Adopted Rules Title 31

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on March 27, 2025 adopted amendments to 31 TAC §§53.1 - 53.4, 53.6, and §53.18, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules- Provisions for Digital Products, and §53.60, concerning Stamps. The amendments to §53.2, 53.3, and §53.6 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 21, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 948). The amendments to §§53.1, 53.4, 53.18, and 53.60 are adopted without change and will not be republished.

The change to §53.2, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules, removes a repeated phrase from subsection (c)(3). The change is nonsubstantive.

The change to §53.3, concerning Combination Hunting and Fishing License Packages, hyphenates the phrase "active duty" in subsection (a)(11). The change is nonsubstantive.

The change to §53.6, concerning Recreational Fishing Licenses, Stamps, and Tags, inserts a semicolon at the end of subsection (e)(2) and (4) to preserve structural parallelism and hyphenates the phrase "active duty" in subsections (a)(6) and (d)(3). The changes are nonsubstantive.

The amendments, in conjunction with other rules affecting 31 TAC Chapter 57, Subchapter N, concerning the Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamations, and Chapter 65, Subchapter A, concerning the Statewide Hunting Proclamation, published elsewhere in this issue of the Texas Register, expand the current provisions regarding the issuance and use of digital products to include and apply to all recreational hunting, fishing, and combination hunting and fishing licenses and stamp endorsements currently issued by the department directly to hunters and anglers, as well as the Annual Public Hunting Permit, Limited Use Permit, Harvest Information Program certification, Hunter Education Deferral Option, federal sandhill crane permit, and controlled exotic snake permit.

The 87th Texas Legislature (2021) enacted House Bill (H.B.) 3081, which authorized the commission to develop and implement a program for the issuance of digital tags for animals, including birds, to holders of hunting licenses authorizing the taking of those animals. The department accordingly initiated a pilot program in 2022 to determine the public receptivity to and logistical feasibility of the concept of digital licenses, stamp endorsements, and tags for hunting and fishing, which resulted in the creation of digital versions of the super-combination hunting and "all water" fishing license and the lifetime resident super-combination hunting and "all water" fishing package (47 TexReg 88). In 2022, after an analysis of customer purchasing behavior with respect to digital licenses and products, the department determined that it was appropriate to offer a digital version of the youth hunting license, the lifetime resident hunting license, and the lifetime fishing license for the license year beginning September 1, 2023, as well as the exempt angler red drum tag, which allows persons who are exempt from fishing license and stamp endorsement requirements to harvest red drum. The department is now confident, based on these pilot programs, that all recreational hunting and fishing licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and selected permits that are sold directly to users can be made available to the public as digital products.

The amendment to §§53.1, concerning Applicability, adds definitions for "digital product," "electronic acquisition - electronically," "physical product," and "virtual documentation" in order to provide precise and unambiguous meanings for those terms as they are used in department rules.

The amendments to §§53.2, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules, 53.3, concerning Combination Hunting and Fishing License Packages, 53.4, concerning Lifetime Licenses, and 53.6, concerning Recreational Fishing Licenses, Stamps, and Tags, make conforming changes necessary to comport with the provisions of §53.18, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules- Provisions for Digital Products, which would be retitled "Digital Products," and become the controlling authority for all digital products offered by the department.

The amendment to §53.18, concerning License Issuing Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules-Provisions for Digital Products, retitles the section and makes the provisions of the section applicable to all recreational hunting and fishing licenses, stamp endorsements, and tags sold directly to the public, as well as the selected permits mentioned previously in this preamble. The effect of the amendment is to make digital versions of all recreational hunting and fishing licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and select permits currently directly available to the public (in addition to the traditional versions of those products).

The amendment to §53.60, concerning Stamps, also makes conforming changes necessary to comport with the proposed §53.18.

The department received 126 comments opposing adoption of the provisions to implement digital versions of hunting licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and selected permits. Of the 126 comments, 55 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

Thirty commenters opposed adoption and made statements indicating apparent misunderstanding of the proposal to mean the department was eliminating paper licenses, tags, and permits or somehow making digital products mandatory. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that hunters will still have the option of choosing between digital license products and traditional paper versions of those products. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated, "regular hunting tag is plenty." The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as proposed did not provide additional tag opportunity, it simply made all tags available as digital products. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital licenses constitute an invasion of privacy. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that no person is required to purchase a digital product. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that hunting and the harvest of red drum and spotted seatrout should not be permitted because of potential harm to the resource. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is confident that the provision of digital license products will not result in harm to the resources regulated by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital products are unfeasible because sometimes the department's website is down, making compliance impossible because regulations cannot be accessed. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is incumbent upon all hunters and anglers to be familiar with and understand the regulations governing the activities they engage in, preferably before engaging in the activity, and that in any case there is a downloadable application containing all applicable information (with automatic updates) that exists for that purpose. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that lifetime licenses should be issued to veterans with a 100 percent permanent and total disability. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although the commission is authorized to issue licenses at no cost to qualified disabled veterans on an annual basis, there is no statutory provision allowing the issuance of a lifetime license at no cost. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that digital products should be eliminated because people are being cited for violations. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that just as the acquisition of paper licenses invokes the applicability of regulations governing their use and a concomitant responsibility on the part of the licensee to understand and comply with those rules, the choice to obtain a digital product comes with an obligation to understand and comply with regulations associated with the use of digital products, preferably before going into the field. The department understands that with new ways of doing things it is necessary to facilitate a smooth transition for the public, which the department acknowledges by implementing an "education period" during which enforcement personnel are directed to employ patience, understanding, and discretion based upon the unique circumstances involved; however, citations can be and are issued especially when a violation is determined to be intentional or reckless or occurs subsequent to a previous warning. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "digital should be banned." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that if the commenter means that the department should not pursue digital licensing options, the department disagrees and responds that customer feedback indicates significant and overwhelming public support for providing hunters and anglers the option of obtaining digital products where feasible. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and made statements indicating a misunderstanding of the proposal to mean that there would no longer be a requirement for the documentation of lawful harvest of deer and turkey by hunters. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that rules remain in place to require documentation of lawful take, which must accompany the resource until tagging requirements legally cease. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital products would allow or encourage illegal hunting. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that rules are irrelevant to a person who makes the conscious decision to intentionally commit a criminal offense, and that department law enforcement personnel exist to detect and deter such activity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that digital products create the opportunity for invasion of privacy, specifying, variously, by hackers, the government, and foreigners. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that data security is an inherent risk with any device capable of accessing the internet over cellular or wifi networks, and as such it is therefore a personal decision whether or not to utilize the department's digital license products. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "targeting through location detection is dishonest." The department disagrees that anyone using a digital license product is "targeted," whatever is meant by that term, and responds that a user of a digital license product is required to consent to the collection of location data as a condition of using the product. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital licensing should be unconstitutional because it gives game wardens a list of people to investigate while criminals pillage the resource. The commenter stated that the department should instead expand public hunting opportunity and improve the drawn hunt system. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that no aspect of the rules as adopted is violative of the federal or state constitutions. The department further responds that the sale and use of digital products does not result in the creation or maintenance of any sort of "list" of people for department law enforcement personnel to investigate, and that contrary to the commenter's statement, department law enforcement personnel are vigilant with respect to any and all violations of law regarding wildlife resources. Finally, the department responds that the rules as proposed and adopted have no connection to the department's land acquisition or public hunting programs. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Six commenters opposed adoption and stated that there are many areas of the state without cell service. The department agrees with the comments and responds that the department's reporting application is not dependent upon network connectivity at the time a reporting requirement is executed; a hunter complies with reporting requirements by entering required data on a device, which records the date and time of the report. The information is then transmitted to the department when connectivity is established. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital license options should only be available to individuals with a disability that prevents them from obtaining a license in person because persons who obtain licenses available to active-duty military personnel are required to do so in person. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because active-duty military licenses are free, the department must verify the military status of applicants in person in order to prevent unscrupulous persons from obtaining a license that person is not entitled to possess. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital licenses are "a step too far" because of perceived micromanagement of hunters and anglers, especially the special antler restrictions, which the commenter states are used by the department to increase revenue. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the license and documentation requirements for harvested buck deer are identical for all hunters, whether take occurs under a digital product or paper license, and there are no revenue implications for the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 715 comments supporting adoption of the provisions to implement digital versions of hunting licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and selected permits.

DIVISION 1. LICENSE, PERMIT, AND BOAT AND MOTOR FEES

31 TAC §§53.1 - 53.4, 53.6, 53.18

The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.010, which requires the department to prescribe the form and issuance of hunting licenses authorized under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42; §42.0101, which authorizes the commission to promulgate rules for the issuance of digital tags for animals, including birds, to holders of hunting licenses authorizing the taking of those animals, including rules allowing a person using a digital tag to create a digital record at the time of the taking of an animal that includes information required by the department as soon as possible after the taking of the animal and requiring a person using a digital tag to retain in the person's possession documentation of a required digital record at all times before the carcass is finally processed; §42.0177, which authorizes the commission to modify or eliminate the tagging, carcass, final destination, and final processing requirements of Chapter 42; §42.006, which authorizes the commission to prescribe requirements relating to possessing a license issued under Chapter 42 by rule; §46.0085, which authorizes the department to issue tags for finfish species allowed by law to be taken during each year or season from coastal waters of the state to holders of licenses authorizing the taking of finfish species; §46.0086, which authorizes the commission to prescribe tagging requirements for the take of finfish; §50.004, which requires the department to issue and prescribe the form and manner of issuance for combination hunting and fishing licenses, including identification and compliance requirements; §61.052, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; and §61.054 which requires the commission to specify the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

§53.2. License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules.

(a) Hunting license.

(1) Except as provided in this section, no person may hunt in this state without having a valid physical hunting license in immediate possession.

(2) A person may hunt in this state without having a valid physical hunting license in immediate possession if that person has acquired a license electronically and has either:

(A) a receipt, notification, or application data from the department on a smart phone, computer, tablet, or similar device indicating acquisition of an appropriate digital product identified in §53.18 of this title (relating to Digital Products); or

(B) a valid confirmation number in possession while awaiting fulfilment of the physical license. Confirmation numbers shall only be valid for 20 days from date of purchase.

(3) Except as provided in this section, a person may hunt deer in this state without having a valid physical hunting license in immediate possession only if that person:

(A) has acquired a license electronically and has a valid confirmation number in possession while awaiting fulfilment of the physical license; and

(B) is lawfully hunting:

(i) under the provisions of §65.29 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Programs);

(ii) by special permit under the provisions of Chapter 65, Subchapter H of this title (relating to Public Lands Proclamation);

(iii) on department-leased lands under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.0271; or

(iv) by special antlerless permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for use on USFS lands that are part of the department's public hunting program.

(4) For the purposes of this chapter, any person under the age of 17 is a resident.

(b) Fishing license; Tags.

(1) A person may fish in this state without having a valid physical fishing license in immediate possession if that person:

(A) is exempt by rule or statute from holding a fishing license; or

(B) has acquired a license electronically and has either:

(i) a receipt, notification, or application data from the department on a smart phone, computer, tablet, or similar device indicating acquisition of a digital product identified in §53.18 of this title; or

(ii) a valid confirmation number in possession while awaiting fulfilment of the physical license. Confirmation numbers shall only be valid for 20 days from date of purchase.

(2) No person may catch and retain a red drum or spotted seatrout exceeding the maximum length limit established in Chapter 57, Subchapter N, Division 2, of this title (relating to Statewide Recreational Fishing Proclamation in the coastal waters of this state without having a valid physical fishing license, saltwater sportfishing stamp (unless exempt), and valid appropriate (red drum or spotted seatrout) tag in immediate possession, unless the person has purchased a valid digital product identified in §53.18 of this title.

(1) A person may acquire recreational hunting and/or fishing licenses electronically from the department by agreeing to pay a convenience fee of up to $5 per license in addition to the normal license fee.

(2) A person may acquire recreational hunting and/or fishing stamp endorsements electronically from the department by agreeing to pay a convenience fee of up to $5 per stamp order in addition to the normal stamp endorsement fee(s). This fee shall not be charged if a license is acquired during the same transaction.

(3) The fees established by this subsection also apply to the electronic acquisition of a digital product identified in §53.18 of this title.

(d) The following categories of persons are exempt from fishing license requirements and fees:

(1) residents under 17 years of age;

(2) non-residents under 17 years of age;

(3) non-residents 65 years of age or older who are residents of Louisiana and who possess a Louisiana recreational fishing license;

(4) non-residents 65 years of age or older who are residents of Oklahoma;

(5) persons who hold valid Louisiana non-resident fishing licenses while fishing on all waters inland from a line across Sabine Pass between Texas Point and Louisiana Point that form a common boundary between Texas and Louisiana if the State of Louisiana allows a reciprocal privilege to persons who hold valid Texas annual or temporary non-resident fishing licenses; and

(6) residents of Louisiana who meet the licensing requirements of their state while fishing on all waters inland from a line across Sabine Pass between Texas Point and Louisiana Point that form a common boundary between Texas and Louisiana if the State of Louisiana allows a reciprocal privilege to Texas residents who hold valid Texas fishing licenses.

(e) A Louisiana resident who holds a valid Louisiana license equivalent to the Texas freshwater fishing guide license may engage in business as a fishing guide on all Texas waters north of the Interstate Highway 10 bridge across the Sabine River that form a common boundary between Texas and Louisiana, provided the State of Louisiana allows a reciprocal privilege to persons who hold a valid Texas resident freshwater fishing guide license. Except as may be specifically provided elsewhere in this chapter or Parks and Wildlife Code, no person may take or attempt to take fish in Texas public waters without first having obtained a Texas license valid for that purpose.

(f) An administrative fee of $3 shall be charged for replacement of lost or destroyed licenses, stamp endorsements, or permits. This fee shall not be charged for items which have a fee for duplicates otherwise prescribed by rule or statute.

(g) A license or permit issued under the Parks and Wildlife Code or this title that has been denied or revoked by the department may not be re-issued or reinstated unless the person applying for re-issuance or reinstatement applies to the department for re-issuance or reinstatement and pays to the department an application review fee of $100, in addition to any other fees or penalties required by law.

(h) A person who has purchased a valid physical hunting, fishing, or combination hunting and fishing license product but is not in physical possession of that physical license product in any circumstance for which physical possession of the license product is required may use a wireless communications device (laptop, cellphone, smart phone, electronic tablet, phablet, or similar device) to satisfy applicable license possession requirements.

(1) Upon request for proof of licensure by a department employee in the performance of official duties, a person may display one of the following images via a wireless communications device:

(A) an image of information from the Internet website of the department or mobile application verifying issuance of the license valid for the activity or circumstance for which proof of licensure has been requested; or

(B) a display image of a digital photograph of the applicable license issued to the person.

(2) The requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection are satisfied by separate digital images of the entirety of the front and back of the license. The images must be of a resolution, contrast, and image size sufficient to allow definitive verification of the information on the license.

(3) This subsection applies only to proof of licensure and does not relieve any person from any legal requirement or obligation to be in physical possession of a stamp, stamp endorsement, tag, or permit.

§53.3. Combination Hunting and Fishing License Packages.

(a) Combination hunting and fishing license packages may be priced at an amount less than the sum of the license and stamp prices of the individual licenses and stamps included in the package.

(1) Resident combination hunting and freshwater fishing package--$50. Package consists of a resident hunting license, a resident fishing license and a freshwater fish stamp;

(2) Resident combination hunting and saltwater fishing package--$55. Package consists of a resident hunting license, a resident fishing license, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag;

(3) Resident combination hunting and "all water" fishing package--$60. Package consists of a resident hunting license, a resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag;

(4) Resident senior combination hunting and freshwater fishing package--$16. Package consists of a senior resident hunting license, a senior resident fishing license and a freshwater fish stamp;

(5) Resident senior combination hunting and saltwater fishing package--$21. Package consists of a senior resident hunting license, a senior resident fishing license, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag;

(6) Resident senior combination hunting and "all water" fishing package--$26. Package consists of a senior resident hunting license, a senior resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag;

(7) Resident super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package--$68. Package consists of a resident hunting license, a migratory game bird stamp, an upland game bird stamp, an archery stamp, a resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag;

(8) Resident senior super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package--$32. Package consists of a senior resident hunting license, a migratory game bird stamp, an upland game bird stamp, an archery stamp, a senior resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag;

(9) Resident disabled veteran super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package--$0. Package consists of a resident hunting license, a migratory game bird stamp, an upland game bird stamp, an archery stamp, a resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag;

(10) Nonresident disabled veteran super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package--$0. Package consists of a resident hunting license, a migratory game bird stamp, an upland game bird stamp, an archery stamp, a resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag. For purposes of this paragraph, a nonresident disabled veteran is a resident for the purpose of obtaining a super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package.

(11) Texas resident active-duty military super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package--$0. Package consists of a resident hunting license, an upland game bird stamp, a migratory game bird stamp, an archery stamp, a resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, a saltwater sportfishing stamp, a spotted seatrout tag, and a red drum tag; and

(12) Replacement combination or replacement super combination packages--$10 except for a replacement disabled veteran super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package or a Texas resident active-duty military super combination hunting and "all water" fishing package, which shall be replaced at no charge.

(b) For purposes of this section, a "disabled veteran" is a veteran meeting the requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.012(c).

§53.6. Recreational Fishing Licenses, Stamps, and Tags.

(a) The items listed in this subsection are sold only as part of a package. The price and terms of these items are as follows:

(1) resident fishing license--$25;

(2) special resident fishing license (valid for residents who are legally blind as described in Parks and Wildlife Code, §46.004)--$7 (one red drum and one spotted seatrout tag shall be available at no additional charge with the purchase of a special resident fishing license);

(3) senior resident fishing license (valid for residents who are 65 years of age or older on the date of license purchase)--$7;

(4) "year-from-purchase" resident fishing license--$32. The "Year-from-purchase" resident fishing license is valid from the date of purchase through the end of the purchase month of the subsequent year;

(5) non-resident fishing license--$53; and

(6) Texas resident active-duty military "all water" fishing package--$0. Package consists of a resident fishing license, a freshwater fish stamp, and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum and a spotted seatrout tag.

(b) The items listed in this subsection may be sold individually or as part of a package. Stamps sold individually shall be valid from the date of purchase or the start date of the license year, whichever is later, through the last day of the license year. Stamps sold as part of a fishing package shall be valid for the same time period as the license included in the package as specified in this rule. The price of these stamps is as follows:

(1) freshwater fishing stamp--$5; and

(2) saltwater sportfishing stamp--$7 plus a saltwater sportfishing stamp surcharge of $3. A red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag shall be issued at no additional charge with each saltwater sportfishing stamp.

(c) Fishing packages and licenses. The price of any fishing package shall be the sum of the price of the individual items included in the package:

(1) resident freshwater fishing package--$30. Package consists of a resident fishing license and a freshwater fish stamp;

(2) resident saltwater fishing package--$35. Package consists of a resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag;

(3) resident "all water" fishing package--$40. Package consists of a resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag;

(4) senior resident freshwater fishing package--$12. Package consists of a senior resident fishing license and a freshwater fishing stamp;

(5) senior resident saltwater fishing package--$17. Package consists of a senior resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag;

(6) senior resident "all water" fishing package--$22. Package consists of a senior resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag;

(7) "year-from-purchase" resident "all water" fishing package--$47. Package consists of a "year-from-purchase" resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag;

(8) resident one-day "all water" fishing license--$11. One red drum tag and one spotted seatrout tag shall be available at no additional charge with the purchase of the first one-day license only;

(9) non-resident freshwater fishing package--$58. Package consists of a non-resident fishing license and a freshwater fish stamp;

(10) non-resident saltwater fishing package--$63. Package consists of a non-resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag;

(11) non-resident "all water" fishing package--$68. Package consists of a non-resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag and a spotted seatrout tag;

(12) non-resident one-day "all water" fishing license--$16. One red drum tag and one spotted seatrout tag shall be available at no additional charge with the purchase of the first one-day license only; and

(13) Lake Texoma fishing license--$12. Holders of a valid Lake Texoma License are exempt from freshwater fishing stamp requirements solely for the purpose of fishing on Lake Texoma.

(d) Replacement licenses and packages.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the fee for replacement of a fishing package or license is $10.

(2) The fee for replacement of a special resident all-water fishing package is $6.

(3) The fee for replacement of a Texas resident active-duty military and "all water" fishing package replacement is $0.

(e) Fishing tags:

(1) exempt angler red drum tag (provides a red drum tag for persons that are exempt by statute or rule from the purchase of a resident or non-resident fishing license of any type or duration)--$3;

(2) bonus red drum tag (provides a second red drum tag to persons who have previously received a red drum tag)--$3;

(3) exempt angler spotted seatrout tag (provides a spotted seatrout tag for persons who are exempt by statute or rule from the purchase of a resident or non-resident fishing license of any type or duration)--$3;

(4) bonus spotted seatrout tag (provides a second spotted seatrout tag to persons who have previously received a spotted seatrout tag)--$3;

(5) individual bait-shrimp trawl tag--$37; and

(6) saltwater trotline tag--$5.

The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 11, 2025.

TRD-202502444

James Murphy

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: July 31, 2025

Proposal publication date: February 21, 2025

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775

The amendment is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.010, which requires the department to prescribe the form and issuance of hunting licenses authorized under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42; §42.0101, which authorizes the commission to promulgate rules for the issuance of digital tags for animals, including birds, to holders of hunting licenses authorizing the taking of those animals, including rules allowing a person using a digital tag to create a digital record at the time of the taking of an animal that includes information required by the department as soon as possible after the taking of the animal and requiring a person using a digital tag to retain in the person's possession documentation of a required digital record at all times before the carcass is finally processed; §42.0177, which authorizes the commission to modify or eliminate the tagging, carcass, final destination, and final processing requirements of Chapter 42; §42.006, which authorizes the commission to prescribe requirements relating to possessing a license issued under Chapter 42 by rule; §46.0085, which authorizes the department to issue tags for finfish species allowed by law to be taken during each year or season from coastal waters of the state to holders of licenses authorizing the taking of finfish species; §46.0086, which authorizes the commission to prescribe tagging requirements for the take of finfish; §50.004, which requires the department to issue and prescribe the form and manner of issuance for combination hunting and fishing licenses, including identification and compliance requirements; §61.052, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; and §61.054 which requires the commission to specify the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in a duly noticed meeting on March 27, 2025, adopted amendments to 31 TAC §§65.7, 65.8, 65.10, 65.29, 65.42, 65.62, and 65.64, concerning the Statewide Hunting Proclamation. The amendment to §65.62, concerning Quail: Open Seasons, Bag and Possession Limits, is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 21, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 959). The amendments to §§65.7, 65.8, 65.10, 65.29, 65.42, and 65.64 are adopted without changes and will not be republished.

The change to §65.62 alters the dates for quail season. The department proposed a quail season to run from the Saturday closest to October 28 until the last day of February. After deliberation, the commission adopted a season to run from November 1 to the last day of February. The department has determined that the change will prevent confusion and not result in depletion or waste of the resource.

The amendments to §65.7, concerning Application, §65.8, concerning Alternative Licensing System, and §65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources, make conforming changes to accommodate amendments to Chapter 53, concerning Finance, published elsewhere in this issue of the Texas Register, that provide for the issuance of digital versions of all recreational hunting licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and selected permits that are currently available directly to the public as physical products. In 2021, the department launched a pilot program to determine the feasibility of implementing digital versions of physical licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and permits. The results of the pilot program were favorable, and the department is therefore proceeding with respect to making all recreational license products currently available directly to the public available in a digital version.

The amendment to §65.29, concerning Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP), allows the take of mule deer under the appropriate MLDP tag by any lawful means at any time during the period of validity of the tag (from the Saturday closest to September 30 through the last Sunday in January). Under current rule, lawful means of harvest is restricted to lawful archery equipment from the Saturday closest to September 30 for 35 consecutive days, which mirrors the current archery-only season dates established in the county regulations in §65.42, concerning Deer. Because the total harvest on MLDP properties is controlled by the department through the issuance of tags issued to landowners, the department has determined there is no biological reason not to provide landowners and land managers enrolled in the MLDP the latitude to attain their harvest quota at their own discretion by any means lawful in the county of take (which has long been the case on MLDP properties with respect to the harvest of white-tailed deer).

The amendment to §65.42, concerning Deer, expands the archery-only season for mule deer from 35 days to 62 days in Brewster, Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Ector, El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Midland, Pecos, Presidio, Reagan, Reeves, Terrell, Upton, Val Verde, Ward, and Winkler counties. In addition, the amendment expands the archery-only season for mule deer from 35 to 56 days in those Panhandle counties that have an archery-only season for mule deer. The amendment is intended to provide additional hunting opportunity for archery enthusiasts and will not result in depletion or waste of the resource, as hunter success and wounding loss with respect to archery harvest of mule deer is generally quite low and the overall harvest regulations for antlerless mule deer are very conservative. The amendment would in essence prolong the current archery season in each affected county until opening day of the general season. The amendment also makes conforming changes to provisions governing digital products, for reasons discussed earlier in this preamble. Finally, the amendment to §65.42 eliminates subsection (c)(6) which is no longer necessary because the department has eliminated CWD management zones.

The amendment to §65.62, concerning Quail: Open Seasons, Bag and Possession Limits, alters the current season structure by opening the season on November 1 and closing the season on the last day of February. Under the existing regulatory structure, the season opens on the Saturday closest to October 28 and runs to the last Sunday in February, which creates variable opening dates each year, potentially creating confusion amongst hunters, landowners, and other interested parties. The change would result in a biologically negligible impact to the resource.

The amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, opens a fall (first Saturday in November through the first Sunday in January, either sex) and spring (Saturday closest to April 1 for 44 consecutive days, gobblers or bearded hens) season for turkeys in Lubbock County, with a four-bird annual bag limit. The department has determined that there is no biological reason not to allow the take of turkey in Lubbock County and that the open seasons as adopted will not result in depletion or waste. The amendment also makes conforming changes to provisions governing digital products, for reasons discussed earlier in this preamble, and clarifies the boundaries for turkey seasons in Hill County to eliminate potential confusion stemming from the fact that Interstate Highway 35 is divided into I-35 West and I-35 East. Finally, the amendment restores season dates that were not altered but inadvertently omitted in a previous notice of adoption.

The department received 126 comments opposing adoption of the provisions to implement digital versions of hunting licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and selected permits. Of the 126 comments, 23 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

Thirteen commenters opposed adoption and made statements indicating apparent misunderstanding of the proposal to mean the department was eliminating paper licenses, tags, and permits. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that hunters will still have the option of choosing between digital license products and traditional paper versions of those products. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital products create the opportunity for invasion of privacy by foreigners. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data security is an inherent risk with any device capable of accessing the internet over cellular or wifi networks, and as such it is therefore a personal decision whether or not to utilize the department's digital license products. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital products create the opportunity for invasion of privacy by government. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data security is an inherent risk with any device capable of accessing the internet over cellular or wifi networks, and as such it is therefore a personal decision whether or not to utilize the department's digital license products. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that digital products create the opportunity for invasion of privacy by hackers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that data security is an inherent risk with any device capable of accessing the internet over cellular or wifi networks, and as such it is therefore a personal decision whether or not to utilize the department's digital license products. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there are many areas of the state without cell service. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the department's reporting applications are not dependent upon network connectivity at the time a reporting requirement is executed; a hunter complies with reporting requirements by entering required data on a device, which records the date and time of the report and then automatically uploads that data when connectivity is established. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 228 comments supporting adoption of the provisions to implement digital versions of hunting licenses, stamp endorsements, tags, and selected permits.

The department received 90 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendments to §65.29, concerning MLDP--Mule Deer. Of the 90 comments, 21 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

Six commenters opposed adoption and stated in some form or fashion that additional harvest of mule deer would be detrimental to mule deer populations. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rule as adopted cannot result in additional harvest because landowners who participate in the MLDP must agree in writing that the department will determine a biologically appropriate harvest for the property. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Six commenters opposed adoption and stated that allowing the take of mule deer by firearm when take of mule deer on neighboring properties that do not participate in the MLDP is restricted to archery will result in an unfair advantage for the harvest of mature and trophy bucks. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that because the number and sex of deer harvested on any given MLDP property is fixed by the department, it does not matter, from a biological perspective, when the animals are taken, or by what means. The department further notes that because mule deer are free-ranging wildlife, there is no way to guarantee any hunter that a desirable animal will or will not be present in any given place at any given time. The department also notes that on properties that are not enrolled in the MLDP, the total harvest is limited only by the number of hunters on the property. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule will allow MLDP cooperators to commercialize hunting opportunities for non-residents and that everyone should have to play by the same rules. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that landowners are free to provide hunting opportunity to anyone, irrespective of state of residence and that the rules in fact do apply to everyone equally. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule would result in stress to the population and interference with archery hunting on nearby properties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that during the archery-only season for mule deer there are concurrent open seasons for other species during which firearms are lawful and that many people discharge firearms for purposes other than hunting, such as target shooting or plinking. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule is just a way to let affluent hunters purchase additional hunting opportunity. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that financial arrangements between landowners and hunters are not regulated by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that permits for antlerless deer and "cull" bucks should be made available to all landowners. The department agrees with the comments and responds that participation in the MLDP is open to any landowner or land manager and allows the department to work with the landowner or land manager to achieve customized management goals. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that mule deer populations are in decline. The department agrees that there are areas of the state where mule deer populations are not as vigorous or robust as they have historically been; however, harvest is not a factor in those declines and the department's harvest regulations are very conservative. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that MLDP properties should have the same seasons and antler restrictions as all other properties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the MLDP is a program designed to encourage responsible habitat management, and in exchange for performing certain qualifying management activities and accepting a department-imposed harvest regime, landowners and land managers are allowed more time and greater flexibility to achieve harvest goals established by the department. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that landowners should be allowed to hunt whenever they please, as is the case with white-tailed deer. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the take of white-tailed deer is unlawful outside of the open seasons provided by law and the commenter is mistaken to believe or assert otherwise. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 545 comments supporting adoption of the amendment as proposed.

The department received 74 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendments to §65.42, concerning Deer, that lengthened the archery-only season for mule deer in selected counties. Of those 74 comments, 21 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the mule deer season should be lengthened in order to provide hunting opportunity in cooler weather. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department is quite conservative with respect to mule deer harvest management and sets seasons based on breeding chronologies, habitat quality, and movement behavior so as to minimize negative population impacts. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that extending archery season will not benefit mule deer populations and that assertions of low hunter success rates with archery equipment are "pure assumption." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted will neither harm nor benefit mule deer populations because of low hunting pressure and low hunter success that has been repeatedly verified by scientific investigation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Eight commenters opposed adoption and stated in some form or fashion that mule deer populations are in decline and cannot withstand the additional harvest pressure of a lengthened archery season. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that although there are observed perturbations in mule deer populations in some areas, overharvest is neither responsible nor occurring and any additional harvest, if any, as a result of the rule as adopted will be so small as to be biologically negligible. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "poaching by means of archery eliminates buck deer before the general season begins" and that archery-only season should be significantly truncated or eliminated entirely. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the decision to poach is not based on whether a season is open or not, but on conscious disregard for the law in general. Additionally, harvest of mule deer by archery occurs at such low values that it is biologically negligible. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that lengthening the archery season for mule deer will result in more wounding loss and that affording greater opportunity to archery hunters than rifle hunters is biased. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that wounding loss is not dependent on days of available harvest opportunity but on the ethics, skill, and preparation of the hunter. The department believes that hunters who wound deer make the effort required by law to recover that animal and that the dissatisfaction of not achieving hunter success is a disincentive to repeating mistakes. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Five commenters opposed adoption and stated displeasure with the department's "antler restriction" rules for mule deer. The department notes that the amendment as proposed concerns only the length of the archery-only open season and does not contemplate alteration of any other aspect of mule deer harvest regulations, such as bag, possession, or special provisions; thus, comments on "antler restrictions" are not germane to the proposal deliberated by the commission. The department notes that there is an annual opportunity each August for concerned persons to address the commission on any topic under commission jurisdiction, and that, additionally, staff are always available to discuss and explain harvest regulations with interested persons. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that instead of lengthening the current archery-only open season, it would be better to create a late season following the general season. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that late-season hunting opportunity following the close of the general season has the potential to result in excessive harvest of bucks and bred does. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that it is difficult to hunt mule deer with archery equipment on public lands during the general season for white-tailed deer. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment is not germane to the rule as proposed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that archery equipment should be lawful during the entirety of the hunting season. The department agrees with the comment and responds that use of lawful archery equipment is legal during the general open season. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 609 comments supporting adoption of the amendment as proposed.

The department received 33 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.62, concerning quail season. Of those comments, 20 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that a longer season would compound damage to quail populations caused by feral hogs. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no apparent connection, biological or otherwise, between the length of the quail season and the activities of feral hogs. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Six commenters opposed adoption and stated that quail populations "need more time to recover," or "need a break." The department disagrees with the comments and responds that although quail populations are experiencing long-term declines in some areas, this is due to factors other than hunting mortality and even the cessation of hunting altogether would not result in population increases significant enough to justify the loss of hunting opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that quail season is too long as it is. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that there is no biological evidence to suggest that the current season length or the season length adopted in this rulemaking have caused or will cause depletion or waste of the resource. The department notes that quail populations can fluctuate significantly as a result of rainfall patterns, habitat conditions and availability, changes in land use, and other factors. Such fluctuations are normal and the department's harvest regulations for quail take these factors into account. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Four commenters opposed adoption and stated that quail populations are not large enough to justify a season extension. The department disagrees with the comments and responds, as noted earlier, that quail populations can fluctuate significantly as a result of rainfall patterns, habitat conditions and availability, changes in land use, and other factors. Such fluctuations are normal and the department's harvest regulations for quail take these factors into account. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that quail are in trouble and there should be a moratorium. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that there are factors beyond the control of the department that appear to be driving perturbations in quail population, but, as explained earlier, even a complete cessation of quail hunting would not affect the long-term sustainability of the resource. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that quail seasons should be set by region, not on a statewide basis. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that regulation of quail hunting by region has been discussed and does offer the possibility of more nuanced management of quail populations in various ecotypes, but at the present time the department is satisfied that the current statewide quail season is sustainable. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that quail are under too much pressure. The department, while agreeing that factors other than harvest pressure appear to be impacting populations, disagrees that hunting pressure is a significant contributor. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule as adopted will deplete quail numbers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that research and survey data indicate that the minor alteration in season length will not appreciably affect overall harvest. The most significant factor that affects quail populations is habitat, both quantity and quality, which is largely dependent on precipitation and is the primary driver of hatchling growth to maturity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that quail season should open on November 1. The department agrees with the comment and responds that a change has been made; the rule as adopted establishes a November 1 opening day.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that harvest regulations should remain as is until the threat of drought is gone. The department disagrees with the comment and responds, first, that the threat of drought is never absent, and second, that staff continuously monitor quail populations to assess the suitability of harvest regulations and pursue modifications necessary to ensure the sustainability of the resource. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 340 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received six comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.64 that clarified the boundaries of turkey zones in Falls County. None of the commenters provided a germane reason or rationale for opposing adoption.

The department received 205 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The department received 12 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.64 that opened turkey seasons in Lubbock County. Of those comments, five provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated, "there is no way there are enough turkeys in Lubbock County" to justify or sustain open seasons. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department population and habitat surveys indicate huntable populations exist in areas of suitable habitat. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that opening seasons in Lubbock County will not benefit the population. The department disagrees with the comment to the extent that an open season is unlikely to result in either depletion or waste of the resource. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated, "there are too many birds to take." The department disagrees that there is any scenario in which turkey populations are so large or numerous that hunting is contraindicated. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that because the population is limited, take by firearm should be prohibited and all turkey hunting seasons should be archery-only seasons. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in areas of suitable habitat in Lubbock County, turkey populations exist in numbers capable of sustaining moderate hunting pressure without regard for means of take. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a fall season in De Witt County. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment is not germane to the rule as proposed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 225 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on March 27, 2025, adopted amendments to 31 TAC §§65.314 - 65.320, concerning the Migratory Game Bird Proclamation, without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 21, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 963). The rules will not be republished.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issues annual frameworks for the hunting of migratory game birds in the United States. Regulations adopted by individual states may be more restrictive than the federal frameworks but may not be less restrictive. Responsibility for establishing seasons, bag limits, means, methods, and devices for harvesting migratory game birds within Service frameworks is delegated to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (commission) under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 64, Subchapter C.

With exceptions as noted, the amendments specify the season dates for hunting the various species of migratory game birds for 2025-2026 seasons. Except as noted in the discussion of the seasons for the Special White-winged Dove Area (SWWDA), teal, falconry, ducks in the High Plains Mallard Management Unit (HPMMU), the season dates for rails and gallinules, and the proposed daily bag limits for pintail, the rules as adopted retain the season structure and bag limits for all species of migratory game birds from last year while adjusting the season dates to allow for calendar shift (i.e., to ensure that seasons open on the desired day of the week), since dates from a previous year do not fall on the same days in following years.

The amendment to §65.314, concerning Doves (Mourning, White-Winged, White-Tipped, White-Fronted Doves), implements a slightly different structure for the SWWDA season than in years past. Under the federal frameworks, Texas is allowed 90 total days of dove hunting opportunity in the South Zone (which is also designated as a special management area for white-winged doves). Under the frameworks, the earliest possible date for full-day dove hunting in the South Dove Zone is September 14; however, Texas is also authorized to have up to six half-days of hunting opportunity between September 1 and September 19. Department survey data have consistently indicated strong hunter and landowner preference for the earliest possible hunting opportunity available under the federal frameworks, as well as for maximal weekend hunting opportunity during the SWWDA season, since nearly half of the hunters in the SWWDA zone travel from outside of the zone. In a typical year, this would take the form of two three-day weekends of half-day special white-winged opportunity beginning on the earliest day possible under the frameworks. The 2025-26 calendar, however, presents a challenge because September 1, 2025 (the earliest possible day for SWWDA hunting) falls on a Monday, so there are not two complete three-day weekends available before the full-day dove hunting can begin. The department has determined that in keeping with hunter and landowner preference, this year's SWWDA dates are best employed by implementing a five-day season structure of September 5-7 (a traditional three-day weekend) and September 12-13 (Friday and Saturday), which is the last two days before the earliest possible date that full-day dove hunting can be provided under the federal frameworks (September 14).

The amendment to §65.315, concerning Ducks, Coots, Mergansers, and Teal, reduces the length of the early teal season from 16 days to nine days, which is the maximum allowed under this year's federal frameworks. The amendment to §65.315 also increases the length of the HPMMU season by seven days. Under the federal frameworks, Texas is allowed 107 total days of duck hunting opportunity. Because the federal frameworks for 2025-26 mandate a seven-day reduction in early teal season opportunity, those seven days can be allocated elsewhere; therefore, the department proposes to add the seven days to the beginning of the season in the HPMMU to provide additional opportunity for species that arrive early in Texas, especially teal.

The amendment to §65.315, concerning Ducks, Coots, Mergansers, and Teal, also alters subsection (c) to increase the daily bag limit for pintails from one to three. The Service recently adopted a new Pintail Harvest Strategy that includes the option for a three-bird daily bag limit. In keeping with long-standing commission policy to provide the most liberal hunting opportunity possible under the federal frameworks, consistent with the tenets of sound biological management, the department has therefore increased the bag limit in accordance with the Service's harvest strategy.

The amendment to §65.319, concerning Gallinules, Rails, Snipe, Woodcock, implements a slightly different season structure for rails and gallinules in comparison to years past. Typically, the department establishes a split-season structure for rail and gallinule seasons, the first segment to run concurrently with the early teal season and the second segment to open concurrently with the South Zone duck season and run for 70 days (thereby utilizing the maximum number of days allotted for rail and gallinule seasons under the federal frameworks). Because of the seven-day reduction in the early teal season mandated under the federal frameworks, retaining the traditional season structure results in a nine-day first segment for rail and gallinule seasons, with seven days added to the end of the second segment, which the department believes optimizes hunting opportunity for rail and gallinule hunters.

The amendment to §65.320, concerning Extended Falconry Seasons, allows for expanded falconry opportunity for ducks, which is possible because of the additional seven days of opportunity resulting from the shortened early teal season discussed previously in this preamble.

The department received 129 comments opposing adoption of all or part of the proposed amendment to §65.314, concerning Doves (Mourning, White-Winged, White-Tipped, White-Fronted Doves).

The department received 103 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment that established the season dates for the special season in the Special White Wing Dove Area (SWWDA). Of those comments, 19 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "5 days hurts the hunters who are working those 5 days." The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that although it attempts to maximize where possible the use of weekends and holidays (when many people are not at work or school) to provide the greatest amount of hunting opportunity, there is no way to customize hunter opportunity based on work schedules of individual hunters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that because dove are more numerous than ever, the department should provide the maximum opportunity possible. The department agrees that while dove populations are robust and could easily sustain the six days of hunting opportunity available under the federal frameworks, the nature of the 2025 calendar frustrates the department's traditional and historic approach to season structure. Hunter and landowner surveys have long indicated a strong preference for the SWWDA opportunity to occur on weekends and if possible, over three-day weekends, and for the South Zone season to open on the earliest day possible under the federal frameworks. The federal frameworks specify that the SWWDA season must take place between September 1 and September 19 and designate September 14 as the earliest possible opening day for the South Zone. September 1 is a Monday and the opening day of the South Zone is September 14. Thus, the only three-day weekend of hunting opportunity possible in the SWWDA this year is September 5-7, leaving three additional days of opportunity to be placed. The only remaining opportunity involving a weekend is the 12th and the 13th (Friday and Saturday), leaving one day of SWWDA opportunity and no available weekends. The department has determined that creating a one-day segment of the SWWDA season (when historically those segments have consisted of two-day and three-day weekends), especially on a weekday, would likely lead to significant hunter and landowner confusion and is best avoided. Additionally, since the majority of participants in the SWWDA season travel from outside the zone, the department believes it is unlikely that many of those hunters would make the journey for only one day of hunting. The department notes that this situation will not occur every year. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that six days of hunting is ideal and five days constitutes a reduction in hunting opportunity. The department agrees that technically the rule as adopted constitutes a one-day reduction in SWWDA hunting opportunity; however, as explained in the response to the previous comment, the inconvenience and possible confusion associated with providing an additional day of hunting opportunity is assessed by the department to outweigh the benefit, particularly in light of the infrequency of the circumstance. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that another weekend of SWWDA should be added. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that, as explained in an earlier response, hunter and landowner preference is for the earliest opening day for the South Zone possible under the federal frameworks, which this year is September 14, leaving no other weekends between September 1 and September 19 available for allocation of SWWDA hunting opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the SWWDA season should be September 1-2, 5-6, and 12-13. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that although such a season structure was considered, the department determined that because more than half the hunters who participate in the SWWDA live elsewhere and travel to South Texas to participate, the optimal use of the available opportunity would be a three-day weekend and a two-day opportunity including a Saturday. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated a preference for Saturday/Sunday hunts as opposed to Friday/Saturday hunts. The department agrees with the comment, but as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule and in responses to earlier comments, the 2025 calendar is such that only one Saturday/Sunday segment is possible this year and the department elected to create a three-day opportunity in order to maximize opportunity for the majority of hunters who live outside the zone. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that one day will not make much difference. The department agrees with the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the season should start September 1 and either September 7 or January 22 should be removed so as to not exceed the total allowable days. The department disagrees with the comment and responds, as explained earlier, a single weekday of SWWDA opportunity is suboptimal because most participants in the SWWDA travel from outside the zone and many if not most are unlikely to do so for a single day of hunting. The department also responds that it is not necessary to remove days from the SWWDA season or the South Zone season, as removal of September 7 would mean the department is utilizing only four of the six available days in the SWWDA. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that dove season should be concurrent with deer season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds, as noted in earlier responses to comment, that hunter and landowner preference is for the earliest opening date possible under the federal frameworks in the South Dove Zone. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that dove season dates are based on out-of-date data that do not reflect population behaviors. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department engages in continuous monitoring and evaluation of dove populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that rules for hunters "can't fix habitat loss" and "allocating the funds better serves everyone." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted are not intended to address habitat loss and it is unclear what the commenter is addressing with respect to allocation of funds, as the department is required by statute to manage migratory bird resources and the purpose of the rule is to establish and equitably distribute hunting opportunity under the tenets of sound biological management. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the South Zone season should open later when the weather is cooler. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that hunter and landowner preference strongly supports opening the South Zone on the earliest day possible under the federal frameworks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that dove numbers are not what they used to be. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that dove populations statewide are robust. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that white-winged dove are plentiful. The department agrees with the comment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 367 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.

The department received 56 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.315, concerning Ducks, Coots, Mergansers, and Teal. Of those comments, three provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated, "he number of scaup. Scaup number seem to be extremely high in the south zone." The department assesses that the commenter advocates for a higher bag limit for scaup. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the bag limit as adopted is the highest allowable under the federal frameworks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the South Duck Zone should run from November 8- January 31 and the Central Duck Zone should run until January 31. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the season structure as adopted is to provide the greatest opportunity when the greatest number of ducks are likely to be in any given zone. The department also responds that there is no Central Duck Zone. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the South Zone season should open on September 12. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that under the federal frameworks, the season in the South Zone cannot open earlier than September 14 this year. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 30 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.315 involving bag limits for pintail ducks. Of the 30 comments, 12 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that season lengths and bag limits should be reduced because duck populations are declining. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that migratory bird harvest rules in Texas are conservative and there is no biological reason to suspect that the rules as adopted create or contribute to negative population impacts. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated, "here are more mallard ducks than pigtails down here." The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that seasons and bag limits for all species of ducks are based on scientific data rather than anecdotal observation, and in any case, mallard population dynamics are not of great significance with respect to management of pintail populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the increase of the daily bag limit for pintails is unwarranted in the face of population declines and the significant departure from the long-term average. The commenter further stated that the last time the bag limits for pintail were increased (1997), the results caused the bag limits to be reduced in following years. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that analysis and modeling developed by the Northern Pintail Working Group (a Service group of biological experts from state, provincial, and territorial agencies in the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific flyways who evaluate population and habitat information to make conservation recommendations) over the last six years have revealed that historic monitoring and management of northern pintails has been overly restrictive. The results show that for many decades the actual northern pintail populations have been underestimated by as much as a factor of four. Additionally, the new modelling indicates that additional harvest is sustainable, given that low harvest rates have exhibited near-zero effects with respect to northern pintail abundance on a year-to-year basis. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Five commenters stated a desire for a two-bird daily bag limit, no more than one hen. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that, as noted in a response to an earlier comment, new modelling of population data has indicated that previous population estimates severely understated true population status. The department further notes that additional harvest at expected participation levels is not expected to exert negative population impacts. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule will increase pressure on pintail populations and cause relocation in the future. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is highly unlikely that the increased bag limit, even if it causes significant additional hunter effort, would result in alteration of migration patterns. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the department's data is skewed and the increase in bag limit will reverse efforts to rebuild the pintail population. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that new modelling of population data has indicated that previous population estimate severely understated true population status and additional harvest at expected participation levels is not expected to exert negative population impacts. The department and the Service monitor pintail populations using a variety of indices on a constant basis, and the department is confident that if there are any negative population impacts, those trends will be detected quickly, and if necessary, appropriate alterations to the harvest strategy will be implemented. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the increased bag limit should not apply to persons accompanied by paid hunting guides. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that harvest regulations for migratory birds represent an equitable distribution of harvest opportunity for all participants, that every person who purchases a hunting license and the appropriate stamp endorsement is entitled to the bag limit established by rule, and that there is no reason, biological or otherwise, to establish separate bag limits for guided hunting parties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 464 comments supporting adoption of the portion of the proposed rule that increased the bag limit for pintail ducks.

The department received 121 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.316, concerning Ducks, that decreased the season length of the early teal season. All of the commenters stated a preference for a longer season. The department disagrees with all the comments and responds that the season as adopted is the maximum season length possible under the federal frameworks. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 352 comments supporting adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment that decreased the season length for the early teal season.

The department received 45 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.315 that extended the duck season in the High Plains Mallard Management Unit (HPMMU). Of the comments, nine provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the season should be shortened, not lengthened. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that an extra week of hunting opportunity is unlikely to result in either excessive harvest or harvest significant enough to negatively impact duck populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated concern that the department was eliminating hunting opportunity in one area while providing additional hunting opportunity in another. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is not taking opportunity. The federal frameworks have reduced the length of the early teal season by one week and the department has the option of shifting those days to another duck season segment elsewhere or losing them; thus, the season as adopted preserves hunting opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the season should not be lengthened because of the impact of drought on duck populations. The department disagrees with the commenter that drought has impacted duck populations in the HPMMU and responds that an additional week of harvest opportunity will not result in harm to the population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the extra week should be added to the end of the season in order to provide concurrent hunting opportunity with geese. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the season as adopted is intended to maximize the number of weekend days available for hunting. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the extra week of opportunity should be added to the North and South zones as well. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the seasons for the North and South zones as proposed each utilize the 74-day maximum season length allowed under the federal frameworks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated dissatisfaction with hunting opportunity on public hunting lands. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no connection or relationship between the statewide bag limit established by the rule as adopted and the administration of the department's public hunting program. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 443 comments supporting adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §65.316, concerning Ducks, that increased the season length in the High Plains Mallard Management Unit (HPMMU).

The department received 19 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.316, concerning Geese. Of the 19 comments, six provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the later goose season start allows the season for snow geese to be extended to February 22, and that it is un-American for hunting to be over in Texas when seasons are still open in northern states. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that under the rule as adopted, goose seasons do not start later than in previous years and that the season structure is intended to provide as much concurrent hunting opportunity for other species of waterfowl as possible. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the season for light geese in the Eastern Zone should begin two weeks later because light geese arrive in greater numbers beginning in late November. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the season as adopted is intended to provide maximum concurrent opportunity for all species of waterfowl by having the Eastern Goose Zone and the South Duck Zone open on the same day and utilizing the full 107 days of goose hunting provided under the federal frameworks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be an early season for dark geese in the HPMMU. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the federal frameworks do not allow for an early season for dark geese in Texas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the light goose season should close on a Sunday to provide three full weekends of hunting opportunity. The department understands the comment to be in reference to the early Canada goose season, because the light goose season in the Eastern Zone is open for over three months, which includes far more than three weekends. In that case, the department disagrees and responds that providing additional days of early Canada goose opportunity would necessitate the truncation of goose seasons later in the year, as the federal frameworks do not allow more than 107 total days of hunting opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the Light Goose Conservation Order (LGCO) should be reinstated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the commission last year eliminated the LGCO and restoration of the LGCO is not contemplated by this rulemaking. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that goose and crane seasons should "be like they used to be." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the current season structures for goose and crane have been in place for many years, so it is unclear what the comment means. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 226 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.

The department received 19 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.317, regarding Special Youth, Active-Duty Military, and Military Veteran Seasons. No commenter provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption.

The department received 19 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.318, regarding Sandhill Crane. No commenter provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption.

The department received 20 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.319, regarding Gallinules, Rails, Snipe, Woodcock. One of the commenters provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption.

The commenter stated that the season should not be reduced if there isn't a population decline. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted provides the maximum hunting opportunity possible for gallinules, rails, snipe, and woodcock under the federal frameworks. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received one comment opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.320, concerning Extended Falconry Seasons.

The commenter stated that falconers already "get more opportunities" than gun hunters. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted does not affect any other season for migratory game birds, the federal frameworks provide for seasons for the take of migratory game birds by means of falconry, and the extended falconry season does not occur at the expense of days of opportunity for gun hunters No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 64, which authorizes the commission and the executive director to provide the open season and means, methods, and devices for the hunting and possessing of migratory game birds.

The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.