Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Comment period is ending January 24th. I don't think I am wrong on the point I submitted below. Take a look and voice your opinon.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/200801_snakes.phtml

One error I would point out in your definitions section (55.651) that is inconsistent with the wording contained in HB 12 relating to venomous species, is TP&W’s interpretive wording that a controlled exotic snake permit is needed for “a venomous snake not indigenous to Texas”. This language clearly contradicts the text of the law as it is written. HB 12 states that “venomous snakes not indigenous to this country” was the criteria that would be used for determining if a permit would be required. While TP&W has had to work out the difficult introduction of this new law, the careless substitution of “Texas” for “country” is an interpretive opinion of this clause but not a factual reproduction of the law.

VERY good catch, seems they are keen on "rewording", especially at the last minute, then saying it was an original mistake that is now corrected.
-----
Todd Hughes

I see no provision for nonresidents who simply transporting through the state. Nor do I see any provision for a person from outside Texas to transport into Texas to any recipient. If the recipient of a controlled species has 21 days from the date of reciept in which to obtain a permit, then somebody transporting through or importing into Texas should have a reasonable timeframe in which to either pass through the state or transfer the specimen(s) to a recipient that is inside the state.

Or is that covered under another law?

Restrictions on transport thru the state potentially could be a restriction on interstate commerce and could run afoul of federal regulations but I am not sure. I know that a lot of fish that are banned from fish keeping in Fl. are imported through Miami and obviously shipped elsewhere once they get here.

Actually, I don't think that TP&W's interpretation of HB 12 in inconsistent with the language in HB12. In HB 12 as it was signed into law simply refers to "non-indigenous venomous snakes". This pretty much leaves it open to TP&W to interpret it as they see fit. Actually, when the original HB 1309 (that is the bill that died) was introduced the language in that bill did indeed read "a venomous snake not indigenous to Texas", in the introductory paragraph. However, when the language from HB 1309 was resurrected and tacked onto HB 12 at the last minute the language "a venomous snake not indigenous to Texas" was dropped and replaced with the more ambigious wording "non-indigenous venomous snakes". I don't like it any more than the next guy, but the legislature essentially left it up to TP&W to define the term as they saw fit.
-----
Gerald Keown
Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research
www.southwesternherp.com