PART 2. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
CHAPTER 57. FISHERIES
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (the department) adopts amendments to §§57.111, 57.112, 57.156, 57.157, 57.252, 57.258, 57.377, 57.378, and 57.397, concerning Fisheries. Section 57.111 is adopted with changes to the proposed text published in the February 20, 2009, issue of the Texas Register (34 TexReg 1183). Sections 57.112, 57.156, 57.157, 57.252, 57.258, 57.377, 57.378, and 57.397 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
The change to §57.111, concerning Definitions, alters paragraphs (16) - (18) to update taxonomy and correct misspellings.
The change to §57.111 corrects misspellings of "Arapaimidae" in subparagraph (C) and "Acestrorhynchus" in subparagraph (D); removes an inaccurate reference to "Serrasalmideae" in subparagraph (F); corrects an incomplete reference to Incertae in subparagraph (H); eliminates an obsolete taxonomic term ("Ichthyoboridae") in subparagraph (K); replaces "Hypophthalmichthys" with the correct genus "Gibelion" and removes a repetitive reference to giant barbs in subparagraph (M); replaces an inaccurate reference to "Luciocephalidae" in subparagraph (T) with a reference to "Osphronemidae" and "Luciocephalus," which are the correct family and genus names; corrects a misspelling of "vitreus" in subparagraph (V); and eliminates obsolete family and species names in subparagraph (W).
The change to §57.111(17) corrects a misspelling of "Varunidae" in subparagraph (B) and makes the abbreviation for genus names consistent in subparagraph (D).
The change to §57.111(18) removes an inaccurate reference to the Duckweed Family subparagraph (A) and replaces it with the correct name, and corrects a misspelling of "Arrowleaf" in subparagraph (M).
The amendments are necessary as a result of the department's review of its regulations under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires a state agency to review each of its regulations no less frequently than every four years and to re-adopt, adopt with changes, or repeal each rule as a result of the review.
The amendment to §57.111, concerning Definitions, updates the scientific names of various families, genera, and species listed in the section. Scientific names are frequently changed as new knowledge about organisms is developed. Each change to a name in the section reflects the official name recognized by the American Fisheries Society, which is the acknowledged arbiter of taxonomic nomenclature with respect to aquatic organisms. The amendment is nonsubstantive and neither removes organisms from nor adds organisms to the list of organisms regulated by the department.
The amendment to §57.112, concerning General Rules, alters subsection (b) to replace the term "public waters" with the term "water of this state." The amendment is necessary to be consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007, which states that "No person may import, possess, sell, or place into water of this state exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants except as authorized by rule or permit issued by the department."
The amendment to §57.156, concerning Definitions, corrects an inaccurate reference in paragraph (2) to the title of a publication concerning bivalve mollusks. The change is necessary for accuracy and is nonsubstantive.
The amendment to §57.157, concerning Mussels and Clams, corrects a misspelling of a species name in subsection (b). The change is necessary for accuracy and is nonsubstantive.
The amendments to §57.252 and §57.258, concerning Introduction of Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants, alter §57.252(f)(5) and §57.258(5) to correct an inaccurate reference to the time period in which a permittee must remove enclosures and associated infrastructure from public waters as a result of permit expiration or revocation. In a previous rulemaking, the department lengthened the time period for removal from 10 days to 60 days and inadvertently failed to indicate that change in the notice of adoption when the rules were adopted. The changes are necessary to maintain consistent rules that reflect the decisions of the commission and are nonsubstantive.
The amendment to §57.377, concerning Definitions, removes the list of game fish and replaces it with a reference to the definition of game fish contained in §65.3 of this title (relating to Definitions). The change is nonsubstantive and is necessary to eliminate the need to make changes in several rules each time a species is designated as a game fish.
The amendment to §57.378, concerning Nongame Fishes Covered by These Rules, renames the section, corrects misspellings of species names, and updates taxonomic references. The change is necessary to maintain accurate rules and is nonsubstantive.
The amendment to §57.397, concerning Broodfish Permit; Revocation, alters the section to indicate that revocation of a permit is done by the department rather than by the executive director. The change is necessary to maintain accuracy and is nonsubstantive.
The department received no comments concerning adoption of the proposed rules.
SUBCHAPTER A. HARMFUL OR POTENTIALLY HARMFUL FISH, SHELLFISH, AND AQUATIC PLANTS
The amendments are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007, which requires the department to make rules governing the importation, possession, and sale of exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants and their placement into water of this state; §67.004, which requires the commission to establish by rule any limits on the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, importation, exportation, sale, or offering for sale of nongame fish; and §78.006, which authorizes the commission to regulate the taking, possession, purchase, and sale of mussels and clams.
§57.111.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Aquaculture or fish farming--The business of producing and selling cultured species raised in private facilities.
(2) Aquaculturist or fish farmer--Any person engaged in aquaculture.
(3) Aquaculture facility--The property, including all drainage ditches and private facilities where cultured species are produced, held, propagated, transported or sold.
(4) Aquaculture complex--A group of two or more separately owned aquaculture facilities located at a common site and sharing privately owned water diversion or drainage structures.
(5) Beheaded--The complete detachment of the head (that portion of the fish from the gills to the nose) from the body.
(6) Certified Inspector--An employee of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department who has satisfactorily completed a department approved course in clinical analysis of shellfish.
(7) Cultured species--Aquatic plants or wildlife resources raised under conditions where at least a portion of their life cycle is controlled by an aquaculturist.
(8) Clinical Analysis Checklist--A TPWD form specifying sampling protocols and listing certain characteristics which may constitute manifestations of disease.
(9) Department--The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department or a designated employee of the department.
(10) Director--The executive director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
(11) Disease--Contagious pathogens or injurious parasites which may be a threat to the health of natural populations of aquatic organisms.
(12) Disease-Free--A status, based on the results of an examination conducted by a department approved shellfish disease specialist that certifies a group of aquatic organisms as being free of disease.
(13) Exotic species--A nonindigenous plant or wildlife resource not normally found in public water of this state.
(14) Grass carp--The species Ctenopharyngodon idella.
(15) Gutted--The complete removal of all internal organs and entrails.
(16) Harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish--
(A) Lampreys Family: Petromyzontidae--all species except Ichthyomyzon castaneus and I. gagei;
(B) Freshwater Stingrays Family: Potamotrygonidae--all species;
(C) Arapaima Family: Arapaimidae--Arapaima gigas;
(D) South American Pike Characoids Family: Acestrorhynchidae--all species of genus Acestrorhynchus;
(E) African Tiger Fishes Family, Family Alestidae--all species of genus Hydrocynus;
(F) Piranhas and Pirambebas: Family Characidae--all species of the genus Piaractus;
(G) Payara and other wolf or vampire tetras: Dogtooth characins, Family Cynodontidae--all species of genera Hydrolycus, Rhaphiodon, and Cynodon;
(H) Dourados: Family Characidae, Subfamily: Incertae sedis--all species of genus Salminus;
(I) South American Tiger Fishes Family: Erythrinidae--all species;
(J) South American Pike Characoids Family: Ctenoluciidae--all species of genera Ctenolucius and Boulengerella;
(K) African Pike Characoids Families: Hepsetidae, and Citharinidae--all species;
(L) Electric Eels Family: Gymnotidae--Electrophorus electricus;
(M) Carps and Minnows Family: Cyprinidae--all species and hybrids of species of genera: Aspius, Pseudaspius, Aspiolucius (Asps); Abramis, Blicca, Megalobrama, Parabramis (Old World Breams); Hypophthalmichthys or Aristichthys (Bighead and Silver Carp); Mylopharyngodon (Black Carp); Ctenopharyngodon (Grass Carp); Cirrhinus (Mud Carp); Thynnichthys (Sandkhol Carp); Gibelion (Catla); Leuciscus (Old World Chubs, Ide, Orfe, Daces); Tor, and Neolissochilus hexagonolepsis (and Mahseers); Rutilus (Roaches); Scardinius (Rudds); Elopichthys (Yellowcheek); Catlocarpio (Giant Siamese Carp); all species of the genus Labeo (Labeos) except Labeo chrysophekadion (Black SharkMinnow);
(N) Walking Catfishes Family: Clariidae--all species;
(O) Electric Catfishes Family: Malapteruridae--all species;
(P) South American Parasitic Candiru Catfishes Family: Trichomycteridae;
(Q) Pike Killifish Family: Poeciliidae--Belonesox belizanus;
(R) Marine Stonefishes Family: Synanceiidae--all species;
(S) Tilapia Family: Cichlidae--all species of genera Tilapia, Oreochromis and Sarotherodon;
(T) Asian Pikeheads Family: Osphronemidae- Luciocephalus;
(U) Snakeheads Family: Channidae--all species;
(V) Old World Pike-Perches Family: Percidae--all species of the genus Sander except Sander vitreus;
(W) Nile Perch Family: Family Latidae--all species of genus Lates;
(X) Seatrouts and Corvinas Family: Sciaenidae--all species of genus Cynoscion except Cynoscion nebulosus, C. nothus, and C. arenarius;
(Y) Whale Catfishes Family: Cetopsidae--all species;
(Z) Ruffe Family: Percidae--all species of genus Gymnocephalus;
(AA) Air sac Catfishes Family: Heteropneustidae--all species;
(BB) Swamp Eels, Rice Eels or One-Gilled Eel Family: Synbranchidae--all species;
(CC) Freshwater Eels Family Anguillidae--all species except Anguilla rostrata;
(DD) Round Gobies Family: Gobiidae--all species of genus Neogobius;
(EE) Temperate Basses Family: Moronidae--all species except for Morone saxatilis, M. chrysops and M. mississippiensis and hybrids between these three species;
(FF) Temperate Perches Family: Percichthyidae--all species.
(17) Harmful or potentially harmful exotic shellfish--
(A) Crayfishes Family: Parastacidae--all species;
(B) Mitten crabs Family: Varunidae--all species of genus Eriocheir;
(C) Zebra Mussels Family: Dreissenidae--all species of genus Dreissena;
(D) Penaeid Shrimp Family: Penaeidae--all species of genera Penaeus, Litopenaeus, Farfantepenaeus, Fenneropenaeus, Marsupenaeus, and Melicertus (all previously considered Penaeus) except L. setiferus, F. aztecus and F. duorarum.
(E) Oyster Family: Ostreidae--all species except Crassostrea virginica and Ostrea equestris.
(F) Applesnails and Giant Rams-Horn Snail Family Ampullariidae and Marisa, except spiketop applesnail (Pomacea bridgesi).
(18) Harmful or potentially harmful exotic plants--
(A) Giant or Dotted Duckweed Family: Araceae (previously Lemnaceae)--Landoltia punctata;
(B) Salvinia Family: Salviniaceae--all species of genus Salvinia;
(C) Water hyacinth Family: Pontederiaceae--Eichhornia crassipes (floating water hyacinth) and E. azurea (rooted water hyacinth);
(D) Waterlettuce Family: Araceae--Pistia stratiotes;
(E) Hydrilla Family: Hydrocharitaceae--Hydrilla verticillata;
(F) Lagarosiphon Family: Hydrocharitaceae--Lagarosiphon major;
(G) Eurasian Watermilfoil Family: Haloragaceae--Myriophyllum spicatum;
(H) Alligatorweed Family: Amaranthaceae--Alternanthera philoxeroides;
(I) Paperbark Family: Myrtaceae--Melaleuca quinquenervia;
(J) Torpedograss Family: Poaceae--Panicum repens;
(K) Water spinach (also called ong choy, rau mong and kangkong) Family: Convolvulaceae--Ipomoea aquatica.
(L) Ambulia (Asian marshweed) Family: Scrophulariaceae--Limnophila sessiliflora;
(M) Arrowleaf False Pickerelweed Family: Pontederiaceae--Monochoria hastate;
(N) Heartshaped False Pickerelweed Family: Pontederiaceae--Monochoria vaginalis;
(O) Duck-lettuce Family: Hydrocharitaceae--Ottelia alismoides;
(P) Wetland Nightshade Family: Solanaceae--Solanum tampicense;
(Q) Exotic Bur-reed Family: Sparganiaceae--Sparganium erectum;
(R) Brazilian Peppertree Family: Anacardiaceae--Schinus terebinthifolius;
(S) Purple Loosestrife Family: Lythraceae--Lythrum salicaria.
(19) Harmful or potentially harmful exotic species exclusion zone--That part of the state that is both south of SH 21 and east of I-35, but not including Brazos County.
(20) Immediately--Without delay; with no intervening span of time.
(21) Manifestations of disease--Manifestations of disease include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: heavy or unusual predator activity, empty guts, emaciation, rostral deformity, digestive gland atrophy or necrosis, gross pathology of shell or underlying skin typical of viral infection, fragile or atypically soft shell, gill fouling, or gill discoloration.
(22) Nauplius or nauplii--A larval crustacean having no trunk segmentation and only three pairs of appendages.
(23) Operator--The person responsible for the overall operation of a wastewater treatment facility.
(24) Place of business--A permanent structure on land where aquatic products or orders for aquatic products are received or where aquatic products are sold or purchased.
(25) Post-larvae--A juvenile crustacean having acquired a full complement of functional appendages.
(26) Private facility--A pond, tank, cage, or other structure capable of holding cultured species in confinement wholly within or on private land or water, or within or on permitted public land or water.
(27) Private facility effluent--Any and all water which has been used in aquaculture activities.
(28) Private pond--A pond, tank, lake, or other structure capable of holding cultured species in confinement wholly within or on private land.
(29) Public aquarium--An American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums accredited facility for the care and exhibition of aquatic plants and animals.
(30) Public waters--Bays, estuaries, and water of the Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the state, and the rivers, streams, creeks, bayous, reservoirs, lakes, and portions of those waters where public access is available without discrimination.
(31) Quarantine condition--Confinement of exotic shellfish such that neither the shellfish nor the water in which they are or were maintained comes into contact with water in the state and with other fish and/or shellfish.
(32) Shellfish disease specialist--A person with a degree in veterinary medicine or a Ph.D. who specializes in disease of shellfish.
(33) Triploid grass or black carp--A grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) or black carp (Mylophryngodon piceus) that has been certified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as having 72 chromosomes and as being functionally sterile.
(34) Waste--Waste shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 26, §26.001(6) of the Texas Water Code.
(35) Water in the state--Water in the state shall have the same meaning as in Chapter 26, §26.001(5) of the Texas Water Code.
(36) Wastewater treatment facility--All contiguous land and fixtures, structures or appurtenances used for treating wastewater pursuant to a valid permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903317
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The amendments are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §78.006, which authorizes the commission to regulate the taking, possession, purchase, and sale of mussels and clams.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903318
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4814
The amendments are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.015, which requires the commission to establish rules and regulations governing permits to introduce fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants into the public water of this state.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903319
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The amendments are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §67.004, which requires the commission to establish by rule any limits on the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, importation, exportation, sale, or offering for sale of nongame fish.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903320
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The amendment is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.552, which requires the commission to prescribe by rule the requirements and conditions for issuance of a permit for the take of broodfish from public waters.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903321
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
SUBCHAPTER A. STATEWIDE HUNTING AND FISHING PROCLAMATION
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the repeal of §65.42, amendments to §§65.3, 65.56, 65.64, 65.72, and 65.73, and new §65.42, concerning the Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation. New §65.42 and the amendments to §§65.64, 65.72, and 65.73 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 20, 2009, issue of the Texas Register (34 TexReg 1202). The repeal of §65.42, and amendments to §65.3 and §65.56 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
The change to §65.42 corrects two inaccurate internal references. As proposed, subsection (b)(17)(C)(ii)(II) specifies that permits for the take of antlerless deer by muzzleloader are not required in the counties "listed in paragraph (10) of this section." This is incorrect. The reference should be to paragraph (12). The intent of the provision is to provide an exception in a group of counties where antlerless harvest during the general season is by permit only. Those counties are listed in paragraph (12), not in paragraph (10). The change is nonsubstantive.
As proposed, §65.42(b)(18)(C) specifies that the provisions of that subparagraph apply to all of the counties "listed in paragraphs (1) - (13) of this subsection." This is incorrect. The department's intent is that the provision apply to all counties in which an open season has been established. Those counties are listed in paragraphs (1) - (14), not (1) - (13). The change is nonsubstantive.
The change to §65.64 corrects an inaccurate internal reference. The proposed amendment to §65.64(b)(4)(B) established a youth-only spring turkey season in all counties listed in subsection (b)(3), which is incorrect. The youth-only season has never been open in counties with a one-bird bag limit; thus, the youth-only spring season should apply only in the counties listed in subsection (b)(3)(A) and (B).
The change to §65.72 affects proposed provisions concerning flounder and gray triggerfish.
As proposed, the amendment affecting flounder would have closed the flounder fishery for the entire month of November. The rule as adopted allows a person to take two flounder per day in November, but the lawful means are restricted to pole-and-line only. The intent of the proposed amendment was to restore spawning biomass in the fishery. The November closure was the fastest way to achieve that goal. Allowing limited take of flounder during the month of November by means other than gigging will achieve the same goal, but will not achieve it as quickly.
As proposed, the amendment affecting gray triggerfish would have established a minimum length limit of 14 inches in order to be consistent with federal guidelines. The federal guidelines recommend a minimum length limit of 16 inches (total length) or 14 inches (fork length), which are roughly equivalent. The department uses the total length calculation to enforce length limits, but inadvertently published the minimum fork length value rather than the minimum total length value. The change establishes a 16-inch minimum length limit (total length) in order to avoid angler confusion. The change is nonsubstantive.
As proposed, the amendment to §65.73, concerning Fishing Guide License-Required Documentation, required a person seeking licensure as a paddle-craft fishing guide to complete the "Three Star Sea Kayak" and "Four Star Leader Sea Kayak" training or the "Level II Essentials of Kayak Touring" and "Coastal Kayak Day Trip Leading" training. The "Three Star Sea Kayak" course is a prerequisite for the "Four Star Leader Sea Kayak" course. Similarly, the "Level II Essentials of Kayak Touring" course is a prerequisite for the "Coastal Kayak Day Trip Leading" course. Thus, it is only necessary to require a person seeking licensure to complete either the "Four Star Leader Sea Kayak" course or the "Coastal Kayak Day Trip Leading" course, since neither of those courses can be taken unless the person has also taken the prerequisite course. The change to §65.73 makes this simplification, which is nonsubstantive.
The repeal of §65.42 is necessary because comprehensive changes have been made to the section as part of a new approach to deer management.
The amendment to §65.3, concerning Definitions, adds definitions for "paddle craft" and "paddle-craft fishing guide" because the amendment to §65.73, concerning Fishing Guide License-Required Documentation, creates a fishing guide license for persons solely using paddle craft.
New §65.42, concerning Deer, establishes the open seasons, bag limits, and special provisions for the take of white-tailed and mule deer in Texas. The new section reflects a new approach to deer management being introduced by the department. Until recently, the department collected biological information regarding white-tailed deer populations and harvest by regulatory compartment, typically a group of counties in geographical proximity to each other. The regulatory compartment concept was used for many years and was adequate to analyze deer population dynamics within the boundaries of counties; however, that approach contributed to highly variable population estimates, which affected the department's ability to detect changes within a given deer population. As a result of the department's comprehensive science review in 2005, Wildlife Division staff developed an entirely new approach to data collection for white-tailed deer, defining specific areas (known as Resource Management Units (RMU)) that share similar soil types, vegetative communities, wildlife ecology, and land-use practices. The intent is to develop deer seasons, bag limits, and special provisions that allow the department to monitor the efficacy of management strategies on deer populations within each RMU. The new rule will still use the familiar system of county boundaries and major highways to delineate various regulatory regimes. The new rule is intended to provide additional hunting opportunity where possible within the tenets of sound biological management, address resource concerns such as increasing deer densities, habitat degradation, and poor age structure among bucks, and simplify regulations.
New section §65.42 retains certain provisions that are identical to those contained in the rule being replaced. With respect to white-tailed deer, those provisions are the existing lengths of the general open season and the archery-only open season, provisions governing the use of Managed Lands Deer Permits and Landowner Assisted Management Permits, provisions stating exceptions to the county and aggregate bag limits when certain tags or permits are used, provisions governing the definition of lawful bucks in counties where the "antler restriction" rule is implemented, and provisions governing the take of deer during Special Late Antlerless and Spike-buck Deer seasons. The counties listed in new subsection (b)(1) retain the same provisions contained in current subsection (b)(1), with the exception of Atascosa County, which is addressed elsewhere in this preamble. The provisions governing the take of mule deer are identical in the new section to those contained in current §65.42(c).
Changes to buck bag limits
Under current regulations there are 85 one-buck counties in Texas. Historically, one-buck counties were areas where hunting pressure had been so intense that bucks could not attain maturity, or where deer densities were so low that buck age structure could be affected by very little hunting pressure. The department has determined that the one-buck bag limit approach did not significantly reduce hunting pressure on bucks in counties where tract sizes are relatively small and hunter density is relatively high, primarily in the eastern half of the state (e.g., Pineywoods, Post Oak Savannah, and Cross Timbers and Prairies ecoregions). Therefore, an alternative buck-harvest strategy was necessary in those areas in order to improve buck age structure. The recent implementation of the "antler-restriction rule" in many of those counties has produced age structures that are desirable.
Based on data obtained from 61 counties where the "antler-restriction rule" has been implemented, the department is satisfied that the "antler-restriction rule" has been quite effective at improving buck age structure while maintaining ample hunting opportunity. Therefore the new rule implements the "antler-restriction rule" in 52 additional counties where yearling and 2.5-year-old bucks comprise from 55 - 68% of the total buck harvest. For the first time, the "antler-restriction rule" will be implemented in counties where, under current rule, more than one buck is allowed to be taken. All counties in which this harvest strategy is implemented will have a two-buck bag limit. The affected counties are Anderson, Angelina, Archer, Atascosa, Brazos, Brown, Chambers, Clay, Cooke, Denton, Ellis, Falls, Freestone, Grayson, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hunt, Jack, Jasper, Jefferson, Johnson, Kaufman, Liberty, Limestone, Madison, McLennan, Milam, Mills, Montague, Montgomery, Navarro, Newton, Orange, Palo Pinto, Parker, Polk, Robertson, San Jacinto, Smith, Stephens, Tarrant, Trinity, Tyler, Van Zandt, Walker, Wichita, Wise, and Young.
In the eastern Rolling Plains, relatively large tract sizes and light hunter density have allowed the deer population to expand as habitat has become more favorable to white-tailed deer. Buck age structure in this area is comparable to that in areas where the antler-restriction rule has been implemented, and staff has determined that buck populations in the eastern Rolling Plains can withstand an additional buck in the bag with no restrictions. Therefore, the new rule implements a buck bag limit of two bucks in Baylor, Callahan, Haskell, Jones, Knox, Shackelford, Taylor, Throckmorton, and Wilbarger counties.
Changes to antlerless bag limits
There are three different antlerless-deer bag limits in Texas: a two-antlerless bag in all counties north and east of the Edwards Plateau; a five-antlerless bag in south Texas and the majority of the Edwards Plateau; and a four-antlerless bag in the Trans Pecos ecoregion. The current approach contains a mix of harvest strategies in each of several RMUs, making it very difficult for the department to evaluate a deer population's response to any particular harvest strategy. Furthermore, there are RMUs where the two-antlerless bag is insufficient to adequately manage increasing deer populations and deteriorating habitat. Therefore, the new rule implements more liberal antlerless-deer bag limits in the eastern Trans Pecos and Rolling Plains, and in portions of the Cross Timbers and Prairies ecoregion.
White-tailed deer densities throughout the eastern Trans Pecos are very similar to densities in Edwards Plateau RMUs to the east. The new rule increases the bag limit from four antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Pecos, Terrell, and Upton counties in an effort to increase hunting opportunity and address resource concerns.
White-tailed deer densities have remained relatively stable in much of the Cross Timbers. The department believes that increasing the antlerless-deer bag limit in this region will increase total deer harvest, which is imperative for habitat recovery. Therefore, the new rule increases the antlerless deer bag limit from two antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Archer, Baylor, Bell (west of IH35), Bosque, Callahan, Clay, Coryell, Hamilton, Haskell, Hill, Jack, Jones, Knox, Lampasas, McLennan, Palo Pinto, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson (west of IH35), and Young counties.
Although white-tailed deer densities in the western Rolling Plains and eastern Panhandle are highly variable, there are areas containing suitable habitat that have become saturated with deer, and whitetails are expanding into marginal to poor habitat. Browsing pressure in these areas is severe, where little woody vegetation exists within five feet of the ground. Therefore, the new rule increases the antlerless bag limit from two antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dickens, Donley, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hardeman, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Ochiltree, Roberts, Scurry, Stonewall, and Wheeler counties.
Antlerless deer harvest in many counties has been controlled by what are popularly known as "doe days," the designation of specific time periods when antlerless deer may be harvested without a permit. The current rules allow for four specific regimes: four "doe days," 16 "doe days," and "doe days" from the beginning of the season until the Sunday following Thanksgiving. Additionally, there are counties where the harvest of antlerless deer is strictly by permit only. As is the case in other parts of the state, the introduction of the RMU concept means that current harvest regimes are not consistent across RMUs. Therefore, the new rule eliminates "doe days" (i.e., allow antlerless harvest without permits for the entirety of the general season) in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties (which currently allow antlerless harvest by permit only), Denton and Tarrant counties (which currently have 16 "doe days") and in Cooke, Hardeman, Hill, Johnson, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties (which currently have 23-plus "doe days"). Staff believes that the new rule will create additional hunting opportunity in areas where increased antlerless harvest is desirable, as well as provide a consistent time period during which antlerless deer may be harvested. Similarly, the new rule increases the number of "doe days" in Bowie and Rusk counties (from 4 to 16), in Cherokee and Houston counties (from 4 to 23-plus), and in Anderson, Henderson, Hunt, Leon, Rains, Smith, and Van Zandt counties (from no "doe days" to four).
The new rule allows antlerless harvest only by permit in Grayson County. Grayson County currently has a three-deer bag limit, not more than one of which may be a buck, not more than two of which may be antlerless, and four "doe days". As previously mentioned, the new rule implements the antler-restriction rule in Grayson County, which increases the buck bag limit to two.
The new rule also implements an open season in Dawson, Deaf Smith, and Martin counties, which currently have a closed season. The white-tailed deer population and distribution has increased in portions of these counties to the extent that a season is justifiable. The new rule creates a season opening the first Saturday in November and running through the first Saturday in January, full-season either-sex, with a three-deer bag limit (no more than one buck and no more than two antlerless). Opening the season and allowing full season either-sex harvest will increase hunting opportunity, allow landowners and managers more flexibility in their white-tailed deer management decisions, and will not adversely affect the resource.
Special Late Seasons
In an attempt to meet the general objectives for deer management mentioned earlier, and to standardize the length of all late seasons, the new rule expands the current late antlerless and spike season into 67 additional counties and expands the muzzleloader season into 37 additional counties. In Pecos, Terrell, and Upton counties, the current muzzleloader season is replaced by a general late season for antlerless and spike buck deer.
The new rule creates a 14-day late antlerless and spike deer season in Archer, Armstrong, Baylor, Bell (West of IH35), Borden, Bosque, Briscoe, Callahan, Carson, Childress, Clay, Collingsworth, Comanche, Cooke, Coryell, Cottle, Crosby, Denton, Dickens, Donley, Eastland, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hamilton, Hardeman, Haskell, Hemphill, Hill, Hood, Hutchinson, Jack, Johnson, Jones, Kent, King, Knox, Lampasas, Lipscomb, McLennan, Montague, Motley, Ochiltree, Palo Pinto, Parker, Pecos, Roberts, Scurry, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Stonewall, Tarrant, Taylor, Terrell, Throckmorton, Upton, Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson (West of IH35), Wise, and Young counties. In Pecos, Terrell, and Upton counties, the current muzzleloader-only open season is replaced by a late antlerless and spike season.
The current muzzleloader-only open season is a nine-day late season during which antlerless and spike deer may be taken only by muzzleloading firearms. The new rule expands the muzzleloader season from nine to 14 days in all counties that currently have a muzzleloader season, makes it run concurrently with all other late seasons, allows for the bag composition to be identical to that of the general season, and expands it to include Austin, Bastrop, Bowie, Brazoria, Caldwell, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Colorado, De Witt, Fayette, Fort Bend, Goliad, Gonzales, Gregg, Guadalupe, Harrison, Houston, Jackson, Karnes, Lavaca, Lee, Marion, Matagorda, Morris, Nacogdoches, Panola, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Upshur, Victoria, Waller, Washington, Wharton, and Wilson counties.
The new rule also expands the late youth-only season from two days to 14 days and makes it run concurrently with the special late antlerless and spike deer and special muzzleloader seasons. The expansion is intended to create additional opportunity for parents and children to hunt together during January.
Special Provisions
Under current §65.42, antlerless deer may not be harvested on United States Forest Service (USFS) lands without an antlerless permit, regardless of the season and bag limit established for county. This is also true of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lands and lands owned by river authorities. USFS personnel have requested that the permit requirement be removed in specific areas, allowing hunters to be governed by the county regulations, including the utilization of "doe days." Therefore, the new rule creates special provisions for USFS properties in Montague and Wise counties, where the deer populations should not be adversely impacted with a regulation allowing an unknown number of hunters the opportunity to harvest antlerless deer without a permit from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving. USFS personnel also have requested that the county regulations for Fannin County apply to USFS lands in Fannin County. Therefore, the new rule also allows for the harvest of antlerless deer without a permit on USFS lands in Fannin County during the four "doe days" established in that county.
New §65.42 also implements a 9-day, buck-only general season for mule deer in Parmer County. Under current rule, there is no open season for mule deer in Parmer County, where population surveys have revealed low numbers of mule deer within pockets of suitable habitat. Wildlife Division staff believes that the implementation of a buck-only season will not have any measurable impact on herd productivity or expansion; however, a measurable change in the age structure of bucks is possible as a result of harvest pressure on a previously unhunted population. Implementation of the proposal is expected to result in increased hunter opportunity with no measurable effect on reproduction or distribution of mule deer populations.
The amendment to §65.56, concerning Lesser Prairie Chicken: Open Season, Bag, and Possession Limits, closes the season for lesser prairie chicken until the population recovers to a more sustainable level. The lesser prairie chicken population is in decline across its historic range due to habitat loss and habitat degradation. According to some estimates the total population declined by over 75% between 1963 and 1980. The amendment is necessary because although lesser prairie chicken hunting mortality in Texas is almost nonexistent, closure of the season is a reasonable component of any long-term recovery strategy.
The amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, corrects an inaccurate cross-reference in subsection (b)(4).
The amendment to §65.72, concerning Fish, consists of several components.
Harvest regulations for blue catfish on Lake Lewisville (Denton County), Lake Richland Chambers (Navarro and Freestone Counties), and Lake Waco (McLennan County) currently consist of a 12-inch minimum length limit and 25-fish daily bag limit. The amendment to §65.72 retains the 25-fish daily bag limit but implements a 30- to 45-inch slot length limit and allows the harvest of only one blue catfish over 45 inches. No harvest of blue catfish between 30 and 45 inches is allowed. The amendment is necessary because harvest data indicate that an extremely high harvest of older fish could have negative impacts on population abundance by affecting spawning and reproduction.
Harvest regulations for largemouth bass on Lake Ray Roberts (Cooke, Denton, and Grayson Counties) currently consist of a 14- to 24-inch slot length limit and a five-fish daily bag (only one bass 24 inches or greater may be retained each day). The amendment implements a 14-inch minimum length limit. The five-fish daily bag limit (the standard statewide regulation) remains in effect. The current regulation was implemented in 1998 in an attempt to explore the feasibility of creating a trophy bass population; however; population structure trend data indicate that the population has not responded to the slot limit, so the department has determined that the rules should revert to the statewide standard.
Under current regulations there are no restrictions on the harvest of alligator gar in Texas. Alligator gar populations are believed to be declining throughout much of their historical range in North America, which includes the Mississippi River system as well as the coastal rivers of the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to northern Mexico. Although the specific severity of these declines is unknown, habitat alteration and over-exploitation are thought to be partially responsible. Alligator gar have been extirpated in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and have been designated as a "Species of Concern" in Oklahoma and Kentucky. In addition, the Endangered Fishes Committee of the American Fisheries Society has listed the alligator gar as "Vulnerable." Observed declines in other states, vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar indicate that a conservative management approach is warranted until populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. The amendment imposes a daily bag limit of one alligator gar per person. The change is intended to protect adult fish while allowing limited harvest, which will ensure population stability while allowing utilization of the resource.
The amendment to §65.72 also affects regulations for alligator gar and blue catfish on Lake Texoma. Recent meetings between fisheries and law enforcement staff from TPWD and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) resulted in two proposed changes to fishing regulations on Lake Texoma. The proposals are part of an ongoing effort to standardize regulations on a reservoir where management is shared by both states. For reasons discussed earlier, the department is concerned about the status of alligator gar. This concern is shared by biologists with the ODWC. There are currently no restrictions on the take of alligator gar on the Texas portion of Lake Texoma. The amendment institutes a daily bag limit of one alligator gar and prohibits the take of alligator gar in a portion of the lake that under certain environmental conditions is believed to function as spawning grounds for large quantities of alligator gar. Under these conditions, alligator gar are extremely vulnerable to harvest, and because the conditions for spawning do not exist on a regular or cyclical basis, alligator gar breed infrequently.
Current regulations for blue catfish allow a daily bag limit of 15 fish. Harvest data indicate an extremely high harvest of older fish, which could have negative impacts on population abundance. Therefore, the amendment retains the 15-fish daily bag limit but prohibits the retention of more than one blue catfish 30 inches or greater per day, which is expected to protect older and larger fish for breeding purposes.
The amendment also eliminates a time-dependent provision in §65.72(c)(5)(F) that is no longer necessary, and comports that subparagraph accordingly. The commission last year prohibited the take of catfish by archery equipment, to be effective September 1, 2008. The amendment eliminates the reference to the date and removes references to the take of catfish by archery equipment.
Flounder
The amendment to §65.72 also affects provisions governing the recreational and commercial take of flounder. On the basis of pronounced downward trends in fishery independent data (bag seines, bay trawls, gill nets) which showed declines in catch-per-unit-effort (abundance), and declining commercial and recreational landings, the department has determined that measures must be implemented to protect and replenish spawning stock biomass in the fishery. Current harvest regulations for flounder consist of a 14-inch minimum size limit and a 10-fish daily bag and possession limit for recreational take and a 60-fish daily bag and possession limit for commercial take. The amendment to §65.72 implements a five-fish daily bag and possession limit for recreational take and a 30-fish commercial daily bag and possession limit for commercial take. Additionally, the amendment establishes a daily bag and possession limit of two flounder during the month of November and restricts lawful means during that time to pole-and-line only.
In developing the proposal to address the downward trends, the department considered several alternatives, in addition to the current proposal. The department considered: (1) a five-fish recreational/30-fish commercial bag limit with no closure; (2) a November closure with no change to current bag limits; (3) a five-fish recreational/45-fish commercial bag limit with a November closure; (4) a five-fish recreational/40-fish commercial bag limit with a November closure; (5) a five-fish recreational/30-fish commercial bag limit with an October to December closure; and (6) an October to December closure with no change to bag limits. The department believes that a 30-fish commercial limit, a five-fish recreational limit and a limited November harvest will best balance competing interests in achieving the objective of the amendment while being less burdensome to anglers.
Federal-State Managed Species
Several fish species are managed jointly by the department, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). As a result of the finalization by NMFS of the Highly Migratory Species Amendment 2, and Reef Fish Amendments 30A and 30B, the department is now seeking to achieve greater consistency with federal rules affecting greater amberjack, gag, gray triggerfish, and sharks. NMFS and GMFMC have determined that greater amberjack, gray triggerfish, gag grouper, and some species of sharks are in an overfished condition or are undergoing overfishing. The amendments to current bag and size limits for those species are intended to provide consistency with federal regulations, which is necessary to facilitate multi-jurisdictional law enforcement, to reduce confusion among anglers, and to achieve the population rebuilding goals set by NMFS and GMFMC.
Greater Amberjack
Current regulations for greater amberjack consist of a 32-inch minimum size limit and a 1-fish daily bag limit. The amendment to §65.72 implements a 34-inch minimum size limit. According to stock assessments, greater amberjack were found to be undergoing overfishing in 2006. Within the context of the amendment, a greater amberjack minimum size limit of 34 inches total length is consistent with federal guidelines and follows a previous rule made by the National Marine Fisheries Service on August 4, 2008. The changes for greater amberjack are in accordance with the suggested changes as published in Amendment 30A to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico as published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 38139 - 38143).
Gray Triggerfish
Harvest of gray triggerfish in Texas waters is currently unregulated. The amendment to §65.72 implements a 20-fish daily bag limit, a 40-fish possession limit, and a 16-inch (total length) minimum size limit. According to stock assessments, gray triggerfish were found to be undergoing overfishing in 2006. Within the context of the amendment, a gray triggerfish minimum size limit of 16 inches total length and a daily bag limit of 20 fish are consistent with federal guidelines and follow a previous rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which became effective August 4, 2008.
Gag Grouper
Harvest of gag grouper in Texas waters is currently unregulated. The amendment to §65.72 implements a 22-inch minimum size limit and a two-fish daily bag limit. The changes for gag grouper are in accordance with the suggested changes as published in Amendment 30B to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico as published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 63,932) and a similar interim rule as published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 73,192 that became effective on January 1, 2009). According to stock assessments, gag grouper were found to be undergoing overfishing in 2004. Within the context of the amendment, a gag grouper bag limit of two fish per person per day within an aggregate grouper quota is consistent with federal guidelines. To establish consistency between federal and state waters, the proposal establishes a two-fish bag limit. The proposal also establishes a 22-inch minimum size limit, which also tracks a previous federal rule change made by National Marine Fisheries Service in 2000.
Sharks
Current regulations for the take of sharks consist of a 24-inch minimum size limit (total length) with a one-fish daily bag limit. The amendment to §65.72 prohibits the catch or possession of the following sharks: Atlantic angel, basking, bigeye sand tiger, bigeye sixgill, bigeye thresher, bignose, Caribbean reef, Caribbean sharpnose, dusky, Galapagos, longfin mako, narrowtooth, night, sandbar, sand tiger, sevengill, silky, sixgill, smalltail, whale, and white. These sharks have been determined to be in an overfished condition or are undergoing overfishing. The amendment retains the 24-inch minimum size limit for Atlantic sharpnose, blacktip and bonnethead sharks while increasing the minimum size limit for all other sharks, except those listed as prohibited. For the other species which are not prohibited the minimum size limit is increased from 24 inches to 64 inches (total length). The length limits as adopted are consistent with the 54-inch fork length established by Highly Migratory Species, Amendment 2, promulgated by NMFS.
Paddle-Craft License
The amendment to §65.73, concerning Fishing Guide License-Required Documentation, establishes a distinction in requirements between fishing guides operating from a motorized vessel and fishing guides operating from a non-motorized boat (i.e., "paddle craft"). It also establishes criteria under which paddle-craft fishing guides must qualify in order to obtain an "all-water paddle-craft fishing guide" license. Under current rule, all-water fishing guide licensing requirements are unsuited for prospective guides who fish exclusively from paddle craft. Currently, anyone wishing to purchase an all-water fishing guide license must provide proof that he or she possess a United States Coast Guard (USCG) Operator of an Uninspected Passenger Vessel license (OUPV), often referred to as a 6-pack license. To obtain an OUPV, the applicant is required to produce proof that he or she has 360 days of "sea time" in a power vessel. For operators of paddle craft, many of whom do not have access to a power boat, this can present a barrier to obtaining a license. In addition, unique safety issues associated with the operation of paddle craft are not currently addressed by USCG training and licensure standards. Paddlers are more susceptible to capsizing, exposure to the elements, and tides and currents than are power boaters. They are also less visible on the water than larger craft and, therefore, more susceptible to collisions. Creating separate licenses with different sets of requirements for operators of power craft and operators of paddle craft creates the opportunity for operators of paddle craft to obtain a guide license and addresses critical safety issues. The new paddle-craft fishing guide license does not allow anyone to operate as a guide on any motorized craft. Additionally, it should be noted that a guide who has the all-water guide license under the current requirements is still allowed to operate as a guide in either a motorized or a non-motorized craft without the necessity of obtaining a paddle-craft license.
The department received 47 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements an increase in the buck bag limit in Baylor, Callahan, Haskell, Jones, Knox, Shackelford, Taylor, Throckmorton, and Wilbarger counties. Of those 47 commenters, 16 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the deer population and the buck populations are declining in Haskell County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in the counties of the eastern Rolling Plains that make up Resource Management Units (RMU) 27 and 29, deer densities, herd composition, large tract sizes, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that a two-buck bag limit with no restrictions can be provided in these RMUs without risk of depletion or waste. Buck age structure in this area is already comparable to that in areas where the antler-restriction rule has been in effect for several years, and the department believes the two-buck bag limit will maintain desirable population parameters in these RMUs with relatively light hunting pressure. Data collected from other RMUs with two- or three-buck bag limits support this rationale. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that increasing the bag limit in Throckmorton would force him to high-fence to keep neighboring properties from killing twice as many bucks. The commenter stated that the buck bag limit increase would encourage hunters to kill younger bucks earlier in the season in anticipation of killing a larger buck later. The commenter further stated that the bag limit increase, by allowing landowners to seek larger lease profits, is in effect allowing short-term economics to trump long-term conservation. The commenter also stated that if conservation was the real purpose, then antler restrictions should be placed on the second buck. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the regulation as adopted establishes a bag limit for buck deer and does not compel the construction of any type of fence, require a hunter to kill any deer on the basis of age or the time of the season, or in any way regulate the prices a landowner may seek in exchange for allowing hunting on a property. The department also responds that the age structure in the buck herd in RMU 27 (which contains Throckmorton County) is already comparable to age structure in the buck herds in RMUs where the antler restriction has been in effect for several years, and the department believes the two-buck bag limit will maintain desirable population parameters in this RMU with relatively light hunting pressure. Data collected from other RMUs with two- or three-buck bag limits support this rationale. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated the bag limit increase invites trophy hunters who will kill a nice buck early in the season and a larger buck later. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department has determined that at current population densities and hunting pressure, a two-buck bag limit is justified. The department also responds that the landowner and/or hunter make the decision about what to harvest and when to harvest it. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is no need to change limits and that "deer counts are not accurate." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department uses scientifically valid methodology to collect the best data available within the constraints of manpower and cost, and believes that the data justify the rule as adopted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that only high-fenced properties should have a two-buck bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that at current population densities and hunting pressure, a two-buck bag limit is justified. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that deer populations in Taylor, Jones, and Callahan counties cannot withstand a two-buck bag limit without antler restrictions. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the age structure in the buck herds in RMUs 27 and 29 (which contain Taylor, Jones, and Callahan counties) is already comparable to age structure in the buck herd in counties where the antler restriction has been in effect for several years, and the department believes the two-buck bag limit will maintain desirable population parameters in these RMUs with relatively light hunting pressure. Data collected from other RMUs with two- or three-buck bag limits support this rationale. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated the majority of the population is young deer, the population is low, and that a two-buck bag limit will quickly thin the herd because there are few does and hunters will shoot an additional buck to compensate for not being able to shoot a doe. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that biological data do not indicate that populations are at a level that cannot withstand additional harvest at current levels of hunting pressure. The department also responds that since department data indicate that fewer than 5% of Texas hunters use all five deer tags on the license, and hunting pressure is low in the affected RMUs, the likelihood that overharvest will occur is negligible. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is too much hunting pressure in Taylor County and that antler restrictions should be imposed if there is to be a two-buck bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in the counties of the eastern Rolling Plains within RMUs 27 and 29, deer densities, herd composition, large tract sizes, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that a two-buck bag limit with no restrictions can be provided in these RMUs without risk of depletion or waste.. The age structure in the buck herds in RMUs 27 and 29 is already comparable to age structure in the buck herd in counties where the antler restriction has been in effect for several years, and the department believes the two-buck bag limit will maintain desirable population parameters in this RMU with relatively light hunting pressure. Data collected from other RMUs with two- or three-buck bag limits support this rationale. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated the antler restriction regulations should be implemented in the affected counties, since the buck age structure in the counties in question is comparable to other parts of the state where the "antler restriction" regulation has been implemented. The department agrees with the comment stating the age structure in the buck herds in RMUs 27 and 29 is already comparable to age structure in the buck herd in counties where the antler restriction has been in effect for several years, which is why there is no reason to implement the antler-restriction regulation in counties within RMUs 27 and 29. That particular harvest strategy is implemented in RMUs where buck age structure is not desirable. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that it doesn't make sense to have one ranch on MLD (Managed Lands Deer) or LAMPS (Landowner Assisted Management Plan) permits and surrounding ranches not. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that participation in management programs such as LAMPS and MLDP is completely voluntary. By participating in such programs, landowners are able to more effectively manage wildlife resources and habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that in Knox County the deer population is much, much less than that in Callahan County. The department agrees that RMU 29, which includes Knox County, is less densely populated with white-tailed deer than RMU 27, which includes Callahan County; however, data indicate the white-tailed deer population within RMU 29 can withstand the increased bag limit with no adverse effects. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule could "allow for the complete removal of all hunting in a specific area (similar to the bow only areas), with respect to poor RMU selection, and poor population counts. This would specially be the case on the eastern front due to high density of thickets and nearly impassable areas were the animals love to hide." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted does not eliminate hunting anywhere and will not have the effect of eliminating hunting anywhere. The department also responds that RMU selection is based primarily on vegetation and soil types; therefore, there is no such thing as "poor RMU selection." No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the buck bag limit in Throckmorton County should consist of one spike and one fork-antlered buck. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that deer densities, herd composition, large tract sizes, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that a two-buck bag limit with no restrictions can be provided without risk of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that increasing the buck bag limit in Taylor County would be detrimental to the overall deer population in that county. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that deer densities, herd composition, large tract sizes, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that a two-buck bag limit with no restrictions can be provided in Taylor County without risk of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that if hunters are able to harvest two bucks with nice antlers the buck population will be reduced. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that deer densities, herd composition, large tract sizes, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that a two-buck bag limit with no restrictions can be provided in these RMUs without risk of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that altering the regulatory compartment concept sounds expensive and will complicate the county bag limit system. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the current system of monitoring the effects of harvest regulations on deer populations by county boundaries is not as efficacious as doing so by the RMU approach. The department also responds that in terms of cost, there is no difference. The department also responds that it will make every effort to reduce complications at the user level. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 318 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements an increase in the buck bag limit in Baylor, Callahan, Haskell, Jones, Knox, Shackelford, Taylor, Throckmorton, and Wilbarger counties.
The department received 147 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements the "antler-restriction" rule in 52 additional counties. Of those commenters, 104 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the antler-restriction rule creates a situation in which undersize bucks are shot and either left in the field or left untagged. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the "antler-restriction" rule has been in effect in many counties for over five years and that the sort of scenario described in the comment does not seem to be common. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "cull" deer will never be harvested due to the restrictions currently in place. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department data indicate that the overwhelming majority of buck deer in Texas become legal bucks by the time they are four years of age. Furthermore, the regulation allows for the harvest of many young "cull" bucks that have at least one unbranched antler. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Five commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rule does not account for deer that never reach a 13-inch inside spread. The department agrees that a buck which never has an unbranched antler and never attains an inside spread width of 13 inches or greater will always be protected from harvest under this regulation. However, such a buck is extremely rare. Data indicate that only four to seven percent of all 4.5-year-old bucks have an inside spread less than 13 inches, and many of these bucks will attain an inside spread of 13 inches or greater within another year or two. Data also suggest that many of those bucks that fall in that category had at least one unbranched antler when they were 1.5 years old. This regulation allows for the harvest of those deer. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "cull bucks keep breeding because their horns never get big enough for them to be legal to shoot." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department data indicate that the overwhelming majority of buck deer in Texas become legal bucks by the time they are four years of age. Furthermore, the regulation allows for the harvest of many young "cull" bucks that have at least 1 unbranched antler. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rules do not allow older or smaller bucks to be removed, which reduces the amount of vegetation and increases the breeding of inferior animals. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department data indicate that the overwhelming majority of buck deer in Texas become legal bucks by the time they are four years of age. Also, since the bag limit is two bucks, the harvest of an additional buck, assuming hunting pressure remains constant, will result in reduced impacts to habitat. There is no data to indicate that the "antler-restriction" rule alters breeding habits, but this rule does allow for the removal of many "inferior" bucks from the breeding population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that buck selection should be the choice of the landowner and lessee and that the department has misinterpreted the wishes of the people. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the "antler-restriction" rule is designed to protect certain age classes of buck deer in order to improve the age structure of deer herds in RMUs where pressure on the buck segment of the deer herds has resulted in excessive harvest of young bucks. The department notes, however, that landowners make the ultimate decision as to which legal deer, if any, are harvested. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "education skills on aging live deer are needed by hunters, not restrictions on antler size. Antler restrictions puts pressure on bucks with wide antler genes and depletes the gene pool of 18" plus deer and leave narrower deer to breed" and that "in 20 years the gene pool for 18" plus deer will be depleted from the narrower deer's genes and hunting pressure." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no such thing an "18-inch gene pool." Except for herds affected by transplantation, all deer within a given deer herd have almost identical genotypic makeup (i.e., the genetic information carried by all members of the population is highly shared, the only differences typically arising from variations introduced from neighboring or overlapping herds) and that genetic recombination is not a matter of the prevalence of a particular phenotypic expression (the physical appearance of an individual). No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the antler-restriction rule will make outlaws out of people who made an honest mistake. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it conducts significant outreach and education efforts to acclimate hunters to the "antler-restriction" rule and that these efforts have historically been successful. In the seven years since the "antler-restriction" rule was introduced, there have been a total of 376 citations issued by department game wardens for violation of the rule. Given that there are approximately one million hunters and the "antler-restriction" rule is in effect in more than 60 counties, the citation history indicates that most if not all hunters understand and are able to comply with the rule without difficulty. This rule does not influence the actions of a person who made an "honest mistake." No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that estimating inside spread is difficult and that if the department seeks to correct an imbalance in the age structure, the department should restrict the harvest of older deer. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the 13-inch minimum inside spread requirement was chosen primarily because it was a standard that could be used to reliably protect younger bucks and at the same time be used to determine whether a buck is legal or not. The overwhelming majority of deer whose antlers are wider than the distance between their ear tips are older deer and have an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. Other standards that are dependent on more advanced knowledge of deer anatomy and physiology would be more problematic and less effective. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department should not allow the harvest of any two bucks but should require at least one of the bucks to be a spike. The department agrees with the comment and responds that under the "antler-restriction" rule there is a two-buck bag limit and a hunter is restricted to one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater; however, both bucks may be spike bucks if a hunter so desires. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that people who care only about antler size should not be hunting. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the motivations for hunting vary from individual to individual and that it would not be appropriate for the department to dictate aesthetic standards to hunters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Five commenters opposed adoption and stated that the killing of bucks should be up to the hunter. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the "antler-restriction" rule is designed to protect certain age classes of buck deer in order to improve the age structure of deer herds in RMUs where pressure on the buck segment of the deer herds has resulted in excessive harvest of young bucks. The department notes, however, that hunters and landowners make the ultimate decision as to which legal deer, if any, are harvested. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that people will get discouraged at not seeing good deer and will stop buying licenses. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in the seven years that the "antler-restriction" rule has been in effect, there is no indication that the rule has resulted in decreased hunting activity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule places too great a burden on the hunter to accurately identify lawful bucks. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the 13-inch minimum inside spread requirement was chosen primarily because it was a standard that could be used to reliably protect younger bucks and at the same time be used to determine whether a buck is legal or not. The overwhelming majority of deer whose antlers are wider than the distance between their ear tips are older deer and have an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. Other standards that are dependent on more advanced knowledge of deer anatomy and physiology would be more problematic and less effective. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antler restrictions will only result in less harvest and exponentially higher populations. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data from counties where the "antler-restriction" rule has been in place for at least three years indicate no significant difference in harvest totals or population density. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that deer populations are being reduced by fire ants. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no scientific data the department is aware of that indicate a connection between fire ants and population declines in deer anywhere. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule takes food out of people's mouths in troubled times. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the "antler restriction" rule regulates the harvest of bucks based on age, and that the department does not consider subsistence hunting when determining seasons and bag limits, which are based on biological criteria. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule was originally intended for high fence situations and that kids don't care how big a buck is. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the "antler-restriction" rule at no point in its development or implementation was intended for high-fence deer management. The department agrees that most children are not interested in the size of deer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that older deer that cannot be harvested will die of old age and that inferior deer will "spread more bad genes during mating season." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while it is possible that under the "antler-restriction" rule a buck could live its entire life without becoming a legal buck, this would be extremely rare and there is no evidence that such an occurrence results in any negative genetic impacts to the population. Data indicate 93-96% of 4.5-year-old bucks have an inside spread of at least 13 inches, and the proportion increases with older bucks. Furthermore, data indicate that many of those mature bucks with a narrow antler spread had at least one unbranched antler at 1.5 years of age, and those bucks are available for legal harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule will result in declining numbers of hunters and that the deer herd is healthy and seems to be reproducing well with no changes needed. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in the seven years that the "antler-restriction" rule has been in effect, there is no apparent indication that the rule has resulted in a decline in hunter numbers. The department also responds that the "antler-restriction" rule is not intended to affect reproductive success overall, but could increase fawn recruitment by shortening the breeding and fawning seasons. Research data suggest such a result in populations with more desirable age structure among bucks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are no legal bucks on his lease in Palo Pinto County. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that population characteristics on any given tract of land are dependent upon a number of factors, including land use practices and hunting pressure. The department further responds that the low observability of legal bucks is evidence of the conditions that the "antler restriction" rule is intended to address. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule will discourage young hunters because hunters on properties with department-issued permits are allowed to begin hunting before everyone else and this make the bucks nocturnal, leaving only the small bucks for the children. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no evidence that the use of MLD permits alters the behavior of deer with respect to photoperiod. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rule is not fair to young hunters and leaves too much room for error. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that in the seven years since the "antler-restriction" rule was introduced, there have been a total of 376 citations issued by department game wardens for violation of the rule, none of which were issued to minors. Given that there are approximately one million hunters and the "antler-restriction" rule is in effect in more than 60 counties, the citation history indicates that most if not all hunters understand and are able to comply with the rule without difficulty, including minors. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the state should not manage antler sizes and that people will be afraid to shoot two bucks for fear of getting fined. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the regulation does not and is not intended to manage antler size; it is intended to address concerns about age structure in herds that have historically sustained excessive harvest of young bucks. Additionally, the department responds that it conducts significant outreach and education efforts to acclimate hunters to the "antler-restriction" rule and that these efforts have historically been successful. In the seven years since the "antler-restriction" rule was introduced, there have been a total of 376 citations issued by department game wardens for violation of the rule. Given that there are approximately one million hunters and the "antler-restriction" rule is in effect in more than 60 counties, the citation history indicates that most if not all hunters understand and are able to comply with the rule without difficulty. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that he pays enough for a hunting license and a hunting lease and therefore to be told what size buck he is allowed to shoot is stupid. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a hunting license is among the most inexpensive items needed to go hunting, that the department does not regulate the price of hunting leases, and that the rule does not require a hunter to shoot any type of buck. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Nine commenters opposed adoption and stated that the foliage in East Texas makes identifying lawful bucks difficult. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the 13-inch minimum inside spread requirement was chosen primarily because it was a standard that could be used to reliably protect younger bucks and at the same time be used to determine whether a buck is legal or not. In any event, every hunter is expected to identify the target before shooting. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule would increase the harvest of 1.5-year-old bucks, because 50% of the opportunity would be 1.5-year-old bucks. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment holds true only if 50% of buck population is 1.5 years old and is either spike bucks or have at least one unbranched antler, which is so unlikely as to be impossible. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that he has only taken one deer in seven years that would have been legal under the new rule. The commenter also stated that people should not have to pay for what God has provided. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the prevalence of lawful bucks is dependent upon tract size, land use practices, and hunting pressure, and that unregulated harvest of wildlife has historically resulted in serious population declines and in some cases, extirpation. The department further responds that the low observability of legal bucks is evidence of the conditions that the "antler restriction" rule is intended to address. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule does not address nutrition or genetics, does not prevent culling, and is intended to force everyone into LAMPS permits. The commenter also stated that antler restrictions should be implemented statewide so that everyone is on the same playing field. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is not intended to address nutrition or genetics; it is intended to protect certain age classes of buck deer in order to improve the age structure of deer herds in RMUs where pressure on the buck segment of the deer herds has resulted in excessive harvest of young bucks. The department also responds that hunters and landowners make the ultimate decision as to which legal animals are harvested, not the department. Additionally, the department responds that it is not necessary to implement the "antler-restriction" rule in RMUs where overharvest of young bucks is not a problem. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that deer numbers are down in Cooke County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department data indicate that deer populations in RMUs 22 and 24 (which include Cooke County) are stable or increasing in areas of suitable habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule will result in overkill of deer in Limestone County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the antler-restriction regulation is not expected to result in increased harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is a poaching problem in Anderson County and that bag limits should not be changed until the poaching problem is addressed. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that poaching is unlikely to affect populations on a landscape scale; thus, there is no reason not to implement the rule in Anderson County, since it meets the department's criteria for implementation of the "antler-restriction" rule. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule would reduce hunting opportunity. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that to the contrary, the rule as adopted increases hunting opportunity by offering a bigger bag limit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that with the economy the way it is, it will be extremely hard for an honest hunter to feed his family. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department does not consider subsistence hunting when establishing seasons and bag limits, which are determined by biological criteria. Furthermore, this rule provides hunters an opportunity to harvest an additional deer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that out of nine bucks harvested this year in Liberty County only one had an inside spread of greater than 13 inches. The department disagrees that a sample size of nine deer is statistically valid for assessing the suitability of the "antler-restriction" rule in RMU 13 (which contains Liberty County). The department further responds that the low observability of legal bucks is evidence of the conditions that the "antler restriction" rule is intended to address. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there should be an exception for youth. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that creating differential regulations based on age is problematic for enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule prevents the taking of some older deer that do not have the best genetics. The department agrees that there may be buck deer that never become legal deer, but disagrees that antler size is an indicator of genetic fitness. In any event, such deer should not be numerous because department data indicate that the overwhelming majority of buck deer in Texas become legal bucks by the time they are four years of age. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that he is opposed to restrictions intended to improve trophy hunting. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is not intended to improve trophy hunting but to restore age structure in the buck segment of the population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule will "take hunting away" from East Texas and that the way to assure a healthy herd is to control the number of deer harvested not the size of the antlers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that harvest data from counties where the "antler-restriction" rule has been in place for more than three years indicate that after an initial reduction, harvest numbers return to pre-rule levels. The department agrees that population control is an essential component of efficacious management, but disagrees that age structure problems in the buck segment of the population can be addressed by gross harvest quotas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that more regulations are not necessary when hunting numbers are declining and fewer youth are being recruited. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it does not believe that youth or existing hunters will be frustrated by the rule as adopted. Data indicate that within three years of implantation, the "antler-restriction" rule is regarded favorably by most hunters, so, if anything the rule may actually increase interest and participation in hunting. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule should require bucks to be 10 points or more. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that counting antler points accurately is no simpler than attempting to discern if a buck's ear tips are within the inside spread of its antlers. Furthermore, antler-point restrictions have had adverse impacts on buck herds in at least some states where they have been implemented. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antler restrictions are trophy management tools, not wildlife management tools. The commenter stated that the rules will allow young eight-point bucks to be taken rather than mature spikes and six-point bucks s are allowed to walk. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is not intended to improve trophy hunting but to restore age structure in the buck segment of the population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the current harvest rules should be retained in Harris County because development is claiming more land and the deer are moving out. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that staff do not expect the antler-restriction regulation to result in increased harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are enough deer in Young County to justify a two-buck bag limit without the antler-restriction rule. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the harvest of 1.5 and 2.5-year-old bucks in RMU 25 (which contains most of Young County) is too high to justify a two-buck bag limit without antler restrictions. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antler-restriction rule should not be implemented in Atascosa County because antler restrictions will not improve deer management in the South Texas Zone of large ranches under strict management, but will only reduce opportunity. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although the buck bag limit in Atascosa County is reduced from three bucks to two bucks, the aggregate bag limit remains at five deer per year; thus the rule as adopted does not reduce overall opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antler restriction should not be implemented in Atascosa County because on his ranch only mature deer and spike bucks are harvested and because the rule will not help the deer herd in Atascosa County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted allows the harvest of spike bucks and mature deer (provided the inside spread is greater than 13 inches) and will improve deer-population parameters in eastern Atascosa County, which is within RMU 11 and has sustained relatively high harvest rates of young bucks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that in Atascosa County a 2.5-year-old buck could very easily exceed the 13-inch minimum inside spread and a yearling buck could be harvested as an antlerless deer. The commenter stated that a two-buck limit with no antler restrictions would be more appropriate. The department agrees that some 2.5-year-old bucks do exceed the 13-inch minimum inside spread and that a yearling buck could be harvested as an antlerless deer, but disagrees that these scenarios are common enough to warrant allowing a two-buck bag limit without antler restrictions, especially considering that the harvest of young bucks in RMU 11, including Atascosa County, has been elevated. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the county bag limit should be eliminated and replaced with bag limits designated for each RMU because more deer will be removed under the county bag limits. The department agrees with the comment and responds that in general, the county harvest regulations are consistent with those in other counties within the same RMU. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be separate tags for bucks that have an inside spread of greater than 13 inches and bucks that have an inside spread of less than 13 inches. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the creation of tags for legal bucks would be expensive and logistically difficult because the current license form has no room for additional tags. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that deer 2.5 to 4 years old with poor antler development should be considered for cull bucks. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the overwhelming majority of deer whose antlers are wider than the distance between their ear tips are older deer and have an inside spread of 13 inches or greater, but that ultimately it is a matter of individual preference as to which legal deer are harvested. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed antler restrictions are not needed in Stephens County because they are arbitrary. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the regulations as adopted for RMU 25 (which includes Stephens County) are not arbitrary, but are intended specifically to restore appropriate age structure to the buck segment of the deer herd. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the populations in Archer, Clay, Jack, and Young counties cannot support a special late-season harvest because of the potential of overharvest. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the department has determined that at current population densities and hunting pressure, the deer populations in RMUs 25 and 26 (which contains Archer, Clay, Jack, and Young counties) can sustain additional harvest without the danger of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is no habitat in Angelina County because of the timber companies. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is enough suitable habitat in Angelina County to sustain deer populations and that the rule as adopted will not result in additional negative habitat impacts in RMU 14 (which contains Angelina County). No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are too few hunting opportunities in Ellis County to justify a "trophy buck scenario." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is not intended to improve trophy hunting but to restore age structure in the buck segment of the population. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that counties with the antler-restriction rule should have a longer season in order to give hunters more opportunity to use their tags. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the current season length (from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January) provides sufficient opportunity, especially since most counties also have either a special late antlerless and spike buck season or a special muzzleloader season. The department also notes that management programs such as the MLDP program are available and provide for extended seasons and enhanced bag limits. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that in Cooke, Montague, and Wise counties there are a lot of mature bucks that need to be removed, not protected, because they are spreading inferior genetics. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the "antler-restriction" rule is to restore age structure to the buck segment of the deer herd, not to manipulate genetics. The department also notes that antler characteristics are not indicators of genetic fitness. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the counties further west may not need antler restrictions. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the "antler-restriction" rule is proposed in counties that meet the department's criteria, primarily based on the portion of the harvest composed of 1.5- and 2.5-year-old deer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rules should allow the take of more than one buck with an inside spread of less than 13 inches if the hunter can prove that the buck is older than 3.5 years. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because the only way to definitively age deer is posthumously, allowing the harvest of buck deer on the basis of a post-mortem would be problematic and probably injurious to the population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that only thing the antler restriction accomplishes is making more money for the state. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there are no revenue implications to the department or to other units of state government as a result of the rule as adopted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antler-restriction rule forces everyone to be a trophy hunter. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in many counties, the rule increases hunter opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antler restriction rule would eliminate the opportunity to remove inferior genetics from the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that antler size is not an indicator of genetic fitness. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the antler restriction should not be implemented in Grayson County because the deer population is spotty and fragile and the herd will be harmed by the two-buck bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because the lawful means in Grayson County are restricted to archery equipment (low hunter success) and antlerless deer may be taken by permit only (low impact on reproductive rates), the probability of adverse impacts on the deer population are extremely low. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Grayson County should remain a one buck county with antler restrictions. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because the lawful means in Grayson County are restricted to archery equipment, the two-buck bag limit and the "antler-restriction" rule can be implemented without danger of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the buck bag limit in Cooke County should remain at one and that doe days should be eliminated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the increased bag limit is accompanied by antler restrictions, which will achieve desirable harvest numbers for the deer populations within RMUs 22 and 24. The department also notes that the rules as adopted would eliminate "doe days" in Cooke County. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the deer population in Cooke County cannot withstand an increase in the buck bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the increased bag limit is accompanied by antler restrictions, which will achieve desirable harvest numbers for the deer populations within RMUs 22 and 24. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that implementation of the antler-restriction rule in Navarro County will result in no hunting success. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data such as population surveys and harvest records indicate that the rule as adopted will not result in the elimination of hunter success in Navarro County. The department further responds that the expectation of low hunter success is evidence of the conditions that the "antler restriction" rule is intended to address. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the doe bag should be increased in Navarro County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that given the relatively small tract sizes, high hunting pressure, and fragmented habitat in RMUs 19, 20, and 21 (which include Navarro County), a bag limit of two antlerless deer is appropriate to maintain equilibrium between reproduction, harvest, and habitat quality. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the buck bag limit in Hunt County should remain at one, that the season should be 10 days long, and that hunting should be restricted to Hunt County residents. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the buck segment of the deer herd in RMUs 18 and 21 (which contain Hunt County) is capable of withstanding the proposed buck harvest; that a ten-day season would result in the devastation of existing habitat because of population increase; and that the Parks and Wildlife Code does not authorize the department to regulate hunting opportunity on the basis of county residency. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a five-day period during which antler restrictions do not apply to small-tract landowners so they can "harvest undesirable genetics from the area." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no such thing as "undesirable genetics." The genetic makeup of an indigenous deer herd is shared by all individuals in the herd, even though not all individuals may not express similar morphological characteristics. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antler-restriction rule will increase the age of the deer in his area. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the "antler-restriction" rule is to allow more buck deer to become older before they are subject to harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that populations in some or all of the counties affected by the antler-restriction rule cannot withstand the increased buck bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that based on population and harvest data from counties where the "antler-restriction" rule has been in place for three years or more, there is no indication of adverse impacts to populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antler-restriction rule should apply to both bucks in the bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the "antler-restriction" rule is to restore age structure to buck populations by shifting a portion of the harvest from young bucks to older bucks; however, concentrating the harvest solely on older bucks would create a different age structure problem. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the buck bag limit in Parker and Palo Pinto counties should remain at one. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that based on population and harvest data from counties where antler restrictions has been in place for three years or more, there is no indication of adverse impacts to populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit for the antler-restriction rule should be one buck for a minimum of five years. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that based on population and harvest data from counties where the "antler-restriction" rule has been in place for three years or more, there is no indication of adverse impacts to populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antler restrictions should not be implemented in Brown County because there are plenty of mature deer there already and deer never look at a hunter directly with their ears in the alert position. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that an analysis of buck harvest and population data in RMUs 23, 24, and 25 indicates that harvest of young bucks merits implementation of the "antler-restriction" rule. The department also responds that the overwhelming majority of deer whose antlers are wider than the distance between their ear tips are older deer and have an inside spread of 13 inches or greater, that other standards that are dependent on more advanced knowledge of deer anatomy and physiology would be more problematic and less effective, and that compliance with the rule has not been a problem elsewhere. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that allowing the take of spikes contradicts the "antler-restriction" rule because a spike doesn't always stay a spike. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that liberal harvest of spikes, while protecting all other yearling bucks and many more 2.5- and 3.5-year-old bucks, will recruit far more bucks to older age classes than the current rule allows. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 391 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements the "antler-restriction" rule in 52 additional counties.
The department received 25 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the bag limit from four antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Pecos, Terrell, and Upton counties. Of those commenters, five elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are more mule deer than white-tailed deer. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted does not affect mule deer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department did not "mention if this would only be for one year and then discussed to see if it helped." The department agrees with the comment but responds that the effectiveness of harvest regulations is constantly evaluated. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Once commenter opposed adoption and stated that "[i]n some areas the population counts have blank regions with limited field data and would be hard to enforce. Doe days would then become a "free for all" for out of town non-landowners." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted do not implement "doe days" in Pecos, Terrell, or Upton counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that yearling bucks will be mistaken as does leading to a decrease in the buck population. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that mortalities due to mistaken identification are not believed to be a significant issue in any part of the state. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 269 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the bag limit from four antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Pecos, Terrell, and Upton counties.
The department received 58 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the antlerless deer bag limit from two antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Archer, Baylor, Bell (west of IH35), Bosque, Callahan, Clay, Coryell, Hamilton, Haskell, Hill, Jack, Jones, Knox, Lampasas, McLennan, Palo Pinto, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson (west of IH35), and Young counties. Of those commenters, 33 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that most counties in the Cross Timbers do not have an overpopulation of deer and that the proposed rule would drastically reduce deer numbers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that deer densities, herd composition, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that the new bag limit can be provided in these RMUs without risk of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that some areas don't support the level of harvest being proposed and that due to small tract sizes and highly fragmented habitat there will be an over harvest in Lampasas County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although there may be areas within an RMU that for whatever reason (overgrazing, high hunting pressure, etc.) do not contain deer populations representative of the rest of the RMU, the department must regulate harvest on a larger scale because it does not have the resources to establish harvest regulations on a property-by-property basis. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "deer populations are declining, with the buck population average age decreasing and genetically smaller in antler size." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that without specific reference to location it is impossible to address assertions about specific populations; however, data indicate that an increased bag limit may be safely provided in the RMUs affected by the rule. The department also notes that antler size is not an indicator of genetic fitness. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit is too drastic. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that data indicate that white-tailed deer densities have remained relatively stable in RMUs 22-28 (roughly, the Cross Timbers and Rolling Plains ecoregions). The department believes that increasing the antlerless-deer bag limit in this region will increase total deer harvest, which is imperative for habitat recovery. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that nobody needs to shoot more than two does. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that increased doe harvest will benefit habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit for antlerless deer east of IH 35 in Bell County should be four because they are a nuisance to farming. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted are intended only to address recreational hunting. Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H, provides for the control of nuisance wildlife. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Ten commenters opposed adoption and stated that the proposed new bag limit for antlerless deer is too drastic. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that deer densities, herd composition, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that the new bag limit can be provided in these RMUs without risk of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the deer population is low in Callahan County and the proposed new bag limit would quickly cause problems. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that deer densities, herd composition, and relatively low hunting pressure indicate that the new bag limit can be provided in RMU 27 without risk of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that he has seen a decline in deer densities, especially mature does. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department data indicate that deer densities in the areas affected by the rule are stable or increasing. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the county bag limit should be eliminated and replaced with bag limits designated for each resource management unit (RMU) because more deer will be removed under the county bag limits. The department agrees with the comment and responds that in general, the county harvest regulations are consistent with those in other counties within the same RMU. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Once commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department did not "mention if this would only be for one year and then discussed to see if it helped." The department agrees with the comment but responds that the effectiveness of harvest regulations is constantly evaluated. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the population "needs additional does to raise fawns and that the department should make one change at a time to see what happens." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the doe segment of the deer herd in the affected areas is reproductively stable and in many areas should be reduced in order to protect habitat and maintain adequate recruitment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit for antlerless deer in Lampasas and Hamilton counties should remain at two. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department data indicate that deer densities in RMU 23 (which contains Hamilton and Lampasas counties) are stable or increasing and that additional doe harvest is needed to control populations and protect habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless deer numbers in Bosque County need to be reduced. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted increases the antlerless bag limit in Bosque County. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Bell County east of IH 35 should be included. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that RMU 20 (which contains Bell County) is characterized by fragmented deer habitat and largely agricultural land use, necessitating a conservative bag limit for antlerless deer in order to preserve reproductive success. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the proposed new rule would deplete the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rule as adopted will not cause depletion or waste and that the deer population in the affected areas will benefit from an increased harvest of antlerless deer. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless bag limits should not be changed in Taylor County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the deer population in RMU 29 (which contains Taylor County) is stable or increasing and will benefit from additional harvest of antlerless deer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there will be increase in the harvest of yearling bucks mistaken for does. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that mortalities due to mistaken identification are not believed to be a significant issue in any part of the state. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless bag limits should not be changed in Palo Pinto or Parker counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the deer populations in RMUs 24 and 25 (which contain Palo Pinto and Parker counties) are stable or increasing and that an increase in the harvest of antlerless deer is necessary to prevent habitat degradation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 298 comments supporting adoption of proposed new §65.42 that increases the antlerless deer bag limit from two antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Archer, Baylor, Bell (west of IH35), Bosque, Callahan, Clay, Coryell, Hamilton, Haskell, Hill, Jack, Jones, Knox, Lampasas, McLennan, Palo Pinto, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson (west of IH35), and Young counties.
The department received 28 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the antlerless bag limit from two antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dickens, Donley, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hardeman, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Ochiltree, Roberts, Scurry, Stonewall, and Wheeler counties. Of those commenters, 11 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that deer are not the primary cause of over browsing or grazing. The department agrees with the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antlerless bag limit should be no more than four. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that population and harvest data indicate that although habitat in the affected areas is highly variable, there are areas containing suitable habitat that have become saturated with deer, and that whitetails are expanding into marginal to poor habitat and exerting severe browsing pressure. Therefore, an increased harvest is necessary to protect habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Six commenters opposed adoption and stated that the proposed new antlerless bag limit is excessive. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that population and harvest data indicate that although habitat in the affected areas is highly variable, there are areas containing suitable habitat that have become saturated with deer, and that whitetails are expanding into marginal to poor habitat and exerting severe browsing pressure. Therefore, an increased harvest is necessary to protect habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule should be reviewed after one year. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the effectiveness of harvest regulations is constantly reviewed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the "doe days" would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that none of the RMUs affected by the rule as adopted have "doe days." No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule will result in buck population declines because hunters will mistake yearling bucks for does. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that mortalities due to mistaken identification are not believed to be a significant issue in any part of the state. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 250 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the antlerless bag limit from two antlerless deer to five antlerless deer in Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dickens, Donley, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hardeman, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Ochiltree, Roberts, Scurry, Stonewall, and Wheeler counties.
The department received 24 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows antlerless harvest without permits for the entirety of the general season in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties. Of those commenters, five elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide enough historical data to make an informed decision regarding these counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that historical data is not necessary to justify the changes to the rules in this area of the state. In the Panhandle there are areas containing suitable habitat that have become saturated with deer, placing browsing pressure on marginal and poor habitat. Thus, it is desirable to remove more antlerless deer from the population. "Doe days" are being eliminated in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties in order to make harvest regulations consistent across RMUs 31-33 (which contain Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties) so that harvest impacts on populations can be interpreted with greater certainty. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "out-of-towners" will view this as a "free-for-all." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no reason to believe that an increased bag limit will encourage anyone to take more deer than the law allows. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a cut off date. The department is unable to determine the point of the comment, but agrees that seasons should have definite opening and closing dates. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the "doe days" would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested during the entirety of the entire general season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 223 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows antlerless harvest without permits for the entirety of the general season in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties.
The department received 30 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows antlerless harvest without permits for the entirety of the general season in Denton and Tarrant counties. Of those commenters, six elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide enough historical data to make an informed decision regarding these counties. The department disagrees that historical data is the only way to justify the rules as adopted. While deer densities within RMU 22 are lower than in some other RMUs in the state, deer densities relative to available habitat are increasing, and additional antlerless harvest is necessary to protect habitat. Furthermore, harvest regulations should be consistent throughout RMU 22 so the effects of harvest strategies on the population can be evaluated. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that hunting pressure on public lands in Denton and Tarrant counties will result in severe impacts on antlerless deer. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that public lands in Denton and Tarrant counties, even if placed under severe hunting pressure, are not large enough for the harvest on those properties to affect deer populations on a landscape sale. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "out-of-towners" will view this as a "free-for-all." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no reason to believe that an increased bag limit will encourage anyone to take more deer than the law allows. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the "doe days" would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested during the entirety of the entire general season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless hunting in Denton and Tarrant counties should be by permit only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while deer densities within RMU 22 are lower than in some other RMUs in the state, deer densities relative to available habitat are increasing, and additional antlerless harvest is desirable to protect habitat. Antlerless harvest by permit only would have the opposite effect. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 244 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows antlerless harvest without permits for the entirety of the general season in Denton and Tarrant counties.
The department received 58 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows antlerless harvest without permits for the entirety of the general season in Cooke, Hardeman, Hill, Johnson, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties. Of those commenters, nine elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide enough historical data to make an informed decision regarding these counties. The department disagrees that historical data is the only way to justify the rules as adopted. While deer densities within those RMUs are lower than in some other RMUs in the state, deer densities relative to available habitat are increasing, and additional antlerless harvest is necessary to protect habitat. Furthermore, harvest regulations should be consistent throughout each RMU so the effects of harvest strategies on each population can be evaluated. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "doe days" should be uniform across the state. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that "doe days" are a management tools to protect reproductive potential in areas where deer populations are subject to high hunting pressure; thus, for most of the state, "doe days" are undesirable. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of antlerless deer should be prohibited during the general season in Hill County because there are very few deer east of IH 35. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that Hill County is divided between RMUs 20-22. In general, this area of the state is characterized by fragmented habitat and fairly intensive agricultural use; however, where suitable habitat occurs, deer populations are stable or increasing and can stand harvest levels higher than those areas where populations are spotty and habitat is less available. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "out-of-towners" will view this as a "free-for-all." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no reason to believe that an increased bag limit will encourage anyone to take more deer than the law allows. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the "doe days" would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November or early December, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested at any time during the entire general season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of antlerless deer should be stopped in Cooke County except for ranches with population problems. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while deer densities within RMUs 22 and 24 are lower than in some other RMUs in the state, deer densities relative to available habitat are increasing, and additional antlerless harvest is necessary to protect habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are not enough deer in Cooke County to justify increasing the antlerless harvest. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while deer densities within RMUs 22 and 24 are lower than in some other RMUs in the state, deer densities relative to available habitat are increasing, and additional antlerless harvest is necessary to protect habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless harvest should be by permit only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because the deer densities relative to available habitat are increasing in the affected RMUs, additional antlerless harvest is desirable to protect habitat. Antlerless harvest by permit only would have the opposite effect. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 298 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows antlerless harvest without permits for the entirety of the general season in Cooke, Hardeman, Hill, Johnson, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties.
The department received 24 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the number of "doe days" in Bowie and Rusk counties. Of those commenters, nine elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide enough historical data to make an informed decision regarding these counties. The department disagrees that historical data is the only way to justify the rules as adopted. Data indicate the deer populations within available habitat in RMUs 15-17 (which contain Bowie and Rusk counties) can withstand additional antlerless harvest, which is expected to result in some relief on habitat. "Doe days" are altered in order to make harvest regulations consistent in each RMU, which will allow the effects of harvest regulations on populations to be interpreted with greater certainty. The department also notes that more detailed biological data justifying resource decisions can be obtained by the public by contacting the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that 16 "doe days" would drastically reduce the deer herd in many regions of Rusk County because land fragmentation and small tract sizes allow too much access to deer. The commenter also stated that the proposal was not scientifically justifiable because the western end of the county does not have the deer population of the southern end. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although Rusk County straddles three RMUs (15-17), population data and other indices such as hunting pressure suggest that the rule as adopted can be implemented without danger of depletion or waste. The department also notes that since the rules are intended to provide for more consistent analysis of the effectiveness of harvest regulations within each RMU, rather than within each county, the rule as adopted will furnish discrete population information that can be used to modify rules in the future, if warranted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there should be full-season either-sex hunting in Bowie and Rusk counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that hunting pressure in RMUs 15-17 is significant because of the many small tracts in those RMUs and at this time the department believes that full-season, either-sex hunting would not be biologically appropriate because it could lead to loss of reproductive potential in certain areas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that doe populations should be controlled by "doe days," not by bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that bag limits are necessary to distribute hunting opportunity equitably under an overall harvest goal, while "does days," where it is necessary to implement them, function to maintain equilibrium between the resource and habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that too many "button bucks" are harvested during "doe days." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no data to suggest that the harvest of "button bucks" is excessive during "doe days," and if a "button buck" is harvested, it counts against a hunter's buck bag limit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the "doe days" would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November or early December, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested at any time during the entire general season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 262 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the number of "doe days" in Bowie and Rusk counties.
The department received 32 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the number of "doe days" in Cherokee and Houston counties. Of those commenters, nine elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that neither Cherokee nor Houston counties has the population to warrant a lengthy doe season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe populations in RMUs 14, 17, and 19 are stable or increasing and that additional antlerless harvest is necessary to prevent habitat degradation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide enough historical data to make an informed decision regarding these counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that RMUs 14, 17, and 19 are experiencing deer population growth and therefore additional antlerless harvest is desirable to protect habitat. "Doe days" in these RMUs are being standardized in order to make harvest regulations consistent in each RMU, which will allow the effects of harvest regulations on populations to be interpreted with greater certainty. The department also notes that more detailed biological data justifying resource decisions can be obtained by the public by contacting the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the deer population in Houston County cannot withstand additional harvest. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe populations in RMUs 14 and 19 are stable or increasing and that additional antlerless harvest is necessary to prevent habitat degradation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there should be full-season either-sex hunting in Cherokee and Houston counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that hunting pressure in RMUs 17 and 19 is significant enough to justify a judicious approach to antlerless harvest regulations; therefore, the department at this time believes that full-season, either-sex hunting would not be biologically appropriate because it could lead to loss of reproductive potential in certain areas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless populations should be controlled by "doe days," not by bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that bag limits are necessary to distribute hunting opportunity equitably under an overall harvest goal, while "does days," where it is necessary to implement them, function to maintain equilibrium between the resource and habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule would eliminate the population. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no evidence or data to suggest that the rule as adopted will eliminate the deer population in Houston or Cherokee counties; however, the department will continue to monitor population status in those counties to ascertain the effect of the rule on the deer population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the "doe days" would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November or early December, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested at any time during the entire general season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 255 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the number of "doe days" in Cherokee and Houston counties.
The department received 44 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the number of "doe days" in Anderson, Henderson, Hunt, Leon, Rains, Smith, and Van Zandt counties. Of those commenters, 16 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide enough historical data to make an informed decision regarding these counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that deer densities within available habitat in RMUs 18 and 19 are increasing, and additional antlerless harvest is desirable to protect habitat. "Doe days" in these RMUs are being standardized in order to make harvest regulations consistent in each RMU, which will allow the effects of harvest regulations on populations to be interpreted with greater certainty. The department also notes that more detailed biological data justifying resource decisions can be obtained by the public by contacting the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the MLD and LAMPS programs provide landowners with enough means to cull does. The commenter stated that increasing the number of "doe days" in Leon County would negatively affect the deer herd because of the numerous small tracts in the county. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the MLD and LAMPS programs, though useful in terms of managing deer populations, are voluntary and therefore not present on a large enough scale to affect deer populations at the macro level. The implementation of four "doe days" in the portion of RMU 19 represented by Leon County is indicative of the department's conservative approach to antlerless deer harvest in areas where hunting pressure is significant and habitat is fragmented. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that previous regulations allowed doe hunting and the population was decimated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no historical evidence that the department's regulations caused the decimation of deer populations in Anderson, Henderson, Hunt, Leon, Rains, Smith, or Van Zandt counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless deer harvest in Hunt County should be by permit only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because deer densities within available habitat in the affected RMUs (18 and 21) are increasing, additional antlerless harvest is desirable to protect habitat. Antlerless harvest by permit only would have the opposite effect. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless harvest in Hunt County should be full-season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that hunting pressure in RMU 18 (which contains Hunt County) is significant enough to justify a judicious approach to antlerless harvest regulations; therefore, the department at this time believes that full-season, either-sex hunting would not be biologically appropriate because it could lead to the loss of reproductive potential in certain areas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless harvest should be by MLD or LAMPS permit only in order to allow landowners to control harvest. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that under the rule as adopted, all landowners will have the opportunity to control antlerless harvest, not just MLD and LAMPS cooperators. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are not enough deer to justify increasing the number of "doe days." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe populations in RMUs 18 and 19 are stable or increasing and that additional antlerless harvest is necessary to prevent habitat degradation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "this idea was tried in years past and had a negative affect on our deer population to a point where deer were scarce." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no historical evidence that the department's regulations caused the decimation of deer populations in Anderson, Henderson, Hunt, Leon, Rains, Smith, or Van Zandt counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless populations should be controlled by "doe days," not by bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that bag limits are necessary to distribute hunting opportunity equitably under an overall harvest goal, while "does days," where it is necessary to implement them, function to maintain equilibrium between the resource and habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that because of the number of small tracts, the proposed rule will result in "wholesale slaughter" of antlerless deer. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the scenario envisioned by the commenter is very unlikely. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "there are no deer in this part of the county." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that population data indicate the presence of deer in all counties affected by the rule as adopted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule would decimate the doe population. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because the deer densities within available habitat in the affected RMUs are increasing, additional antlerless harvest is desirable to protect habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be 16 "doe days" in the affected counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that biological indices do not support the implementation of 16 "doe days" at this time. Tract sizes and high hunting pressure, in concert with fragmented habitat, indicate that an extremely limited number of "doe days" is warranted; however, staff believes that additional antlerless harvest would affect reproductive potential. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the "doe days" would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November or early December, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested at any time during the entire general season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be full-season either-sex hunting in the affected counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that hunting pressure in RMUs 18 and 19 is significant because of the many small tracts in those RMUS and at this time the department believes that full-season, either-sex hunting would not be biologically appropriate because it could lead to loss of reproductive potential in certain areas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 269 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the number of "doe days" in Anderson, Henderson, Hunt, Leon, Rains, Smith, and Van Zandt counties.
The department received 61 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that eliminates "doe days" in Grayson County and allows antlerless harvest by permit only. Of those commenters, 13 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that MLD permits are not available for small tracts and the current regulations should be left in place. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in RMU 21 (where the majority of Grayson County is located) the deer populations are not stable or increasing, as is the case in much of the rest of the state where antlerless harvest opportunity is being increased. Therefore, implementation of consistent harvest regulations across RMU 21 is necessary in order to provide for more accurate population analysis. The department also notes that antlerless deer may be taken in Grayson County without a permit during the 35-day archery-only open season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide enough historical data to make an informed decision regarding these counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that RMU 21, unlike most of the rest of the state, is not experiencing deer population growth. "Doe days" in these RMUs are being standardized in order to make harvest regulations consistent in each RMU, which will allow the effects of harvest regulations on populations to be interpreted with greater certainty. The department also notes that more detailed biological data justifying resource decisions can be obtained by the public by contacting the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless populations should be controlled by "doe days," not by bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that bag limits are necessary to distribute hunting opportunity equitably under an overall harvest goal, while "does days," where it is necessary to implement them, function to maintain equilibrium between the resource and habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there should be full-season either-sex hunting in Grayson County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that antlerless populations in RMU 21 are not stable or increasing, as is the case in much of the rest of the state. Full-season, either-sex hunting would probably not result in near-term negative impacts to reproductive potential in Grayson County because the lawful means are limited to archery equipment; however, in order to maintain consistent harvest regulations in RMU 21 for purposes analyzing the effects of the harvest regulations on the population, the department believes it is best to have Grayson County's harvest structure mimic that of the rest of RMU 21. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that since the lawful means in Grayson County are restricted to archery equipment, the elimination of "doe days" would result in overharvest of bucks. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that since archery is vastly less efficient than firearms as a means of take, it is unlikely that harvest of bucks in Grayson County could occur at a level to warrant concerns about the population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Grayson County has a big deer population that requires "doe days." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that biological evidence indicates that the antlerless deer population across RMU 21 is not stable or expanding and cannot withstand even limited hunting under "doe days" at this time. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the elimination of "doe days" would destroy the buck:doe ratio. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that if anything, the opposite is true. Elevated levels of antlerless harvest can depress reproductive potential. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that deer in Grayson County are unevenly distributed and that issuing MLD permits on properties too small to support "an individual deer's life cycle" is "counterintuitive to a responsible management plan that emphasizes collective management over management by proxy." The department agrees that suitable habitat is not evenly distributed across Grayson County, but disagrees that MLD issuance is counterintuitive to responsible management. The department responds that the MLD program is a habitat-based program that recommends a harvest strategy consistent with the biological realities of habitat condition and land use practices on tracts of any size. In fact, relatively few properties in Texas are large enough to sustain a deer for the entirety of the life cycle. The department cannot determine what is meant by the term management by proxy and cannot respond. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that MLD permits should not be issued in Grayson County because the antlerless harvest is too high. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the MLD harvest is based on a management plan that takes into account the size of a property, land use practices on the property, and population data for the property in order to generate a biologically responsible harvest strategy. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "forcing MLD restrictions on everyone is only going to increase the steps a hunter has to go thru in order to harvest a deer legally." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that no person is required to participate in the MLD program, which is strictly voluntary. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that MLD permits are not sufficient for doe harvest. The department agrees with the comment and responds that there is a 35-day archery-only open season during which antlerless deer may be taken without a permit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 173 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that eliminates "doe days" in Grayson County and allows antlerless harvest by permit only.
The department received nine comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the current 16-day deer season in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties to a full-length season. Of those commenters, none elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. The department nevertheless disagrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The department received 240 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that increases the current 16-day deer season in Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties to a full-length season.
The department received three comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements an open season for white-tailed deer in Dawson, Deaf Smith, and Martin counties. All three commenters elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "research is not sufficient to allow either-sex harvest." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data indicates the presence of white-tailed deer in the affected RMUs in sufficient numbers to justify a season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless harvest in Deaf Smith County should be by permit only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a bag limit of two antlerless deer, given the hunting pressure typical in the affected counties, will not affect reproductive potential. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 216 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements an open season for white-tailed deer in Dawson, Deaf Smith, and Martin counties.
The department received 47 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements a special late antlerless and spike-buck season or muzzleloader season in additional counties. Of those commenters, 36 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the antlerless and spike-buck special season should be an early season and not after the rut. The commenter also stated that hunters should be required to harvest a doe before they are allowed to harvest a buck. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that implementing a special season for the take of antlerless and spike-buck deer prior to the general season would conflict with the archery-only season, which is undesirable because the department believes that on properties that are not in the MLD program the time period immediately prior to the general season, hunting should be restricted to archery equipment in order to equitably distribute opportunity between user groups. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that it doesn't make sense to have one season that protects young bucks, then another season that targets them. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the bucks protected by the "antler restriction" rule cannot be lawfully taken during the special late season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are not enough white-tailed deer, so the special season should be restricted to mule deer. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that white-tailed deer populations in the RMUs where the special late season is implemented are able to withstand additional harvest of antlerless and spike-buck deer and in most cases such additional harvest is desirable to prevent habitat degradation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "deer populations are declining, with the buck population average age decreasing and genetically smaller in antler size." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although in some RMUs the "antler restriction" rule is necessary to address excessive or elevated harvest of young bucks, the deer populations in the RMUs where the special late season is implemented are able to withstand additional harvest of antlerless and spike-buck deer and in most cases such additional harvest is desirable to prevent habitat degradation. The department also notes that the relationship between genetic makeup and antler size is not dependent upon the quantity of genetic material present in an individual. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be no special seasons of any kind. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that special seasons are a useful and effective tool to aid landowners and land managers in meeting management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer discourages people from hunting with muzzleloaders. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that muzzleloaders are lawful during the special late season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer kills pregnant does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November or early December, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested at any time during the general or special late seasons. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer kills bucks that have shed their antlers. The department responds that bucks that have shed their antlers are vulnerable to accidental harvest, but that it is incumbent upon landowners, land managers, and hunters to be careful. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer in Bell County should be countywide. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that eastern Bell County, which is in RMU 20, is characterized by spotty habitat and low deer densities. The populations in RMU 20 cannot withstand additional harvest without experience negative reproductive impacts. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the general season is already too long. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the current length of the general season does not exert a negative impact on populations and is necessary to maximize opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that additional hunting of antlerless deer will hurt the deer herd in Callahan County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the deer population in RMU 27 (which contains Callahan County) is stable or increasing and that additional late-season opportunity can be provided without causing depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer should be a muzzleloader-only season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the hunting pressure exerted by a special late season restricted to muzzleloaders is not enough to achieve the goals of the special late season, which is to allow landowners and land managers to reduce deer populations to protect habitat when general-season harvest is insufficient to accomplish management goals. The department also notes that muzzleloaders are lawful during the special late season. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer should be restricted to antlerless deer only. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the special late season is intended to give landowners and land managers a tool to reduce deer populations to protect habitat when general-season harvest is insufficient to accomplish management goals. The department believes that including spike bucks in the bag composition makes the special late season more effective. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer should not be concurrent with the special late youth-only season because if the two seasons run at the same time then the youth-only season is not truly youth-only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the youth-only season allows youth to take deer of any type under the county regulations, which is not the case for adults hunting at the same time. Therefore, the opportunity provided during the youth-only season is restricted to youth. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that research at Mississippi State University indicates that a spike buck can become a 10-point buck. The department agrees with the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that only adult spikes should be taken during the special late season for antlerless and spike-buck deer. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that compliance with a bag limit based on the age of the deer would be virtually impossible in the absence of a reliable method to age deer "on the hoof." No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the antlerless deer population in Harrison or Marion counties cannot withstand additional harvest because there are too many hunters hunting on small properties. The department agrees with the comment and responds that there is no special late season in Harrison or Marion counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that archery equipment should be lawful during the muzzleloader season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the muzzleloader-only season is intended to allow a special opportunity for muzzleloader enthusiasts, just as the archery-only season is intended to offer special opportunity to archery enthusiasts. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Five commenters opposed adoption and stated that the muzzleloader season should be eliminated because modern muzzleloaders are no different than modern rifles. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the muzzleloader season has been since its inception restricted to firearms that are loaded only through the muzzle. The department also notes that annual harvest of deer during the muzzleloader season is biologically insignificant. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that if people wanted to shoot with a muzzleloader they could do it during the general season. The department agrees with the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the number of spikes taken each year should be reduced. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the number of deer taken each year, regardless of gender, should be based on sound management decisions. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are trespassing problems in Camp County. The department disagrees that trespassing issues are germane to the implementation of a muzzleloader season in Camp County. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that a muzzleloader season should be implemented in Bell County. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a special late antlerless season is more effective in addressing management issues in western Bell County, while in eastern Bell County, which is characterized by fragmented habitat and spotty deer populations, additional harvest would result in negative impacts to reproductive potential. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should not be an additional bag limit for the late season. The department agrees with the comment and responds that there is no additional bag limit for the late muzzleloader season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Young County should have the muzzleloader season, not the late antlerless and spike-buck season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the use of modern firearms during the special late antlerless and spike-buck season is necessary in order to facilitate the goal of the special season, which is to allow landowners and land managers to control populations and protect habitat. The relatively low hunter success with muzzleloaders would make this more difficult. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the season should be expanded to include cartridges chambered in black powder, such as the 45/70 and 45LC. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it believes that the simplicity of the muzzleloader season, which allows the use of any firearm provided it is loader only through the muzzle, makes it easy to understand and enforce. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the season should be statewide. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the muzzleloader season is implemented to provide additional opportunity in RMUs where the population can withstand limited additional harvest, which is possible with muzzleloaders because of the relatively low hunter success rate with muzzleloaders. In most areas of the state that need additional harvest due to habitat concerns, the special late antlerless and spike-buck season is implemented because harvest with modern firearms is very efficient. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that muzzleloader seasons should be restricted to muzzleloaders that are truly primitive weapons. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the muzzleloader season is intended to be a muzzleloader season, not a primitive weapons season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that shotguns with slugs should be lawful if modern muzzleloaders are lawful. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the muzzleloader season is restricted to firearms that are loaded only through the muzzle. Shotguns are not loaded through the muzzle. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the muzzleloader season for antlerless and spike-buck deer should not be concurrent with the special late youth-only season because if the two seasons run at the same time then the youth-only season is not truly youth-only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the youth-only season allows youth to take deer with any lawful means, which is not the case for adults hunting at the same time. Therefore, the opportunity provided during the youth-only season is restricted to youth. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 315 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that implements a special late antlerless and spike-buck season or muzzleloader season in additional counties.
The department received 91 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that extends the special late youth-only season. Of those commenters, 42 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Twelve commenters opposed adoption and stated that there is plenty of time for youth to hunt during the general season. The department agrees with the comments but responds that it believes it is important to provide a special season restricted to youth in order to encourage adults to mentor youth. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Fifteen commenters opposed adoption and stated that youth-only seasons are abused by unscrupulous adults. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that it does not believe that abuses, if they are occurring, are at a scale that warrants elimination of a valuable and useful season. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that youth seasons should be limited to the underprivileged. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that youth opportunity should be made available to all youth, and that the commission does not have statutory authority to promulgate rules based on income or social status. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that youth seasons should be on state lands only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that limiting youth hunting opportunity to state lands would severely limit participation, which defeats the purpose of the season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the timing of the season would result in the harvest of impregnated does. The department agrees that pregnant does will be harvested, but notes that since breeding begins in early October, with peak breeding occurring in late November or early December, it is possible that pregnant does could be harvested at any time during the general or special late seasons. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the youth-only season would contradict the special late antlerless and spike-buck season and the muzzleloader season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the youth-only season allows youth to take any deer that it is lawful to take during the general season, with any lawful means, which is not the case for adults hunting at the same time during the special late antlerless and spike-buck season or the muzzleloader season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the youth-only season should be the last two weekends of November and the first two weekends in January. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the current youth-only seasons are designed to provide opportunity to youth without conflicting with the general season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there should be a combined muzzleloader/youth season. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that in the counties where the muzzleloader season is implemented, it is concurrent with the youth-only season. This is not the case in every county, because although the youth-only season is statewide, muzzleloader opportunity cannot be provided if additional harvest is desirable (by more efficient modern firearms during a special late antlerless and spike-buck season) or cannot be offered (due to concerns about negative impacts on reproductive potential). No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that youth seasons should not run concurrently with archery season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that overlap between the youth-only season and the archery-only season is limited to one weekend and there is little evidence that user conflicts are occurring as a result. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the youth season would be unnecessary if the department got rid of the antler restriction rule, which discourages youth from hunting. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no evidence that youth are discouraged from hunting by the "antler restriction" rule. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that youth season should be an independent, stand-alone season if modern firearms are used. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no compelling biological, equity, or enforcement rationale for eliminating opportunity that is concurrent with the youth-only season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the youth season should be spikes and does only. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the intent of the youth-only season is to offer the same opportunity available during the general season but to restrict it to youth in order to create mentoring opportunities for adults and youth. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that additional youth opportunity should be before the general season, not after it. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the early youth-only season is beneficial because it takes advantage of the anticipation that hunters typically experience prior to the opening of the general season and provides a special opportunity for youth participation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the youth-only season for antlerless and spike-buck deer should not be concurrent with other late seasons because then the youth-only season is not truly youth-only. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the youth-only season allows youth to take any deer that it is lawful to take during the general season, with any lawful means, which is not the case for adults hunting at the same time during the special late antlerless and spike-buck season or the muzzleloader season. Therefore, the opportunity provided during the youth-only season is restricted to youth. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 392 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that extends the special late youth-only season.
The department received 33 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows the take of antlerless deer without permits on units of United States Forest Service (USFS) land in Wise and Montague counties. Of those commenters, 14 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Five commenters opposed adoption and stated that allowing "doe days" on United States Forest Service lands in Wise County will lead to more accidents because hunter densities are so high. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rule was requested by the USFS and that the commission does not have statutory authority to regulate on the basis of safety on lands other department lands. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rules will result in an overharvest of does. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the antlerless harvest on USFS lands in Montague and Wise counties is restricted to the youth-only and archery-only seasons and during four "doe days" which is identical to the antlerless opportunity offered in the rest of RMU 22. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that does should be harvested only as needed to prevent famine in the deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that doe harvest is an important component of population control and habitat management, and that doe control is crucial to maintaining the availability of nutrition for deer herds. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule should apply on all USFS lands. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the USFS, as a landowner independent of the department, is responsible for harvest management on USFS lands, subject to seasons and bag limits established by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless harvest should be limited to the archery-only season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the USFS, as a landowner independent of the department, is responsible for harvest management on USFS lands, subject to seasons and bag limits established by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that antlerless hunting should be allowed during the entirety of the general season and that the number of hunters should be limited. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the USFS, as a landowner independent of the department, is responsible for harvest management on USFS lands, subject to seasons and bag limits established by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the USFS has not allowed enough public input on special hunts on public lands. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the public input process with respect to USFS management is not subject to department control. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of antlerless deer without a permit should be allowed on the Sabine National Forest because it is overrun with does. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the USFS, as a landowner independent of the department, is responsible for harvest management on USFS lands, subject to seasons and bag limits established by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 286 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that allows the take of antlerless deer without permits on units of United States Forest Service (USFS) land in Wise and Montague counties.
The department received 18 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that creates an open season for mule deer in Parmer County. Of those commenters, three elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that deer should be left to grow. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the mule deer population in Parmer County is as large as it likely to get, and that hunting opportunity can be provided without danger of depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there will be a measurable effect on the population if bucks are included in the bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the doe segment of the population is the critical component of reproduction biology. Since the rule as adopted allows antlerless take by permit only, the department expects no negative impacts to the population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 191 comments supporting adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42 that creates an open season for mule deer in Parmer County
The department received five comments opposed to the adoption of the amendment to proposed §65.56, which eliminated the open season for lesser prairie chickens. All five commenters stated that it does not make sense to close the season if hunting makes no impact on the population. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that although hunting is not a significant contributor to long-term population declines, the temporary cessation of hunting activity serves a useful purpose in the department's strategic goal of working with landowners to stabilize populations and effect a recovery. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The department received 227 comments supporting adoption of the proposed new rule.
The Texas Wildlife Association supported adoption of the proposed new section.
The department received 37 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that creates a slot limit for blue catfish on Lake Lewisville, Lake Richland-Chambers, and Lake Waco. Of those commenters, six elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule should be statewide in effect and there should be an oversized blue catfish tag allowing only one blue catfish over 45 inches in length to be retained. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is not necessary to apply the rule as adopted on a statewide basis or to create a tag for oversize blue catfish. The rule is adopted in response to situation-specific biological parameters indicating an extremely high harvest of older fish on the affected water bodies, which could have negative impacts on population abundance by affecting spawning and reproduction. The department also notes that tagging systems are expensive to operate and administer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the commercial fishery should be regulated, not the recreational fishery. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no commercial effort occurring on the affected water bodies. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the slot limit should be 35-40 inches. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the slot limit being implemented is the optimum management response for providing opportunity while still addressing management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the slot limit should be 35-45 inches. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the slot limit being implemented is the optimum management response for providing opportunity while still addressing management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the slot limit should be 35-45 inches, with one fish over 45 inches allowed to be retained. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the slot limit being implemented is the optimum management response for providing opportunity while still addressing management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is too much emphasis on trophy fish. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as proposed and as adopted is not intended to address to create, manage, or sustain a trophy fishery. While the rule may increase the abundance of trophy catfish, the primary intent of the rule is to protect older and larger fish for breeding purposes and not the interests of any user group. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 229 comments supporting adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that creates a slot limit for blue catfish on Lake Lewisville, Lake Richland-Chambers, and Lake Waco.
No groups or associations commented in support of or opposition to the proposed amendment.
The department received 12 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that eliminates the slot limit for largemouth bass on Lake Ray Roberts and returns regulations to the statewide standard regulation. Of those commenters, seven elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rules should be left alone because people don't like to have to check the rules every year. The department agrees with the comment but responds that regulatory change is necessary when conditions warrant additional protection for the resource. The current regulation was implemented in 1998 in an attempt to explore the feasibility of creating a trophy bass population; however; population structure trend data indicate that the population has not responded to the slot limit, so the department has determined that the rules should revert to the statewide standard. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that removing the slot limit will encourage the proliferation of tournaments on the lake, which will make access for ordinary recreational anglers difficult. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no biological concern at this time with respect to angling pressures resulting from fishing tournaments on Lake Ray Roberts. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the commenter suggested that tournaments with more than ten boats be required to use a private boat launch facility. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the commission does not have the statutory authority to regulate use of boat launches. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the slot should be retained and broadened. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that population structure trend data indicate that the population has not responded to the slot limit, so the department has determined that the rules should revert to the statewide standard. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the slot should be changed to 16- 24 inches. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that population structure trend data indicate that the population has not responded to management by slot limit, so the department has determined that the rules should revert to the statewide standard.
No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is too much emphasis on trophy fish. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as proposed and as adopted is not intended to address to create, manage, or sustain a trophy fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 222 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that eliminates the slot limit for largemouth bass on Lake Ray Roberts and returns regulations to the statewide standard regulation.
No groups or associations commented in support of or opposition to the proposed amendment.
The department received 223 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that imposes a bag limit of one alligator gar per day. Of those commenters, 68 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department "has no evidence, no scientific numbers to back up what they are talking about." The commenter stated that too much emphasis was placed on protecting trophy fish and that gar populations are in good shape. The commenter also stated that it is always the commercial anglers that take the hit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that observed declines in other states, known vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar are a scientifically basis for determining that a conservative management approach is warranted until populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. The department also responds that the rule as adopted in not intended to protect trophy fish, nor it is intended to single out commercial anglers. The rule as adopted is intended to protect older gar until definitive studies can be conducted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Eleven commenters opposed adoption and stated that there is no science to verify that alligator gar are in trouble in Texas. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that observed declines in other states, known vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar indicate that a conservative management approach is warranted until populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department needed to contact bow fishermen because they are a large source of information. The department agrees with the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is too much emphasis on trophy fish. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as proposed and as adopted is not intended to address to create, manage, or sustain a trophy fishery. While the rule should maintain the abundance of trophy gar, the primary intent of the rule is to protect older and larger fish for breeding purposes. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar populations are increasing, not decreasing. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that despite apparent abundance based on anecdotal evidence, harvest and population data suggest that older gar representing the reproductive potential of the population are being harvested at an unsustainable rate that could lead to catastrophic population declines. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar populations have declined in other states because dams prevent the gar from migrating. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while impoundments may have some effect on gar populations, evidence indicates that other habitat alterations within rivers and overfishing are the most significant factor affecting population status. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that river systems in Texas are full of alligator gar. The commenter also stated that the Trinity River is saturated with alligator gar and that restricting harvest will result in the alligator gar consuming other fish. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that abundance per se is not a reliable indicator of population status. Due to their long life history, late maturation, and infrequent spawning, removal of large numbers of adult gar could result in sudden and precipitous population declines. The department also responds that alligator gar are an important predator species in riverine food webs, providing a natural balance to other species by controlling populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the numbers of alligator gar sighted by bowfishers does not indicate any population decrease. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that abundance per se is not a reliable indicator of population status and that anecdotal sighting information is not scientifically valid data. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that without data to support a closure, the department is pandering to the trophy fishing industry. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted is solely based on biological concerns and is not in any way a response to the concerns of any user group. The department also comments that scientifically documented declines in other states and the known vulnerability of the species, along with the specifics of its life history, provide a sound scientific basis for the action taken by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that a bag limit of one alligator gar will make it too expensive to go fishing. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted affects only the harvest of alligator, one of many fishes that are legal to harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that the commercial fishery should be closed and the recreational fishery left as it is. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that among the responsibilities of the department is to provide equitable opportunity where possible to various user groups, and that the implementation of the one-fish bag limit effectively eliminates most aspects of the commercial fishery for gar. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department should retain the current rule but prohibit the used of nets to take alligator gar. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that nets are not a legal means of taking alligator gar. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department should implement a daily bag limit of 50 or 30 fish and evaluate the resource. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because of the biology of alligator gar, there is concern that continued heavy pressure on large gar could produce a sudden and precipitous depopulation event; therefore, a very conservative harvest regime is necessary while the department investigates population status. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department admits that the severity of population decline is unknown; therefore, the new bag limit will do more harm than good. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the one-fish bag limit is expected to severely curtail the harvest of older gar and should be sufficient, in the short term, to protect the population while studies are conducted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar are a "trash fish" that depletes populations of more desirable fish. The department disagrees and responds that alligator gar are an important predator species in riverine food webs, providing a natural balance to other species. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department should not use information from other states because their waters are different from Texas waters. The commenter stated that management decisions should be based on "local science." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is nothing about Texas waters that would suggest a distinct biological divergence from waters in other states where alligator gar are or have been present, and that valid scientific data collected in other places, because it scientifically valid, is highly useful. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department has failed to provide any population data that would support regulation of alligator gar. The commenter also stated that it is incumbent upon the department and the commission to conduct research and apply scientifically accurate data to all management strategies of all Texas species. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that observed declines in other states, vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar indicate that a conservative management approach is a scientifically sound response while populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. As events move forward, the department will continue base management decisions on the best available science. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the alligator gar population has gotten out of control and more harvest is needed, not less. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that limited harvest and population data indicate that current harvest levels in Texas may be unsustainable. Given observed declines in other states, the known vulnerability of the species to overharvest, and the particulars of its life history, the rule as adopted is necessary to prevent potential precipitous declines in populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the department should have comprehensive data for specific bodies of water before implementing bag limits on alligator gar. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that it fully intends to gather comprehensive data on specific water bodies, but meanwhile, scientifically valid concerns, based on observed declines in other states, vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar indicate that a conservative management approach is warranted until populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator are not going extinct because they have been around for thousands of years. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the historical presence of any species is not in and of itself sufficient evidence to suggest continued presence in the future. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One person commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar should be stocked by the department if it feels that the species is so important. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that stocking alligator gar will not protect older age classes of fish. Reducing the harvest is intended to enhance sustainability of alligator gar populations so a costly stocking program does not need to be implemented. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule is unnecessary because alligator gar could not be extirpated even if that was goal. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the alligator gar has been extirpated across a large part of its historical range and is threatened through much of the rest it. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that not many people hunt gar and they are overabundant. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department data indicate a robust commercial fishery exists in Texas and that continued heavy pressure on large gar could produce a sudden and precipitous depopulation event. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that as a bowfisher he has not seen any declines in alligator gar populations. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that anecdotal observations are not scientifically valid. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar eat a lot of bass and should be killed whenever the opportunity arises. The department disagrees and responds that alligator gar are an important predator species in riverine food webs, providing a natural balance on other species. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that many people make a living taking people to fish for gar and that the rule will interfere with that practice. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted does not prohibit anyone from taking people to fish for gar. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that gar are abundant and that the department is discriminating against bowfishermen. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that abundance per se is not a reliable indicator of population status. Due to their long life history, late maturation, and infrequent spawning, removal of large numbers of adult gar could result in sudden and precipitous declines. The rule will apply equally to all methods of harvest and does not single out bow fishing. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that gar populations in other states don't matter. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that scientific information developed in other states are important and valid in assisting the department to develop appropriate management strategies in Texas waters. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar have no positive impact on any body of water. The department disagrees and responds that alligator gar are an important predator species in riverine food webs, providing a natural balance on other species. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule would eliminate bowfishing for other species of gar because of similarity of species. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there are enough morphological differences between gar species, and especially between mature adults of different gar species, that identification should not be a problem. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is no provision for gar caught incidentally on trotlines. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted affects only gar reduced to possession. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a bag limit of between two and four fish within a slot limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is intended as a proactive, precautionary measure while definitive scientific data on gar populations is developed; therefore, a conservative approach is warranted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar should be designated a game fish status and regulated via a tag system. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that until a definitive scientific characterization of gar populations can be developed, it would be premature to introduce a tag system for harvest, assuming that a tagging system became necessary. The department also notes that tagging systems are expensive to administer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that he found it difficult to believe that alligator gar threatened in any way. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that observed declines in other states, vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar indicate that a conservative management approach is warranted until populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule should be evaluated on an annual basis. The department agrees with the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there should be a two-fish bag limits because nobody goes fishing for one fish. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there are many fishes in addition to alligator gar that can be lawfully taken. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a minimum size limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds until definitive scientific data can be obtained, a minimum size limit is unnecessary because the one-fish bag limit is sufficient to curtail excessive harvest of large gar. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that one alligator gar per day seems inadequate. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the bag limit as adopted is a proactive, cautionary approach that will protect older gar while definitive population status can be determined. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule would eliminate the sport of bowfishing because bowfishers would be fined and jailed, resulting in negative impacts to game fish populations because nongame fish would proliferate in the absence of bowfishers. The commenter stated that there should be a bag limit within a slot limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that reduced harvest of alligator gar is not expected to exert negative impacts on any other species and that the most effective way to protect older gar while scientific studies are conducted is to implement a one-fish bag limit. The department also responds that the best way to avoid criminal penalties for violation of fish and game laws is not to violate fish and game laws. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a bag limit of five fish per day. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the most effective way to protect older gar while scientific studies are conducted is to implement a conservative one-fish bag limit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department should not be making rules based on the agenda of one group with a vested interest in teaching evolution in public schools. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted is unrelated to curriculum in schools and does not represent the interests of any particular user group. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit should be three fish per day until further study can reveal a suitable course of action. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the most effective way to protect older gar while scientific studies are conducted is to implement a conservative one-fish bag limit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Five commenters opposed adoption and stated that harvest of alligator gar should be prohibited until more scientific data justifying harvest can be obtained. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the one-fish bag limit is sufficient in the short term to prevent overharvest of older gar until the department can obtain definitive scientific data on gar populations. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a bag limit of three fish per day and a maximum length limit of 36 inches. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the most effective way to protect older gar while scientific studies are conducted is to implement a conservative one-fish bag limit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of alligator gar should be prohibited for five years, followed by the implementation of a bag limit of one fish per day. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the one-fish bag limit is sufficient in the short term to prevent overharvest of older gar until the department can obtain definitive scientific data on gar populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of alligator gar should be prohibited for five years. The commenter stated that "removal of even a small percentage of adult alligator gar results in population crashes which take decades to recover. TPWD's own population models show that depletions are occurring in Texas and will continue to occur under a one-fish-per day regime." The commenter also stated that TPWD also has evidence that bow anglers are taking trophy adults from contaminated waters in Texas that have fish consumption advisories. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the most pressing need at the current time is to curtail the removal of large numbers of older alligator gar in areas where they congregate. The department believes the one-fish bag limit is sufficient in the short term to prevent overharvest of older gar until the department can obtain definitive scientific data on gar populations. The department also responds that it is unlawful to possess fish taken from an area where a consumption ban has been declared by the Texas Department of Health Services and that the department enforces such bans. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of alligator gar should be prohibited until populations increase. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the most pressing need at the current time is to curtail the removal of large numbers of older alligator gar in areas where they congregate. The department believes the one-fish bag limit is sufficient in the short term to prevent overharvest of older gar until the department can obtain definitive scientific data on gar populations. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit on alligator gar should be one per week because the population is unstable and gar are vulnerable when spawning. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the most pressing need at the current time is to curtail the removal of large numbers of older alligator gar in areas where they congregate. The department believes the one-fish bag limit is sufficient in the short term to prevent overharvest of older gar until the department can obtain definitive scientific data on gar populations.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of alligator gar should be prohibited. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the population can withstand limited harvest at the levels implemented by the rule as adopted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit for alligator gar should be one per month. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the population can withstand limited harvest at the levels implemented by the rule as adopted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the current provisions regarding alligator gar should be retained. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that observed declines in other states, vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar indicate that a conservative management approach is warranted until populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department "needed to know where it was going with this program." The department agrees with the comment and responds that it does know where it is going. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 241 comments supporting adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that imposes a bag limit of one alligator gar per day.
The Texas Bow Fishing Association, the Bow Fishing Association of America, and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance opposed adoption of the proposed amendment.
The Piney Woods Sierra Club, Trinity River Expeditions, Center for Biological Diversity, and the Universal Epheshians Church of Lake Livingston commented in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 91 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.42 that creates a closed area for the take of alligator gar on Lake Texoma. Of those commenters, 10 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the alligator gar population at Texoma appears to be doing quite well. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that abundance per se is not a reliable indicator of population status, and apparent abundance even less so. Due to their long life history, late maturation, and infrequent spawning, removal of large numbers of adult gar could result in sudden and precipitous declines. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that until research data justifies restrictions there should be no limitations on the harvest of alligator gar. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that observed declines in other states, vulnerability to overfishing, and increased interest in the harvest of trophy gar indicate that a conservative management approach is a scientifically sound response while populations and potential threats can be fully assessed. As events move forward, the department will continue base management decisions on the best available science. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that harvest of alligator gar on Lake Texoma should be prohibited until the population recovers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the actual population status of alligator gar on Lake Texoma is unknown at this time; however, the implementation of a conservative one-fish daily bag limit will be effective in the short term in eliminating excessive harvest of older gar until definitive studies can be conducted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that alligator gar have no positive impact on any body of water. The department disagrees and responds that alligator gar are an important predator species in riverine food webs, providing a natural balance to other species. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that commercial take of alligator gar should be prohibited. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that until population status can be definitively assessed, the conservative one-fish daily bag should be effective in curtailing the harvest of older gar, which is the trend the department is most concerned about. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit should be higher and there should be a slot limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is intended as a proactive, precautionary measure while definitive scientific data on gar populations is developed; therefore, a conservative approach is warranted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be no closures of specific areas on lakes, especially if breeding is infrequent and closure may not be effective. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted is necessary precisely because gar breed infrequently, which makes them vulnerable when they are spawning. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be no closures of specific areas. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that protection of spawning areas is necessary because gar breed infrequently in specific areas and only when specific conditions exist. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 196 comments supporting adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.42 that creates a closed area for the take of alligator gar on Lake Texoma.
The Texas Bow Fishing Association, the Bow Fishing Association of America, and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance opposed adoption of the proposed amendment.
The Piney Woods Sierra Club, Trinity River Expeditions, Center for Biological Diversity, and the Universal Epheshians Church of Lake Livingston commented in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 27 comments on the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that allows only one blue catfish of greater than 30 inches per day to be retained on Lake Texoma. Of those commenters, six elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department should not pander to the trophy fishing lobby. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the rule is to protect older and larger fish for breeding purposes and not the interests of any user group. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department's survey results are skewed because people retain larger blue catfish because they are harder to catch and more abundant. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data indicate excessive levels of harvest of larger fish, which means that anglers do not have difficulty harvesting these larger fish. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are plenty of blue catfish in Lake Texoma. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that harvest data indicate an extremely high harvest of older fish, which are critical to maintaining population abundance. Therefore, the rule as adopted is necessary to protect older fish. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the commercial fishery should be regulated, not the recreational fishery. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no commercial fishery for blue catfish on Lake Texoma. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit should be one fish 45 inches or greater. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that age distribution correlated to size indicates that a 45-inch limit would not be sufficient to protect enough older fish. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed bag limit would cause further declines in blue catfish populations. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that allowing one fish longer than 30-inches to be retained per day limit will allow the majority of older fish to remain in the breeding population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 228 comments supporting adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that allows only one blue catfish of greater than 30 inches per day to be retained on Lake Texoma.
No groups or associations commented in support of or opposition to adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received letters from the Coastal Bend Guides Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Ocean Conservancy, Port Aransas Boatmen Inc., Recreational Fishing Alliance, Saltwater Fisheries Enhancement Association, and the Pew Environmental Group. All of these groups were in support of the entire proposal as written either in the scoping or in the public hearing process or some portion of the proposal. The differences in the proposals will be listed below and then will be grouped into the comments below.
Summarizing where the organizations differ from the proposal, Coastal Conservation Association for Flounder supported a longer closed period for the gig fishery and wanted to allow for some opportunity by hook and line during the closed fishery. In addition, for gray triggerfish they supported a 12" minimum size limit and a 10 fish bag limit instead of the proposal. The Recreational Fishing Alliance did not support the rules regarding federal consistency and supported a 10-fish bag limit for both the recreational and commercial flounder fishery.
The department received 2,569 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that reduces commercial and recreational bag limits for flounder and would have closed the flounder fishery during the month of November. Of those commenters, 2,475 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
The department received 111 comments opposing adoption of the five-fish recreational bag limit. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the five-fish recreational bag limit represents a bag limit combined with the other measures taken, will achieve the desired rebuilding target levels while at the same time still providing for recreational fishing opportunity, avoiding disrupting recreational fishing opportunity and enjoyment. Under the five-fish recreational bag limit combined with the other measures, the overall fishing mortality will be reduced by approximately 45% and this will increase the spawning stock biomass by approximately 80% over six years. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The department received 97 comments opposing adoption of the 30-fish commercial bag limit. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the 30-fish commercial bag limit represents a bag limit that will achieve the desired rebuilding target levels while at the same time still providing for commercial fishing opportunity, avoiding disrupting commercial fishing opportunity. Under the 30 fish commercial bag limit combined with the other measures, the overall fishing mortality will be reduced by approximately 45% and this will increase the spawning stock biomass by approximately 80% over six years. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The department received 2272 comments opposing adoption of the proposed November closure and spoke to the need to have some flounder fishing take opportunity in the month of November. The department agrees that a November closure is not absolutely necessary and modified the proposal to allow for a two flounder bag and possession limit in the month of November and lawful means of take shall be by pole-and-line only. Due to the life history cycle of flounder where escapement to the gulf occurs during the fall period the reduced fishing mortality occurring during November with the other measures taken, will achieve the desired rebuilding target levels while at the same time still providing for recreational fishing opportunity, avoiding disrupting recreational fishing opportunity and enjoyment.
Sixteen commenters opposed adoption and stated that the commercial harvest of flounder should be prohibited. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the commercial bag limit for flounder should be reduced to one fish per day. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Seven commenters opposed adoption and stated that the commercial harvest of flounder should be permanently or temporarily prohibited because recreational anglers are the ones paying for management and enforcement, while commercial anglers receive disproportionate benefit relative to their contributions to management and enforcement. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. The department also responds that both recreational and commercial anglers pay license fees that permit the privilege of fishing. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that commercial fishing should be prohibited from September to December. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Thirty-two commenters opposed adoption and stated that rules governing recreational harvest of flounder should not be altered and that management of the fishery through reduction of opportunity/harvest should be done through regulation of commercial harvest. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Two commenters opposed adoption and one stated that the flounder population is increasing based on his observations of anglers and flounder giggers and the other commenter indicated the fishery was not declining. The department disagrees with the comment and supports the conclusion with the long-term fishery independent and fishery dependent sampling programs that both exhibit and the other indicated that the flounder population was not declining. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters spoke to increasing the minimum size limit. One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a size restriction to protect female broodstock. One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be an 18-inch minimum size limit for commercial anglers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is currently a 14-inch minimum size restriction in effect and that size limit allows for females to reach sexual maturity. Increasing the minimum size limit would not create the overall increase in spawning stock biomass and also since a significant portion of this fishery is captured by the recreational and commercial gig fishery further increases in minimum size limits may not have the desired impacts due to release mortality after gigging. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule is an "over-reaching of state regulators based on less-than-solid research. The proposed amendment to close Texas in November to flounder fishing is particularly offensive and does not show any real, good-faith effort at conservation." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that rule as proposed was nothing less than a good-faith effort to discharge the statutory duty of the department to protect fisheries resources and was based on the comprehensive data collection program that is in place for Texas coastal fisheries. The proposed November closure was the most efficacious management strategy to recover spawning stock biomass in the fishery without extreme disruption of angling opportunity. However, the proposed rule was amended to allow for two fish per day and restricts lawful means to pole-and-line only to allow for some angling opportunity in the month of November.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that gigging should be a lawful means only for wade-fishing. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of enthusiasts of various means of take while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Five commenters opposed adoption and stated that the proposed November closure should apply only to commercial harvest of flounder. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. The two -fish bag limit in November while allowing only hook and line as a lawful means effectively reduces potential commercial harvest of flounder to inconsequential levels in November. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be no limitations on recreational harvest of flounder. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that with unlimited recreational harvest of flounder there would be enough effort to continue the current fishing mortality as recently documented. There would be a shift in allocation but this would not necessarily cause any changes in the current flounder stock status. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rules should allow recreational anglers to retain at least one fish. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted allows recreational anglers to retain five fish per day, except in November, when the bag limit is two fish per day. The change to allow for the landing of fish in November was a change to the proposed rule.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that flounder regulations should be by zone or area, with the most restrictive rules implemented in southern waters and the least restrictive in northern waters. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that differential bag limits are more difficult to enforce, can be difficult to create clear delineation of zones, and can create confusion for anglers. In addition, since the biological data suggest that this was not an isolated bay system or clear zonal differences and since the life history suggests flounder escaping and spawning from one bay can lead to aid in repopulating other bay systems that coastwide regulations were prudent. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the flounder fishery should be closed for November and December, but the current bag limits should not be changed. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although a two-month closure alone would not meet the rebuilding targets and that a combination of the bag limit reductions and closures combined will rebuild the population to targeted levels. In addition the proposed rule and the adopted rule both provide greater fishing opportunity than the two month closure. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the commercial bag limit should be three times the recreational bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in addition to the primary obligation of biologically protecting fisheries, the department also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to restore spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that instead of the proposed November closure of the fishery, there should be "a slot limit to increase the population of the larger females that generate more larvae." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a slot limit would not achieve the desired results. The restriction in effect and that size limit allows for females to reach sexual maturity. Increasing the minimum size limit would not create the overall increase in spawning stock biomass and also since a significant portion of this fishery is captured by the recreational and commercial gig fishery further increases in min. size limits may not have the desired impacts due to release mortality after gigging. In addition, since these fish reach maturity relatively quickly and are fairly short lived the slot limit would not provide the protection to spawning biomass as proposed. The rule as adopted is sufficient to reverse declines in spawning stock biomass. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the flounder fishery should be closed to gigging during October, November, and December and that November should be closed to hook and line. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the decline in spawning stock biomass is additive with respect to all methods of take, regardless of efficiency. The department believes that such a change would exert too drastic a reduction of opportunity. In balancing the interests of various user groups and the methods of take used by each, the department believes that the rule as adopted will equitably distribute opportunity while meeting management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that guiding should be prohibited. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that fishing guides, while they are a source of fishing mortality when they catch flounder, the overall problem in the fishery is a result of fishing mortality caused by all the different fishing sectors. Removing only the guide fishing mortality would not arrest the declines in spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that not everyone could catch a limit of five fish. The department agrees with the comment. When you view the hook and line information the average landings per angler trip are less than five fish. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed recreational bag limit is too low. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a significant reduction in both recreational and commercial bag limits is necessary to replenish spawning stock biomass in the flounder fishery and that the rule as adopted will accomplish that goal. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the flounder fishery should be closed during December as well. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although a two-month closure would undeniably allow for a quicker recover of spawning stock, the department believes that such a change would exert too drastic a reduction of opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that commercial fishermen should also be banned during November. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the proposed November closure would also have applied to commercial anglers, and that the rule as adopted applies equally to commercial and recreational anglers. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the flounder fishery should be closed from October 1 to May 1. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although an eight-month closure of the fishery would undoubtedly achieve management goals in replenishing spawning stock biomass, the denial of opportunity to anglers would be too drastic. The rule as adopted is sufficient to reverse declines in spawning stock biomass while preserving recreational and commercial opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that flounder should be prohibited as bycatch. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while flounder bycatch has been a significant contributor to fishing mortality in past flounder stock reviews, based on the level of fishing effort in the commercial shrimp fishery it is not as significant in the overall decline of the population as it was in the past. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that recreational limit should not be lowered because factors other than fishing are causing population declines. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department cannot regulate any factor other than harvest. The department recognizes and demonstrated some of the temperature influences that may be impacting the flounder fishery but within that context the department is still obligated to prevent depletion and to maintain sustainable populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that a minimum size limit of 16 inches should be implemented to be consistent with speckled trout limits. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the biology of flounder is different than the biology of spotted trout; therefore, a standard size limit for both species is not desirable. The department also responds that size limits are not as effective as bag limits in managing flounder under the current circumstances. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the flounder fishery should be open in November, but only for pole-and-line anglers. The department agrees with the comment and changes have been made accordingly.
The department received 5,125 comments supporting adoption of some portion of the proposed amendment. For example, while many did not support the Nov. closure as proposed and would have preferred that it be a longer closure applied only to the gig fishery they did support the bag limit reductions..
The department received 42 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that addresses species jointly managed by state and federal authorities. Of those commenters, 20 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that overfishing is the result of excessive bycatch mortality. The commenter stated that commercial anglers do not pay their fair share for conservation and management and should be more tightly regulated. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that bycatch mortality is not believed to be a significant contributor to overfishing for the species which we have proposed rules. Additionally, the department's primary obligation is to protect fisheries, but it also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to prevent overfishing of affected species. The department also responds that both recreational and commercial anglers pay license fees that permit the privilege of fishing No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Texas has great wildlife resources without federal bureaucrats. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that effective management of species that occur in both state and federal waters is impossible without cooperation and communication. The department looks at each of these species and determines whether or not to become completely consistent with federal regulations. At times Texas regulations may be considered to be more conservative or liberal based on this assessment and the application of the appropriate regulation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that license buyers pay for management of the fishery in Texas and that the proposed rules remove that control. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department remains the sole authority for fisheries management in state waters and that consistency with federal rules is desirable, within reason, to prevent angler confusion and assist law enforcement activities when deemed necessary. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that most of the take of the species affected by the proposed rules occurs outside of state waters. The department agrees with the comment but responds that and responds that consistency with federal rules is desirable, within reason, to prevent angler confusion and assist law enforcement activities when deemed necessary. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) use flawed methods and data interpretation in their evaluation. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that while management priorities and methodologies differ from state to state and with federal agencies, all entities share one goal, which is to maintain healthy, sustainable fisheries. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is no way anyone could ever count or even guess at the populations of highly migratory species. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the science regarding fisheries management continues to improve. While there is always uncertainty within the context of the data and then various management measures have levels of risk associated with achieving or not achieving the goal, to take no action or to not continue to obtain better information is not an acceptable option. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the state knows more than the federal government about Texas fisheries. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is not a matter of who knows more, but of how interagency cooperation can be accomplished in the pursuit of shared goals to improve and protect shared fisheries. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Texas should not be consistent with federal rules or the state will lose control of state waters. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that Texas is and will remain the regulator of fisheries resources within state waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Texas regulations should be separate from federal rules. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that differential regulations are undesirable because they cause angler confusion and can lead to enforcement problems. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the federal government should not control fishing regulations in state waters. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the federal government does not control fishing regulations in state waters. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that commercial fishing should be prohibited. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that fisheries in state waters should be managed for the benefit of Texans, without regard to issues of consistency. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in instance in which federal regulations are not believed to place unwarranted burdens on Texas anglers, the department believes it is prudent to make harvest regulations compatible in order to avoid anger confusion and differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the federal government has too much power. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the federal government, through the bodies which facilitate inter-jurisdictional management, have the authority to regulate fisheries in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Texas should have authority to establish regulations based on state findings. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted are an exercise of state authority to regulate fisheries in state waters. The data that these rules are based upon and include shared information that is collected and used by TPWD, NMFS and other scientific information provided from other researchers. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 180 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The Ocean Conservancy commented in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 58 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that imposes length limits for greater amberjack. Of those commenters, 11 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that two inches is not going to make a difference. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the commercial catch should be curtailed. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that proposed rule will result in the increased mortality of undersized fish due to stress of catch and release. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the potential for hooking mortality is present in any species regulated by a size limit. Certainly release mortality can be significant for certain species but within that context the current modeling efforts attempt to include this release mortality into the rebuilding plans. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule would "kill offshore fishing." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted is not likely to lead to the cessation of angling activity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the daily bag limit should be two fish with a 36-inch minimum size limit. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the state should implement the federal standard for measuring length. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the lengths established as a total length in the state rule is designed to be equivalent to federal measurement standard (fork length). Historically, Texas has attempted to use a standard length measurement for all coastal fish species to reduce angler confusion No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the amberjack fishery should be closed until further study. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the overwhelming majority of the amberjack harvest occurs in federal waters and that closing state waters to amberjack harvest would cause angler confusion and create problems with respect to differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 687 comments supporting the adoption of the proposed amendment.
The Ocean Conservancy commented in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 48 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that imposes 20-fish daily bag limit, a 40-fish possession limit, and a 14-inch total length minimum size limit for grey triggerfish. Of those commenters, five elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) commented that they would prefer a 12 inch minimum size limit with a 10 fish bag limit. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that triggerfish are being taken because anglers cannot take snapper. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that certainly there are substitution effects when one fishery is regulated and pressure shifts to other species. Whether increased fishing pressure has been caused by shifting effort or not the current size limits or regulation changes have been established to achieve the management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that whenever fisheries are 'studied' they are found to be 'overfished.' The commenter stated that the idea that nuisance fish such as triggerfish are being overfished is "laughable and is not consistent with experiences anglers." The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that commercial harvest should be prohibited. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that rules governing recreational harvest should not be altered and that management of the fishery through reduction of opportunity/harvest should be done through regulation of commercial harvest. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters, the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the possession limit is too high. The department disagrees that reducing the possession limit alone would remove opportunity and that by creating consistency with federal regulations will prevent angler confusion and differential enforcement problems. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 686 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The Ocean Conservancy commented in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 39 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that imposes a 22-inch minimum size limit and a two-fish daily bag limit for gag grouper. Of those commenters, eight elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that overfishing is the result of excessive bycatch mortality. The commenter stated that commercial anglers do not pay their fair share for conservation and management and should be more tightly regulated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that bycatch mortality is not believed to be a significant contributor to overfishing. Additionally, the department's primary obligation is to protect fisheries, but it also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to prevent overfishing of affected species. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that commercial harvest should be prohibited. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the federal government intended to eliminate fishing. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it does not believe that the federal government intends to eliminate fishing. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the data and methods used by the federal government are "suspicious." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the science (data and methods) regarding fisheries management continues to improve. While there is always uncertainty within the context of the data and then various management measures have levels of risk associated with achieving or not achieving the goal, to take no action or to not continue to obtain better information is not an acceptable option. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that rules governing recreational harvest should not be altered and that management of the fishery through reduction of opportunity/harvest should be done through regulation of commercial harvest. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters, the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the implementation of the 22-inch minimum size limit will result in a high mortality rate among undersized fish that are caught and released in deeper water. The commenter stated that there should be a two-fish bag limit with a minimum size limit of 14 or 16 inches. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit should be one fish per day. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that by further reducing the bag limit you will be reducing opportunity and that the bag limit and size limits have been established to reach the goals of the rebuilding plan. While 1 fish would provide greater conservation it is not warranted at this time and in addition by achieving consistency with federal rules we will prevent angler confusion and differential enforcement problems. No changes were made as a result of the comment
The department received 700 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The Ocean Conservancy commented in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 151 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72 that prohibits the catch or possession of Atlantic angel, basking, bigeye sand tiger, bigeye sixgill, bigeye thresher, bignose, Caribbean reef, Caribbean sharpnose, dusky, Galapagos, longfin mako, narrowtooth, night, sandbar, sand tiger, sevengill, silky, sixgill, smalltail, whale, and white sharks. Of those commenters, 25 elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that more sharks are not needed. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that sharks are an important species in marine ecosystems and their protection and sustainability are important. The shark fishery also provides for a significant commercial and recreational fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the shark fishery is doing just fine. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that commercial harvest should be eliminated. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters, the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule is restrictive and unnecessary. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the rule is to establish consistency with federal rules in order to prevent angler confusion and differential enforcement problems. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the shark population around Galveston is high already and that conservation is achieved because not everyone harvests sharks. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limits and bag limits to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit should be one shark per day without regard to species. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the current bag limit is 1 shark per person per day and this bag limit is not being changed as a result of this rule making. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that species that eat humans should not be protected. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that sharks are an important species in marine ecosystems and their protection and sustainability are important. The shark fishery also provides for a significant commercial and recreational fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that recreational anglers cannot tell one species of shark from another. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although the intent of the rule is to establish consistency with federal rules in order to prevent angler confusion and differential enforcement problems, it is incumbent upon all anglers to be capable of species identification. In addition to this the department is holding identification workshops along the coast to aid anglers in species identification. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that rules governing recreational harvest should not be altered and that management of the fishery through reduction of opportunity/harvest should be done through regulation of commercial harvest. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that for the species which were discussed the commercial fishery must conform with recreational bag limits while in state waters. Within the context of federal waters the commission does not regulate commercial fishing in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed rule would mean the elimination of shark harvest. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is unlikely that the rule as adopted will eliminate shark harvest, although it does prohibit the harvest of shark species that have been overfished and those that are deemed to be in such a critical state that take has been prohibited in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the shark fishery should be closed. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted is extremely conservative and that complete closure to the take of all shark harvest in state waters is not warranted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule is too complicated for 99% of anglers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is based on the stock assessments available, the TPWD monitoring information, and the need to establish federal consistency when warranted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be no limits on the harvest of sharks. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that sharks are an important species in marine ecosystems and their protection and sustainability are important. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that overfishing is the result of excessive bycatch mortality. The commenter stated that commercial anglers do not pay their fair share for conservation and management and should be more tightly regulated. The department disagrees with the comment and recognizes that bycatch and release mortalities are important in many fisheries. The limits are established considering bycatch and release mortalities and are set to achieve the desired rebuilding. Additionally, the department's primary obligation is to protect fisheries, but it also has an obligation to equitably distribute opportunity among user groups. The department believes that rule as adopted equitably balances the interests of recreational and commercial anglers while meeting the goal of the rules, which is to prevent overfishing of affected species. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that sharks are the only fish that can be caught offshore. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there are many species that can be caught offshore. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed minimum length limits for sharks were unacceptable. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the increased minimum length limits are established in order to meet rebuilding goals. In addition, establishing consistency with federal rules helps prevent angler confusion and differential enforcement problems. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the 24-inch limit should apply to Spinner sharks in order to prevent confusion with blacktip sharks. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the rule is to establish consistency with federal rules in order to prevent angler confusion. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that bull and blacktip sharks eat his fish and the possession limits for those species should be increased. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that sharks are an important species in marine ecosystems and their protection and sustainability are important. The shark fishery also provides for a significant commercial and recreational fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that all shark species should be regulated by a slot limit within minimum and maximum length limits. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the proposed rule is based on the selection of a minimum size limit to reach the goals of established rebuilding plans. Consistency supports the rebuilding plans and ensures that the goals of the plan will be met while preventing angler confusion and the difficulties of differential enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the shark fishery should be closed. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no biological justification for closing the shark fishery and the department is required to provide opportunity if it can be done without causing depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 735 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The Ocean Conservancy commented in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 47 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.73, which creates licensure requirements for fishing guides who use paddle craft. Of those commenters, nine elaborated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments follow, accompanied by the department's response to each.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the public does not need more government licenses. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that this is allowing a guide who operates from paddle craft alone to obtain this license instead of obtaining the current fishing guide license. This is not requiring an additional license. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that if a person wants to be a guide, they should be allowed to guide. The department agrees with the comment and this rule provides different and more appropriate training requirements for a paddle craft guide. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are too many guides and there is no need for more. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it does not have the statutory authority to limit the number of persons who guide. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the number of guides should be limited by the department because guides are commercial fishermen who plunder state resources. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it does not have the statutory authority to limit the number of persons who guide. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that if the department believes there are "unique safety issues associated with the operation of paddle craft are not currently addressed by USCG training and licensure standards," then why does the rules allow a person who holds an all-water guide license to operate as a guide in either a motorized or a non-motorized craft without the necessity of obtaining a paddle-craft license. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the current training has more emphasis on power boat safety, CPR and first aid components and also information on basic boating rules. This training while not unique covers many of the water safety and boating safety aspects. Those who already have this training and have been guiding on boats and paddlecraft would not need to be licensed in both though the department certainly encourages them to receive all available training. This license requirement was specifically designed for those who are only using paddle craft and would not also be using power boats. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that any person who seeks to guide from a paddle-craft should have to obtain the paddle-craft license. The department agrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that instead of creating a new license, the department should exempt paddle craft operators from the "power vessel" requirement and include training specific to paddlers under the present license. The department agrees with the comment and responds that fishing guides are required by statute to be licensed and that the rule does not create a new license but an alternative license. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that as written the requirements are redundant because the American Canoe Union will not certify anyone at level 3 without proof of the Level 2 skills. The department agrees with the comment and has made changes accordingly.
The department received 424 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
No groups or associations commented in support of or in opposition to adoption of the proposed amendment.
DIVISION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The amendment is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 47, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules governing the issuance and use of resident and nonresident fishing guide licenses, including rules creating separate fishing guide licenses for use in saltwater and freshwater.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903325
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The repeal is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.0188, which authorizes the commission to modify or eliminate the tagging requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.018; Parks and Wildlife Code; and Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life ay be hunted, taken, or possessed.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903329
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The amendments and new section are adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life ay be hunted, taken, or possessed.
§65.42.Deer.
(a) No person may exceed the applicable county bag limit or the annual bag limit of five white-tailed deer (no more than three bucks) and two mule deer (no more than one buck), except as provided by:
(1) §65.26 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)--White-tailed Deer);
(2) §65.34 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)--Mule Deer);
(3) §65.27 of this title (relating to Antlerless and Spike-Buck Deer Control Permits);
(4) §65.28 of this title (relating to Landowner Assisted Management Permits (LAMPS));
(5) an antlerless mule deer permit issued under §65.32 of this title (relating to Antlerless Mule Deer Permits);
(6) special permits under the provisions of Subchapter H of this chapter (relating to Public Lands Proclamation); or
(7) special antlerless permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for use on USFS lands that are part of the department's public hunting program.
(b) White-tailed deer. The open seasons, annual bag limits, and special provisions for white-tailed deer shall be as follows. If Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDPs) have been issued for a tract of land in any county, they must be attached to all deer harvested on the tract of land, regardless of season. An MLDP buck permit may not be used to harvest or tag an antlerless deer. An MLDP antlerless permit may not be used to tag a buck deer.
(1) In Aransas, Bee, Brooks, Calhoun, Cameron, Dimmit, Duval, Frio, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kinney (south of U.S. Highway 90), Kleberg, LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina (south of U.S. Highway 90), Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Uvalde (south of U.S. Highway 90), Val Verde (that southeastern portion located both south of U.S. Highway 90 and east of Spur 239), Webb, Willacy, Zapata, and Zavala counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the third Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: five deer, no more than three bucks.
(C) Special late general season. In the counties listed in this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless and spike-buck deer only. Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the third Sunday in January.
(D) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(2) In Atascosa County there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the third Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: five deer, no more than two bucks.
(C) Special late general season. In the counties listed in this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless and spike-buck deer only. Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the third Sunday in January.
(D) Special provisions.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In Atascosa County, a legal buck is a buck deer having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer. No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(3) In Bandera, Baylor, Bexar, Blanco, Burnet, Callahan, Coke, Coleman, Comal (west of Interstate 35), Concho, Crockett, Edwards, Gillespie, Glasscock, Haskell, Hays (west of Interstate 35), Howard, Irion, Jones, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney (north of U.S. Highway 90), Knox, Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Medina (north of U.S. Highway 90), Menard, Mitchell, Nolan, Pecos, Real, Reagan, Runnels, San Saba, Schleicher, Shackelford, Sterling, Sutton, Taylor, Terrell, Throckmorton, Tom Green, Travis (west of Interstate 35), Upton, Uvalde (north of U.S. Highway 90), Val Verde (north of U.S. Highway 90; and that portion located both south of U.S. 90 and west of Spur 239), and Wilbarger counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: five deer, no more than two bucks.
(C) Special late general season. In the counties listed in this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless and spike-buck deer only. Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.
(D) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(4) In Archer, Bell (west of IH 35), Bosque, Brown, Clay, Coryell, Hamilton, Hill, Jack, Lampasas, McLennan, Mills, Palo Pinto, Somervell, Stephens, Wichita, Williamson (west of IH 35) and Young counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: five deer, no more than two bucks.
(C) Special late general season. In the counties listed in this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless and spike-buck deer only. Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.
(D) Special provisions.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In the counties listed in this paragraph, a legal buck is a buck deer having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer. No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(5) In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dickens, Donley, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hardeman, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Ochiltree, Roberts, Scurry, Stonewall, and Wheeler counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: five deer, no more than one buck.
(C) Special late general season. In the counties listed in this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless and spike-buck deer only. Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.
(D) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(6) In Brewster, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Presidio, and Reeves counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: four deer, no more than two bucks.
(C) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(7) In Comanche, Cooke, Denton, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Montague, Parker, Tarrant, and Wise counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless.
(C) Special late general season. In the counties listed in this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless and spike-buck deer only. Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.
(D) Special provisions.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In the counties listed in this paragraph, a legal buck is a buck deer having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer.
(I) On USFS, Corps of Engineers, and river authority lands in the counties listed in this paragraph, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit only, except on USFS lands in Montague and Wise counties, where antlerless deer may be taken without permits from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day.
(II) On all tracts of land other than those listed in subclause (I) of this clause, no permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(8) In Angelina, Brazoria, Chambers, Cherokee, Fort Bend, Goliad (south of U.S. Highway 59), Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jackson (south if U.S. Highway 59), Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Matagorda, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, Victoria (south of U.S. Highway 59), Walker, and Wharton (south of U.S. Highway 59) counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: Four deer, no more than two bucks and no more than two antlerless.
(C) Special provisions.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In the counties listed in this paragraph, a legal buck is a buck having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer. If permits have been issued for the harvest of antlerless deer, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land.
(I) On USFS, Corps of Engineers, and river authority lands in the counties listed in this paragraph, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit only.
(II) On all other tracts of land in the counties listed in this paragraph, antlerless deer may be taken without permits from opening day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day. From the Monday immediately following Thanksgiving Day until the end of the season, antlerless deer may be taken by antlerless MLD permit or LAMPS permit only.
(III) On tracts of land for which LAMPS permits have been issued, no LAMPS permit is required for the harvest of antlerless deer during the archery-only or muzzleloader-only open season.
(9) In Bowie, Cass, Harrison, Marion, Nacogdoches, Panola, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, and Shelby counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: four deer, no more than two bucks and no more two antlerless.
(C) Special provisions.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In the counties listed in this paragraph, a legal buck is a buck deer having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer. If permits have been issued for the harvest of antlerless deer, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land.
(I) On USFS, Corps of Engineers, and river authority lands in the counties listed in this paragraph, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit only.
(II) On all other tracts of land in the counties listed in this paragraph, antlerless deer may be taken without permits during the first 16 days of the season. After the first 16 days of the season, antlerless deer may be taken by antlerless MLD permit or LAMPS permit only.
(III) On tracts of land for which LAMPS permits have been issued, no LAMPS permit is required for the harvest of antlerless deer during the archery-only or muzzleloader-only open season.
(10) In Anderson, Brazos, Camp, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Gregg, Grimes, Henderson, Hopkins, Hunt, Lamar, Leon, Madison, Morris, Rains, Red River, Robertson, Smith, Titus, Upshur, Van Zandt, and Wood counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: four deer, no more than two antlerless and no more than two bucks.
(C) Special provisions.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In the counties listed in this paragraph, a legal buck is a buck deer having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer. If permits have been issued for the harvest of antlerless deer, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land.
(I) On USFS, Corps of Engineers, and river authority lands in the counties listed in this paragraph, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit only, except in Fannin County.
(II) On all other tracts of land in the counties listed in this paragraph, antlerless deer may be taken without permits from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day. At all other times, antlerless deer may be taken by antlerless MLD permit or LAMPS permit only.
(III) On tracts of land for which LAMPS permits have been issued, no LAMPS permit is required for the harvest of antlerless deer during the archery-only or muzzleloader-only open season.
(11) In Grayson County there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: four deer, no more than two antlerless and no more than two bucks.
(C) Special provisions. Lawful means are restricted to lawful archery equipment and crossbows only, including MLDP properties.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In the counties listed in this paragraph, a legal buck is a buck deer having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer. Antlerless deer may be taken by MLD antlerless permits only. If permits have been issued for the harvest of antlerless deer, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land.
(12) In Austin, Bastrop, Bell (east of IH 35), Burleson, Caldwell, Colorado, Comal (east of IH 35), De Witt, Ellis, Falls, Fayette, Freestone, Goliad (north of U.S. Highway 59), Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hays (east of IH 35), Jackson (north of U.S. Highway 59), Karnes, Kaufman, Lavaca, Lee, Limestone, Milam, Navarro, Travis (east of IH 35), Victoria (north of U.S. Highway 59), Waller, Washington, Wharton (north of U.S. Highway 59), Williamson (east of IH 35) and Wilson counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: four deer, no more than two antlerless and no more than two bucks.
(C) Special provisions.
(i) Buck deer. The provisions of this clause do not apply on properties for which Level 2 or Level 3 MLDPs have been issued. In the counties listed in this paragraph, a legal buck is a buck deer having:
(I) at least one unbranched antler; or
(II) an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler. Not more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater may be taken.
(ii) Antlerless deer.
(I) Antlerless deer may be taken by MLD antlerless or LAMPS permits only.
(II) On tracts of land for which LAMPS permits have been issued, no LAMPS permit is required for the harvest of antlerless deer during the archery-only or muzzleloader-only open season.
(13) In Dallam, Dawson, Deaf Smith, Hansford, Hartley, Martin, Moore, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Sherman, and Swisher counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more than two antlerless.
(C) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(14) In Crane, Ector, Loving, Midland, and Ward counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: from the first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more than two antlerless.
(C) Antlerless deer may be taken by MLD antlerless or LAMPS permits only.
(15) In Andrews, Bailey, Castro, Cochran, Collin, Dallas, El Paso, Gaines, Galveston, Hale, Hockley, Hudspeth, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Parmer, Rockwall, Terry, Winkler, and Yoakum counties, there is no general open season.
(16) Archery-only open seasons. In all counties where there is a general open season for white-tailed deer, there is an archery-only open season during which either sex of white-tailed deer may be taken as provided for in §65.11(2) and (3) of this title (relating to Means and Methods).
(A) Open season: from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days.
(B) Bag limit: the bag limit in any given county is as provided for that county during the general open season.
(C) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP permits have been issued for the property.
(17) Muzzleloader-only open seasons, and bag and possession limits shall be as follows. In Angelina, Austin, Bastrop, Bowie, Brazoria, Brewster, Caldwell, Camp, Cass Chambers, Cherokee, Colorado, Culberson, DeWitt, Fayette, Fort Bend, Goliad, Gonzales, Gregg, Guadalupe, Hardin, Harris, Harrison, Houston, Jackson, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Jefferson, Karnes, Lavaca, Lee, Liberty, Marion, Matagorda, Montgomery, Morris, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Panola, Polk, Presidio, Reeves, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Victoria, Walker, Waller, Washington, Wharton, and Wilson counties, there is an open season during which deer may be taken only with a muzzleloader.
(A) Open Season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.
(B) Bag limit: as specified in this section for the general season in the county in which take occurs.
(C) Special provisions:
(i) Buck deer. In any given county, all restrictions established in this subsection for the take of buck deer during the general season remain in effect.
(ii) Antlerless deer. No permit is required for the take of antlerless deer, except:
(I) on properties for which antlerless MLDPs have been issued; and
(II) in the counties that are also listed in paragraph (12) of this section.
(18) Special Youth-Only Seasons. There shall be special youth-only general hunting seasons in all counties where there is a general open season for white-tailed deer.
(A) early open season: the Saturday and Sunday immediately before the first Saturday in November.
(B) late open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.
(C) Bag limits, provisions for the take of antlerless deer, and special requirements in the individual counties listed in paragraphs (1) - (14) of this subsection shall be as specified for the first two days of the general open season in those counties, except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph.
(D) Provisions for the take of antlerless deer in the individual counties listed in paragraph (10) of this subsection shall be as specified in those counties for the period of time from Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day.
(E) Licensed hunters 16 years of age or younger may hunt deer by any lawful means during the seasons established by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph.
(F) The stamp requirement of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter I, does not apply during the seasons established by this paragraph.
(c) Mule deer. The open seasons and annual bag limits for mule deer shall be as follows.
(1) In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Coke, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Scurry, Sherman, Stonewall, and Swisher counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: Saturday before Thanksgiving for 16 consecutive days.
(B) Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C) Antlerless deer may be taken only by Antlerless Mule Deer or MLD Permits.
(2) In Brewster, Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Ector, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Midland, Pecos, Presidio, Reagan, Reeves, Terrell, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, and Winkler counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: last Saturday in November for 16 consecutive days.
(B) Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C) Antlerless deer may be taken only by Antlerless Mule Deer or MLD Permits.
(3) In Andrews, Bailey, Cochran, Gaines, Hockley, Lamb, Martin, Parmer, Terry, and Yoakum counties, there is a general open season.
(A) Open season: Saturday before Thanksgiving for nine consecutive days.
(B) Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C) Antlerless deer may be taken by permit only.
(4) In all other counties, there is no general open season for mule deer.
(5) Archery-only open seasons and bag and possession limits shall be as follows. During an archery-only open season, deer may be taken only as provided for in §65.11(2) and (3) of this title (relating to Means and Methods). No antlerless permit is required unless MLD antlerless permits have been issued for the property.
(A) In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Coke, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crane, Crockett, Crosby, Culberson, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, Ector, El Paso, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hudspeth, Hutchinson, Jeff Davis, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Loving, Midland, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Presidio, Randall, Reagan, Reeves, Roberts, Scurry, Sherman, Stonewall, Swisher, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, and Winkler counties, there is an open season.
(i) Open season: from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days.
(ii) Bag limit: one buck deer.
(B) In Brewster, Pecos, and Terrell counties, there is an open season.
(i) Open season: from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days.
(ii) Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C) In all other counties, there is no archery-only open season for mule deer.
§65.64.Turkey.
(a) The annual bag limit for Rio Grande and Eastern turkey, in the aggregate, is four, no more than one of which may be an Eastern turkey.
(b) Rio Grande Turkey. The open seasons and bag limits for Rio Grande turkey shall be as follows.
(1) Fall seasons and bag limits:
(A) In Aransas, Atascosa, Bee, Calhoun, Cameron, Dimmit, Duval, Frio, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kinney (south of U.S. Highway 90), LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina (south of U.S. Highway 90), Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Uvalde (south of U.S. Highway 90), Val Verde (in that southeastern portion located both south of U.S. Highway 90 and east of Spur 239), Webb, Zapata, and Zavala counties, there is a fall general open season.
(i) Open season: first Saturday in November through the third Sunday in January.
(ii) Bag limit: four turkeys, gobblers or bearded hens.
(B) In Brooks, Kenedy, Kleberg, and Willacy counties, there is a fall general open season.
(i) Open season: first Saturday in November through the last Sunday in February.
(ii) Bag limit: four turkeys, either sex.
(C) In Archer, Armstrong, Bandera, Baylor, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Borden, Bosque, Briscoe, Brown, Burnet, Callahan, Carson, Childress, Clay, Coke, Coleman, Collingsworth, Comal, Comanche, Concho, Cooke, Coryell, Cottle, Crane, Crockett, Crosby, Dawson, Denton, Dickens, Donley, Eastland, Ector, Edwards, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gillespie, Glasscock, Goliad, Gonzales, Gray, Hall, Hamilton, Hardeman, Hartley, Haskell, Hays, Hemphill, Hill, Hood, Howard, Hutchinson, Irion, Jack, Johnson, Jones, Karnes, Kendall, Kent, Kerr, Kimble, King, Kinney (north of U.S. Highway 90), Knox, Lipscomb, Lampasas, Llano, Lynn, Martin, Mason, McCulloch, McLennan, Medina (north of U.S. Highway 90), Menard, Midland, Mills, Mitchell, Montague, Moore, Motley, Nolan, Ochiltree, Oldham, Palo Pinto, Parker, Pecos, Potter, Randall, Reagan, Real, Roberts, Runnels, Sutton, San Saba, Schleicher, Scurry, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling, Stonewall, Swisher, Tarrant, Taylor, Terrell, Throckmorton, Tom Green, Travis, Upton, Uvalde (north of U.S. Highway 90), Ward, Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, Val Verde (that portion located north of U.S. Highway 90; and that portion located both south of U.S. Highway 90 and west of Spur 239), and Young counties, there is a fall general open season.
(i) Open season: first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.
(ii) Bag limit: four turkeys, either sex.
(2) Archery-only season and bag limits. In all counties where there is a general fall season for turkey there is an open season during which turkey may be taken only as provided for in §65.11(2) and (3) of this title (relating to Means and Methods).
(A) Open season: from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days.
(B) Bag limit: in any given county, the annual bag limit is as provided by this section for the fall general season in that county.
(3) Spring season and bag limits.
(A) In Archer, Armstrong, Baylor, Bell, Borden, Bosque, Briscoe, Brown, Burnet, Callahan, Carson, Childress, Clay, Coke, Coleman, Collingsworth, Comanche, Concho, Cooke, Coryell, Cottle, Crane, Crosby, Dawson, Denton, Dickens, Donley, Eastland, Ector, Ellis, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Glasscock, Gray, Hall, Hamilton, Hardeman, Hartley, Haskell, Hemphill, Hill, Hood, Howard, Hutchinson, Irion, Jack, Johnson, Jones, Kent, King, Knox, Lampasas, Lipscomb, Llano, Lynn, Martin, Mason, McCulloch, McLennan, Menard, Midland, Mills, Mitchell, Montague, Moore, Motley, Nolan, Ochiltree, Oldham, Palo Pinto, Parker, Potter, Randall, Reagan, Roberts, Runnels, San Saba, Schleicher, Scurry, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling, Stonewall, Swisher, Tarrant, Taylor, Throckmorton, Tom Green, Travis, Upton, Ward, Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson, Wise, and Young counties, there is a spring general open season.
(i) Open season: Saturday closest to April 1 for 44 consecutive days.
(ii) Bag limit: four turkeys, gobblers only.
(B) In Aransas, Atascosa, Bandera, Bee, Bexar, Blanco, Brewster, Brooks, Calhoun, Cameron, Comal, Crockett, DeWitt, Dimmit, Duval, Edwards, Frio, Gillespie, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hays, Hidalgo, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kenedy, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Kleberg, LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina, Nueces, Pecos, Real, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Sutton, Terrell, Uvalde, Val Verde, Victoria, Webb, Willacy, Wilson, Zapata, and Zavala counties, there is a spring general open season.
(i) Open season: Saturday closest to March 18 for 44 consecutive days.
(ii) Bag limit: four turkeys, gobblers only.
(C) In Bastrop, Caldwell, Colorado, Fayette, Jackson, Lavaca, Lee, and Milam counties, there is a spring general open season.
(i) Open season: from April 1 through April 30.
(ii) Bag limit: one turkey, gobblers only.
(4) Special Youth-Only Seasons. Only licensed hunters 16 years of age or younger may hunt during the seasons established by this subsection.
(A) There shall be a special youth-only fall general hunting season in all counties where there is a fall general open season.
(i) open season: the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) immediately preceding the first Saturday in November, and the third weekend (Saturday and Sunday) in January.
(ii) bag limit: as specified for individual counties in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(B) There shall be special youth-only spring general open hunting seasons for Rio Grande turkey in the counties listed in paragraph (3)(A) and (B) of this subsection.
(i) open seasons: the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) immediately preceding the first day of the general open spring season and the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) immediately following the close of the general open spring season.
(ii) bag limit: as specified for individual counties in paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) Eastern turkey. The open seasons and bag limits for Eastern turkey shall be as follows. In Angelina, Bowie, Brazoria, Camp, Cass, Cherokee, Delta, Fannin, Fort Bend, Franklin, Grayson, Gregg, Hardin, Harrison, Hopkins, Houston, Hunt, Jasper, Lamar, Liberty, Marion, Matagorda, Montgomery, Morris, Nacogdoches, Newton, Panola, Polk, Rains, Red River, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Smith, Titus, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur, Walker, Wharton, and Wood counties, there is a spring season during which both Rio Grande and Eastern turkey may be lawfully hunted.
(1) Open season: from April 1 for 30 consecutive days.
(2) Bag limit (both species combined): one turkey, gobbler only.
(3) In the counties listed in this subsection:
(A) it is unlawful to hunt turkey by any means other than a shotgun, lawful archery equipment, or crossbows;
(B) it is unlawful for any person to take or attempt to take turkeys by the aid of baiting, or on or over a baited area; and
(C) all turkeys harvested during the open season must be registered at designated check stations within 24 hours of the time of kill. Harvested turkeys may be field dressed but must otherwise remain intact.
(d) In all counties not listed in subsection (b) or (c) of this section, the season is closed for hunting turkey.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903330
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 47, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules governing the issuance and use of resident and nonresident fishing guide licenses, including rules creating separate fishing guide licenses for use in saltwater and freshwater; and Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life ay be hunted, taken, or possessed.
§65.72.Fish.
(a) General rules.
(1) There are no public waters closed to the taking and retaining of fish, except as provided in this subchapter.
(2) Game fish may be taken only by pole and line, except as provided in this subchapter.
(3) The bag and possession limits of this subchapter do not apply to the possession or landing of fish lawfully raised under an offshore aquaculture permit issued under Chapter 57, Subchapter C of this title (relating to Introduction of Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants).
(4) It is unlawful:
(A) to take or attempt to take, or possess fish within a protected length limit, in greater numbers, by other means, or at any time or place, other than as permitted under this subchapter;
(B) while fishing on or in public waters to have in possession fish in excess of the daily bag limit or fish within a protected length limit as established for those waters;
(C) to land by boat or person any fish within a protected length limit, or in excess of the daily bag limit or possession limit established for those fish;
(D) to use game fish or any part thereof as bait, except for processed catfish heads used as crab-trap bait by a licensed crab fisherman, provided the catfish is obtained from an aquaculture facility permitted to operate in the United States. A person who uses catfish as bait under this subparagraph shall, upon the request of a department employee acting within the scope of official duties, furnish appropriate authenticating documentation, such as a bill of sale or receipt, to prove that the catfish was obtained from a legal source.
(E) to possess a finfish of any species, except broadbill swordfish, shark or king mackerel, taken from public water that has the head or tail removed until such person finally lands the catch on the mainland, a peninsula, or barrier island not including jetties or piers and does not transport the catch by boat;
(F) to use any vessel to harass fish; or
(G) to release into the public waters of this state a fish with a device or substance implanted or attached that is designed, constructed or adapted to produce an audible, visual, or electronic signal used to monitor, track, follow, or in any manner aid in the location of the released fish.
(5) Finfish tags: Prohibited Acts.
(A) No person may purchase or use more finfish (red drum) tags during a license year than the number and type authorized by the commission, excluding duplicate tags issued under Parks and Wildlife Code, §46.006.
(B) It is unlawful to:
(i) use the same finfish tag for the purpose of tagging more than one finfish;
(ii) use a finfish tag in the name of another person;
(iii) use a tag on a finfish for which another tag is specifically required;
(iv) catch and retain a finfish required to be tagged and fail to immediately attach and secure a tag, with the day and month of catch cut out, to the finfish at the narrowest part of the finfish tail, just ahead of the tail fin;
(v) have in possession both a Red Drum Tag and a Duplicate Red Drum Tag issued to the same license or salt water stamp holder;
(vi) have in possession both a Red Drum Tag or a Duplicate Red Drum Tag and a Bonus Red Drum Tag issued to the same license or salt water stamp holder;
(vii) have in possession both an Exempt Red Drum Tag and a Duplicate Exempt Red Drum Tag issued to the same license holder; or
(viii) have in possession both an Exempt Red Drum Tag or a Duplicate Exempt Red Drum Tag and a Bonus Red Drum Tag issued to the same holder.
(6) Commercial fishing seasons.
(A) The commercial seasons for finfish species listed in this paragraph and caught in Texas waters shall run concurrently with commercial seasons established for the same species caught in federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
(B) The commercial fishing season in the EEZ will be set by the National Marine Fisheries Service for:
(i) red snapper under guidelines established by the Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish Resources for the Gulf of Mexico. No person may land red snapper in Texas for commercial purposes unless that person is in compliance with the provisions of this clause.
(I) Requirement for Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) vessel endorsement and allocation. No person aboard any vessel shall sell, barter, trade, or exchange red snapper; land or attempt to land red snapper for the purpose of sale, barter, trade, or exchange; or possess red snapper for the purpose of sale, barter, trade, or exchange unless the person possesses a valid federal permit for the harvest of Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish and a valid federal red snapper Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) vessel endorsement.
(-a-) No person shall harvest or land red snapper for the purpose of sale, barter, trade, or exchange, without holding or being assigned federal IFQ allocation at least equal to the pounds of red snapper landed/docked at a shore side location.
(-b-) At-sea or dockside transfer of red snapper from one vessel to another vessel for the purpose of sale, barter, trade, or exchange, is prohibited.
(-c-) Except as provided in this subparagraph, no person shall purchase, sell, exchange, barter, or attempt to purchase, sell, exchange, or barter any red snapper in excess of any possession limit for which federal commercial license, permit, and appropriate allocation were issued.
(-d-) On the last fishing trip of the year, a vessel may exceed by 10% the remaining IFQ allocation.
(II) Offloading and transfer. During the hours from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. (local time), no person shall offload from a vessel or receive from a vessel red snapper harvested for the purpose of sale, barter, trade, or exchange. No person who is in charge of a commercial red snapper fishing vessel shall offload red snapper from the vessel prior to three hours after proper notification is made to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries.
(III) Recreational limits. Persons aboard a vessel for which permits indicate both charter vessel/headboat for Gulf reef fish and commercial Gulf reef fish may retain reef fish under the recreational take and possession limits specified in subsection (b) of this section, provided the vessel is operating as a validly licensed charter vessel or headboat with prepaid recreational charter fishermen aboard the vessel.
(IV) VMS requirement. No person shall harvest red snapper for the purpose of sale, barter, trade or exchange, from a vessel unless that vessel is equipped with a fully operational and federally approved Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) device. Approved devices are those devices approved by NOAA Fisheries and operating under the requirements mandated by NOAA Fisheries.
(V) Requirement for IFQ dealer endorsement. In addition to the requirement for a federal dealer permit for Gulf reef fish, a dealer must have a federal Gulf red snapper IFQ dealer endorsement in order to receive Gulf red snapper from a commercial fishing vessel. A person aboard a vessel with a federal Gulf red snapper IFQ vessel endorsement must also have a federal Gulf red snapper IFQ dealer endorsement to sell to anyone other than a permitted dealer.
(VI) Requirement for transaction approval code. The owner or operator of a vessel landing red snapper for the purpose of sale, barter, trade, or exchange is responsible for calling National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Law Enforcement at least 3 hours, but no more than 12 hours, in advance of landing to report the time and location of landing and the name of the IFQ dealer where the red snapper are to be received. Failure to comply with this advance notice of landing requirement will preclude authorization to complete the required NMFS landing transaction report and, thus, will preclude issuance of the required NMFS-issued transaction approval code. Possession of red snapper for the purpose of sale, barter, trade, or exchange, from the time of transfer from a vessel through possession by a dealer is prohibited unless the red snapper are accompanied by a transaction approval code verifying a legal transaction of the amount of red snapper in possession.
(VII) Wholesale dealers. Wholesale dealers are required to comply with the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.019, when acquiring, purchasing, possessing, and selling red snapper. Wholesale dealers shall maintain approval codes issued by NOAA Fisheries associated with all transactions of red snapper on purchases and sales on records.
(VIII) Recreational limit. All persons aboard a vessel for which no commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Federal Fishery Management Plan for the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish resources are limited to the recreational bag limit specified in subsection (b) of this section for red snapper, and such fish may not be bartered or sold.
(ii) king mackerel under guidelines established by the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; and
(iii) sharks (all species, their hybrids and subspecies) under guidelines established by the Fishery Management Plan for Highly Migratory Species.
(C) When federal and/or state waters are closed, it will be unlawful to:
(i) purchase, barter, trade or sell finfish species listed in this paragraph landed in this state;
(ii) transfer at sea finfish species listed in this paragraph caught or possessed in the waters of this state; and
(iii) possess finfish species listed in this paragraph in excess of the current recreational bag or possession limit in or on the waters of this state.
(7) Menhaden.
(A) The commercial purse seine season for menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) is open beginning on the third Monday in April and will continue until whichever of the following first occurs:
(i) the annual landings limit for the season has been reached; or
(ii) the first day in November.
(B) The starting point (baseline) for calculating the annual landings limit for 2009 is 31,500,000 pounds. In 2010 and subsequent years, the baseline shall be adjusted upwards in the amount by which the actual catch in the previous season fell short of 31,500,000 pounds; however, the upward adjustment allowed under this subparagraph shall not exceed 3,150,000 pounds. In the event the actual catch in a season exceeds 31,500,000 pounds, a downward adjustment shall be made in the following season in the amount by which the baseline was exceeded in the previous season.
(C) Annual landings may exceed the amount established or calculated in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph by up to 10%.
(D) Landings will be tracked using the Captain Daily Fishing Reports or another tracking mechanism specified by TPWD.
(8) In Brewster, Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Ector, El Paso, Jeff Davis, Hudspeth, Kinney, Loving, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves, Terrell, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, and Winkler counties, the only fishes that may be used or possessed for bait while fishing are common carp, fathead minnows, gizzard and threadfin shad, sunfish (Lepomis), goldfish, golden shiners, Mexican tetra, Rio Grande cichlid, and silversides (Atherinidae family).
(b) Bag, possession, and length limits.
(1) The possession limit does not apply to fish in the possession of or stored by a person who has an invoice or sales ticket showing the name and address of the seller, number of fish by species, date of the sale, and other information required on a sales ticket or invoice.
(2) There are no bag, possession, or length limits on game or non-game fish, except as provided in these rules.
(A) Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit on game and non-game fish except as provided in these rules.
(B) For flounder, the possession limit is the daily bag limit.
(C) Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, the statewide daily bag and length limits shall be as follows.
Figure: 31 TAC §65.72(b)(2)(C)
(D) Exceptions to statewide daily bag, possession, and length limits shall be as follows:
(i) Freshwater species.
Figure: 31 TAC §65.72(b)(2)(D)(i)
(ii) Saltwater species
Figure: 31 TAC §65.72(b)(2)(D)(ii) (No change.)
(iii) Bag and possession limits for black drum and sheepshead do not apply to the holder of a valid Commercial Finfish Fisherman's License.
(iv) Fish caught in federal waters in compliance with a federal fishery management plan may be landed in Texas.
(v) The bag limit for a guided fishing party is equal to the total number of persons in the boat licensed to fish or otherwise exempt from holding a license minus each fishing guide and fishing guide deckhand multiplied by the bag limit for each species harvested.
(c) Devices, means and methods.
(1) In fresh water only, it is unlawful to fish with more than 100 hooks on all devices combined.
(2) Game and non-game fish may be taken by pole and line only in:
(A) community fishing lakes; however, on community fishing lakes that are not within or part of a state park, no person may employ more than two devices (i.e., poles or lines) at the same time;
(B) sections of rivers lying totally within the boundaries of state parks;
(C) Lake Pflugerville (Travis County);
(D) the North Concho River (Tom Green County) from O.C. Fisher Dam to Bell Street Dam; and
(E) the South Concho River (Tom Green County) from Lone Wolf Dam to Bell Street Dam.
(3) It is unlawful to take, attempt to take, or possess fish caught in public waters of this state by any device, means, or method other than as authorized in this subsection.
(4) In salt water only, it is unlawful to fish with any device that is marked with a buoy made of a plastic bottle(s) of any color or size.
(5) Device restrictions.
(A) Cast net. It is unlawful to use a cast net exceeding 14 feet in diameter.
(i) Only non-game fish may be taken with a cast net.
(ii) In salt water, non-game fish may be taken for bait purposes only.
(B) Dip net.
(i) It is unlawful to use a dip net except:
(I) to aid in the landing of fish caught on other legal devices; and
(II) to take non-game fish.
(ii) In salt water, non-game fish may be taken for bait purposes only.
(C) Gaff.
(i) It is unlawful to use a gaff except to aid in landing fish caught by other legal devices, means or methods.
(ii) Fish landed with a gaff may not be below the minimum, above the maximum, or within a protected length limit.
(D) Gig. Only non-game fish may be taken with a gig.
(E) Jugline. For use in fresh water only. Non-game fish, channel catfish, blue catfish and flathead catfish may be taken with a jugline. It is unlawful to use a jugline:
(i) with invalid gear tags. Gear tags must be attached within six inches of the free-floating device, are valid for 30 days after the date set out, and must include the number of the permit to sell non-game fish taken from freshwater, if applicable;
(ii) for commercial purposes that is not marked with an orange free-floating device;
(iii) for non-commercial purposes that is not marked with a white free-floating device;
(iv) in Lake Bastrop in Bastrop County, Bellwood Lake in Smith County, Lake Bryan in Brazos County, Boerne City Park Lake in Kendall County, Lakes Coffee Mill and Davy Crockett in Fannin County, Dixieland Reservoir in Cameron County, Gibbons Creek Reservoir in Grimes County, and Tankersley Reservoir in Titus County.
(F) Lawful archery equipment. Only non-game fish may be taken with lawful archery equipment or crossbow.
(G) Minnow trap (fresh water and salt water).
(i) Only non-game fish may be taken with a minnow trap.
(ii) It is unlawful to use a minnow trap that exceeds 24 inches in length or with a throat larger than one by three inches.
(H) Perch traps. For use in salt water only.
(i) Perch traps may be used only for taking non-game fish.
(ii) It is unlawful to fish a perch trap that:
(I) exceeds 18 cubic feet in volume;
(II) is not equipped with a degradable panel. A trap shall be considered to have a degradable panel if one of the following methods is used in construction of the trap:
(-a-) the trap lid tie-down strap is secured to the trap by a loop of untreated jute twine (comparable to Lehigh brand #530) or sisal twine (comparable to Lehigh brand #390). The trap lid must be secured so that when the twine degrades, the lid will no longer be securely closed; or
(-b-) the trap lid tie-down strap is secured to the trap by a loop of untreated steel wire with a diameter of no larger than 20 gauge. The trap lid must be secured so that when the wire degrades, the lid will no longer be securely closed; or
(-c-) the trap contains at least one sidewall, not including the bottom panel, with a rectangular opening no smaller than 3 inches by 6 inches. Any obstruction placed in this opening may not be secured in any manner except:
(-1-) it may be laced, sewn, or otherwise obstructed by a single length of untreated jute twine (comparable to Lehigh brand #530) or sisal twine (comparable to Lehigh brand #390) knotted only at each end and not tied or looped more than once around a single mesh bar. When the twine degrades, the opening in the sidewall of the trap will no longer be obstructed; or
(-2-) it may be laced, sewn, or otherwise obstructed by a single length of untreated steel wire with a diameter of no larger than 20 gauge. When the wire degrades, the opening in the sidewall of the trap will no longer be obstructed; or
(-3-) the obstruction may be loosely hinged at the bottom of the opening by no more than two untreated steel hog rings and secured at the top of the obstruction in no more than one place by a single length of untreated jute twine (comparable to Lehigh brand #530), sisal twine (comparable to Lehigh brand #390), or by a single length of untreated steel wire with a diameter of no larger than 20 gauge. When the twine or wire degrades, the obstruction will hinge downward and the opening in the sidewall of the trap will no longer be obstructed.
(III) that is not marked with a floating visible orange buoy not less than six inches in height and six inches in width. The buoy must have a gear tag attached. Gear tags are valid for 30 days after date set out.
(I) Pole and line.
(i) Game and non-game fish may be taken by pole and line. It is unlawful to take or attempt to take fish with one or more hooks attached to a line or artificial lure used in a manner to foul-hook a fish (snagging or jerking). A fish is foul-hooked when caught by a hook in an area other than the fish's mouth.
(ii) Game and nongame fish may be taken by pole and line. It is unlawful to take fish with a hand-operated device held underwater except that a spear gun and spear may be used to take nongame fish.
(iii) Game and non-game fish may be taken by pole and line, except that in the Guadalupe River in Comal County from the second bridge crossing on River Road upstream to the easternmost bridge crossing on F.M. Road 306, rainbow and brown trout may not be retained when taken by any method except artificial lures. Artificial lures cannot contain or have attached either whole or portions, living or dead, of organisms such as fish, crayfish, insects (grubs, larvae, or adults), or worms, or any other animal or vegetable material, or synthetic scented materials. This does not prohibit the use of artificial lures that contain components of hair or feathers. It is an offense to possess rainbow and brown trout while fishing with any other device in that part of the Guadalupe River defined in this paragraph.
(J) Purse seine (net).
(i) Purse seines may be used only for taking menhaden, only from that portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of this state extending from one-half mile offshore to nine nautical miles offshore.
(ii) Purse seines used for taking menhaden may not be used within one mile of any jetty or pass.
(iii) The purse seine, not including the bag, shall not be less than three-fourths inch square mesh.
(K) Sail line. For use in salt water only.
(i) Non-game fish, red drum, spotted seatrout, and sharks may be taken with a sail line.
(ii) Line length shall not exceed 1,800 feet from the reel to the sail.
(iii) The sail and most shoreward float must be a highly visible orange or red color. All other floats must be yellow.
(iv) No float on the line may be more than 200 feet from the sail.
(v) A weight of not less than one ounce shall be attached to the line not less than four feet or more than six feet shoreward of the last shoreward float.
(vi) Reflectors of not less than two square inches shall be affixed to the sail and floats and shall be visible from all directions for sail lines operated from 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise.
(vii) There is no hook spacing requirement for sail lines.
(viii) No more than one sail line may be used per fisherman.
(ix) Sail lines may not be used by the holder of a commercial fishing license.
(x) Sail lines must be attended at all times the line is fishing.
(xi) Sail lines may not have more than 30 hooks and no hook may be placed more than 200 feet from the sail.
(L) Seine.
(i) Only non-game fish may be taken with a seine.
(ii) It is unlawful to use a seine:
(I) which is not manually operated.
(II) with mesh exceeding 1/2-inch square.
(III) that exceeds 20 feet in length.
(iii) In salt water, non-game fish may be taken by seine for bait purposes only.
(M) Shad trawl. For use in fresh water only.
(i) Only non-game fish may be taken with a shad trawl.
(ii) It is unlawful to use a shad trawl longer than six feet or with a mouth larger than 36 inches in diameter.
(iii) A shad trawl may be equipped with a funnel or throat and must be towed by boat or by hand.
(N) Spear. Only non-game fish may be taken with a spear.
(O) Spear gun. Only non-game fish may be taken with spear gun.
(P) Throwline. For use in fresh water only.
(i) Non-game fish, channel catfish, blue catfish and flathead catfish may be taken with a throwline.
(ii) It is unlawful to use a throwline in Lake Bastrop in Bastrop County, Bellwood Lake in Smith County, Lake Bryan in Brazos County, Boerne City Park Lake in Kendall County, Lakes Coffee Mill and Davy Crockett in Fannin County, Dixieland Reservoir in Cameron County, Gibbons Creek Reservoir in Grimes County, and Tankersley Reservoir in Titus County.
(Q) Trotline.
(i) Non-game fish, channel catfish, blue catfish, and flathead catfish may be taken by trotline.
(ii) It is unlawful to use a trotline:
(I) with a mainline length exceeding 600 feet;
(II) with invalid gear tags. Gear tags must be attached within three feet of the first hook at each end of the trotline and are valid for 30 days after date set out, except on saltwater trotlines, a gear tag is not required to be dated;
(III) with hook interval less than three horizontal feet;
(IV) with metallic stakes; or
(V) with the main fishing line and attached hooks and stagings above the water's surface.
(iii) In fresh water, it is unlawful to use a trotline:
(I) with more than 50 hooks;
(II) in Gibbons Creek Reservoir in Grimes County, Lake Bastrop in Bastrop County, Lakes Coffee Mill and Davy Crockett in Fannin County, Fayette County Reservoir in Fayette County, Pinkston Reservoir in Shelby County, Lake Bryan in Brazos County, Bellwood Lake in Smith County, Dixieland Reservoir in Cameron County, Boerne City Park Lake in Kendall County, and Tankersley Reservoir in Titus County.
(iv) In salt water:
(I) it is unlawful to use a trotline:
(-a-) in or on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of this state;
(-b-) from which red drum, sharks or spotted seatrout caught on the trotline are retained or possessed;
(-c-) placed closer than 50 feet from any other trotline, or set within 200 feet of the edge of the Intracoastal Waterway or its tributary channels. No trotline may be fished with the main fishing line and attached hooks and stagings above the water's surface;
(-d-) baited with other than natural bait, except sail lines;
(-e-) with hooks other than circle-type hook with point curved in and having a gap (distance from point to shank) of no more than one-half inch, and with the diameter of the circle not less than five-eighths inch. Sail lines are excluded from the restrictions imposed by this clause; or
(-f-) in Aransas County in Little Bay and the water area of Aransas Bay within one-half mile of a line from Hail Point on the Lamar Peninsula, then direct to the eastern end of Goose Island, then along the southern shore of Goose Island, then along the causeway between Lamar Peninsula and Live Oak Peninsula, then along the eastern shoreline of the Live Oak Peninsula past the town of Fulton, past Nine-Mile Point, past the town of Rockport to a point at the east end of Talley Island, including that part of Copano Bay within 1,000 feet of the causeway between Lamar Peninsula and Live Oak Peninsula.
(II) No trotline or trotline components, including lines and hooks, but excluding poles, may be left in or on coastal waters between the hours of 1:00 p.m. on Friday through 1:00 p.m. on Sunday of each week, except that attended sail lines are excluded from the restrictions imposed by this clause. Under the authority of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.206(b), in the event small craft advisories or higher marine weather advisories issued by the National Weather Service are in place at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, trotlines may remain in the water until 6:00 p.m. on Friday. If small craft advisories are in place at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, trotlines may remain in the water until Saturday. When small craft advisories are lifted by 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, trotlines must be removed by 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. When smallcraft advisories are lifted by 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, trotlines must be removed by 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. When small craft advisories or higher marine weather advisories are still in place at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, trotlines may remain in the water through 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. It is a violation to tend, bait, or harvest fish or any other aquatic life from trotlines during the period that trotline removal requirements are suspended under this provision for adverse weather conditions. For purposes of enforcement, the geographic area customarily covered by marine weather advisories will be delineated by department policy.
(III) It is unlawful to fish for commercial purposes with:
(-a-) more than 20 trotlines at one time;
(-b-) any trotline that is not marked with yellow flagging attached to stakes or with a floating yellow buoy not less than six inches in height, six inches in length, and six inches in width attached to end fixtures;
(-c-) any trotline that is not marked with yellow flagging attached to stakes or with a yellow buoy bearing the commercial finfish fisherman's license plate number in letters of a contrasting color at least two inches high attached to end fixtures;
(-d-) any trotline that is marked with yellow flagging or with a buoy bearing a commercial finfish fisherman's license plate number other than the commercial finfish fisherman's license plate number displayed on the finfish fishing boat;
(IV) It is unlawful to fish for non-commercial purposes with:
(-a-) more than 1 trotline at any time; or
(-b-) any trotline that is not marked with a floating yellow buoy not less than six inches in height, six inches in length, and six inches in width, bearing a two-inch wide stripe of contrasting color, attached to end fixtures.
(R) Umbrella net.
(i) Only non-game fish may be taken with an umbrella net.
(ii) It is unlawful to use an umbrella net with the area within the frame exceeding 16 square feet.
§65.73.Fishing Guide License--Required Documentation.
(a) No person shall engage in business as a fishing guide in the coastal waters of this state unless that person possesses a fishing guide license and has paid the appropriate licensure fee for saltwater use.
(b) No person operating a vessel or boat as a fishing guide on or in the coastal waters of this state may be issued a Fishing Guide license unless the person presents documentation to the license deputy that the applicant possesses a valid and appropriate U.S. Coast Guard Operator's License.
(c) No person shall engage in business as a paddle craft fishing guide in the coastal waters of this state unless that person possesses a Paddle Craft All-Water Guide license or an All Water Guide license and has paid the appropriate license fee.
(d) No person may be issued a Paddle Craft All-Water Guide license unless the person possesses proof that the person has successfully completed:
(1) training in CPR and First Aid from a department-approved organization;
(2) a department-approved boater education course or equivalency examination; and
(3) the "Four Star Leader Sea Kayak" training from the British Canoe Union; or
(4) "Coastal Kayak Day Trip Leading" from the American Canoe Association.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 3, 2009.
TRD-200903328
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: August 23, 2009
Proposal publication date: February 20, 2009
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775