Texas Register, Volume 37, Number 40, Pages 7815-8094, October 5, 2012 Page: 7,960
7533-7814 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CZ, HRZ, or BZ where check stations have been established, the
proposed new rule would require the intact and unfrozen head of
any susceptible species to be presented to a designated check
station within 24 hours of take by the person or representative
of the person who killed the susceptible species. The proposed
rule would also provide that the department will issue documen-
tation for each specimen presented at the check station and that
the documentation must remain with the specimen until the spec-
imen reaches the possessor's final destination.
Proposed new 65.86, concerning Preemption, would make it
clear that to the extent that a provision of the proposed new
subchapter conflicts with a provision of another subchapter of in
Chapter 65, the provisions of Subchapter B would control. The
proposed new section is necessary to eliminate potential regu-
latory confusion.
Proposed new 65.87, concerning Exception, would allow the
waiver of any provision of the proposed new subchapter as nec-
essary for the holder of a scientific research permit issued un-
der Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C when
the proposed research is determined to be of use in advancing
an understanding of CWD with respect to susceptible species.
The department considers that CWD is of interest to the scien-
tific community, and that scientific research proposals concern-
ing the investigation of CWD could be received. Therefore, the
proposed new rules accommodate that possibility.
Proposed new 65.88, concerning Penalties, would state the
statutory penalties for violations of the proposed new rules for
ease of reference.
Mr. Mitch Lockwood, Big Game Program Director, has deter-
mined that for each of the first five years that the rules as pro-
posed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state
and local governments as a result of enforcing or administering
the rules as proposed, as department personnel currently allo-
cated to the administration and enforcement of the permit pro-
grams affected will administer and enforce the rules as part of
their current job duties.
Mr. Lockwood also has determined that for each of the first five
years the rules as proposed are in effect, the public benefit an-
ticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as
proposed will be the protection of free-ranging, native deer from
communicable diseases, thus ensuring the public of continued
enjoyment of the resource and also ensuring the continued ben-
eficial economic impacts of hunting in Texas. Additionally, the
protection of free-ranging deer herds will have the simultaneous
collateral benefit of protecting captive herds and maintaining the
economic viability of deer breeding operations.
Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a
state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a
regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse
economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As
required by Government Code, 2006.002(g), in April 2008, the
Office of the Attorney General issued guidelines to assist state
agencies in determining a proposed rule's potential adverse eco-
nomic impact on small businesses. These guidelines state that
"[g]enerally, there is no need to examine the indirect effects of
a proposed rule on entities outside of an agency's regulatory ju-
risdiction." The guidelines state that an agency need only con-
sider a proposed rule's "direct adverse economic impacts" to
small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any fur-
ther analysis is required. The guidelines also list examples of the
types of costs that may result in a "direct economic impact." Suchcosts may include costs associated with additional recordkeep-
ing or reporting requirements; new taxes or fees; lost sales or
profits; changes in market competition; or the need to purchase
or modify equipment or services. As explained in more detail
below, the department has determined that except for DBPs, the
proposed rules will not have an adverse impact on small or mi-
cro-businesses.
The department recognizes that Triple T and DMP holders in
many cases obtain such permits as part of an effort to enhance
the quality of a deer herd located on a specific property. In turn,
such landowners may seek to obtain a higher fee for hunting op-
portunities based on the perception of a higher quality hunting
experience. However, adverse economic impacts to the pricing
structure of hunting opportunity as a result of the proposed new
rules, if they occur, are indirect at best. The rule does not di-
rectly impact a landowner's ability to charge a fee for a hunting
opportunity on the landowner's property. In addition, any deer
that are introduced to a property as a result of a Triple T or DMP
continue to be a public resource.
Scientific Educational, Zoological, and Rehabilitation Permits
There will be no adverse economic impacts to persons holding
permits issued under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Sub-
chapter C (permits for rehabilitation, scientific collection, edu-
cational display, and zoological display). Current rules (31 TAC
69.44(b) and 69.302) prohibit the sale of protected wildlife held
under those permits. Since persons possessing these permits
undertake permitted activities on a non-profit basis, any person
or entity involved in permitted activities would not be engaged in
such activities for the purpose of making a profit and would thus
not be considered a small or micro-business as defined in Gov-
ernment Code, 2006.001.
Triple T Permits
There will be no adverse economic effects to holders of Triple
T permits. Triple T permits authorize only the trapping, trans-
porting, and transplantation of a public resource. As a result,
wildlife trapped under a Triple T may not be sold, bartered, or ex-
changed for anything of value. (Parks and Wildlife Code, 1.011;
31 TAC 69.117(a)(6).) Therefore, persons engaged in such ac-
tivities would not suffer a direct adverse economic impact from
the proposed rules. Current department rules governing Triple
T permit issuance provide for the denial of a permit if the de-
partment determines that release of a game animal or game
bird may detrimentally affect existing populations or systems (31
TAC 65.103(c)(3)). The rules as proposed would further clarify
this authority by prohibiting the trapping of susceptible species
from within a CZ or HRZ since trapping and moving suscepti-
ble species from within a CZ or HRZ would have the potential
to detrimentally affect other populations of deer by exposure to
animals possibly infected with CWD. The proposed new rules
would allow the trapping of deer from a BZ if disease-testing re-
quirements have been met.
Deer Management Permits
There will be no adverse economic impact to holders of DMPs.
As noted previously, the department has not promulgated rules
governing DMPs for mule deer; therefore, the only DMP ac-
tivities affected by the proposed new rules would be DMPs is-
sued for white-tailed deer. The purpose of the DMP is to allow
landowners and land managers to conduct selective breeding of
wild deer trapped under a department-approved deer manage-
ment plan. A DMP authorizes the permittee to temporarily detain
wild white-tailed deer for breeding purposes, including deer in-37 TexReg 7960 October 5, 2012 Texas Register
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 37, Number 40, Pages 7815-8094, October 5, 2012, periodical, October 5, 2012; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth288982/m1/146/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.