ASTON: All right.
Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Jacob Aston. I’m a Project Manager with the Land Conservation Program.
Today I’ll be presenting a 0.8 acre land acquisition at the Rockport State Park Region 2 headquarters in Aransas County. Here’s a map showing Aransas County indicated with the red star. Here’s a more zoomed-in map showing the Rockport Region 2 headquarters located in Rockport.
The Department owns and operates a State Parks Regional Headquarters building within Rockport, Texas, on a parcel that is approximately 1.3 acres.
This building is currently shared by TPWD staff and the State Parks, Wildlife, and Law Enforcement Divisions.
Staff has identified an approximately 0.8 acre tract adjacent to the facility available for purchase from a willing seller.
This provides an opportunity for future building expansion and will meet an immediate need for increased public parking and equipment storage.
Here’s a site map of the proposed acquisition of land with the Rockport State Park Region 2 headquarters in red and the subject tract outlined in yellow.
As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m. we have received 13 total comments, all in agreement.
And staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 0.8 acres the Rockport State Park Region 2 headquarters.”
That concludes my presentation.
I’ll be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Questions?
I would entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Timmerman for approval.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: McCall, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
That motion passes.
Or I guess I should say, “Any opposed.”
No.
Okay.
That motion passes.
Thank you.
And you have the next one as well.
Action Item No. 6: Land Acquisition, Blanco County – Approximately 4 Acres at Blanco State Park.
Mr. Aston.
MR. ASTON: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.
Jacob Aston, Project Manager with the Land Conservation Program.
Today I’ll be presenting an approximately 4 acre land acquisition at Blanco State Park at Blanco County. Here’s a county map showing Blanco County, indicated with the red star. Here’s a more zoomed in map showing Blanco State Park approximately 50 miles southwest of Austin.
The 90-acre Blanco State Park straddles the Blanco River for more than two miles within the city of Blanco.
The park was acquired in the 1930s, and is very popular with visitors, allowing access to the clear waters of the Blanco River for swimming, tubing, picnicking, and enjoying a picturesque Hill Country stream.
Staff prioritizes acquiring state park inholdings and adjacent properties from willing sellers to minimize operational and management conflicts.
Staff has identified a 4-acre tract adjacent to Blanco State Park that is available from a willing seller.
Access to the tract is through the park on Park Road 23, making the tract functionally a private inholding. Acquisition of the subject tract would eliminate potential access issues with future owners and add operational utility to the park.
Here’s a zoomed out map showing Blanco State Park in red and the subject tract outlined in yellow.
Here’s a little bit more zoomed in map with that tract in yellow and the state park in red.
As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m., we’ve received 19 total comments– 18 in agreement, and one disagreed completely, indicating that the department stop acquiring land using taxpayer dollars.
And staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately four acres at Blanco State Park.”
That concludes my presentation.
I’d be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Questions?
I would entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Got a motion and a second.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That motion passes.
Thank you, Mr. Aston.
MR. ASTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Action Item No. 7: Land Acquisition– Comal County – Approximately 30 acres at Honey Creek State Natural Area.
Mr. Stan David.
STAN DAVID: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this item is a land acquisition…
Oh, for the record, Stan David with Land Conservation Program. This item is a land acquisition, Comal County, approximately 30 acres at the Honey Creek SNA. The red star there indicates Comal County, Central Texas area.
Zoomed in there, you can see the SNA is adjacent to the Guadalupe River State Park. It’s approximately 20 miles north of San Antonio.
The 2,800-acre Honey Creek SNA protects the main headwaters of the pristine Honey Creek. Approximately 2,200 acres were acquired in 1985 and in 1988.
And most recently, approximately 500 acres were added to the SNA in 2023. The SNA is also adjacent to the 1,900-acre Guadalupe River State Park.
Staff has identified a 30-acre tract adjacent to Honey Creek State Natural Area that is available for acquisition from a willing seller.
The acquisition would add additional recreational area and further protect the headwaters of Honey Creek.
Outlined in red is the SNA, and outlined in yellow is the subject tract. It’s kind of an in-holding there – it’s heavily wooded, really nice – to complete a trail they’re going to have across going from one side to the other. And there is headwaters in that wooded area, as discussed.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Go back to the map real quick.
MR. DAVID: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Why is there, it looks like two red areas? Like there’s a line across?
MR. DAVID: Is that the…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is it two tracts or something?
MR. DAVID: Yeah, the northeastern is the state park.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, it’s a state park.
MR. DAVID: So, they’re that adjacent. They touch each other.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, all right.
Got it.
MR. DAVID: As of yesterday, 22 total comments – 21 agree, one disagrees completely.
It’s the same comment: stop acquiring more land with tax dollars.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorize the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 30 acres at Honey Creek State Natural Area.”
I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Questions?
[ indistinguishable talk ]
Okay.
All right.
We have a motion?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Second?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
So that passes.
And I learned something today.
Is it Comal County, not Comal?
MR. DAVID: I guess I’m from East Texas. It depends on where you’re from.
[ laughter ]
Is that something to say?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: It just depends on where you’re from. Okay, I got it.
[ laughter ]
All right.
MR. DAVID: Yeah, sorry.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Next is Action Item No. 8: Land Acquisition – Austin County – Approximately 230 Acres at Stephen F. Austin State Park.
Mr. David.
MR. DAVID: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, Stan David with Land Acquisition Program.
This item is about a land acquisition in Austin County, approximately 230 acres adjacent to the Stephen F. Austin State Park.
The red star there indicates Austin County. Here’s a more zoomed-in area of the state park. It’s approximately 45 miles west of Houston.
The 472-acre Stephen F. Austin State Park was deeded from the San Felipe de Austin Corporation in 1940.
The park sits along the Brazos River and offers camping and five miles of hiking and biking trails along the riverbank and under tall hardwoods and through upland swamp land.
Staff has identified a 230-acre tract adjacent to the Stephen F. Austin State Park available for purchase from a willing seller.
The acquisition will expand recreational opportunities for the park, such as hiking and biking trails that will be fully accessible. There’s a crushed granite cart pass, so it would be for wheeled access, too, if needed.
Here’s a picture of the Stephen F. Austin State Park outlined in red. You can see the golf course there to the right outlined in yellow. It’s approximately 230 acres total. There’s two separate tracts, but it equals 230 acres total.
21 total comments – 20 agree, one disagree.
Same comment: stop acquiring more land with tax dollars.
The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 230 acres at Stephen F. Austin State Park.
I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.”
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Questions, comments, motion?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Second?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That motion passes.
Thank you, Mr. David.
And next, Action Item No. 9: Land Acquisition – Matagorda County – Approximately 825 Acres at Matagorda Peninsula Coastal Management Area.
Mr. David.
MR. DAVID: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, Stan David again with the Land Conservation Program.
This acquisition is in Matagorda County.
It’s approximately 825 acres at the Matagorda Peninsula CMA. Red star there, Matagorda County on the coast.
Zoomed in there, you can see the Matagorda Peninsula CMA and also Mad Island WMA, approximately 20 miles south of Bay City.
2017, TPWD established the CMA. We purchased approximately 5,100 acres from the General Land Office. The CMA currently consists of more than 6,300 acres, preserving approximately 14 miles of Peninsula.
This CMA includes remote and undeveloped barrier island system. It’s habitat for diversity of coastal wildlife, from nesting sea turtles to resident migratory shore and wading birds, several of which are listed as species of greatest conservation need.
The East Matagorda Bay system has been identified as a conservation focal area by TPWD.
The subject tracts would add valuable land to expand TPWD’s research and management activities for the indigenous and migratory wildlife species.
Local staff regard these tracts as a high-priority strategic acquisition for the Matagorda CMA.
No additional staff or infrastructure would be needed to manage these tracts if acquired.
This map shows in red the Mad Island WMA. The tracts outlined in green are already part of the Matagorda Peninsula CMA. The tracts outlined in yellow are the subject tracts this discussion concerns.
22 total comments – 21 agree, and the same one disagree and comment concerning tax dollars.
I’d be happy to…
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion: “Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 825 acres of land at the Matagorda Peninsula Coastal Management Area.”
And I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So is there any public access to this area?
I know there’s no infrastructure or improvements.
MR. DAVID: There’s beach access, and most of that would have to be by boat. The WMA, of course, you get a permit to go onto it. Robin, do you want to explain to the CMA that there’s no public permits, right?
ROBIN RIECHERS: That’s correct.
That’s correct. No permit required.
MR. DAVID: No permit required, but the beach is the Texas beach law. So, on the map, if you keep going that way, we own a lot more for the CMA. We’ve recently acquired the land going up to the WMA.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, I’m just curious.
All right, any questions or comments?
Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Timmerman, moves for approval.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: We’ve got Rowling and Timmerman.
[ laughter ]
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
All right, that passes.
Thank you, Mr. David.
Action Item No. 10: Request for Pipeline Easement – Anderson County – Approximately 0.6 Acres at Trinity River Wildlife Management Area.
Dr. Whitney Gann.
DR. WHITNEY GANN: Good morning, Chairman, Commission.
For the record, my name is Whitney Gann. I’m the Wildlife Management Area Facilities Coordinator in the Wildlife Division.
And I’m going to present a request for a pipeline easement at the Trinity River Wildlife Management Area in Anderson County.
Anderson County is located in East Texas, as indicated by the red star. If we zoom in there, you can see the location of the Trinity River Wildlife Management Area situated between Richland Creek WMA and Gus Engeling Creek WMA, all approximately 20 miles south of Athens, Texas.
The Trinity River Wildlife Management Area consists of approximately 6,900 acres of bottomland hardwoods and approximately 11 miles of Trinity River frontage.
The WMA is also the newest addition to the Middle Trinity River Ecosystem Project, which includes the Gus Engeling, Richland Creek, Big Lake Bottom, and Keechi Creek WMAs.
Collectively, these properties protect more than 38,000 acres in East Texas.
EnCrescent Richland Pipeline LLC is requesting an easement of 40 feet in width, crossing 710 feet into the WMA. The pipeline is an eight-inch diameter natural gas line, and the total easement area is approximately 0.6 acres.
This easement will replace an existing one, and ultimately reduce the overall surface impact and footprint of this pipeline.
The location of the Trinity River WMA is outlined there in red, the Gus Engeling WMA outlined in orange to the right, and the Richland Creek WMA is outlined in green to the left.
If we zoom in to the Trinity River WMA, as illustrated by the yellow bar, you can see the 710-foot pipeline footprint there.
Six total comments as of yesterday at 5:00 – four in agreement and two in disagreement. Those in disagreement cite a concern for environmental safety and a general opposition to industry or development on state lands.
Staff recommend the Commission adopt the following motion: “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A and authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to grant an approximately 0.6-acre easement at the Trinity River Wildlife Management Area.”
And I’ll take any questions now.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Questions?
No questions?
All right, I think I see a motion happening down here.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, McCall.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, and second?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
Thank you, Dr. Gann.
And next is Briefing Item No. 11: Survey of Employee Engagement Results.
Ms. Jada Louhela.
JADA LOUHELA: Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Foster, Vice-Chair Bell, Commissioners. My name is Jada Louhela, and I am the Director of Human Resources for the Department.
I am here today to provide a briefing on the 2026 Survey of Employee Engagement, often referred to as the “SEE.” This briefing will outline our agency’s performance, areas of strength, opportunities for improvement, and the steps we are taking to support and advance our workforce.
In addition, you should have received and been provided a comprehensive copy of the agency’s overall SEE survey results.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Why is it called the SEE?
MS. LOUHELA: Survey of Employee Engagement.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, duh.
Okay.
MS. LOUHELA: The Survey of Employee Engagement is a statewide organizational climate assessment conducted by the Institute of Organizational Excellence by the University of Texas at Austin. It evaluates how employees perceive their workforce, and the degree to which they feel connected, informed, and empowered.
All regular full-time and part-time TPWD employees are eligible to participate, providing a broad representation of the workforce.
The SEE is an essential tool for understanding organizational health, employee engagement, and operational effectiveness.
Results of the SEE are shared with several very key external and internal stakeholders. Legislatively, the results are reviewed by the House Appropriations Senate Finance, the Legislative Budget Board, and the Sunset Advisory Committee.
Executive oversight includes the State Auditor’s Office, and internally the TPWD Commission reviews these findings, followed by the Executive Office, division directors, and ultimately the entire workforce at TPWD.
This ensures transparency and shared understanding across all levels of TPWD.
So how does it work? The SEE consists of 48 more questions developed by UT Austin, grouped into 12 organizational constructs.
In addition, TPWD includes 22 supplemental questions that, while not scored as part of the constructs, offer important insights into agency-specific priorities.
Responses follow a Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” and are converted into scores ranging from 100 to 500; and above indicate strong organizational performance, with 400-above representing excellence on this survey.
Reports are generated by both for the agency and at division level. So we have an overall agency report, and then we also disseminate division level reports as well.
For 2026 Administration of the SEE, TPWD achieved a response rate of close to 80 percent.
This is a notable increase from 75 percent increase responded in 2024 iteration. Achieving such a high response rate in an agency of roughly 3,300 employees-plus reflects both a strong culture and participation and a workforce that feels engaged in providing meaningful feedback.
High response rates strengthen the reliability of the data and provide a comprehensive picture of the organizational climate.
In 2026, TPWD achieved an overall SEE score of 400, rising from 391 from the 2024 iteration.
A score of 400 represents the official standard of excellence in a SEE framework, and is rarely achieved by organizations of comparable size.
This demonstrates exceptional organizational health and strong workforce engagement.
The sustained upward trend in overall scoring is a testament to the agency’s continued focus on employee support, communication, and performance excellence.
Engagement levels across the agency remain exceptionally strong. In 2026, 36 percent of TPWD employees were characterized as highly engaged, an additional 31 percent as engaged, totaling 67 percent of the workforce.
This is an improvement from 63 percent in 2024, and exceeds national benchmarks for employee engagement across both public and private sectors.
In addition to these strong scores, engagement levels, every construct score improved in 2026. You’ll see that in the next slide, with the largest increase occurring in the pay construct ,which rose 30 points.
So this indicates for us in every construct this year all the scores improved with the highest rating as 30 in the pay construct.
The 2026 SEE reflects improvement across all 12 constructs, demonstrating broad-based progress across the entire agency.
Several constructs met or exceeded the standard of excellence, which is 400.
The most notable improvement incurred in the pay construct, which increased by 30 points compared to 2024. This is a meaningful development, given that pay has historically been one of the lowest scoring areas.
These improvements reflect both legislative actions and internal equity strategies implemented over the past couple years.
The agency’s three strongest constructs in 2026 were workgroup, supervision, and strategic. Workgroup performance reflects strong relationships, collaboration, and mutual support among employees.
Supervision scores highlight the quality of supervisory relationships, with supervisors being perceived as fair, supportive, and committed to helping employees perform their best work.
The strategic construct reflects employees’ clear understanding of the agency’s mission, and how their daily work contributes to the overall organizational goals.
These strengths are consistent indicators of a healthy and engaged workforce.
Areas of opportunity.
The primary areas of opportunity identified in 2026 include pay, benefits, and internal communication.
While the pay construct showed a significant 30-point increase, it continues to score lower relative to other constructs, and remains a key focus for improvement for the department. Benefits showed minimal change, though two-thirds of this construct is influenced by statewide systems outside TPWD’s control.
Internal communication, while improving, remains an important area for continued attention, particularly as the agency works to strengthen transparency, accessibility of information, and cross-division collaboration.
Following receipt of the 2026 results, each TPWD division was tasked with developing action plans tailored to the feedback received on their division results.
These plans focus on strengthening organizational communication, enhancing workplace support, and addressing division-specific priorities in their area.
Implementation of these plans is already underway, and will continue across the agency.
All actions are scheduled to fully be implemented prior to the 2026 SEE Administration to ensure meaningful progress and measurable outcomes.
This concludes the formal presentation of the 2026 Survey of Employee Engagement results. I appreciate the Commission’s continued support for efforts to strengthen the workforce engagement and organizational climate.
I am happy to take any questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Comments or questions?
I have a question about how do you define “engaged?” Like you say, you know, 36 percent are engaged, and whatever, 31 percent, or whatever.
MS. LOUHELA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: What’s engaged?
MS. LOUHELA: For each question, they’re on a Likert scale, 1-500. And so each of those questions they’ll as ”Are you engaged?” “Are you not engaged?” “Are you strongly engaged?” “Are you disengaged?”
And so based on that five-point scale, each participant is… there’s three questions in that engagement area. They answer those.
And then that creates a comprehensive score.
And so that is converted into a percentage.
And so for our department, 67 percent feel like they’re engaged with the mission of the agency.
And so we’ll continue to work on…That doesn’t mean the other areas aren’t important as well. We’ll continue to work on “disengaged” and “somewhat disengaged.” So we’ve moved a little bit. We’re strengthening our numbers from 63 percent to 67 percent.
So those continue to go up.
And that’s important.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, thank you.
MS. LOUHELA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other questions?
Thank you very much.
MS. LOUHELA: I Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: It’s a good outcome, and it’s an impressive report. Is this something that you said UT Austin did it?
MS. LOUHELA: They do.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is it something that they do for a lot of different state agencies, or just for us?
MS. LOUHELA: Absolutely, and we include that as part of our workforce analysis and the strategic plan as well. And so I would say the majority of state agencies participate.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, interesting.
MS. LOUHELA: Very important and great scores this year, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, thank you.
Is there anything else to come before the Commission?
Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its business, and I declare us adjourned at 11:27 a.m.
Thank you.
[ GAVEL POUNDS ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Chairman.
In official recognition of the acceptance of these donations in a lawfully called public meeting of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, we hereby affix our signatures this ___ day of __________, 2026.
_______________________________________
Paul L. Foster, Chairman
_______________________________________
Oliver J. Bell, Vice-Chairman
_______________________________________
William "Leslie" Doggett, Member
_______________________________________
Anna B. Galo, Member
_______________________________________
John A. McCall, Jr., Member
_______________________________________
Robert L. "Bobby" Patton, Jr., Member
_______________________________________
Travis B. Rowling, Member
_______________________________________
Dick Scott, Member
_______________________________________
Timothy "Tim" Timmerman, Member