Legislative Updates

More Info

The Texas Wildlife Association is very much concerned about current legislative efforts in Austin that promote the sale of venison and privatization, as well as legislation creating a Deer Mangement Permit for mule deer that lacks a much-needed research compnent. TWA is actively working to promote its policy interests as these bills are discussed and debated.  Your awareness of these important issues will be critical as our organization and its members continue their communication with State Senators and State Representatives in the coming days.

HB 535 – Sale of Venison
(Committee Substitute Approved by House committee; in House Calendars Committee)

• Committee Substitute declares breeder deer for slaughter as exotics, not native white-tailed or mule deer.  This is de facto privatization of the state’s deer herd, which is held in the public trust under the Constitution.
• Original bill created amenable species status and could have eliminated benevolent donations of deer, such as programs as Hunters for the Hungry.
• Many drugs given to breeder deer have unknown withdrawal times and pose a health risk to the public, in addition to the public’s concern when this is known on wild resource.
• Potential for unscrupulous parties to use this to divert wild deer into commerce; no way to distinguish between wild deer and “surplus” pen deer for processors and law enforcement.
• May open “loophole” for a deer breeder to purposely raise deer with intent to slaughter and simply designate them as “surplus.”
• Contrary to North American Wildlife Conservation Model dealing with commerce of dead wildlife.

HB 3775 – Privatization of Deer
(Pending in House committee)

• TWA absolutely opposed to privatization of breeder deer. Deer in Texas belong to the people of the state under the Constitution.  Cannot be given away by legislation.
• Bill is contrary to world’s most successful conservation model, North American Wildlife Conservation Model.  Core, central tenet based on public trust doctrine defended through court case dating back to 1842, which declares wildlife is owned by the public, and state wildlife agency entrusted in regulatory oversight.
• Transfer of ownership to private individual may result in public scrutiny.  Additionally, public perception of “their” deer being given to a private individual, with deer raised in pens and released for hunting, will be construed by the non-hunting public as “canned hunting,” which could create public outcry against hunting, in general.
• Private ownership potentially creates problematic regulatory enforcements matters.
• Privatization imposes specific liabilities on deer breeders associated with deer actions and escapes, especially with collisions or injuries. Specific deer breeder liability may be associated with potential disease and transmission (i.e. CWD, brucellosis) by impacts to other deer breeders and on the neighbors’ wild deer herd, based on impacts to hunting operations.
• Privatization imposes specific liabilities on neighboring ranches and hunters.  If such a deer were to escape (and it be private property of the breeder) onto an adjoining landowner’s property, the landowner’s right to protect themselves and steward the resource (as a part of their usual management practice or as disease prevention) could be greatly compromised. For instance, I can’t shoot or take possession of someone’s cattle on my land, but I have to notify a ranger or gather it and notify the owner.  What if my guest mistakenly shot a 300 B&C deer worth $200K?  Would I be liable if it were owned by someone else? What about a doe worth the same with no visibly distinguishing ID?
• This bill may enhance a breeder’s right, but it greatly detracts from the property rights of their neighbors and private landowners in the area.
• Privatization remains untenable from a potential liability, societal, property rights, and animal health perspective.

HB 957/SB 460 – Mule Deer DMP
(HB 957 approved by House committee; in House Calendars Committee)
(SB 460 approved by Senate; approved by House Committee; in House Calendars Committee)

• Mule deer are not white-tailed deer, and management practices should not be implemented for mule deer simply because they are deer (this would be equivalent to applying sandhill crane regs and management practices to whooping cranes, simply because they are cranes).  Mule deer are different from whitetails physiologically, morphologically, ecologically, and ethologically.
• Mule deer express fragile traits, as evidenced through declining numbers and distribution over much of their traditional range.  Mule deer are not as adaptable, resilient, and hardy as whitetails.
• Mule deer reproduction in breeder pens has declined significantly.  In 2008, fawn reproduction reported by mule deer breeders was 35% – which is relatively very low compared to whitetails in deer pens, which can range from 100-150% fawn survival and recruitment.  In 2009, recruitment dropped to 27% and to 13% in 2010.  These numbers give TWA concern.
• Research should be a required component before DMP is implemented, looking at such things as mortality effects on wild mule deer fawns that are prematurely orphaned when their mothers are captured in October and early November; mortality and casualty of captured wild mule deer associated with capture activities; mortality and stress related problems of adult mule deer while in pens; fawn production in pens; post release survival of mule deer fawns and adults; other relevant potential problems associated with placing wild mule deer in pens; and the interrelationship and impact of mule deer captivity and pens with other desert species, especially pronghorn and bighorn.
• We propose, before any permit goes into effect, that any interested landowners in coordination with university researchers – with interested landowners stepping forward to fund the research and participate under Scientific Permits (at no cost to TPWD) – research the most critical issues concerning the confinement, nutrition, capture, cover requirements, enclosure size, water needs, impacts on vegetation, length of time and preferred dates ranges for confinement and breeding, physical handling of deer and offspring, release procedures, and disease management.
• Increased disease transmission possibility by exposing breeder buck to deer in one facility and then translocating breeder buck to another facility.  Chronic Wasting Disease has been confirmed in mule deer 50 miles from Texas border.  This potentially exacerbates disease risks and impacts hunting and the huge multi-billion dollar hunting economy of wild deer.
• Potential for neighboring landowner conflict due to mule deer huge home range sizes, often ranging 20,000 to 30,000 acres, and larger.
• DMP driven neighbor-to-neighbor issues may incentivize the construction of high fences, which creates habitat concerns for the highly-mobile mule deer and especially declining migratory pronghorn populations and rare migrating desert bighorns between mountain ranges.