Reptile & Amphibian Forums

FYI Folks.

INTERSTATE WILDLIFE VIOLATOR COMPACT REGULATIONS

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (the department) proposes new §55.675, concerning Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact.

The 81st Texas Legislature (2009) enacted House Bill 3391 (H.B. 3391). Section 16 of H.B. 3391 amended the Parks and Wildlife Code by adding new Chapter 92, which authorizes the commission, on behalf of the state, to enter into the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact (IWVC), a multi-state compact that allows member states to share information about wildlife violators and to deny licensure to persons who have failed to comply with conservation law in member states.

The terms of Section 16 of H.B 3391 authorize the commission to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of Section 16, including the adoption of rules and the delegation of authority to the director. Section 16 of H.B. 3391 also authorizes the commission, if necessary to protect the interests of this state, to withdraw from the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact in accordance with the terms of the compact.

The proposed new rule would direct the executive director of the department to enter into and/or withdraw from the Compact; appoint a Compact administrator to serve as Texas’ representative on the board of Compact administrators; refuse to issue a license, tag or permit; receive information from and provide information to other member states; process nonresident violators who are residents of other member states; establish policies and procedures to implement the terms of the Compact; and, take other action as necessary to carry out the terms of the Compact.. The proposed provisions are necessary for the department to participate in the IWVC according to its terms, as permitted and authorized under the terms of Section 16 of H.B. 3391.

2. Fiscal Note.

Major David Sinclair, Chief of Fisheries and Wildlife Enforcement, has determined that for each of the first five years the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the rule other than those addressed in the fiscal note to H.B. 3391.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

Major Sinclair also has determined that for each of the first five years the rule as proposed is in effect:

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rule as proposed will be the deterrent effect of the denial of license privileges for persons who have not complied with conservation law in any jurisdiction affected by the Compact.

(B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. The department has determined that there will be no direct economic effect on small or micro-businesses or persons required to comply as a result of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.

(C) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rule as proposed will not impact local economies.

(D) The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rule.

(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rule.

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Major David Sinclair, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4854, e-mail: david.sinclair@tpwd.state.tx.us.

5. Statutory Authority.

The new rule is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 92, which authorizes the commission, on behalf of the state, to enter into the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact (IWVC) and to take all actions necessary to implement the chapter, including the adoption of rules and the delegation of authority to the director.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 92.

§55.675. Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission expresses support for the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact (Compact) and hereby directs the executive director of the department to enter into the Compact on behalf of the state of Texas. As provided by the terms of the Compact, and in the manner specified by the Compact, the director or the director’s designee may:

(1) enter into the Compact and/or withdraw from the Compact;

(2) eppoint a Compact administrator to serve as Texas’ representative on the board of Compact administrators;

(3) refuse to issue a license, tag or permit;

(4) receive information from and provide information to other member states;

(5) process nonresident violators who are residents of other member states; and

(6) establish policies and procedures to implement the terms of the Compact and this seciton.

(7) take other action as necessary to carry out the terms of the Compact.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency’s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

So wth does that all mean? Might hurt VPI a bit...

Jaykis,

>>So what does that all mean? Might hurt VPI a bit...

It means that “they” are attempting to find a new way to implement their redefinition of the “Commerce Clause” by using the states to do what the feds want them to do since at least June 2008…In short, this is an additional front (neither HR-669 or S-373 will go away-they’ll be back at a later date) by the government to implement certain "implied" and "specified" provisions of HR-669 and S-373 but at the local level. This is probably a “divide-and-conquer” strategy hoping that there will be less opposition at the state level than nationally. This is only my opinion here but this action suggests to me that USARK (and us as well) has been far more effective at the national level than they expected. As a side bar, they already have a legal precedent for doing this with criminal records and driver’s licenses…When you get a speeding ticket, they can find out if you have anything “outstanding” in your state and others from the computer in their car.

A couple of things to understand here…One is that every state has an “approved” wildlife plan (Secretary of the Interior) to qualify for federal wildlife dollars (i.e. Habitat Conservation Plans-HCP)…Two, the states receive lots of federal money (some much more than others) to support their own state wildlife plans which means there are strings attached (i.e. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy-CWCS)…And three, every state participates (again, some more than others) in the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), which is an information “network” for every state…In other words, it’s their “forum” to share information amongst themselves long before we ever find out about it…

Socialism is about the public (government) control of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services and this Texas legislation appears to be designed specifically to address the distribution and exchange parts...Remember, in HR-669, you ARE permitted to own their "permitted" animals (as some socialist countries allow) IF you can prove that it does not even have the "potential" for becoming an "invasive species". Meaning that you - the keeper - have that burden of proof (to their standard). And who will be the final "decision-maker" of this? It will be the government (with advice from their experts)...And from HR-669, remember those restrictions regarding out-of-state transport?

In short, they've found another way to approach the legislative "problem" of regulating the interstate transport of herps...Use the states to do it using the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact (IWVC)…

I’ve got to hand it to them, they certainly had a Plan B waiting on the shelf…Having a “network” of willing accomplices is a wonderful thing!

Later,
Jim

-----
CSRAJim

OHI,

Thanks man for posting this one…This is a chilling reminder that the “agenda” from the environmental and conservation “commissars” that the spirit of HR-669 and S-373 is not forgotten…Looks like they've introduced a Plan B to the legislative problem...

>>3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

>>Major Sinclair also has determined that for each of the first five years the rule as proposed is in effect:

>>(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rule as proposed will be the deterrent effect of the denial of license privileges for persons who have not complied with conservation law in any jurisdiction affected by the Compact.

On the basis of what? A voluntary “compact” between states to regulate INTERSTATE trade…What will they think of next?

>>(B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. The department has determined that there will be no direct economic effect on small or micro-businesses or persons required to comply as a result of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.

Without preparing an “economic impact statement”, how can they determine whether this “compact” will affect small business or not? I see that they have adopted the reverse of the burden of proof here…The citizen has to prove its affect in the public comment period because the government has already made its decision…

>>(E) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rule.

Really? Why is this even in the equation? Unless they’ve been “networking” with USFWS regarding their lawsuit troubles in court, why would Texas even address the issue of the “taking of private real property”? The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) must have attended a USFWS “networking” seminar sponsored by a “dot-org” to share information…

>>5. Statutory Authority.

>>(4) receive information from and provide information to other member states;

Really? This new IWVC has provisions for a “network” of state agencies to share information regarding compliance with the IWVC regulation in Texas? What if your state has provisions that does not require a license if you do not “SELL” more than a certain number of animals per year? Does this mean that I’ll have to get some kind of an “out-of-state” license from Texas to ship there even if a license to sell in my state is not required? This IWVC "compact" idea sounds like something from the EU to ship between COUNTRIES!

>>(5) process nonresident violators who are residents of other member states; and

And how does Texas propose to do this? Unless my state adopts this “compact”, how is Texas going to “process” me in another state when I’m in compliance with my state laws? Unless there is some federal “string” in this equation regarding interstate trade…Ummmmmm, I wonder.

Welcome to the USSA…United Socialist States of America.

Later,
Jim.

-----
CSRAJim

Thanks Jim.

I wanted to comment on something, you wrote:

>>(B) Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. The department has determined that there will be no direct economic effect on small or micro-businesses or persons required to comply as a result of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.

Without preparing an “economic impact statement”, how can they determine whether this “compact” will affect small business or not? I see that they have adopted the reverse of the burden of proof here…The citizen has to prove its affect in the public comment period because the government has already made its decision…

TPWD did an EIS like report for the "White and Black List" and they determined no impact on micro-businesses. I disagree. I analyized commercial herp data (and other herp data: range, fecundity and population density) for TX, for my MS thesis, and the design of the "White and Black List" turned out to be highly flawed. I should have a final paper of my work out by spring of next year (hope to publish down the road). Also an EIS was NOT done for the road ban that I am aware of. I mentioned previously (many times) that the road ban would negatively affect small herp business and it most certainly has. Also, all the new TX regs have hurt Herp Shows in the state. I know several folks who quit doing TX shows because of all the hoops and expense. Also venomous at Daytona was nixed because of compliance issues with FWC. We have commercial arguements and we should use them.

Welkerii

"Also venomous at Daytona was nixed because of compliance issues with FWC."

I thought Hank Molt said the insurance got too high because of the venomous stuff.

Well that maybe true as well but I know that the FWC required folks buying to have FL VRL to carry purchases out. Who wants to go to a show, buy a herp and still have to pay for shipping.

Welkerii

Welkerii,

>>TPWD did an EIS like report for the "White and Black List" and they determined no impact on micro-businesses. I disagree. I analyzed commercial herp data (and other herp data: range, fecundity and population density) for TX, for my MS thesis, and the design of the "White and Black List" turned out to be highly flawed. I should have a final paper of my work out by spring of next year (hope to publish down the road). Also an EIS was NOT done for the road ban that I am aware of. I mentioned previously (many times) that the road ban would negatively affect small herp business and it most certainly has. Also, all the new TX regs have hurt Herp Shows in the state. I know several folks who quit doing TX shows because of all the hoops and expense. Also venomous at Daytona was nixed because of compliance issues with FWC. We have commercial arguments and we should use them.

Agreed and I do with my congressman…

Speaking of Daytona, the FWCC officer this year was quite a pleasure to deal with…He was wrapped around the fact that I did not have my written inventory with me on Saturday. I had it on Friday but it was collected by the vet when he came around for his inspection. The vet said he was collecting them for just this requirement this year…Which we (the breeders that were there this year) heard about on the PA system on Friday while we were setting up. Anyway, we went round and round about my inventory…I finally told him to call his office and have them fax him my inventory and then inspect my table (everything would match exactly)…They have a copy of it as a requirement for me to receive my Class III license…This made him even more irritated…After he checked my license he left…I expected him to return but did not…

My opinion is that he really didn’t want me there…Just my opinion though.

Regarding their “studies”, it seems to me as though they do these things (studies) without much forethought at all…It’s hard to believe a business working things out the way the government seems to…They would not be in business for very long…Kind of hard to make widgets without a widget maker…And a maintenance budget for when the widget maker breaks…Below are some examples of the results of a thorough “think” of the impact on the federal budget from the Provisions of Section 7 of the ESA…

“From its inception this has been a controversial section of the Act. It prohibits Federal agencies from carrying out public projects or issuing permits for private projects that would either jeopardize listed species or harm their habitat. Agencies prepare a “biological assessment" (which may be time-consuming and costly) which supports their conclusion about whether a proposed project would affect any listed species…”

From the Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act, Issue Brief Number IB82046, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Updated: 04/12/82…

Unfunded mandates are a wonderful thing, even at the federal level…Here are some examples of the ESA’s impact on the rest of the federal government…

NOAA paid $185,908,130 in tax dollars in FY2006 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…

Army Corps of Engineers paid $159,999,596 in tax dollars in FY2006 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…

Bureau of Reclamation paid $91,993,000 in tax dollars in FY2006 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…

NOAA paid $173,418,316 in tax dollars in FY2007 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…

Army Corps of Engineers paid $199,312,638 in tax dollars in FY2007 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…

Bonneville Power Authority paid $523,620,865 in tax dollars in FY2007 for “species” under Section 7 Provisions…

It’s amazing to read just how much money is actually spent on just the ESA…

Again, thanks for that post…

Later,
Jim.
-----
CSRAJim