Part 2. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

Chapter 65. WILDLIFE

Subchapter A. STATEWIDE HUNTING AND FISHING PROCLAMATION

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the repeal of §65.42, amendments to §§65.1, 65.3, 65.10, 65.19, 65.24 - 65.26, 65.56, 65.64, 65.72, and 65.82, and new §65.34 and §65.42, concerning the Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation. The amendments to §65.24 and §65.25, and new §65.42 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 25, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 1028). The repeal of §65.42, the amendments to §§65.1, 65.3, 65.10, 65.19, 65.26, 65.56, 65.64, 65.72, and 65.82, and new §65.34 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.

The change to §65.24, concerning Permits, replaces the word "appeal" with the word "review." The change is necessary because use of the term "appeal" could give the impression that the process is a judicial proceeding, which it is not.

The change to §65.25, concerning Wildlife Management Plan (WMP), eliminates proposed new subsection (c), which would have implemented management plan criteria for quail. After deliberating the proposal, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission directed staff to remove the proposed new subsection for further refinement.

The change to §65.42 removes Burleson and Milam counties from the provisions of subsection (b)(10) and adds them to the provisions of subsection (b)(11). In the reorganization of the section, Burleson and Milam counties were inadvertently included with the counties with four 'doe days.' The take of antlerless deer in Burleson and Milam counties should be by permit only.

The repeal of §65.42 is necessary to replace the current section with a restructured section that is easier to reference.

The amendment to §65.1, concerning Application, which adds new subsection (c) to specify that the season lengths and bag limits created by the subchapter do not apply to special drawn hunts conducted by the department on units of public lands, is necessary to prevent confusion. Hunting regulations for public hunting lands are established pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 81.

The amendment to §65.3, concerning Definitions, adds a definition of the term 'unbranched antler.' The amendment is necessary to create an unambiguous standard for enforcement purposes, because another portion of this rulemaking imposes antler restrictions that are conditioned by the term. The amendment also alters the definition of "fishing guide," which is necessary to conform the regulatory definition with the statutory definition in Parks and Wildlife Code.

The amendment to §65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources, makes the provisions of subsection (b), which exempt persons under certain circumstances from the tagging requirements relative to deer, applicable to mule deer taken by Managed Lands Deer Permit (MLDP). The amendment is necessary because new §65.34 creates a Managed Lands Deer Permit for mule deer and the department intends to make the tagging rules for mule deer the same as those already in existence for white-tailed deer. The department in April of 2004 adopted rules to eliminate 'double tagging' (under previous rules, deer taken on MLDP properties were required to be tagged with both an MLDP tag and a license tag). The amendment requires a single tag to be attached to mule deer taken on MLDP properties. The amendment also clarifies the provisions of subsection (f), which establishes the conditions under which persons may possess wildlife resources in excess of bag limits or that were taken by other persons. The amendment changes subsection (f) to clarify that if a person in possession of a wildlife resource is the person who took the wildlife resource, that person does not need to possess a wildlife resource document, provided the person is in compliance with all other applicable laws. The amendment is necessary to prevent confusion. The amendment also alters the provisions of subsection (h)(4) to insert the effective date of the section, now that it is definitively known. The amendment is necessary for the convenience of persons that may be affected by the effective date of the subsection.

The amendment to §65.19, concerning Hunting Deer With Dogs, removes Hunt and Washington counties from the list of counties where it is unlawful to use dogs to track wounded deer. The amendment is necessary because the department has determined that the practice of hunting deer with dogs (i.e., the use of dogs to hunt deer, rather than track wounded deer), which originally prompted a ban on the use of dogs in some counties, has declined in the named counties to the point that the regulation is no longer required; therefore, the rule is unnecessary.

The amendment to §65.24, concerning Permits, creates a review process for department decisions concerning the issuance of Managed Lands Deer Permits and Antlerless and Spike-buck Control Permits. The proposal is the result of a recommendation by the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee (WTDAC), a group of deer managers, landowners, and hunters appointed by the Chairman of the Parks and Wildlife Commission to study issues involving white-tailed deer and make recommendations. The amendment allows persons who have been denied issuance of permits to request a review of the decision by a panel of senior TPWD managers. The process allows the department to reverse such decisions upon review, and requires the department to report annually to the WTDAC on the number and disposition of all reviews. The amendment is necessary because the department agrees with the recommendation of the WTDAC.

The amendment to §65.25, concerning Wildlife Management Plan (WMP), creates a set of criteria for wildlife management plans that address lesser prairie chicken. Long-term data indicate a declining population trend for lesser prairie chicken, not only in Texas but also throughout much of their historic range. There is an ongoing multi-state effort to manage the remaining lesser prairie chickens, and the department wishes to begin collecting additional data to assist in that effort. The amendment is necessary to do that. The amendment requires a habitat evaluation, five habitat management practices, and population and harvest data for each property where lesser prairie chicken are to be hunted. By conditioning the hunting of lesser prairie chicken on landowner agreement to manage habitat and harvest, the department is assured that harvest will not exceed biologically acceptable levels. By collecting valuable biological information on a property-by-property basis, the department will be much better able to assist in formulating a strategy for habitat protection and restoration.

The amendment to §65.26, concerning Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLD) Permits, amends the title of the section to reflect that the section affects only white-tailed deer, removes all references to mule deer, and makes several nonsubstantive grammatical changes throughout the section for consistency and simplification. The amendment is necessary to make the section agree with new §65.34, which creates a separate section addressing MLDPs for mule deer.

New §65.34, concerning Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)--Mule Deer, creates an MLDP program for mule deer. In general, the new section will function by creating an incentive-based, habitat-focused permit program to facilitate the management goals of landowners and land managers by providing increased harvest flexibility under department-established harvest quotas and habitat management practices.

New §65.42, concerning Deer, is necessary in general to simplify and restructure regulations governing deer seasons and to manage wildlife resources more effectively in areas where biological data indicate the need for population reduction or control. The new section consists of several actions, as follows.

The new section eliminates aggregate bag limits in counties with one- and two-buck bag limits. The department in 1989 implemented what is popularly referred to as the 'aggregate bag limit' rule, which designated a number of one-buck counties, primarily in the eastern third of the state, from which, in the aggregate, a hunter could take no more than one buck. For example, if a hunter took a buck in Nacogdoches County (one-buck bag limit), that hunter could not take another buck in any other county affected by the aggregate bag limit rule. At the time, the department's intent was to prevent the overharvest of buck deer in regions of the state where populations were low or hunting pressure was high with respect to abundance. In 1999, in an effort to increase hunter opportunity, the department separated the aggregate one-buck counties into two zones divided by Interstate Highway 35, allowing a hunter to harvest a buck from each zone. Harvest and population data from counties on either side of the I-35 dividing line, counties which by their proximity to each other were the likeliest to incur greater buck harvest, indicates no significant deviation from historical trends over the period from 1999 to the present. The department is therefore eliminating the aggregate bag limit, meaning that a hunter could take the statewide personal bag limit of three bucks by taking one buck in each of three one-buck counties. A similar provision applied to counties with a two-buck bag limit (i.e., a hunter could take one buck in two two-buck counties, or two bucks in a single two-buck county, but could not take a third buck in another two-buck county). The department's concern in this case was that hunters would focus on taking a third buck, which could lead to an unwanted decline in doe harvest. Analysis of harvest data indicates that this concern may not be as pressing as originally thought; therefore, the aggregate two-buck bag limit is being eliminated as well. Therefore, this portion of the new section is necessary to reduce regulatory complexity.

The new section also implements alterations of 'doe-day' (time periods when it is lawful to take antlerless deer without a permit) rules. Prior to this rulemaking, there were five 'doe day' packages: 4, 9, 16, 23, or 23-plus days (the 23-plus package allows the take of does until the Sunday following Thanksgiving, which means the package length varies from year to year). The new section would eliminate the 9- and 23-day 'doe day' packages and increase the number of 'doe days' in many counties, and introduce 'doe days' in some counties where the take of antlerless deer currently is by permit only until now.

The new section implements four 'doe days' to take place from Thanksgiving Day to the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day in Bowie, Camp, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Grayson, Hopkins, Lamar, Morris, Red River, Titus, Upshur, and Wood counties, where antlerless take prior to this rulemaking was by permit only (i.e., there were no 'doe days'). The change is necessary to control increasing deer numbers and has the additional benefit of increasing hunter opportunity. Over the past ten years, deer populations in the affected counties have increased. Analysis of herd composition data in the affected counties shows a decreasing trend in the number of does per buck; however, the ratio remains unacceptably high, at approximately 4 - 5 does per buck (the target ratio is 1 - 2 does per buck). Hunter numbers in the affected counties have dropped considerably during the same time period, to about three-quarters of the total reported in 1993. These trends indicate that additional harvest is necessary to stabilize herd growth and protect habitat. The additional 'doe days' will allow the remaining hunters to more effectively manage population size and sex ratio.

The new section also increases the number of 'doe days' in Cass, Harrison, Marion, Nacogdoches, Panola, Sabine, San Augustine, and Shelby counties from four to 16. The action is necessary because department data indicate that deer populations in the affected counties remain above desired densities, sex ratios are becoming increasingly skewed, and, due to uncharacteristically wet and warm winters, fawn recruitment has increased significantly, which means that habitat degradation is imminent if deer populations are maintained at current levels. In addition, harvest has decreased slightly, which is additive to the potential problem. By increasing the antlerless harvest, the department intends to limit additional population growth in order to bring the deer population into equilibrium with habitat, provide additional hunter opportunity, and deflect some harvest pressure away from the younger age classes of the buck segment of the population in order to eventually bring sex ratios back to a biologically sound proportion.

The new section implements full-season, either-sex hunting in a number of counties in the Panhandle and northern Rolling Plains. Prior to this rulemaking, Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Crosby, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Hall, Hansford, Hutchinson, Jones, Knox, Ochiltree, Randall, Stonewall, and Swisher counties had 16 'doe days' and Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Dickens, Donley, Garza, Gray, Haskell, Hemphill, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Roberts, Scurry, and Wheeler counties had 23-plus 'doe days.' This portion of the new section is necessary because although distribution and population densities vary in these counties, the data from the majority of counties indicate a moderate to significant upward trend in deer populations over the last 13 years. Harvest data indicate a conservative harvest of antlerless deer in these counties. Given the population growth and historically moderate hunting pressure, the department anticipates that full-season either-sex hunting will provide additional hunter opportunity and enable more effective management of antlerless deer for habitat conservation while resulting in neither depletion nor waste.

The new section also increases the number of 'doe days' in Hardeman, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties from 16 to 23-plus. The change is necessary because survey results indicate that deer populations in those counties have increased over the past ten years. These counties had six 'doe days' from 1996 to 1999 and 16 'doe days' from 2000 to the present. Due to the fact that populations are increasing, the department believes that additional antlerless opportunity is required to allow managers to effectively manage antlerless deer populations, which should reduce potential negative habitat impacts.

The new section also increases the number of 'doe days' in Denton and Tarrant counties from nine to 16. The change is necessary because data indicate that the deer populations in these counties have increased significantly over the past ten years. These counties have had nine 'doe days' since 1996, but due to fragmented habitat patterns and relatively low hunter effort, the harvest of antlerless deer has been insufficient to prevent overpopulation and resultant habitat degradation. By increasing the number of 'doe days,' the department hopes to give land managers additional flexibility to deal with population growth where it is a problem, and to create additional hunter opportunity.

The new section also increases the number of 'doe days' in Cooke, Hill, and Johnson counties from nine to 23-plus days. The change is necessary because survey data indicate a significant upward population trend since 1996, during which time these counties had nine 'doe days.' The department has determined that, given the increase in deer populations, the current number of 'doe days' is insufficient to prevent habitat degradation in those counties and must be increased. Prior to 1996, these counties had two 'doe-days.' In the decade that these counties had nine 'doe days,' the estimated harvest did increase, but has remained below acceptable levels. Hunter densities have remained low to moderate and are expected to remain stable; thus, an increase in the antlerless harvest is desirable for population control/habitat management, with the additional benefit of providing additional hunter opportunity.

The new section also alters the 'doe day' structure in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Goliad (south of U.S. Highway 59), Jackson (south of U.S. Highway 59), Matagorda, Victoria (south of U.S. Highway 59), and Wharton (south of U.S. Highway 59) counties. Prior to this rulemaking, these counties had a fixed-length 'doe day' season of 23 days. The new section implements 23-plus 'doe days' to make rules governing antlerless harvest consistent with those in a number of adjoining counties to the east. The new section is intended only to reduce regulatory complexity and will not result in depletion or waste of the resource.

The new section also alters regulations governing the take of buck deer in Austin, Bastrop, Brazoria, Caldwell, Colorado, De Witt, Fayette, Fort Bend, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Jackson, Karnes, Lavaca, Lee, Matagorda, Victoria, Waller, Washington, Wilson, and Wharton counties. Hunting pressure in the Post Oak Savannah ecological region has been excessive for more than 30 years. Hunter-harvest survey data collected by the department indicates that this area has some of the highest hunter densities in the state. In 1971, the department instituted a one-buck bag limit in an effort to reduce pressure on the buck segment of the population. Although the one-buck bag limit successfully redistributed hunting pressure, it did little to reduce overall buck harvest. Department data indicate that prior to 2002, 80% of the buck harvest in these counties was comprised of bucks younger than 3.5 years of age. In response to requests from concerned landowners and hunters in the area, the department in 2002 implemented what at the time were called 'experimental' antler restrictions, which defined a legal buck as a buck with at least one unbranched antler (typically a spike buck), a buck with at least six antler points on one side, or a buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The rules were designed to protect the majority of bucks in the younger cohorts until those deer could reach a level of physical maturity. After three years under the experimental rules, the department's intensive survey effort indicates that the percentage of harvested bucks younger than 3.5 years of age had dropped from 80% to 29% and the percentage of harvested bucks 3.5 years of age and older increased from 20% to 71%. Additionally, after a first-year decline of 38%, buck harvest increased by 71% in the second year of the experimental rules. These data also show a decline in the harvest of spike bucks and an increase in the harvest of bucks with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater, which means that one effect of maintaining a one-buck limit under the antler restrictions is that hunting pressure is deflected from the spike-buck segment of the population, which is undesirable. The new section implements a two-buck bag limit, one of which must have at least one unbranched antler, and redefines a legal buck as a buck having an inside spread of 13 inches or greater or at least one unbranched antler. The six-points-or-better criterion in effect prior to this rulemaking is eliminated, as department data clearly indicate that the 13-inch-or-better standard is sufficient by itself to protect younger bucks. Eliminating the 6-points-or-better criterion simplifies the regulation, while resulting in a negligible decline in mature-buck harvest. By adding a second buck to the bag while requiring at least one buck to have an unbranched antler, the department intends to encourage the harvest of spike bucks which department research has indicated are less likely to develop into lawful bucks.

The amendment to §65.56, concerning Lesser Prairie Chicken: Open Seasons, Bag, and Possession Limits, allows the hunting of lesser prairie chicken only on properties for which the department has approved a wildlife management plan that contains specific provisions for lesser prairie chicken conservation. Long-term data indicate a declining population trend for lesser prairie chicken, not only in Texas but also throughout much of their historic range. Current hunter-harvest surveys indicate that fewer than 200 lesser prairie chickens are harvested annually in Texas. Staff attributes the decline in lesser prairie chicken numbers primarily to habitat loss, not hunting. Nonetheless, because there is an ongoing multi-state effort to manage the remaining lesser prairie chickens, the implementation of an extremely conservative hunting regime is necessary. The amendment also eliminates the lesser prairie chicken hunting permit. The permit was implemented to allow the department to survey prairie chicken hunters. With the implementation of hunting under management plans, the department would no longer need to survey hunters to determine harvest numbers, as that information will now be supplied by the landowner as part of the management plan.

The amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, consists of several actions intended to create regulatory simplification by standardizing turkey seasons, bag limits, and bag composition where possible without resulting in depletion or waste.

The amendment alters the fall season for Rio Grande turkey in Archer, Bandera, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Borden, Bosque, Burnet, Clay, Comal, Comanche, Cooke, Coryell, Denton, Erath, Gillespie, Goliad, Gonzales, Hamilton, Hays, Hill, Hood, Jack, Johnson, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Lampasas, Llano, McLennan, Montague, Palo Pinto, Parker, Real, Somervell, Stephens, Travis, Wichita, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, and Young counties by changing the bag composition from 'gobblers or bearded hens' to 'either sex.' The amendment is necessary to simplify and standardize turkey regulations. Current rates of fall hen harvest in the Rolling Plains and western Edwards Plateau have not negatively affected turkey population density. Therefore, fall hen harvest in the Cross Timbers and eastern Edwards Plateau should not negatively affect the population, assuming harvest rates (as a percentage of fall hen population) do not exceed that of the Rolling Plains and/or Edwards Plateau (approximately 3.4% of the hen population). Most of the turkey populations in east-central Texas are located on large ranches with suitable riparian corridors. Harvest in these counties should be very similar to the harvest in counties that currently enjoy either-sex bag composition.

The amendment also creates a standard turkey regulation north of Highway 90 and a standard turkey regulation south of Highway 90 in Kinney, Medina, Uvalde, and Val Verde counties, which is necessary to reduce regulatory complexity. Prior to this rulemaking, Kinney, Uvalde, and Val Verde counties had an either-sex bag composition for turkey, while in Medina County the bag composition was gobblers or bearded hens. The northern portions of these counties are part of the Edwards Plateau ecoregion, while their southern portions are part of the South Texas Brush Country ecoregion. Because of this difference, the northern portion of these counties have a deer season that runs two weeks shorter than in the southern portion of these counties. For enforcement simplicity and reduction of landowner and hunter confusion, the department has used U.S. Highway 90 as a dividing line. To standardize regulations, the amendment must accommodate the department's long-standing policy of maintaining concurrent deer and turkey seasons. In order to both preserve the concurrency of deer-season length and standardize turkey regulations, it is therefore necessary for the portion of these counties north of Highway 90 to have the either-sex bag composition, while the bag composition south of Highway 90 must be gobblers or bearded hens to be consistent with the bag composition in the remainder of south Texas. In Medina County, the bag composition north of Highway 90 will shift from gobblers or bearded hens to either-sex. By any other arrangement, the department would be creating a regulatory 'island' of four counties with a different set of regulations from all surrounding counties, which the department is anxious to avoid in order to prevent confusion. The amendment will not result in depletion or waste of the resource. Properly managed fall turkey seasons for the most part result in the removal of surplus birds from the population, birds that would probably be lost to other causes. Thus, mortality due to hunting is compensatory and is not in addition to mortality from natural causes.

The amendment also affects spring seasons for Rio Grande turkey. Prior to this rulemaking there were 140 counties with a spring season for Rio Grande turkey. With the exception of Bastrop, Caldwell, Colorado, DeWitt, Fayette, Guadalupe, Jackson, Lavaca, Lee, Milam, and Victoria counties (where the bag limit is restricted to one gobbler), the bag limit in those 140 counties was identical: four turkeys, gobblers only. The only variation among the seasons in the 140 counties was the date of opening day. In Archer, Armstrong, Bandera, Baylor, Bell, Blanco, Borden, Bosque, Brewster, 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, Ellis, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gillespie, Glasscock, Gray, Hall, Hamilton, Hardeman, Hartley, Haskell, Hays, Hemphill, Hill, Hood, Howard, Hutchinson, Irion, Jack, Jeff Davis, Johnson, Jones, Kendall, Kent, Kerr, Kimble, King, Knox, Lampasas, Lipscomb, Llano, Lynn, Martin, Mason, McCulloch, McLennan, Menard, Midland, Mills, Mitchell, Montague, Moore, Motley, Nolan, Ochiltree, Oldham, Palo Pinto, Parker, Pecos, Potter, Randall, Reagan, Real, Roberts, Runnels, San Saba, Schleicher, Scurry, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling, Stonewall, Sutton, Swisher, Tarrant, Taylor, Terrell, Throckmorton, Tom Green, Travis, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson, Wise, and Young counties, the spring turkey season began the first Saturday in April and ran for 37 consecutive days. In Aransas, Atascosa, Bee, Bexar, Brooks, Calhoun, Dimmit, Duval, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kenedy, Kinney, Kleberg, LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Uvalde, Webb, Willacy, Wilson, and Zavala counties, the spring turkey season began the last Saturday in March and likewise ran for 37 consecutive days. The amendment creates a single season for all counties with a four-turkey bag limit, to run from the Saturday closest to April 1 for 44 consecutive days. The amendment is necessary to simplify regulations while still maintaining the agency's statutory duty to prevent depletion or waste of the resource. The new season structure is extremely unlikely to exert a negative effect on turkey populations, as the harvest is limited to male birds and the timing of the season is calculated according to breeding chronologies to ensure that the overwhelming majority of hens have been bred before the season opens.

The amendment also opens a fall season in Tarrant County and both spring and fall seasons in Cameron and Zapata counties. Most of the suitable turkey habitat in Tarrant, Cameron, and Zapata counties is located on large ranches with suitable riparian corridors. Harvest in these counties during the spring and fall seasons should be very similar to harvest in surrounding counties. The amendment is necessary to increase opportunity.

The amendment also alters the spring season for Rio Grande turkey in Bastrop, Caldwell, Colorado, DeWitt, Fayette, Guadalupe, Jackson, Lavaca, Lee, Milam, and Victoria counties. Prior to this rulemaking, the spring season began the first Saturday in April and ran for 37 consecutive days. The amendment replaces that season with one beginning April 1 and ending April 30. The bag limit would remain at one gobbler. Since the spring season is limited to only male birds (gobblers) there is little potential harm to turkey production, since the harvest will not affect bred hens. The amendment is necessary to reduce regulatory complexity and increase hunter opportunity.

The amendment also implements a spring youth-only seasons for Rio Grande turkey to take place the weekends immediately preceding and following the open season. The change is necessary to continue to advance long-standing department policy to encourage and foster youth in the sport of hunting by creating mentoring opportunities. The amendment will not result in depletion or waste, since hunter success and overall harvest resulting from youth-only hunting is expected to be statistically insignificant.

The amendment to §65.72, concerning Fish, changes the harvest regulations for red drum on Lake Nasworthy (Tom Green County) from the current 20-inch minimum length limit and daily bag limit of three fish, to no length and no bag limit. The change is necessary because the power plant on Lake Nasworthy is being closed. Without the power plant's discharge of warm water during the winter months, red drum will have little chance of survival; thus, the department would like to provide the additional harvest opportunity to anglers.

The amendment also changes the rules for channel catfish and blue catfish on the North Concho and South Concho rivers in Tom Green County. The change implements a five-fish daily bag limit (in any combination), with no minimum length limit. Legal devices would be restricted to pole and line angling only. The amendment affects the North Concho from O.C. Fisher Dam to Bell Street Dam and the South Concho from Lone Wolf Dam to Bell Street Dam. The amendment is necessary to reduce confusion as to the boundaries for areas to which special regulations apply and to allow increased opportunity for harvest and use of other gear types on portions of the South Concho River.

The amendment also eliminates the minimum length limit for spotted bass on Toledo Bend Reservoir (Newton, Panola, Sabine, and Shelby counties). Toledo Bend Reservoir lies in both Texas and Louisiana. The change is necessary to create a standard regulation to facilitate enforcement and reduce angler confusion in both states.

The amendment to §65.82, concerning Other Aquatic Life, establishes a closed season from November 1 - April 30 of the following year for taking live, shell-bearing mollusks (or their shells), starfish, or sea urchins within an area bounded by the bay and pass sides of South Padre Island from the East end of the north jetty at Brazos Santiago Pass to the West end of West Marisol drive in the town of South Padre Island, out 1,000 yards from the mean high-tide line, and bounded to the south by the centerline of the Brazos Santiago Pass. A study conducted on the harvest of shell-bearing organisms in the lower Laguna Madre identified the November - May period as the most critical due to the extensive sand/mud flat that is exposed by winter low tides, coupled with easy access by large numbers of fishery participants. This area is biologically diverse due to its proximity to the shallow lower Laguna Madre and the deep water of Brazos Santiago Pass and the Gulf of Mexico. The area is utilized by some species of invertebrates at varying stages of their life histories during movement to or from the Gulf of Mexico. Shell-bearing mollusks in this area produce shells that are utilized by the thinstripe hermit (the species most often taken by fishery participants--79% of individuals harvested during the study period), which are subsequently transported to deeper water for use by deep water species of hermit crabs such as the flat claw hermit and giant hermit. Some of the most sought-after and easily located shells in this area are the reproducing mollusks, which can be conspicuously exposed during low tide. Harvest of organisms at reproductive aggregations or during reproduction can exacerbate the effects that harvest exerts on a population. The amendment is necessary to provide needed protection during a critical biological time.

The amendment also implements an aggregate bag limit of 15 live univalve snails (all species), to include no more than two of each of the following species: lightning whelk, horse conch, Florida fighting conch, pear whelk, banded tulip, and Florida rocksnail. Research indicates that fishery participants harvest an average of 31 organisms per day, of which 20% (6.2 individuals) are live, shell-bearing mollusks. The bag limit represents slightly more than twice the average take of live, shell-bearing mollusks. The bag limit is expected to have a minimal impact on the average fishery participant, but would limit those intending to take large numbers of live organisms. The individual species listed are highly desired by fishery participants and easy to locate due to their habitat preference and/or reproductive habits thus making them more vulnerable to harvest. The amendment is necessary to provide needed protection for the species.

The amendment to §65.1 will function by clarifying that the season lengths and bag limits created by the subchapter do not apply to special drawn hunts conducted by the department on units of public lands.

The amendment to §65.3 will function by defining 'unbranched antler' and 'fishing guide.'

The amendment to §65.10 will function by creating special tagging requirements for persons taking mule deer under certain circumstances, by clarifying that a person in possession of wildlife resource taken by that person is not required to also possess a wildlife resource document, and by specifying the effective date of subsection (h)(4).

The amendment to §65.19 will function by removing Hunt and Washington counties from the list of counties where it is unlawful to use dogs to track wounded deer.

The amendment to §65.24 will function by establishing a review process for department decisions concerning the issuance of Managed Lands Deer Permits and Antlerless and Spike-buck Control Permits.

The amendment to §65.25 will function by creating a set of criteria for wildlife management plans that address lesser prairie chicken.

The amendment to §65.26 will function by restricting the applicability of the section to white-tailed deer.

New §65.34, will function by creating an incentive-based, habitat-focused permit program for mule deer in order to facilitate the management goals of landowners and land managers by providing increased harvest flexibility under department-established harvest quotas and habitat management practices. Specifically, the new section will function by: requiring an approved wildlife management plan (WMP) for permit issuance; establishing the minimum content of a WMP in terms of landowner-supplied data and habitat improvement practices; specifying the period of validity for permits and requirements for their use; providing for the waiver of regulatory requirements in the event of extenuating circumstances such as droughts and floods; establishing the conditions under which the department may exercise the right to cease issuing permits to individuals; and specifying an annual deadline for permit applications.

New §65.42 will function by establishing the open seasons, bag limits, permit requirements, and special provisions for the hunting of deer in the state.

The amendment to §65.56 will function by allowing the hunting of lesser prairie chicken only on properties for which the department has approved a wildlife management plan that contains specific provisions for lesser prairie chicken conservation.

The amendment to §65.64 will function by standardizing turkey seasons, bag limits, and bag composition.

The amendment to §65.72 will function by removing restrictions on length and bag limit for red drum on Lake Nasworthy (Tom Green County); implementing a five-fish daily bag limit (in any combination), with no minimum length limit, for channel catfish and blue catfish on the North Concho and South Concho rivers in Tom Green County; and eliminating the minimum length limit for spotted bass on Toledo Bend Reservoir (Newton, Panola, Sabine, and Shelby counties).

The amendment to §65.82 will function by establishing a closed season from for the take of live, shell-bearing mollusks (or their shells), starfish, or sea urchins, and by implementing an aggregate bag limit of 15 living univalve snails (all species), to include no more than two of each of the following species: lightning whelk, horse conch, Florida fighting conch, pear whelk, banded tulip, Florida rocksnail.

The department received 20 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources, which modifies the tagging requirements for mule deer. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the department should be promoting the participation of more people in harvesting surplus animals instead of allowing a smaller number of people to have exclusive use of the publicly-owned wildlife resource. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule does not in any way restrict anyone's ability or right to engage in the harvest of deer, neither does it grant privileges not available to anyone. The rule is intended to simplify tagging requirements for the convenience of constituents by requiring hunters to furnish only one form of documentation that a deer was lawfully killed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that both the license tag and the permit should be required to be attached to a carcass. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in the department's view there is no reason to require hunters to furnish the same information twice. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the Managed Lands Deer (MLD) program "has the effect of excluding multitudes of common hunters by allowing wealthy landowners to harvest almost unlimited numbers of deer in an effort to raise trophy animals. Since they are not limited to the number of tags on their licenses as the rest of us are, their managers or game biologists harvest untold numbers of deer that would otherwise have to be thinned by lease hunters. The program has a definite detrimental effect on the common hunter while benefiting only the wealthy. A study should be done to see exactly who is utilizing this program. I think it would show that the common paying hunter does not benefit at all, and in fact is being squeezed out of hunting in part by this practice." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of rulemaking is to simplify tagging requirements for the convenience of constituents by requiring hunters to furnish only one form of documentation that a deer was lawfully killed. The portion of the comment addressing the intent and the efficacy of the MLD program is not germane to the rulemaking; nonetheless, the department disagrees and responds that the intent of the MLD program is to encourage effective habitat management. Data indicate that current levels of harvest in many parts of the state (and particularly those parts of the state with detrimentally high deer densities) are inadequate in reducing deer populations to desired levels. The MLD program is designed to afford concerned landowners and land managers an effective tool in controlling populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that deer killed outside of the general open season should be required to be tagged with both a license tag and a permit. The department disagrees and responds that as long as a deer is lawfully taken, there is no reason to require hunters to furnish the same information twice, irrespective of when the deer is taken. No changes were made as result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the amendment would prevent enforcement of bag limits. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there are no personal bag limits on MLD properties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 189 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received 70 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.19, concerning Hunting Deer With Dogs, which removes Hunt and Washington counties from the list of counties where the use of dogs to trail wounded deer is prohibited. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the use of dogs to hunt deer should be prohibited. The department agrees with the comment and responds that it is unlawful to hunt deer by the use of dogs anywhere in the state. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters stated that the use of dogs to trail wounded deer should not be allowed. The department disagrees with the commenter and responds that the practice of using hounds to trail wounded deer has been lawful for many years in most counties in the state and has not been a problem. The department has prohibited the use of dogs only in counties where there have been problems with people using dogs to hunt deer. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Five commenters stated that if the prohibition is lifted then the original problem will return. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in the counties where the use of dogs to trail wounded deer is now allowed after having been prohibited, there have been no indications that hunting deer with dogs is a problem again. The department removes counties from the list only when recommended by law enforcement personnel and will not hesitate to reinstate the prohibition in any county when necessary. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that even if hunting deer with dogs in these two counties has declined, the regulation should be left on the books and asked why these two counties should be exempt. The commenter stated that the proposal was highly suspicious. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the two counties are not being selected on any basis other than that the incidence of the illegal use of dogs has declined to the point that the justification for the rule no longer exists. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that running deer with dogs is a problem in East Texas and that all dogs used to trail wounded deer should be required to be kept on a leash. The department agrees with the comment to the extent that in a number of counties in East Texas it is unlawful to have dogs in the field while hunting deer. The department disagrees that dogs should be required to be leashed when used to trail wounded deer, and responds that in thick brush or brakes a leash makes it much more difficult to locate a wounded deer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Nine commenters stated that hunting deer with dogs should not be allowed. The department agrees with the comment and responds that using dogs to hunt deer is unlawful in every county in the state; the rule as adopted does not allow the hunting of deer with dogs, only the use of dogs to trail wounded deer. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that instead of removing this provision, the department should allow the tracking of wildlife that have been wounded during a lawful attempt to take the animal. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the rule allows dogs to be used to track wounded animals only. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that dogs should be allowed to be used to track deer in all counties or none. The department disagrees with the commenter and responds that a blanket prohibition would penalize hunters in areas of the state where the use of dogs to hunt deer historically has not been a significant problem. Similarly, a blanket permission would (and has) led to abuses. Therefore, the department has applied the regulation selectively as needed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 145 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received 23 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.24, concerning Permits, which created a review process for department decisions concerning the issuance of Managed Lands Deer (MLD) permits and Antlerless and Spike-buck Control Permits (control permits). The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the department would deny permits to people and then charge a fee. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no statutory authority to charge fee for MLD or control permits. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that "if the system as exists does its' field work prior to the seasons during which the animals in question may be taken, the recommendations for harvest and tag issuance should not be compromised by an appeals process." The department is unable to determine the point of the comment, but disagrees that a change is warranted. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that if the denial of permits can result in appeals that can be overturned, then the approval of permits should also be allowed to be appealed. The commenter further stated that the proposal was just another way for persons (hunters) who have been denied to gain access to a resource they should not be allowed to have access to. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a review process for permits that have been approved is unnecessary, since permits are approved only on the basis of biological evaluation. The department also responds that the harvest totals authorized by MLD and control permits are determined by the department, not the landowner, and that nothing prohibits a non-participating landowner from using hunters to harvest as many deer as they desire during the open season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 168 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received 14 comments opposing adoption of the amendments to §65.25, concerning Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) and §65.56, concerning Lesser Prairie Chicken: Open Seasons, Bag, and Possession Limits, to allow the hunting of lesser prairie chicken only on properties with department-approved management plans. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the additional costs associated with habitat evaluations, management and obtaining permission to hunt the lesser prairie chicken might lead to greater hunting pressure due to commercialization as a means to offset the costs imposed on the landowner. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in order to be allowed to hunt prairie chicken at all, a landowner would be required to accept a department-imposed harvest limit tailored to the specific property. Therefore the probability of hunting pressure at levels high enough to cause biologically injurious harvest is highly unlikely. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters stated that the hunting of prairie chicken should not be allowed at all. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although population trends indicate a long-term decline, the reason is habitat loss, not hunting. Therefore, the department believes it is acting prudently by allowing hunting only under a biologically sustainable, department-dictated harvest quota only on specific properties. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that habitat management and data collection should occur prior to the authorization for hunting prairie chicken. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because the existing prairie chicken habitat is well known to the department and annual harvest totals are quite low, the harvest recommendations made by the department on each property will be well within biologically acceptable parameters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters stated that the department had no way of ensuring compliance or of preventing overharvest. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that by agreeing to a management plan, a landowner is agreeing to be monitored by the department and is legally responsible to abide by the terms and conditions established by the department, as is the case in all managed-lands scenarios. The department is confident that if abuses occur they will be detected and addressed appropriately. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that no hunting of lesser prairie chicken should be permitted until the species is taken off the list of endangered species. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the lesser prairie chicken is not listed by Texas or the federal government as endangered. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that hunting of lesser prairie chicken should be suspended based on concern for population decline and extremely low harvest counts. The commenter also stated that current population sizes do not provide ample opportunity for all hunters in the state and that the amendment in effect is for a few individuals. The commenter also stated that a study needs to be conducted to analyze the number of bird watchers versus hunters concerned for the species and the resultant economic activity. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although trends indicate a long-term population decline, it is due to habitat loss, not to hunting. The department also responds that populations of wildlife are not and cannot be uniformly distributed for the convenience of hunters. Various species have evolved to survive in specific systems and therefore do not occur where they cannot survive. It is an established fact, backed by empirical evidence, that all attempts to introduce wildlife species in systems they cannot survive will result in failure; therefore, species can only be hunted in the systems where they exist. That being the case, the department promulgates season lengths and bag limits on the basis of ensuring that populations are not reduced below their immediate recuperative potential in native ecosystems, not on the basis of the needs of individual landowners. The department further responds that the enjoyment of wildlife is not an either-or scenario between ecotourism and hunting. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the amendment imposes a cost on the landowner for data collection and that the department should include landowner incentives. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that participation is voluntary, not required, and that as is the case for providing all other hunting opportunity in the state, the incentive to the landowner is determined by demand, not by regulation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 170 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 1,567 comments opposing the adoption of new §65.34, which established a Managed Lands Deer Permit program for mule deer. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

Six commenters stated that mule deer populations were in a precarious state due to long-term drought and that the department should shorten the existing season until populations recover. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the desert mule deer has evolved over many thousands of years for survival in a desert ecosystem. Typically, populations in such systems expand and contract in response to climatic changes such as drought. However, the presence or absence of water is not the only limiting factor. Competition from domestic stock, changes in land-use patterns, and long-term habitat alterations all probably exert more influence on deer populations than does rainfall. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Five commenters stated that participation in the program was not voluntary because people would be forced to participate in order to maintain parity with neighboring properties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that participation in the MLD program is voluntary. There is no legal requirement compelling any person to participate in the program. While it is true that participating properties will enjoy a longer time period to accomplish harvest goals, it must be remembered that the harvest goal is biologically determined by the department and not at the discretion of the landowner. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eight commenters stated that the department lacked the scientific justification for promulgating the rule. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that under current regulations, the take of antlerless mule deer is by permit only, meaning that the department absolutely controls the number of antlerless deer taken each year. The department places no restrictions on any landowner as to the number of buck mule deer that may be taken. The MLD program, because it imposes a finite harvest quota (i.e., X number of bucks and Y number of antlerless) on a participating acreage, is more restrictive than what is allowed otherwise. Scientifically, it is axiomatic that a dictated harvest, based on evaluations of population and habitat, is more scientifically efficacious than an indeterminate and undocumented harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Seven commenters stated that allowing bucks to be taken during the rut would result in overharvest or decimation of deer herds because bucks are vulnerable at that time. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that overharvest would be possible only in the case of unlimited harvest during the rut. The rule as adopted requires a participating landowner to agree, under penalty of law, to abide by a specific harvest quota biologically determined by the department for the specific property. Since the harvest quota would be derived from a careful assessment of habitat and deer population, the probability of lawful overharvest is negligible. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Four commenters stated that the rule usurped private property rights. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that no provision of the rule as adopted abridges, interferes with, or negates any privilege or right of ownership. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters stated that the extended season allowed by the new rule would cause an increase in poaching. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a person's decision to violate the law by poaching is not predicated on whether or not the season is open. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters stated that wealthy landowners would be able to draw deer from neighboring properties owned by less-wealthy people. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the financial wherewithal of landowners is not a factor in the intended effect of the rule. The department notes that supplemental feeding practices are not regarded as an acceptable habitat management practice for purposes of the rule, meaning that the harvest quota for a given property will be based strictly on the relationship between deer populations and natural habitat. The department also notes that the adoption of new rule does not affect the fact that under current law, no landowner is prohibited from feeding wildlife if they so choose. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Five commenters stated that since mule deer are different than white-tailed deer, and because elevation, habitat, and rainfall in West Texas are different from the parts of the state where white-tailed deer are the predominant deer species, that the MLD program is biologically inappropriate for mule deer. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the MLD program is not based on the biology of white-tailed deer, but on the concept that an individual wildlife management plan tailored for a specific property is an extremely useful tool for landowners and land managers. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that allowing the take of deer during the rut violates the ethic of 'fair chase.' The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department does not possess the statutory authority to promulgate regulations on the basis of 'fair chase.' The department further notes that if a landowner disapproves of hunting during the rut, that landowner may choose not to do so or permit others to do so on that person's land. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that many small-acreage landowners would not qualify for permits and therefore would not be able to hunt any more. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that participation in the MLD program is voluntary, but there is no minimum acreage requirement for participation in the program. Persons choosing not to participate would still be able to hunt under the county regulations during the archery and general open seasons. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the rule discriminated against small landowners. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that small landowners will have exactly the same options as any other landowner. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the rule should not be adopted because the department had not conducted an environmental assessment. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that an environmental assessment is neither required nor necessary. The implementation of the rule will not result in depletion or waste of the resource. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that landowners without the resources to exploit the longer season would be at a disadvantage. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that participation in the MLD program is voluntary. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the rule would impose the wishes of a few people over those of the majority. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule implements a voluntary program; no person is required to participate. The department further notes that public comment received by the department overwhelmingly favored adoption of the proposed new section. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that the department was ignoring the recommendations of its own biologists. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that while it will always strive to be sensitive to the social and cultural ramifications of potential regulations, the rule as adopted does not conflict with the tenets of sound wildlife management and will not result in either depletion or waste of the resource. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that if the requirement for attachment of a mule deer tag from the hunting license tag to harvested deer was not retained, the rule would not promote the recruitment of additional hunters to harvest the available surplus of a publicly-owned wildlife resource. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the new section is to allow land managers and landowners to more effectively manage mule deer populations. The department also notes that landowners who choose not to participate in the program (which requires the acceptance of a department-mandated harvest quota) would be able to take as many buck deer as desired. In either case, harvested deer are required to be tagged, either with a license tag, or with an MLD permit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the 45 days of hunting allowed on MLDP properties will leave a lot more room for mistakes. The commenter also stated that the property rights of both the landowners involved in the program and not involved in the program will be at risk of being abused. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department specifies the maximum number of deer to be harvested on each MLDP property, based on habitat and population information. Biologically, it makes no difference which deer on a property are harvested or when, as long as the harvest quota is not exceeded. The department also responds that the new rule does not in any way affect the property rights of landowners, regardless of participation in the program, as the rule regulates a public resource. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the MLD program is a scheme to benefit a few large landowners. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the program is a flexible management tool available to any landowner regardless of the amount of acreage owned. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that the MLD program will lead to large-scale high fencing, which will result in captive herds. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that under the Parks and Wildlife Code, §1.013, the code does not prohibit or restrict the owner or occupant of land from constructing or maintaining a fence of any height on the land owned or occupied, and an owner or occupant who constructs such a fence is not liable for the restriction of the movement of wild animals by the fence. The existence of a fence does not affect the status of wild animals as property of the people of this state. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the best quality bucks will be killed, leaving inferior bucks to do all the breeding, which will lead to a 'decline in genetics.' The department disagrees with the comment and responds that antler quality is not a qualitative indicator of genetic fitness. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that because of the breeding habits of mule deer, the extended season would exert excessive pressure on the mule deer herd. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that since the department will establish a maximum harvest for each property, based on a biological determination of sustainability, it does not matter when the animals are harvested. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that hunting should not be allowed during the rut. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that as part of the program the department will specify the maximum number of deer to be harvested on each MLDP property, based on habitat and population information. Biologically, it makes no difference which deer on a property are harvested, as long as the harvest quota is not exceeded. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The Desert Mule Deer Association, Presidio County Judge, and Presidio County Clerk opposed adoption of the proposed rule.

The Texas Deer Association and the Texas Wildlife Association supported adoption of the proposed rule.

The department received 2,539 comments supporting adoption of the proposed new rule.

The department received 23 comments opposing adoption of the portion of new §65.42, concerning Deer, that eliminated the one-buck bag aggregate bag limit. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the harvest of deer along county boundaries could double on properties that straddle county lines. The commenter also stated that the proposal conflicts with the department's antler restriction rules because those rules were implemented to control over-harvest. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a review of harvest and population data indicate little likelihood that harvest will increase enough to cause concern about depletion. The department also responds that the amendment does not conflict with the antler-restriction rules. The antler-restriction rules were implemented to stop over-harvest of buck deer within certain age classes. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 200 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received 34 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that eliminated the two-buck aggregate bag limit. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that because of available food, the three-buck limit should be eliminated. The department infers from the comment that the commenter wishes to see a return to a two-buck bag limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because habitat degradation due to overpopulation is a serious concern in many parts of the Edwards Plateau, any reduction in bag limits could possibly result in additional habitat degradation in excess of what is presently occurring. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that he saw three times more bucks than does in Bell County last year. The department responds that the comment does not warrant a change to the rule, as Bell County is not a two-buck county. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that two bucks should be enough for any hunter. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department's statutory duty is to ensure an ample supply of deer and to equitably distribute opportunity to enjoy the pursuit of the resource. In areas of the state with large surpluses of deer, the department feels that it is appropriate to install larger bag limits. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that bag limits should not be increased if there is no indication of overpopulation. The department agrees with the comment and responds that populations in most two-buck counties are at or above the carrying capacity of available habitat. Therefore, any additional harvest as a result of the amendment is welcome. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that taking more than two bucks is overhunting. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that from a biological point of view, bag limits are the result of a calculation of harvestable surplus, or, put another way, the harvest of enough animals to prevent habitat degradation, depletion, or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that if a person is unable to take a buck in two tries the person should take a doe instead. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule does not regulate attempts; it regulates the number of buck deer that may be taken during a season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 170 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

Six commenters opposed adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that implemented four 'doe-days' in Bowie, Camp, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Grayson, Hopkins, Lamar, Morris, Red River, Titus, Upshur, and Wood counties, where harvest currently is by permit only (i.e., there are no 'doe days'). The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the implementation of 'doe days' would result in renegade hunters slaughtering the deer population. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that analysis of herd composition data in the affected counties shows a decreasing trend in the number of does per buck; however, the ratio remains unacceptably high, at approximately 4 - 5 does per buck (the target ratio is 1 - 2 does per buck). Hunter numbers in the affected counties have dropped considerably during the same time period, to about three-quarters of the total reported in 1993. These trends indicate that additional harvest is necessary to stabilize herd growth and protect habitat. The additional 'doe days' will allow the remaining hunters to more effectively manage population size and sex ratio. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the implementation of antlerless opportunity in such a small number of days would present safety issues. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department's statutory authority does not allow the promulgation of regulations on the basis of safety. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 170 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received nine comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that increased the number of 'doe days' in Cass, Harrison, Marion, Nacogdoches, Panola, Sabine, San Augustine, and Shelby counties from four to 16. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that Landowner Assisted Management Plan (LAMPS) permits and MLD permits were sufficient to control deer numbers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data indicate that deer populations in the affected counties remain above desired densities, sex ratios are becoming increasingly skewed, and, due to uncharacteristically wet and warm winters, fawn recruitment has increased significantly, which means that habitat degradation is imminent if deer populations are maintained at current levels. Increasing the opportunity for antlerless harvest will provide ample opportunity to control numbers, especially for small-plot landowners who don't qualify for LAMPS permits. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that the increase in 'doe days' would have a negative effect on antlerless populations, and that deer populations were decreasing. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data indicate that deer populations in the affected counties remain above desired densities, sex ratios are becoming increasingly skewed, and, due to uncharacteristically wet and warm winters, fawn recruitment has increased significantly, which means that habitat degradation is imminent if deer populations are maintained at current levels. In addition, harvest has decreased slightly, which is additive to the potential problem. By increasing the antlerless harvest, the department intends to limit additional population growth in order to bring the deer population into equilibrium with habitat and deflect some harvest pressure away from the younger age classes of the buck segment of the population in order to eventually bring sex ratios back to a biologically sound proportion. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The Sabine County Landowners and Leaseholder Association opposed adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received 170 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received eight comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that implemented full-season, either-sex hunting in Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Crosby, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Hall, Hansford, Hutchinson, Jones, Knox, Ochiltree, Randall, Stonewall, and Swisher counties, where currently there are 16 'doe days.' None of the commenters elaborated a rationale for opposing adoption. The department disagrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 152 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received seven comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that implemented full-season, either-sex hunting in Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Dickens, Donley, Garza, Gray, Haskell, Hemphill, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Roberts, Scurry, and Wheeler counties, where currently there are 23 'doe days' in most years. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that 23 'doe days' were sufficient. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in the absence of a compelling argument, based on biological factors, to impose restrictions on the harvest of antlerless deer, the commission's policy is to provide both the greatest hunter opportunity possible and the greatest amount of flexibility to land managers to attain management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that if deer populations are left alone they level themselves depending on the available food supply. The commenter also stated that full-season, either-sex hunting will unnecessarily endanger the population. The department disagrees with the commenter and responds that the sole reason for 'doe days' is to damp the impact of hunting mortality on reproductive potential in areas where antlerless harvest is excessive. Population data from the majority of counties indicate a moderate to significant upward trend in deer populations over the last 13 years. Harvest data indicate a conservative harvest of antlerless deer in these counties. Given the population growth and moderate hunting pressure, the department anticipates that full-season either-sex hunting will provide additional hunter opportunity and enable more effective management of antlerless deer for habitat conservation while resulting in neither depletion nor waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 152 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received five comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that increased the number of 'doe days' in Hardeman, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties from 16 to 23-plus days. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that if deer populations are left alone they level themselves depending on the available food supply. The commenter also stated that full-season either-sex hunting will unnecessarily endanger the population. The department disagrees with the commenter and responds that the sole reason for 'doe days' is to damp the impact of hunting mortality on reproductive potential in areas where antlerless harvest is excessive. Survey results indicate that deer populations in those counties have increased over the past ten years. These counties had six 'doe days' from 1996 to 1999 and 16 'doe days' from 2000 to the present. Due to the fact that populations are increasing, the department believes that additional antlerless opportunity is required to allow managers to effectively manage antlerless deer populations, which should reduce potential negative habitat impacts. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 148 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received eight comments opposing adoption of the portion of new §65.42, concerning Deer, that increased the number of 'doe days' in Denton and Tarrant counties from nine to 16. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that due to the tremendous urban development in the affected counties, there is no habitat for deer and therefore no population increase upon which to justify an increase in antlerless harvest. The department disagrees with the commenter and responds that harvest regulations are based on existing habitat and populations rather than ideal or historic habitat and populations. Indeed, development in these counties has caused habitat fragmentation and loss. However, relatively low hunter effort has resulted in the degradation of remaining habitat. By increasing the number of 'doe days,' the department hopes to give land managers additional flexibility to deal with population growth where it is a problem, and to create additional hunter opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that because the counties are overpopulated with houses and humans, encroachment should solve the problem. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department has an obligation to manage and conserve wildlife wherever it exists. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 152 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received five comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that increased the number of 'doe days' in Cooke, Hill, and Johnson counties from nine to 23-plus days. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 147 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received eight comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that changed the 'doe day' structure in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Goliad (south of U.S. Highway 59), Jackson (south of U.S. Highway 59), Matagorda, Victoria (south of U.S. Highway 59), and Wharton (south of U.S. Highway 59) counties from a fixed-length of 23 days to a '23-plus day' structure (always including Thanksgiving weekend). The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the proposal should be based on science, not consistency of regulations with adjoining counties. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the difference between the 23-day and 23-plus structures is so small as to be biologically insignificant in the affected counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the best way to increase doe harvest is to implement a late antlerless season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the rule is to standardize regulations in order to reduce regulatory variation where practical, not to increase antlerless harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 153 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 25 comments opposing adoption of the portion of proposed new §65.42, concerning Deer, that modified regulations governing the take of buck deer in Austin, Colorado, Fayette, Lavaca, Lee, and Washington counties, and expanded the rule to include Bastrop, Brazoria, Caldwell, De Witt, Fort Bend, Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Jackson, Karnes, Matagorda, Victoria, Waller, Wilson, and Wharton counties. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that there are no deer in Jackson County with an inside spread of 13 inches or better. The commenter also stated that the only benefit to the rule change would be to large landowners who will be able to charge excessive fees for hunting on their land. The commenter further stated that the rule would negatively affect the many people who depend on deer meat for food. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that during the first three years the rules were in effect in the six 'experimental' counties, buck harvest decreased only during the first year, rebounding in subsequent years to surpass the pre-rule harvest numbers. The department also notes that the rule affects only buck deer, which means that persons relying on deer as a food source would still have the ability to take antlerless deer for that purpose. The department also responds that it has no statutory authority to regulate with the intent of influencing the price of hunting rights negotiated between landowners and hunters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the production of trophy bucks is not a resource issue and should not be dictated by regulation in deer herds that are thriving. Such a practice should be left to the discretion of the landowner. The commenter also stated that the data provided by the department for the few counties in the Oak Prairie which have had antler restriction regulations imposed on them for the past 3 years conveniently omit any comparison of the total number of buck deer harvested annually by hunters prior to versus after the antler restrictions. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is not intended to produce trophy bucks, but to reduce hunting pressure on younger bucks. The department also responds that during the first three years the rules were in effect in the six 'experimental' counties, buck harvest decreased only during the first year, rebounding in subsequent years to surpass the pre-rule harvest totals. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the department should protect natural resources and not get into the business of culling and developing hunter-oriented breeding programs, the only reason for which is hunting aesthetics. The commenter also stated that the department should not manipulate wild herds to shape the characteristics of deer in the future, which is deer farming and should be prevented. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the amendment is to reduce the excessive harvest of young bucks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the rule should be implemented statewide. The department disagrees with the comment and responds it has determined that a gradual implementation accompanied by careful monitoring is the appropriate approach for implementation of this type of rule. The department also responds that the rule may not be appropriate for statewide implementation, because in many counties the age structure of the buck segment of the deer herd is not skewed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 257 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 10 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, that alters the bag composition during the fall season for Rio Grande turkey in Archer, Bandera, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Borden, Bosque, Burnet, Clay, Comal, Comanche, Cooke, Coryell, Denton, Erath, Gillespie, Goliad, Gonzales, Hamilton, Hays, Hill, Hood, Jack, Johnson, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Lampasas, Llano, McLennan, Montague, Palo Pinto, Parker, Real, Somervell, Stephens, Travis, Wichita, Williamson, Wilson, Wise, and Young from 'gobblers or bearded hens' to 'either sex.' No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 167 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received two comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, that creates a standard turkey regulation north of Highway 90 and a standard turkey regulation south of Highway 90 in Kinney, Medina, Uvalde, and Val Verde counties. The commenters did not elaborate a rationale for opposition. The department disagrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 135 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received eight comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, that implemented a spring Rio Grande turkey season to begin the Saturday closest to April 1 and running for 44 consecutive days in Archer, Armstrong, Bandera, Baylor, Bell, Blanco, Borden, Bosque, Brewster, 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, Ellis, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gillespie, Glasscock, Gray, Hall, Hamilton, Hardeman, Hartley, Haskell, Hays, Hemphill, Hill, Hood, Howard, Hutchinson, Irion, Jack, Jeff Davis, Johnson, Jones, Kendall, Kent, Kerr, Kimble, King, Knox, Lampasas, Lipscomb, Llano, Lynn, Martin, Mason, McCulloch, McLennan, Menard, Midland, Mills, Mitchell, Montague, Moore, Motley, Nolan, Ochiltree, Oldham, Palo Pinto, Parker, Pecos, Potter, Randall, Reagan, Real, Roberts, Runnels, San Saba, Schleicher, Scurry, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling, Stonewall, Sutton, Swisher, Tarrant, Taylor, Terrell, Throckmorton, Tom Green, Travis, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, Wheeler, Wichita, Wilbarger, Williamson, Wise, and Young counties. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

Two commenters stated that the amendment created a season that is too long. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because the bag composition is limited to gobblers only, the likelihood of negative impacts on reproductive potential and replacement are negligible, given current rates of harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that the season should start earlier, because turkeys are usually actively breeding and strutting several weeks before the season opens. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the opening of the spring season is based upon the results of an extensive breeding chronology indicating that in most years, 90% of the hens have been bred prior to April 1. An earlier opener would create an undesirable effect on replacement. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 178 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received seven comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey that implemented a spring Rio Grande turkey season beginning the Saturday closest to April 1 and running for 44 consecutive days in Aransas, Atascosa, Bee, Bexar, Brooks, Calhoun, Dimmit, Duval, Frio, Goliad, Gonzales, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kenedy, Kinney, Kleberg, LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Uvalde, Webb, Willacy, Wilson, and Zavala counties. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that some biologists believe the breeding season may be changing and that the proposal could backfire. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the proposed season is extremely unlikely to exert a negative effect on turkey populations, as the harvest is limited to male birds and the timing of the season is calculated according to breeding chronologies to ensure that the overwhelming majority of hens have been bred before the season opens. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 153 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 10 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, that opened a fall season for Rio Grande turkey in Tarrant County. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that Tarrant County is too heavily populated for a turkey season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that human population is not an element in the calculus of implementing hunting seasons for any game bird or game animal. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 135 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received seven comments opposing the proposed amendment to open a fall season for Rio Grande turkey in Cameron and Zapata counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 129 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received seven comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, that modified the spring turkey season in Bastrop, Caldwell, Colorado, DeWitt, Fayette, Guadalupe, Jackson, Lavaca, Lee, Milam, and Victoria counties to run concurrently with Eastern turkey seasons. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the season should begin the Saturday closest to April 1 in order to be consistent with other spring seasons for Rio Grande turkey. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the rule is to reduce potential hunter confusion in counties where the bag limit is one bird by making the spring seasons in those counties concurrent with the spring seasons for Easter turkeys. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 135 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 18 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, that implemented spring youth-only seasons for Rio Grande turkey to take place the weekends immediately preceding and following the open season, during which Rio Grande turkey could be hunted only by persons younger than 16 years of age. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that the season does not serve a reason significant enough to justify a special season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that encouraging and mentoring youth in the enjoyment of hunting is a policy of the commission. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter stated that adults abuse the youth-only hunting seasons. The department disagrees and responds that while it cannot categorically state that abuses do not occur, it does not seem to be the case, as there have been few complaints filed with the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 154 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 12 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72, concerning Fish, that changed the harvest regulations for red drum on Lake Nasworthy (Tom Green County) from the current 20-inch minimum length limit and daily bag limit of 3 fish, to no length and no bag limit. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 118 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received six comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72, concerning Fish, that implemented a five-fish daily bag limit (in any combination), with no minimum length limit on the North Concho and South Concho rivers in Tom Green County. The commenters did not elaborate a rationale for opposition. The department disagrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 104 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 16 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.72, concerning Fish, that eliminated the minimum length limit for spotted bass on Toledo Bend Reservoir (Newton, Panola, Sabine, and Shelby counties). The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commentator stated that there was no advantage to facilitating compliance. The department disagrees and responds that it is always better to make enforceable provisions as easy to understand as possible, in order to avoid placing anglers in situations where confusion complicates enjoyment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the rule should not be changed because of golden algae. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a golden alga is not a problem on Toledo Bend. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 104 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received 10 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.82, concerning Other Aquatic Life, which established a closed season from November 1 - April 30 of the following year for taking live, shell-bearing mollusks (or their shells), starfish, or sea urchins within an area bounded by the bay and pass sides of South Padre Island from the East end of the north jetty at Brazos Santiago Pass to the West end of West Marisol drive in the town of South Padre Island, out 1,000 yards from the mean high-tide line, and bounded to the south by the centerline of the Brazos Santiago Pass. The specific comments of persons who elaborated upon their opposition, accompanied by the department's response, are as follows.

One commenter stated that shelling is a popular pastime among winter Texans. The department agrees with the comment and responds that due to the popularity of shelling, the department is required to maintain protection of the public resource. A study conducted on the harvest of shell-bearing organisms in the lower Laguna Madre identified November - May as a critical period due to the extensive sand/mud flat that is exposed by winter low tides, coupled with easy access by large numbers of fishery participants. This area is biologically diverse due to its proximity to the shallow lower Laguna Madre and the deep water of Brazos Santiago Pass and the Gulf of Mexico. The area is utilized by some species of invertebrates at varying stages of their life histories during movement to or from the Gulf of Mexico. Shell-bearing mollusks in this area produce shells that are utilized by the thinstripe hermit (the species most often taken by fishery participants--79% of individuals harvested during the study period), which are subsequently transported to deeper water for use by deep-water species of hermit crabs such as the flat claw hermit and giant hermit. Some of the most sought-after and easily located shells in this area are the reproducing mollusks, which can be conspicuously exposed during low tide. Harvest of organisms at reproductive aggregations or during reproduction can exacerbate the effects that harvest exerts on a population. The amendment provides needed protection during a critical biological time. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter stated that the rule should be limited to live organisms. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that for enforcement purposes, the restriction must remain as worded. Were the restriction to apply only to live organisms, law enforcement personnel would have no way of knowing if persons in possession of the organisms had collected them dead or alive. In addition, the rule protects shells for use by other organisms such as hermit crabs and other deep water species during a critical migration period in the area. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 128 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The department received four comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.82, concerning Other Aquatic Life, which implemented an aggregate bag limit of 15 living univalve snails (all species), to include no more than two of each of the following species: lightning whelk, horse conch, Florida fighting conch, pear whelk, banded tulip, Florida rocksnail. Research indicates that fishery participants harvest an average of 31 organisms per day, of which 20% (6.2 individuals) are live, shell-bearing mollusks. The bag limit will have a small impact on the harvest of live snails, based on the study. The commenters did not elaborate a rationale for opposition. The department disagrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 119 comments supporting adoption of the amendment.

The Texas Wildlife Association supported adoption of the proposal.

1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

31 TAC §§65.1, 65.3, 65.10, 65.19, 65.24 - 65.26, 65.34

The amendments 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 may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

§65.24.Permits.

(a) Permits shall be issued only to the landowner.

(b) No person may hunt white-tailed deer, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, or antelope when permits are required unless that person has received from the landowner and has in possession a valid permit issued by the department.

(c) When permits are required to hunt or possess the wildlife resources listed in subsection (b) of this section, it is unlawful to:

(1) use a permit more than once;

(2) use a permit on a tract of land other than the tract for which the permit was issued;

(3) falsify or fail to fully complete any information required by a permit application; or

(4) possess the wildlife resource without attaching a valid, properly executed permit, which shall remain attached until the wildlife resource reaches its final destination.

(d) No state-issued permit is required to hunt antlerless white-tailed deer on a National Wildlife Refuge.

(e) An applicant for a permit issued under §65.26 of this title (relating Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)), §65.27 of this title (relating to Antlerless and Spike Buck Control Permits (control permits)), or §65.34 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer Permits (MLDP)--Mule Deer) may request a review of a decision by the department to deny issuance of those permits.

(1) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department under this subsection shall contact the department within ten working days of being notified by the department of permit denial.

(2) The department shall conduct the review and notify the applicant of the results within ten working days of receiving a request for a review.

(3) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of the following:

(A) the Director of the Wildlife Division;

(B) the Regional Director with jurisdiction;

(C) the Big Game Program Director; and

(D) the White-tailed Deer or Mule Deer program leader, as appropriate.

(4) The decision of the review panel is final.

(5) The department shall report on an annual basis to the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee the number and disposition of all reviews under this subsection that involve white-tailed deer.

§65.25.Wildlife Management Plan (WMP).

(a) Deer.

(1) An approved WMP, specifying a harvest quota for antlerless deer or both buck and antlerless deer, is required for the issuance of Managed Lands Deer Permits and Antlerless/Spike-Buck Deer Control Permits.

(2) MLD permit issuance shall be determined by the WMP as follows.

(A) Level 1 MLD permits shall be issued to a landowner whose WMP includes current deer population data.

(B) Level 2 MLD permits shall be issued to a landowner whose WMP includes:

(i) deer population data for both the current year and the immediately preceding year;

(ii) deer harvest data from the immediately preceding year; and

(iii) at least two recommended habitat management practices.

(C) Level 3 MLD permits shall be issued to a landowner whose WMP includes:

(i) deer population data for the current year and the immediately preceding two years;

(ii) deer harvest data from the immediately preceding two years; and

(iii) at least four recommended habitat management practices.

(3) A WMP is not valid unless it is:

(A) consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.053 and §61.056; and

(B) signed by a Wildlife Division biologist or technician. A WMP is valid for one year following the date of such signature.

(b) Lesser Prairie Chicken. No person may hunt a lesser prairie chicken in this state except on a property for which the department has approved a WMP as set forth under this subsection that contains a recommended harvest for lesser prairie chicken.

(1) The WMP required by this subsection shall include:

(A) a lesser prairie chicken population estimate for the current year (April breeding-ground counts);

(B) accurate harvest data from the property for the initial hunting season and each season thereafter that the landowner seeks to hunt lesser prairie chicken on the property;

(C) a biological evaluation of the quality of existing prairie chicken habitat and the potential for enhancing existing habitat or creating additional habitat;

(D) at least five department-recommended habitat management practices designed to increase, enhance, or connect lesser prairie chicken habitat; and

(E) a recommended harvest not to exceed five percent of the estimated lesser prairie chicken population on the property.

(2) The landowner agrees, by signing the WMP, to perform data collection for the purposes of meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) A WMP under this subsection is not valid unless it has been signed by a department employee authorized to approve management plans. A WMP under this subsection is valid for one year following such signature. The department may refuse to approve a WMP if the landowner has not complied with the provisions of this subsection.

(4) The department may authorize a recommended harvest in the absence of population or harvest data only for the year 2005; thereafter, a property must meet the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(5) The bag and possession limits for the harvest of lesser prairie chicken shall be as provided in §65.56 of this title (relating to Lesser Prairie Chicken: Open Seasons, Bag, and Possession Limits).

(6) No person may possess a harvested lesser prairie chicken anywhere other than the property on which the lesser prairie chicken was harvested unless that person also possesses a completed, department-supplied affidavit signed by the landowner of the property where the person harvested the lesser prairie chicken.

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 June 20, 2005.

TRD-200502546

Gene McCarty

Chief of Staff

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: July 10, 2005

Proposal publication date: February 25, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775

31 TAC §65.42

The repeal is adopted under 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 may 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 June 20, 2005.

TRD-200502547

Gene McCarty

Chief of Staff

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: July 10, 2005

Proposal publication date: February 25, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775

31 TAC §§65.42, 65.56, 65.64

The amendments and new section are adopted under 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 may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

§65.42.Deer.

(a) No person may exceed 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) special permits under the provisions of Subchapter H of this chapter (relating to Public Lands Proclamation); or

(6) 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 and annual bag limits for white-tailed deer shall be as follows.

(1) In Aransas, Atascosa, 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: 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.

(i) Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the third Sunday in January.

(ii) Bag limit: five antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate, no more than three of which may be spike bucks.

(D) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.

(2) In Bandera, Bexar, Blanco, Brown, Burnet, Coke, Coleman, Comal (west of Interstate 35), Concho, Crockett, Edwards, Gillespie, Glasscock, Hays (west of Interstate 35), Howard, Irion, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney (north of U.S. Highway 90), Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Medina (north of U.S. Highway 90), Menard, Mills, Mitchell, Nolan, Real, Reagan, Runnels, San Saba, Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, Tom Green, Travis (west of Interstate 35), Uvalde (north of U.S. Highway 90) and Val Verde (north of U.S. Highway 90; and that portion located both south of U.S. 90 and west of Spur 239) counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: 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.

(i) Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday following the first Sunday in January.

(ii) Bag limit: five antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate, no more than two of which may be spike bucks.

(D) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.

(3) In Brewster, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves, Terrell, and Upton (that southeastern portion located both south of U.S. Highway 67 and east of State Highway 349) counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: 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.

(4) In Angelina, Chambers, Hardin, Harris, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, and Walker counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: 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) From opening day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLDP antlerless, LAMPS, or USFS antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land. On USFS, Corps of Engineers, Sabine River Authority, and Trinity River Authority lands, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit only. If USFS antlerless, MLDP antlerless, or LAMPS permits have been issued, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. From the Monday following Thanksgiving, antlerless deer may be taken only by USFS antlerless, MLDP antlerless, or LAMPS permits. 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.

(5) In Austin, Bastrop, Caldwell, Colorado, De Witt, Fayette, Goliad (north of U.S. Highway 59), Gonzales, Guadalupe, Jackson (north of U.S. Highway 59), Karnes, Lavaca, Lee, Victoria (north of U.S. Highway 59), Waller, Wilson, Washington and Wharton (north of U.S. Highway 59) counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.

(B) 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.

(C) Buck bag limit: two bucks, to include no more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater.

(D) Antlerless bag limit: two, by MLDP antlerless permit only.

(6) In Brazoria, Fort Bend, Goliad (south of U.S. Highway 59), Jackson (south if U.S. Highway 59), Matagorda, Victoria (south of U.S. Highway 59), and Wharton (south of U.S. Highway 59) counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.

(B) 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.

(C) Buck bag limit: two bucks, to include no more than one buck with an inside spread of 13 inches or greater.

(D) Antlerless bag limit: two.

(E) From opening day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land. If MLDP antlerless permits have been issued, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. From the Monday following Thanksgiving, antlerless deer may be taken only by MLDP antlerless permit.

(7) In Archer, Armstrong, Baylor, Bell (west of IH 35), Borden, Bosque, Briscoe, Callahan, Carson, Childress, Clay, Collingsworth, Comanche, Coryell, Cottle, Crosby, Dickens, Donley, Eastland, Erath, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hamilton, Hansford, Haskell, Hemphill, Hood, Hutchinson, Jack, Jones, Kent, King, Knox, Lampasas, Lipscomb, McLennan, Montague, Motley, Ochiltree, Palo Pinto, Parker, Randall, Roberts, Scurry, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Stonewall, Swisher, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wheeler, Williamson (west of IH 35), Wise, and Young counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: 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.

(8) In Cooke, Hardeman, Hill, Johnson, Wichita, and Wilbarger counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: 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) From opening day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLDP antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land. If MLDP antlerless permits have been issued, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. From the Monday following Thanksgiving, antlerless deer may be taken only by MLDP antlerless permit.

(9) In Cass, Denton, Harrison, Marion, Nacogdoches, Panola, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, and Tarrant counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: 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) During the first 16 days of the general season, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLDP, LAMPS, or USFS antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land. On USFS, Corps of Engineers, and Sabine River Authority lands, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit only. If USFS antlerless, MLDP antlerless, or LAMPS permits have been issued, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. After the first 16 days of the general season, antlerless deer may be taken only by USFS antlerless, MLDP antlerless, or LAMPS permits.

(10) In Bowie, Brazos, Camp, Cherokee, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Grayson, Gregg, Grimes, Hopkins, Houston, Lamar, Madison, Morris, Red River, Robertson, Rusk, Titus, Upshur, and Wood counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: 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) From Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLDP antlerless or LAMPS permits have been issued for the tract of land. On USFS, Corps of Engineers, and Sabine River Authority lands, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit only. If USFS antlerless, MLDP antlerless, or LAMPS permits have been issued, they must be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. From the first Saturday in November through the day before Thanksgiving Day, and from the Monday immediately following Thanksgiving Day through the first Sunday in January, antlerless deer may be taken only by USFS antlerless, MLDP antlerless, or LAMPS permits.

(D) Special regulation. In Grayson County:

(i) lawful means are restricted to lawful archery equipment and crossbows only, including MLDP properties; and

(ii) antlerless deer shall be taken by MLDP only, except on the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge.

(11) In Anderson, Bell (east of Interstate 35), Burleson, Comal (east of Interstate 35), Crane, Ector, Ellis, Falls, Freestone, Hays (east of Interstate 35), Henderson, Hunt, Kaufman, Leon, Limestone, Loving, Midland, Milam, Navarro, Rains, Smith, Travis (east of Interstate 35), Upton (that portion located north of U.S. Highway 67; and that area located both south of U.S. Highway 67 and west of state highway 349), Van Zandt, Ward, and Williamson (east of Interstate 35) counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January.

(B) Bag limit: one buck, no more than two antlerless. Antlerless deer may be taken only by MLDP antlerless or LAMPS permits.

(12) In Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman counties, there is a general open season.

(A) Open season: Saturday before Thanksgiving for 16 consecutive days.

(B) Bag limit: one buck, no more than two antlerless. Antlerless deer may be taken only by MLDP antlerless permit.

(13) In Andrews, Bailey, Castro, Cochran, Collin, Dallas, Dawson, Deaf Smith, El Paso, Gaines, Galveston, Hale, Hockley, Hudspeth, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Martin, Parmer, Rockwall, Terry, Winkler, and Yoakum counties, there is no general open season.

(14) 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: the Saturday closest to September 30 for 30 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.

(15) Muzzleloader-only open seasons, and bag and possession limits shall be as follows.

(A) In Brewster, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves, Terrell, and Upton (that portion located both south of U.S. Highway 67 and east of state highway 349) counties, there is an open season during which only antlerless and spike-buck deer may be taken only with a muzzleloader.

(i) Open Season: from the first Saturday following the closing of the general open season for nine consecutive days.

(ii) Bag limit: four antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate, no more than two spike bucks.

(B) In Angelina, Chambers, Hardin, Harris, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, and Walker counties, there is an open season during which only antlerless and spike-buck deer may be taken only with a muzzleloader.

(i) Open Season: from the first Saturday following the closing of the general open season for nine consecutive days.

(ii) Bag limit: four antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate, no more than two spike bucks and no more than two antlerless.

(C) No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLDP permits have been issued for the property.

(16) 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: the third weekend (Saturday and Sunday) in January.

(C) Bag limits, provisions for the take of antlerless deer, and special requirements in the individual counties listed in paragraphs (1) - (11) 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, except in Grayson County, where legal means are restricted to crossbow and lawful archery equipment.

(F) A licensed hunter 16 years of age or younger may hunt any deer on any property (including MLDP properties) during the seasons established by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph.

(G) 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, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Scurry, 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 (west of U.S. Highway 385), Bailey, Cochran, Hockley, Lamb, 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, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hudspeth, Hutchinson, Jeff Davis, Kent, King, Lipscomb, Loving, Midland, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Presidio, Randall, Reagan, Reeves, Roberts, Scurry, 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 30 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 30 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.

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 June 20, 2005.

TRD-200502548

Gene McCarty

Chief of Staff

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: July 10, 2005

Proposal publication date: February 25, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775

31 TAC §65.72, §65.82

The amendments are adopted under 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 may 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 June 20, 2005.

TRD-200502549

Gene McCarty

Chief of Staff

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: July 10, 2005

Proposal publication date: February 25, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775