Posted by:
keown
at Wed Jul 16 14:00:37 2008 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by keown ]
Just so everyone understands, we are dealing with two things here...Texas State Laws (as passsed by the Texas Legislature) and the Texas Administrative Code which are regulations adopted by different state agencies....such as TP&W. This latest proposal is to amend the TP&W regulations that are codified in the Texas Administrative Code. Once the agency (TP&W) adopts the changes they become a part of the Texas Administrative Code and carry the same force as law...the only difference being the agency is able to do it themselves without the Legislature having to pass a specific law dealing with it.
My biggest concern with this latest proposal is the fact that their delineation between "commerical" and "recreational" seems to be a bit ambiguous/muddy. It also provides no provision for a recreational user to "gift" an animal to another person. Also, does "non-game wildlife" mean only non-game wildlife native to Texas or does it mean non-game wildlife from anywhere. They seem to use this term interchangably throughout their proposed regs.
Due to their ambiguous use of the term "commerical" coupled with this language taken from their proposed regs:
"(c) It is an offense for any person to take or attempt to take nongame wildlife for purposes of commercial activity from public land or water."
I can see where this could cause some potential problems if we are successful in getting the road-hunting ban repealed next session. If that "law' is repealed by the legislature, I can see where TP&W could possibly use this to continue to prohibit road-hunting. One has to ask one's self if perhaps TP&W expects to see us make a succcessful attempt to get the road-hunting ban overturned this next session and they are including such ambigious language as this in their regs so that they can fall back on them to continue to prohibit road-hunting if the law does get repealed.
I agree with reptoman in that the language is ambigious and unclear in some areas and I feel that it was written that way intentionally. Iwould feel much better if their proposed regs were written in a more straight-forward manner and in language that the common man would have no problem with understanding the actual intent.
-----
Gerald Keown
Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research
www.southwesternherp.com
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: What does all this mean in plain eng - keown, Wed Jul 16 14:00:37 2008