TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

PART 2. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

CHAPTER 57. FISHERIES

SUBCHAPTER A. HARMFUL OR POTENTIALLY HARMFUL FISH, SHELLFISH, AND AQUATIC PLANTS

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on March 26, 2026, adopted amendments to 31 TAC §57.114 and new §57.129, concerning Harmful or Potentially Harmful Exotic Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants. Section 57.129 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 8167) and will be republished. Section 57.114 is adopted without change and will not be republished.

The change to §57.129 enlarges the proposed exclusion zone delineated in proposed subsection (a)(2) and adds new subsection (e) to create an annual inspection requirement for facilities permitted to culture dotted duckweed. Following expert testimony during deliberation of the rules, the commission determined that it would be prudent to strengthen measures intended to minimize the risk of escapement of dotted duckweed from permitted facilities. The rule as proposed delineated an exclusion zone within which permit issuance would be prohibited, consisting of that part of the state that is both south of State Highway 21 and east of Interstate Highway 35. The commission determined that the exclusion zone should be enlarged to encompass that part of the state located east of U.S. Highway 83, which is intended to provide additional assurance that facilities culturing dotted duckweed are located only in regions of the state with low abundance of small water bodies at risk for harmful impacts should escapement and colonization occur. Additionally, the commission directed the imposition of a yearly inspection requirement (in addition to the possibility of random inspections already provided by current rule), which is intended to provide additional oversight and a further assurance that cultivation of dotted duckweed is conducted as prescribed by rule. Finally, the change corrects an erroneous internal reference in subsection (b)(2).

The rules authorize the issuance of permits for the possession, cultivation, sale, and transport of dotted duckweed (Landoltia punctata) under specific conditions. Under current rule (§57.112(3)(C)(i)), dotted duckweed is designated a prohibited harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic plant and cannot be possessed or cultivated for commercial purposes. The department recently received a petition for rulemaking requesting the alteration of current rules to create an exception allowing the commercial cultivation of dotted duckweed under the existing commercial aquaculture permit. After comprehensive analysis of all significant parameters, the department determined that dotted duckweed can be safely cultivated, provided all culture and handling occurs in fully enclosed facilities under appropriate biosecurity standards. Dotted duckweed is a small, floating exotic aquatic plant native to Australia and Southeast Asia that is distributed easily via multiple transport pathways, has a high growth and propagation rate, and is known to outcompete some native plant species. Climate match analysis indicates it could survive and become established in public waters throughout most of Texas should it escape culture, and it is deemed likely to have potential to become particularly problematic in smaller water bodies where conditions are most conducive to formation of dense mats capable of suppressing native plants and potentially degrading sportfish habitat and impeding recreational or agricultural access. Dotted duckweed can be easily transported to new water bodies by waterfowl, watercraft, and aquarium dumping, presenting a high spread potential should it escape. Notwithstanding, based on careful consideration of biosecurity risks associated with the proposed activity and escapement risk mitigation feasibility, staff has determined that under appropriate biosecurity and monitoring provisions there is an acceptably minimal, though not zero, risk of escape.

The amendment to §57.114, concerning Controlled Exotic Species Permit, provides for the issuance of a commercial aquaculture facility permit for the possession, culture, sale, and transport of dotted duckweed.

New §57.129, concerning Special Provisions--Dotted Duckweed, establishes facility and processing standards that specifically apply to the cultivation of dotted duckweed.

New subsection (a)(1) stipulates that the provisions of the new section are in addition to the minimum facility requirements already imposed by the subchapter, which is necessary to prevent confusion or misunderstanding. The new section also defines the term "culture pond" as "any reservoir of water used as media for the cultivation and harvest of dotted duckweed in a facility permitted to do so under this subchapter," which is necessary to provide an unambiguous meaning of that term for purposes of compliance, administration, and enforcement.

New subsection (a)(2) provides that the department will not issue a permit under the section for a facility located in that part of the state east of U.S. Highway 83. The provision is necessary to preclude cultivation of dotted duckweed in that part of the state that has high abundance of small public lakes and private ponds and regularly experiences, has experienced, or is at risk of experiencing inundation and/or high winds during severe meteorological events, which could result in escapement of dotted duckweed to surrounding aquatic systems.

New subsection (b) sets forth the requirements for water handling within facilities permitted to culture dotted duckweed to minimize escape risks. New subsection (b)(1) prohibits the draining of any water from culture ponds unless it has been chemically treated in accordance with applicable law to kill all dotted duckweed that may be present. The provision is necessary, in concert with the provisions of subsection (b)(2), to ensure that water leaving any facility is free of viable dotted duckweed. New subsection (b)(2) requires all water leaving a facility to be passed through equipment that reduces plant material to a size of 100 micrometers or smaller (based upon seed size), which must be maintained to meet the regulatory standard at all times. The department has determined that the combination of chemical and physical treatments of culture media result in reasonable confidence that viable dotted duckweed will not escape from facilities as a result of pond draining activities. New paragraph (b)(3) explicitly states that it is an offense for any person to allow or cause culture pond water to drain into any ditch, storm drain, channel, conduit, stream, or other pathway that drains into or could drain into public water, which is intended to provide an additional layer of confidence that viable dotted duckweed will not be spread to public waters. The department wishes to make absolutely and unmistakably clear that failure to contain dotted duckweed as a result of pond draining procedures is a crime.

New subsection (c) establishes infrastructure standards for facilities where dotted duckweed is authorized to be cultured. New subsection (c)(1) requires all facilities and infrastructure used for the culture, harvesting, and packaging of dotted duckweed to be completely enclosed within a permanent, department-approved structure. The provision is necessary to ensure that there is a physical barrier at all times between viable dotted duckweed and the external environment. New subsection (c)(2) requires all points of entry or access to structures containing viable dotted duckweed to be kept closed except for immediate use for ingress or egress of personnel, equipment, or machinery. The provision is necessary to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the opportunity for waterfowl or other vectors to transport dotted duckweed from facilities to the external environment.

New subsection (d) prescribes best practices for the processing and transport of dotted duckweed. New subsection (d)(1) stipulates that the processing of dotted duckweed occur only within permitted facilities, and reiterates that allowing dotted duckweed to leave a facility except as provided by rule is a criminal offense. The provision is necessary to make it abundantly clear that dotted duckweed cannot be removed or allowed to leave a facility except as specifically provided by rule.

New subsection (d)(2) prohibits the removal of dotted duckweed and any byproducts of the processing of dotted duckweed from a facility unless it has been passed through at least one department-approved mechanical device that reduces plant material to particles of a size no greater than 100 micrometers, and for all such equipment to be constantly maintained to achieve this standard. As noted previously in this preamble, the department has determined that physical treatment of organic material to render it non-viable is necessary to provide reasonable confidence that viable dotted duckweed will not be spread to the environment from facilities where it is cultivated.

New subsection (d)(3) specifically authorizes the possession, transport, sale, and export of non-viable dotted duckweed remnants and plant material byproducts. The department has determined that upon satisfaction of the various provisions of the rules, there is no longer a need to regulate the possession of materials that are incapable of negative impacts to native ecosystems.

New subsection (e) requires a permittee to satisfactorily demonstrate to the department, during annual facility inspections, that activities authorized under this subchapter are conducted in compliance with the requirements of this subchapter and the facility is maintained in such a way as to prevent escape or release of dotted duckweed. The provision is necessary to provide for additional oversight of a potentially problematic species during cultivation activities.

New subsection (f) requires permittees to ensure that all water and wastewater discharges at a facility are compliant with applicable rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which is necessary because such requirements may differ from animal aquaculture wastewater discharge authorization requirements applicable to other permitted aquaculture facilities.

The department received 19 comments opposing adoption of the rules as proposed. Of those comments, eight provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

Three commenters opposed adoption and stated, in different ways, that because the public bears the costs associated with the impacts of invasive species on native systems and those costs can be significant and in some cases permanent, it is unwise to allow commercial interests to possess and cultivate exotic species without being financially responsible for the costs for remediation and control efforts should escapement occur. The department agrees in part with the comments but disagrees that absolute binary opposition of risk potential should be the standard for determining whether dotted duckweed can be safely cultivated. The department responds that extensive risk-assessments and consultation with experts in the field provided what the department determined to be acceptable assurance that dotted duckweed, cultivated in compliance with the rules as adopted, is a low-risk threat for escape and establishment. No changes were made as a result of the comments. One commenter opposed adoption and stated that anything requiring the use of pesticides to keep it from spreading is bad for the environment and should not be lawful to propagate. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the use of pesticides approved for aquatic use, applied in accordance with label requirements, are deemed safe for use in greenhouses. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department's mission does not include facilitating business opportunities involving non-native species that are known to be environmentally destructive. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that Chapter 134 of the Agriculture Code applies to the department and expressly regulates the commercial aquaculture of exotic species such as dotted duckweed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there is no way to be 100 percent certain that dotted duckweed will not escape from facilities, irrespective of measures intended to prevent it from occurring. The department agrees with the comments but disagrees that absolute binary opposition of risk probability should be the standard for determining whether dotted duckweed can be safely cultivated. The department's risk assessments and consultation with outside experts have provided reasonable assurance that dotted duckweed, cultivated in compliance with the rules as adopted, is a low-risk threat for escape and establishment. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that "low-margin" commercial interests will not sacrifice profit to maintain regulatory compliance, which creates unacceptably high risk of escapement. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted contain reporting and inspection requirements that the department believes provide sufficient confidence that any escapement will be readily detected and remedied. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 25 comments supporting adoption of the rules as proposed.

The Honorable Wes Virdell, State Representative for House District 53; Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner; the Honorable Charlie Bradley, Schleicher County Judge; Ronnie D. Hawkins Jr., President of Angelo State University; Ryan Charles Sartor, PhD, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University; Eric Lam, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey; Robert Martienssen, PhD FRS, Cold Spring Harbor Lab; and Danya Hakeem, CEO, Elemental Impact commented in support of adoption of the rules as proposed.

Texas Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Association commented in opposition to adoption of the rules as proposed.

The amendments and new rule are adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007, which authorizes the department to make rules necessary to authorize the import, possession, sale, or introduction of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish.

§ 57.129. Special Provisions--Dotted Duckweed.

(a) General.

(1) In addition to the requirements of the provisions of §57.119 of this title (relating to Minimum Facility Requirements), the provisions of this section apply to facilities permitted to culture dotted duckweed under the provisions of this subchapter. For the purposes of this section, a culture pond is any reservoir of water used as media for the cultivation and harvest of dotted duckweed in a facility permitted to do so under this subchapter.

(2) The department will not approve a permit under this section for any facility located in a part of the state that is east of US Highway 83.

(b) Culture ponds.

(1) Water may not be drained from a culture pond until all dotted duckweed in the culture pond has been killed in accordance with applicable law by application of pesticides or other chemicals approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Department of Agriculture.

(2) No water from a culture pond may be allowed to exit a greenhouse or other such confinement structure unless all culture pond water and plant material have been passed through at least one macerator pump or similar department-approved mechanical device that reduces plant material to particles of a size no greater than 100 micrometers. All equipment required by this subsection shall be maintained to ensure the particle size limit established by this subparagraph is not exceeded at any time.

(3) It is an offense for any person to allow or cause culture pond water to drain into any ditch, storm drain, channel, conduit, stream, or other pathway that drains into or could drain into public water.

(c) Facility requirements.

(1) All culture ponds and harvesting equipment (including but not limited to conveyor belts, transport infrastructure, processing infrastructure, and all other equipment or infrastructure associated with culture, harvest, and transport of dotted duckweed) within a facility shall be fully enclosed within a permanent, department-approved structure such as a greenhouse or other enclosure that the department determines is sufficient to prevent the escape of dotted duckweed.

(2) All doors and access points to greenhouses or structures used to enclose culture ponds and all access points to infrastructure used to transport dotted duckweed shall remain closed at all times except for purposes of immediate use for ingress or egress of personnel, equipment, or machinery.

(d) Processing requirements.

(1) Dotted duckweed may be processed only within a permitted aquaculture facility. Except as provided for drainwater under subsection (a) paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section or paragraph (2) of this subsection, it is an offense for any person to allow or cause dotted duckweed to leave a facility for any reason.

(2) No plant material, including dotted duckweed and any byproducts or remnants of processing operations, may be removed from the permitted facility for any reason unless it has been passed through at least one macerator pump or similar department-approved mechanical device that reduces plant material to particles of a size no greater than 100 micrometers. All equipment required by this subparagraph shall be maintained to ensure the particle size limit established by this subparagraph is not exceeded at any time.

(3) Dotted duckweed remnants and plant material byproducts that have been rendered non-viable in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may be possessed, transported, sold, or exported without a controlled exotic species permit.

(e) A permittee shall satisfactorily demonstrate to the department, during annual facility inspections, that activities authorized under this section are conducted in compliance with the requirements of this subchapter and that the facility is maintained in such a way as to prevent escape or release of dotted duckweed.

(f) Wastewater discharge. A permittee shall ensure that all discharge of wastewater from a permitted facility occurs in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

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 June 9, 2026.

TRD-202602339

James Murphy

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: June 29, 2026

Proposal publication date: December 19, 2025

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

CHAPTER 65. WILDLIFE

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on March 26, 2026, adopted amendments to 31 Texas Administrative Code §§65.3, 65.42, 65.64 and 65.66, concerning the Statewide Hunting Proclamation, without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 20, 2026, issue of the Texas Register (51 TexReg 1020). The rules will not be republished.

The amendment to §65.3, concerning Definitions, modifies the definition of "muzzleloader" with respect to references on how the firearm is loaded. The change clarifies that the term "muzzleloader" applies to any firearm designed such that the bullet or projectile can be loaded only through the muzzle. Modern muzzleloading technology features various design changes that have caused confusion regarding use of this new technology and its legality under the current definition of muzzleloader. The amendment is intended to eliminate ambiguity and expand hunting opportunities during muzzleloader season.

The amendment to §65.42, concerning Deer, increases the number of "doe days" in 21 counties located in the Post Oak Savannah ecoregion. The department manages deer populations by the deer management unit (DMU) concept, which organizes the state into specific areas that share similar soil types, vegetative communities, land-use practices, and deer population characteristics. In this way, deer seasons, bag limits, and special provisions can be more effectively analyzed to monitor the efficacy of management strategies on deer populations within each DMU. In some DMUs characterized by fragmented habitat, high hunting pressure, and large numbers of small acreage properties, the department protects the reproductive potential of the population by restricting the time during which antlerless deer may be taken with a firearm, known colloquially as "doe days." The department has determined that a 16-plus doe-day structure that begins the second Saturday of November and closes the Sunday following Thanksgiving Day can be implemented in 21 counties that currently have four doe days. Department population and harvest data indicate that deer densities are increasing within the affected DMUs and that antlerless harvest is less than half of the total harvest, which is resulting in a skewed sex ratio that is undesirable. The amendment is intended to provide additional hunting opportunities within the tenets of sound biological management, and address resource concerns such as increasing deer densities and habitat degradation.

The amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, prohibits the harvest of unbearded hens statewide. The department has observed significant declines in turkey populations over the past 10 years in Texas, as indicated by United States Geodetic Survey (USGS) Breeding Bird Survey results. Recent research suggests that hen abundance during the nesting season is the most impactful variable to long-term sustainability. The department believes the change will reduce overall hen harvest in the state and, potentially, improve recruitment. The amendment to §65.64 also closes turkey seasons in Matagorda and Wharton counties. Mandatory harvest reporting has been in place in these counties since 2022. In the past three years, no turkey harvest has been reported in Matagorda County, and only one--a banded bird released under a Trap, Transport, and Transplant (TTT) permit--has been reported in Wharton County. Additionally, turkey distribution surveys indicate that Matagorda County has no or minimal turkey populations, and the data for Wharton County indicates turkeys in one area near a previous TTT release site. With the closures, the department will explore opportunities to restock turkeys in these areas, focusing on private lands where landowners are interested and suitable habitat exists.

The amendment to §65.66, concerning Chachalaca, opens the chachalaca hunting season on the first day in November and closes it on the last day in February. The amendment makes chachalaca season concurrent with quail season, which is intended to maintain consistency and simplify hunting regulations across the state. The department has determined that the change will have no biological impact on chachalaca populations.

The department received 77 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.3, concerning Definitions. Of the 77 comments, 15 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the proposed definition of muzzleloader allowed weapons that are not "primitive weapons." The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comments and responds that Texas does not have a "primitive weapon" season and therefore the weapons used in muzzleloader season do not have to be considered "primitive weapons." No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated the proposed definition of muzzleloader was, "cheating." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that under the amendment as adopted, any hunter can use the modern muzzleloader technology and therefore no hunter is cheating or getting an advantage over any other. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Three commenters opposed adoption and stated modern muzzleloaders are as accurate and easy to use as normal rifles and should not be allowed outside of the normal hunting season. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that although modern muzzleloaders utilize new technology, they are still not as effective as a centerfire firearm. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Five commenters opposed adoption and stated in some form or fashion that traditional muzzleloaders are sufficient and there is no need to allow modern muzzleloaders. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comments and responds that the modern muzzleloaders provide additional hunting opportunity and have the additional benefit of being safer, because they allow the gun to be safely unloaded by opening the breech and removing the charge, if needed. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the proposed change to the definition of muzzleloader would, "take away from the sport and heritage of the muzzleloading rifle." The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the amendment simply expands the available options and does not preclude the use of traditional muzzleloaders. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated the department does not have the authority to change the definition of muzzleloader because it does not have the authority to change the law. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the legislature has delegated authority to the commission to regulate the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt game animals and game birds, and that the rules as adopted were promulgated in accordance with applicable statutory provisions governing state agency rulemaking. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the muzzleloader season is not needed. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment is not germane to the proposed amendment, as the rule as proposed did not contemplate elimination of muzzleloader seasons, and in any case, muzzleloader seasons are not intended to function as a critical component of harvest strategy but as an opportunity for muzzleloader enthusiasts to enjoy a period of time when effort is restricted to muzzleloaders only. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated muzzleloader season should overlap with archery season instead of being later in the year. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment is not germane to the proposed amendment as the rule as proposed did not contemplate relocation of muzzleloader seasons. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 380 comments supporting adoption of the amendment as proposed.

The department received 32 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.42, concerning Deer. Of those comments, 17 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that the entirety of Victoria County should be included. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that deer populations in the portion of Victoria County north of U.S. Highway 59 are managed differently than deer populations south of U.S. 59. Habitat quality is better and deer densities are higher south of U.S. 59, which requires more aggressive harvest rules to prevent overpopulation and maintain sex ratios. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that there should be one harvest regulation for antlerless deer across the entirety of the Post Oak Savannah and that buck harvest should be liberalized to remove bucks with undesirable antler characteristics. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that, as explained in the proposal preamble, the department manages deer populations under the deer management unit (DMU) concept, which organizes the state into specific areas that share similar soil types, vegetative communities, land-use practices, and deer population characteristics. Although the Post Oak Savannah is a well-known geographical area, the DMU approach manages deer populations at much higher resolutions and provides much greater analytical benefits than management at the general ecoregion scale. With respect to buck harvest, the rule as proposed did not contemplate changes to buck harvest regulations because the department has determined that buck management strategies in the affected DMUs are appropriate and effective at the current time. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Four commenters opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that because of increased land fragmentation in the affected counties, the rule will result in excessive harvest to the detriment of the population because of intense hunting pressure on small acreages. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that harvest and population data indicate that the populations within the affected DMUs can withstand additional harvest pressure, which is desirable because it should result in better habitat quality and improved sex ratios. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that the harvest of antlerless deer should be regulated by property size. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because of the wide variability of habitat quality and land use in any given DMU, property size by itself is not an appropriate component of responsible population management. The department further notes that management strategies at the level of individual properties are best left to individual landowners and land managers within the constraints of harvest regulations intended to prevent depletion or waste. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that antlerless populations in Lavaca County have declined significantly and the populations cannot withstand additional harvest. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that harvest and population data indicate expanding populations of antlerless deer in the affected DMUs and additional harvest is desirable to prevent overpopulation and improve habitat quality and availability. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that the deer populations in the affected areas have declined and fawn mortality seems to be at an all-time high. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that department harvest and population data indicate that populations in the affected areas are stable or increasing, and that fawn mortality in and of itself does not appear to be negatively influencing the overall population. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that increased opportunity will result in more pressure on the reproductive segment of the deer herd and result unintended long-term consequences, particularly in areas where habitat conditions, weather variability, and localized hunting pressure already influence herd stability. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in general, the expected increase in harvest will be beneficial to populations and habitat, but that such decisions are ultimately made by property owners and resource managers within the constraints established by department harvest rules. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that the department should implement full-season either-sex harvest with a special late season. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that full-season either-sex hunting, given the current indices of land use, habitat quality, hunting pressure, and population dynamics, would likely result in undesirable if not unacceptable population impacts in the affected DMUs. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that antlerless harvest should be allowed for the entirety of the season and that current antlerless harvest regulations have resulted in population declines. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it appears to both favor and oppose adoption of the rule as proposed. In any case, as noted in a previous response, full-season either-sex hunting, given the current indices of land use, habitat quality, hunting pressure, and population dynamics, would likely result in undesirable if not unacceptable population impacts in the affected DMUs. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is widespread disregard for mandatory harvest reporting required under current rule. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that persons who choose to consciously disregard regulations of the commission will be cited for such violations and held accountable. The department also encourages any person with knowledge of such violations to contact department law enforcement personnel or report the violation via the Operation Game Thief hotline. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that the bag limit is two antlerless deer so the department should not care when a hunter harvests antlerless deer, provided the bag limit is not exceeded. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the purpose of "doe days" is to provide antlerless harvest opportunity where possible in places where a huntable surplus exists but biological data indicate that full-season either-sex is not appropriate. "Doe days" facilitate enforcement of bag composition regulations by confining such harvest to a narrow timeframe. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the 16 "doe days" should be implemented on a weekend basis. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a season structure that oscillates between antlerless harvest by permit only and antlerless harvest without a permit would be problematic in terms of enforcement and likely to confuse hunters and land managers. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule as proposed and stated that department data are insufficient data to support the proposal. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the proposal is supported by department biological data indicating that an increased antlerless harvest in the affected DMUs is not only appropriate, but in fact desirable, and should be beneficial. The department further notes that the data upon which the proposal is based are a public record and department staff are happy to explain the data and the biological justification for the proposal at a more granular level at the request of any interested party. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 497 comments supporting adoption of the amendment as proposed.

The department received 134 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey. Of the 134 comments, 50 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 the amendments are an unjustified restriction on property rights and ignores the conservation efforts of private landowners. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that wild turkeys are the property of the state of Texas, and the department has the statutory responsibility and authority to manage wild turkeys for the people of Texas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated there are plenty of turkey on private lands. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that turkey populations have declined to a 30-year low, which the department is concerned about and is in the process of addressing, via research, harvest regulations, and stocking initiatives. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated there was no publicly available data on the decline of turkey populations. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the department has collected harvest, occupancy, and recruitment data across Texas for many years, which is freely available to the public upon request. Furthermore, USGS Breeding Bird Survey data, collected since 1966, illustrates a 30-year low in wild turkey observations in Texas. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that hunting is not the reason the turkey population is declining and the department should lower the bag limit to one instead of completely closing Matagorda and Wharton counties. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the bag limit is irrelevant in counties where turkey populations are basically non-existent, and that closure of the season allows the department to explore opportunities to restore turkey populations by working with private landowners in these counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated the season should be reduced but not closed in Matagorda and Wharton counties. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no benefit to retaining seasons in counties where turkey populations are for all practical purposes non-existent, and that closure of the season allows the department to explore opportunities to restore turkey populations by working with private landowners in these counties. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated the department should keep Wharton County open. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no benefit to retaining a season in a county where turkey populations are for all practical purposes non-existent, and that closure of the season allows the department to work with private landowners to explore opportunities to restore populations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated the department should keep the turkey season closed in Matagorda and Wharton counties until the turkey population returns. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the closures will be maintained until populations are restored and capable of sustaining harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that spring season opens on April 1, which provides very little time to inform hunters. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rule as adopted will go into effect for the 2027 spring season, which will provide a generous amount of time for department messaging and outreach. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that additional research and alternative options should be considered rather than rulemaking. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that data indicate the necessity for restoration efforts and season closure is the most effective way to expedite that restoration, which will be conducted according to the best available science and research. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that rain would help turkey populations more than anything else. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that with respect to the rules as proposed, Matagorda and Wharton Counties are part of the Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes ecoregion and receive abundant rainfall annually. With respect to statewide populations generally, rainfall patterns fluctuate significantly; however, hen populations at the beginning of the nesting season are a primary driver in annual recruitment. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the turkey population is a nuisance and harvesting hens is the only way to control it. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted are intended to address documented, long-term turkey population declines, not nuisances. The department further states that nuisance status is a subjective determination and that there are many effective methods for addressing nuisance turkeys (including lawful hunting). No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that tagging turkey harvest is good enough. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the best available data and science is being utilized to inform management decisions, including tagging and reporting requirements. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Eighteen commenters opposed adoption and all essentially stated that certain counties have plenty of turkeys and the hen harvest restrictions should be county specific. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that documented long-term declines of turkey population across the state indicate protection of the hen segment population is warranted to slow or arrest that trend. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the take of hens in the fall reduces pressure on toms and keeps the population in balance. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that research suggests that hen abundance during the nesting season is the most impactful variable to long-term sustainability. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that prohibiting the harvest of unbearded hens would penalize hunters for identification mistakes and hunters should be given a one-hen grace limit. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the bag limit is currently restricted to "gobblers-only" or "gobblers and bearded hens" during the spring season; thus, field identification is already required. The department believes that it is incumbent upon an ethical hunter to be able to identify birds that are lawful to hunt. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Texans should be able to take whatever bird they want. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that harvest limits ensure wild turkey populations will remain available and healthy for current and future Texans to harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the harvest of hens should be stopped completely. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that bearded hens make up approximately 3% of the hen population in Texas. Research has shown that removal of less than 5% of the hen population annually is sustainable. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Six commenters opposed adoption and stated that bag limits should be lowered instead of prohibiting the harvest of unbearded hens. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that department data indicate 92% of turkey hunters harvest less than the four-bird annual bag limit. Additionally, Texas has one of the most liberal fall seasons and a substantial number of hens are harvested during the fall season. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the bag limit should be lowered, but with a differential limit for residents and non-residents. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that Texas has some of the lowest male harvest rates in the country at 13%. Of those hunters who successfully bag a wild turkey in Texas, 92% harvest three or fewer birds. Reducing the annual bag limit on male wild turkeys would have little impact on population sustainability or growth. Additionally, implementing a differential bag limit for residents and nonresident, especially in the absence of a tangible conservation necessity or benefit, would create unnecessary administration, compliance, and enforcement issues. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated there should be an option to buy a tag to hunt hens. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the purpose of the rule is to curtail or truncate hen harvest in general; allowing additional harvest of hens confounds that goal and, in any case, introduces unnecessary complexity to processes. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that Bell County east of I35 should be open to turkey harvest along with the rest of the county. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment is not germane to the proposed amendment, as the only closures contemplated did not involve Bell County. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 828 comments supporting adoption of the amendment as proposed.

The department received 25 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §65.66, concerning Chachalaca. Of the 25 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 the season should stay the same as it was previously. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the change will maintain consistency and simplify hunting regulations across the state. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated the best time for hunting chachalaca was February, especially later in the month. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted results in a season lasting the entirety of February. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that quail and chachalaca seasons should open at the same time but retain the winter dates from the previous year. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the change results in a season that is similar to previous years but adds more opportunity at the end of February. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the quail season should start a few weeks earlier to avoid an overlap with deer season. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment is not germane to the proposed amendment, as the rules as proposed did not contemplate changes to quail seasons. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated the department should leave the quail season dates alone. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the comment is not germane to the proposed amendment, as no changes to quail seasons were proposed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 384 comments supporting adoption of the amendment as proposed.

SUBCHAPTER A. STATEWIDE HUNTING PROCLAMATION