Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just wrapped up a lengthy conversation with Robert McDonald at TPWD. I’m just posting the basics here because some comments were personal or off the record. To my surprise, he did not sound like the devil incarnate. He is either reasonable and shares many of our concerns, or he is gifted at hiding his true feelings and intentions. My gut says that his sympathies lie with us (us being the hobbyist and breeders, NOT the commercial hunters).

He sounded like a “by the book” professional who was trying his best to accurately interpret the law and anticipate its implications. I do not think he contrived the invert inclusion in order to spite us. He simply evaluated the law as best he could. I brought up the challenge that the invert language was not part of the hunting regs but was unable to persuade him (of course I’m not a lawyer and I probably fell short in my arguments).

Despite his stance that inverts ARE included as wild animals and non-game, I got the impression that he wished this was not the case. I also got the impression that he is no fan of the road hunting ban or how it came into law. However, his job requires him to go by the law (or his interpretation thereof) and not his personal feelings or preferences.

When I asked him about lifting the ban, his main suggestion was for us to appoint a spokesman (or small group) and work with a friendly legislator to introduce appropriate legislation in the next session. I advised him we were doing that, but were also looking for a more immediate solution and asked how TPWD would respond if we took this to court and sought an injunction. He gave the impression that many would welcome a clarification from the court. I believe we could have a strong case for a legal injunction, if for no other reason than to clarify the “legislative intent” and revise enforcement accordingly. He also mentioned that a policy change on enforcement could also be handed down from the commission or at the request of the Governor. He seemed to suggest this is possible, but not particularly likely.

Bottom line, I THINK Mr. McDonald shares many of our concerns. However, he feels duty bound to honor the ban (including for inverts) until a new regulation, legislation, or judicial order changes it. I think directing our anger at him would be a mistake. He is just the messenger. We have some very real enemies at TPWD, but I don’t think Robert McDonald is one of them.

PS: He asked me to assure everyone that he doesn’t eat babies for breakfast.

about the effective date? It seems to me that we have pretty irrefutable indications that the proper date is September 1.

Brad Chambers

I missed that one. I'll call back a little later.

Mr. McDonald explained that new laws typically go into effect at the start of the new fiscal year (9/1). However, the legislature is also empowered to stipulate alternate effective dates. In the case of this ban, the effective date was stipulated as "immediately". Everything I have seen confirms this to be the case.

Until someone can cite a specific legal code or judicial order that states differently, this ban should be considered to be in effect.

I don’t see anything wrong with advancing the Governor option especially IF-IF-IF, the intent of the legislature WAS NOT to have this closure apply to invertebrates-if nothing other than the Pandora’s box it opens up. Perhaps the Governor, the Legislature and TWPD want to keep this issue out of the courts. Perhaps the CREDIBLE threat of injunction alone may provide the necessary relief.

R

The commission option might be even more promising....

since TPWD code defines animal as "any terrtestral vertebrate" I do not see how they could possibly interperet it to include inverts.

Again, my feeling is they wanted to shut down road cruising and have done so. Commercial collection/dealing will still go on, at least the mass dealers will.