TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

PART 2. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

CHAPTER 65. WILDLIFE

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on January 22, 2026, adopted amendments to 31 TAC §§65.81, 65.88, 65.90 - 65.92, 65.94, 65.95, 65.97, 65.99, and 65.100, concerning Disease Detection and Response, and 65.610, concerning Deer Breeder Permits. The amendments to §65.95, concerning Movement of Breeder Deer, and §65.610, concerning Transfer Permits, are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 8172). The amendments to §§65.81, 65.88, 65.90 - 65.92, 65.94, 65.97, 65.99, and 65.100 are adopted without changes to the proposed text and will not be republished. Section 65.95 and §65.610 are adopted with changes. These rules will be republished.

The change to §65.95 alters subsection (d)(4) to replace the word "site" with the word "facility" to maintain consistency of terminology, and adds a period at the end of subsection (a)(3) for grammatical correctness. .

The change to §65.610 restores the text of subsections (f) and (g), which should have been indicated as "No change" in the proposal but were inadvertently omitted from publication.

The amendments function collectively to clearly define the areas of respective responsibility between the department and the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) with respect to the management of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Texas, as well as to make clarifications to existing language, and make minor alterations to administrative processes to improve efficiency.

CWD is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder that affects some cervid species, including wildlife resources such as white-tailed deer and mule deer, but also exotic species such as elk, red deer, sika, and their hybrids (referred to collectively as "susceptible species"). It is classified as a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy), a family of diseases that includes scrapie (found in sheep), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, found in cattle and commonly known as "Mad Cow Disease"), and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans. CWD is spread by prions (a misfolded protein that is the infectious agent) that other animals can acquire directly or indirectly via bodily fluids or contaminated environments. CWD prions are known to persist in soil, vegetation, water, and carcasses indefinitely and there is no practical method for denaturing them. Thus, if CWD is not contained and controlled, the implications of the disease for Texas and its multi-billion-dollar ranching, hunting, wildlife management, and real estate economies could be significant.

The department has been concerned for over two decades about the emergence of CWD in free-ranging and captive populations of white-tailed and mule deer in Texas. The department is the primary state agency for the management and protection of native wildlife in the state, while TAHC is the state agency responsible for protecting animal agriculture (livestock and poultry) from disease and human health from zoonotic disease. Under Agriculture Code, §161.101(a)(6), CWD is a reportable disease and requires a veterinarian, veterinary diagnostic laboratory, or person having care, custody, or control of an animal to report the existence of CWD to TAHC within 24 hours after diagnosis. Because CWD can be transmitted between wildlife and farmed animals, there is an obvious nexus of interagency responsibilities in certain situations.

A central component of the joint strategy for CWD management was the department's utilization of TAHC hold orders and quarantines as a regulatory mechanism for isolating and restricting the movement of infected or potentially infected animals. TAHC is no longer a participant in the USDA herd-certification program for deer and has engaged in rulemaking to remove itself from CWD management responsibilities with respect to native wildlife. TAHC will focus on susceptible species other than native wildlife and TPWD's responsibility for CWD management will focus on native CWD-susceptible species under TPWD regulatory authority. Therefore, the proposed amendments would remove all references to TAHC (with exceptions as noted) hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans and replace references to hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans, as appropriate, with references to "disease management plan," which is necessary to create and implement a similar mechanism administered solely by the department and applicable only to white-tailed and mule deer, which are the only two species of native wildlife that are susceptible to CWD.

The amendment to §65.88, concerning Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions, in addition to conforming changes regarding TAHC mentioned earlier in this preamble, extends the applicability of the section to all dead deer being transported (i.e., not just deer killed by hunting), rewords subsection (a) for purposes of clarity, and adds new subsection (b) to address the disposal of deer that die within breeding facilities. The disposal methods for deer that die within exposed and positive breeding facilities are currently addressed under TAHC herd plans; therefore, the department must stipulate those standards in department rules in order to prevent the spread of CWD from breeding facilities where it might or has been confirmed to exist. Additionally, the amendment requires persons transporting carcasses of dead breeder deer to a landfill (if the deer are not interred in situ) to possess a completed disposition document on a form approved or supplied by the department, which would be required to accompany deer carcasses during transport and until the carcasses are accepted at the landfill. The amendment is necessary to aid in law enforcement investigations, if necessary, by documenting deer that no longer bear the permanent identification required under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L.

The amendment to §65.90, concerning Definitions, consists of a number of related changes intended to address intra-agency roles in CWD management in wildlife contexts and to make clarifications and improvements to definitions used throughout the subchapter. The changes are necessary to prevent misunderstandings and standardize the applicability of various specialized terms.

The amendment adds new paragraph (14) to define "exposed facility" as "a facility that has received exposed deer," and alters current paragraphs (29) and (45) to make those provisions applicable to all types of facilities and not just to deer breeding facilities. The current rule defines "exposed deer" and "exposure" but does not explicitly address facilities that contain exposed deer. The current definitions in paragraphs (29) and (45) reflect the division of labor with respect to the former role of TAHC in CWD management. Because TAHC hold orders and quarantines will no longer be issued for premises on the basis of CWD in wildlife populations, the affected definitions must be made applicable to all facilities (rather than just to breeding facilities) to accommodate that fact.

The amendment also makes several changes affecting terminology related to administrative mechanisms for authorizing the movement of breeder deer. In order to effectively and efficiently track the movement of breeder deer to and from deer breeders for purposes of law enforcement and disease investigations, the department created a specialized database commonly known as TWIMS, which allowed the automation of many permitting processes. Every location where breeder deer are kept or released is assigned a unique "facility ID" in TWIMS. Although the term "facility" has long been defined by rule to apply to any location required to be registered in TWIMS, the term has, for whatever reason, become synonymous with "deer breeding facility." Similarly, although the terms "Movement Qualified" (current paragraph (26)) and "Non-Movement Qualified" (current paragraph (28)), under current rule apply only to breeding facilities, they have for whatever reason erroneously become understood to include movement authorizations for other types of facilities, which is technically and legally not the case. The terms were promulgated to reflect the binary opposition states (predicated on compliance with disease-testing requirements) necessary for TWIMS to allow or prevent the activation of a transfer permit that allows deer movement to and from deer breeding facilities or to other types of facilities; however, the terms have become so commonly used to refer to release locations that the department believes it is easier and more effective to simply alter the rules to expand the applicability of the terms to include all types of facilities. Along the same lines, the term "transfer permit" has long been defined in Chapter 65, Subchapter T, to mean the authorization for movement of breeder deer to or from any type of facility, and some confusion has arisen as to whether "to or from" means "to and from" even though release locations are terminal destinations (i.e., the transfer permit in such cases is a permanent and final "one-way only" authorization of movement to a location from which the deer cannot ever be removed while still alive). Finally, the amendment replaces the term "release site" (current paragraph (34)), with the term "release facility." As discussed earlier in this preamble, every location where breeder deer are kept and every location where breeder deer are released are assigned a "facility ID" in TWIMS. To maintain continuity of terminology, the proposed amendments remove all references to "release sites" and replace them with references to "release facility."

The amendment to §65.91, concerning General Provisions, eliminates references to TAHC and replaces the term "herd plan" with the term "disease management plan" for reasons previously discussed in this preamble. The amendment to subsection (d) addresses situations in which a premise is subject to TAHC movement restrictions because of CWD exposure in a susceptible species other than white-tailed deer or mule deer. The department has determined that because native cervids are susceptible species, allowing breeder deer to be moved from an exposed location represents an unacceptable risk of spreading CWD to native free-ranging and captive deer populations unless a determination based on the particulars of a given circumstance indicate that risk is either non-existent or acceptable. The amendment also alters subsection (e) to create an exception that would allow the transfer of deer to or from a facility designated NMQ if authorized under a disease management plan. The department has determined that there may be unforeseen situations in which compliance with a disease management plan provides epidemiological confidence that the transfer of deer by a facility otherwise not allowed to move deer can be allowed. Finally, the amendment alters subsection (f) to clarify that the provisions of the subsection apply to facilities where CWD has been confirmed as well as facilities where CWD is suspected to be present, which is necessary to address situations in which a facility nominally linked to a positive facility can be cleared following epidemiological investigation.

The amendment to §65.92, concerning CWD Testing, makes conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The amendment to §65.94, concerning Breeding Facility Minimum Movement Qualification, makes conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The amendment to §65.95, concerning Movement of Breeder Deer, makes conforming changes as discussed previously in this preamble and would stipulate that changes in land ownership do not affect the status of a property as a trace-out release site. The department has determined that because CWD is an existential threat to native wildlife, it is necessary to eliminate the potential for unscrupulous persons to evade disease-management obligations by way of real estate transactions. In any case, CWD is a reportable disease under state law and the department has a statutory duty to protect wildlife resources from disease threats.

The amendment to §65.97, concerning Testing and Movement of Deer Pursuant to a Triple T or TTP Permit, makes conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The amendment to §65.99, concerning Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD; Positive Deer Breeding Facilities, also makes conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The amendment to §65.100, concerning Violations and Penalties, also makes conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The amendment to §65.610, concerning Transfer of Deer, also makes conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The department received 469 comments opposing adoption of the rules as proposed. Of those comments, 253 provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow. The department notes that because some comments in opposition to the rules consisted of multiple points or components, the department has organized the response to public comment accordingly; therefore, the number of responses is greater than the number of commenters.

Twenty-one commenters opposed adoption and stated in some form or fashion that provisions relating to disease management plans, because of vagueness and lack of specificity, did not provide reasonable assurance that such plans would be based on a consensus reflecting the best available science consistent with veterinary and epidemiological professional practice standards, which could lead to favoritism and/or abuse or at least present the appearance of favoritism or abuse being possible. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted do not change the process delimited in the current rules, they simply remove references to TAHC and make conforming changes necessary for the department to subsume those duties formerly performed by TAHC. The rules currently in effect were designed to allow latitude and flexibility in the joint development of herd plans by the department and TAHC because there are hundreds if not thousands of possible disease-mitigation scenarios that could be presented by any given facility, facility infrastructure, facility population, or facility transfer history, making it impossible for the rules to accommodate every single potential scenario. Nonetheless, the department is persuaded that concerns about possible favoritism or abuse or even the appearance of opportunity for favoritism or abuse are sufficiently compelling to pursue the development, with the advice and assistance of external expertise, of a suite of best practices to guide the development and content of disease management plans (which, the department notes, are required only when a facility becomes a positive facility or has been epidemiologically connected to a positive facility). The department has been directed by the commission to pursue such an initiative and to present its results to the commission. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Forty commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules are onerous, overkill, out of control, excessive, government overreach, intrusive, or some other similar descriptive language meant to characterize the department's actions as arbitrary, egregious, and unnecessary. The department notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department nevertheless disagrees with the comments and responds that it has a statutory duty to protect the indigenous deer of the state, which, until now, it has in part discharged via regulations reflecting the involvement and cooperation of TAHC. The withdrawal of TAHC from management activities involving captive and free-ranging populations of indigenous deer necessitates conforming changes to the existing rules, which the rules as adopted accomplish, with minimal substantive alteration. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Three commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and cited the discovery of CWD at the department's Kerr Wildlife Management Area (WMA) as proof that the rules as proposed are unnecessary. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules, as proposed and adopted, have precisely no relationship with or connection to the administration of the Kerr WMA or disease management efforts at the Kerr WMA. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eleven commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules are unconstitutional, a violation of constitutional rights, or an infringement of private property rights. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted are not violative of any provision of the state or federal constitutions and do not affect private property rights in any way. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eighteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and expressed doubts concerning the threat or indeed the existence of CWD or CWD prions, claiming the disease has been around forever, isn't fatal, has no effect on deer populations, only affects small portions of the deer population, hasn't caused "die-offs," isn't prevalent, has never killed a deer, cannot be acquired by natural means, is a scam to obtain federal funds, or some other, similar expression of incredulity or disbelief, and that the department's response to CWD is therefore a waste of time and money because it is not warranted or justified. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that although it is true that much remains to be done before CWD is well understood, there is absolutely no scientific debate at all as to whether it is real, transmissible, transmissible independent of human agency, without question invariably fatal once acquired, and can have population level effects if allowed to spread. Further, the department notes that the absence of large-scale die-offs isn't an appropriate metric because CWD can take years to reach a high enough prevalence in free-ranging deer populations for such effects to become observable, at which point it becomes impossible to eradicate. Additionally, there is no fiscal incentive at the state or federal level driving or motivating the department's CWD management efforts. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Twelve commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules are evidence of department antipathy, bias, or animosity towards deer breeders and indicative of a department desire to eliminate or destroy deer breeding, describing the rules, variously, as discriminatory, bullying, crippling, an attempt to put deer breeders out of business, "punishing" deer breeders, and other unflattering adjectives and phrases with negative connotations meant to indicate a pre-existing, continuing department animus towards deer breeding and deer breeders. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department nevertheless disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted are not punitive nor do they demonstrate disregard or contempt for the regulated community; rather, they conform existing rules to accommodate the withdrawal of TAHC from management activities involving captive and free-ranging populations of indigenous deer. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Three commenters opposed adoption of the proposed rules on the basis of the cost of carcass disposal. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted apply only to deer that die within deer breeding facilities where CWD is discovered or that have been exposed to CWD and that in the majority of cases, those carcasses are disposed of by interment in situ. The rule as adopted is necessary because disposal of carcasses under these circumstances was until now prescribed by TAHC herd plans and must now be prescribed by department rule. The rule is necessary to eliminate the potential for diseased deer to be disposed by any method other than an approved effective method, and the department believes that the cost of interment or transport to an approved solid waste facility is not onerous. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eleven commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated the rules as proposed would hurt property values. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department nonetheless disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted remove references to the TAHC and transfer duties formerly performed by or in conjunction with TAHC completely to the department, in addition to making several clarification-type and administrative changes. The department further responds that there is to the department's knowledge no credible documentation or data to even suggest that any component of the department's CWD management rules affect real property values in any way, and that any adverse impacts of CWD to property values are wholly, totally, and completely a result of the disease itself and not the rules designed to manage it. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eight commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the provision affirming the continued effectiveness of disease management rules on properties subsequent to sale or change in ownership would deprive future landowners of the value or use of the land. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that CWD is by statute a reportable disease and the department's statutory duty to protect native wildlife from disease is independent from and not connected to the landowner. The department further notes that the sale or transfer of real property without disclosure that the property is epidemiologically connected to a reportable disease is an unscrupulous act. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Thirteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules will harm, kill, destroy, or otherwise negatively impact deer hunting, and another 22 commenters stated in various ways that the rules will hurt small businesses, businesses associated with the hunting industry, employment, job creation, the state economy, and local economies, and other general assertions of extreme financial hardship or harm at both micro and macro levels. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not identify opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department nevertheless disagrees with the comments and responds that such allegations have been repeatedly made over the course of the last twenty years and there is no indication that department rules have resulted in harm to small businesses at the macro level, businesses associated with hunting, employment, job creation, or state and local economies, let alone at the intensity or to the degree predicted by various commenters. The department also notes the existence of a misperception that deer breeders furnish or are responsible for a significant component of the deer population in Texas; in fact, captive-bred deer represent an extremely small percentage (generously estimated at less than four percent) of the total number of deer harvested annually in Texas. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Sixteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that CWD isn't killing deer, the state is. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated; however, the department infers that the subject of the comments is depopulation events conducted at deer breeding facilities within which CWD has been confirmed. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as proposed and adopted do not contemplate and do not intend to contemplate provisions of existing law regarding procedures governing permittee refusals to cooperate with department efforts to mitigate disease propagation risk at locations where CWD has been confirmed. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Thirteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated in various ways that the rules are unsupported by science generally or peer-reviewed science in particular, or that the science upon which the department bases the rules is flawed. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department nonetheless disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted affect administrative processes and do not implement or affect any measures predicated on or reflecting scientific methodology. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that CWD can be bred out of deer. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated; however, the department disagrees with the comments nonetheless and responds that linebreeding to improve disease resistance is common in livestock, but it is nearly impossible with free-ranging wildlife populations because the animals are not domesticated or confined. In any case, the comment is not germane to the rules as proposed or adopted. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Seven commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that CWD doesn't or cannot harm humans and poses no risk to humans. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department nonetheless disagrees and responds that although there is currently no scientific evidence to indicate that CWD is transmissible to humans, both the CDC and the World Health Organization strongly recommend avoiding consumption of meat from CWD-infected deer. In any case the comment is not germane to the rules as proposed or adopted. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Six commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated or suggested that the department and the commission are engaging in a political agenda. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department disagrees with the comments, however, and responds that such assertions are mistaken at best and untrue in any event; the department's focus is on fulfilling its statutory duty to manage disease in indigenous wildlife. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 34 comments opposing adoption of the rules as proposed and stating in some form or fashion opposition to depopulation events (the destruction of deer in breeding facilities where CWD has been discovered and the affected permittee refuses to cooperate with the department in instituting a disease management plan). Eighteen of the 34 commenters stated that depopulation events killing thousands of healthy deer achieve nothing. The department again notes that most if not all of the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated; however, the department disagrees with the comments and responds that CWD is an infectious disease that kills 100 percent of the deer that contract it. It cannot be treated and it cannot be eradicated or destroyed. As such, it is without argument a serious threat to free-range populations and an existential threat to captive populations. Other species of farmed animals and livestock are faced with similar threats, such as avian influenza, tuberculosis, and brucellosis, and those producers are required to comply with movement restrictions, quarantines, testing requirements, disposal requirements, permanent identification requirements, and other disease mitigation measures. Such measures protect animal health and productivity and the marketability of products. When such diseases are detected in herds and flocks, those herds and flocks are often killed to prevent disease outbreaks that could have severe impacts on economic activity or human health and safety. Depopulation of facilities where CWD is detected is one of the most effective means of disease mitigation, but the department notes that depopulation is not mandatory and disagrees that the depopulation of CWD positive facilities "achieves nothing," as it is especially critical for CWD management in contexts where such measures can result in effective containment, compared with response options to detections in free-ranging populations. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that because public comment was overwhelmingly in opposition to adoption, the rules should therefore not be adopted. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the regulatory process is not a binding referendum or a popularity contest. The commission often must make decisions that will displease people; nevertheless, the duty to protect and conserve public resources takes precedence. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the department engages in deer breeder permit revocation without due process. The department again notes that the comments seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the department has never revoked or attempted to revoke a deer breeder's permit and if it were to do so, it would scrupulously follow all applicable legal requirements when engaged in that activity. The department also notes that because breeder deer are the property of the people of the state and not the property of the permittee, there are no due process considerations related to permit denials. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that all deer should be tested for CWD. The department again notes that the comment seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that any epidemiological value gained by testing all deer in the state for CWD would not be worth the immense financial and logistical obstacles, even if it were physically possible to do so, which it is not. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that high fences should not be required at release sites. The department again notes that the comment seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the fencing requirement for release sites is mandated by statute (Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.361). No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that there should be no CWD testing at release sites. The department again notes that the comment seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds the rules currently in effect require CWD testing at release sites only if a deer at the release site is confirmed positive for CWD or if the release site is determined to be epidemiologically connected to a CWD-positive facility. The department has an affirmative statutory duty to prevent the spread of disease, which the regulations currently in effect are intended to accomplish. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that deer breeders "monitor better and more successfully than TPWD." The department again notes that the comment seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted do not affect testing requirements. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be no more emergency rules. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that by statute (Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.027), if the commission or the executive director finds that there is an immediate danger to a species authorized to be regulated by the department, or that strict compliance with existing department rules would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with a disaster declared by the governor, the commission or the executive director may adopt emergency rules. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules eliminate notification requirements in proposed §65.91(c) without explanation, which raises procedural and due process concerns. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules as adopted do not eliminate or even alter any notification requirement; instead, the amendment clarifies that when the department receives a CWD test result of "suspect" or "confirmed" for a deer, the facility holding the deer is automatically designated NMQ at that time. The wording of the current rule could be interpreted to infer that there is or could be some extended period of time possible between the time the department learns of a "suspect" or "positive" test result, the designation of NMQ status, and department contact with the appropriate party. CWD is one of many diseases (e.g., brucellosis, swine fever, rabies) required to be reported to the state by law (4 TAC §45.2) within 24 hours of discovery. In practice, under current rule, when the department receives notification from an accredited testing laboratory that CWD is present or suspected at a facility, NMQ status (which prevents activation of transfer permits) is immediately imposed in TWIMS to prevent movement of potentially diseased deer, and the appropriate party is then contacted as quickly as possible via phone, and email if the party cannot be reached by phone. In some cases multiple parties are affected and the process takes place as quickly as staff can proceed. That process will not change. The amendment simply reflects the actual chain of events in the order they occur and does not alter any requirement of law or alter any current practice. The department further responds that there are no due-process implications of the rules because the rules do not affect any person's property rights. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated, "by enforcing live tonsil testing requirements and disregarding its own rules, TPWD has spread more CWD than all the breeders combined." The department again notes the comment seemed to be generally directed at the agency's historical rulemaking regarding CWD management prior to this rulemaking and did not provide or identify a rational connection for opposition to any specific component or provision of the rules actually being deliberated; however, the department disagrees with the comment and responds, first, that the department's regulatory recognition and acceptance of live-animal testing occurred at the repeated urging of the regulated community at a time when the procedure was still experimental and had not yet been designated by the United States Department of Agriculture as an approved testing methodology; and second, that whatever is meant by "TPWD has spread more CWD than…," the statement is categorically and demonstrably false. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules as proposed were not urgently necessary and did not provide for any department oversight not available under existing authority. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules were indeed necessary and, in point of fact, needed as soon as practicable, because the withdrawal of TAHC from participation in CWD management efforts affecting wildlife species significantly impacts regulatory provisions, processes, and terminology that reflect joint administrative duties and responsibilities that are now inoperable and must be wholly shouldered by the department, necessitating prompt rulemaking. The department further notes that there is no question as to the department's statutory authority to regulate disease management in native wildlife species - that authority is the basis for the regulations promulgated by the commission and the department cannot grant itself authority to do anything. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated, "during the last session, disease management legislation responding to Texas Animal Health Commission's change was heavily negotiated. It was clear the movement restrictions were intended to remain premise specific [sic]. If the legislation intended to expand TPWD's authority beyond licensed breeding facilities and registered release sites, it would have so, and it did not." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the 89th Texas Legislature enacted no legislation affecting the department's rulemaking authority with respect to native deer, deer breeding, disease management, or release sites. The department further responds that movement restrictions imposed by the department are indeed premise-specific and will remain so under the rules as adopted, as CWD is by law a reportable disease and the department has a statutory duty to protect indigenous wildlife from disease threats. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the commission is not the legislature and cannot make laws. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the legislature has delegated rulemaking authority to the Parks and Wildlife Commission, and the rules are adopted under that authority and carry the full force and effect of law. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 14 comments supporting adoption of the rules as proposed.

The Texas Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, and Texas Deer Association opposed adoption of the rules as proposed.

The Texas Conservation Alliance and Texas Foundation for Conservation supported adoption of the rules as proposed.

SUBCHAPTER B. DISEASE DETECTION AND RESPONSE

SUBCHAPTER T. DEER BREEDER PERMITS

The amendment is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, sale, of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter.

§65.610. Transfer Permits.

(a) General. No person may possess breeder deer in a trailer or vehicle, or remove or allow removal of breeder deer from a trailer, or accept, introduce, or allow introduction of breeder deer into a permitted facility, unless a valid transfer permit has been activated as provided in this section.

(b) Transfer by deer breeder. In accordance with the provisions of Subchapter B, Division 2, of this chapter (concerning Chronic Wasting Disease - Movement of Deer), the holder of a valid deer breeder's permit may transfer legally possessed breeder deer to:

(1) a facility registered with the department for purposes of veterinary treatment; or

(2) an educational display or zoological facility permitted by the department. A transfer under this paragraph is final; breeder deer transferred to a permitted educational display or zoological facility may not be returned to any breeder facility.

(c) White-tailed deer and mule deer may not be transferred to a facility located in a county for which there is no open season for that species.

(d) The department will not authorize the transfer of breeder deer to a release site if the department has determined that the transfer will detrimentally affect existing populations or systems.

(e) Release.

(1) Breeder deer lawfully transferred to a registered release site may be held in temporary captivity for any period of time from March 1 through the eleventh day immediately preceding an open deer season to acclimate the breeder deer to habitat conditions at the release site; however, such temporary captivity must be specifically authorized in writing by the department. Not later than 11:59 p.m. on the eleventh day immediately preceding an open deer season, all deer being held in temporary captivity under the provisions of this paragraph shall be released. Release shall consist of the removal of at least 20 feet of the components of a pen that serve to maintain deer in a state of detention within the pen; however, no opening shall be less than 10 feet in width. Such components shall be removed for no fewer than 30 consecutive days.

(2) An enclosure used to temporarily detain deer under this paragraph shall be physically separate from any deer breeding facility and the deer being temporarily held shall not be commingled with breeder deer. Deer held in temporary captivity shall not be returned to any deer breeding facility.

(3) The department will not authorize the detention of deer under this paragraph during an open hunting season.

(4) Deer in temporary captivity under the provisions of this paragraph shall not be hunted while in temporary captivity.

(5) It is an offense for any person to:

(A) release, cause, allow, or participate in the release of a breeder deer that does not bear the identification prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561, and any applicable disease management plan; or

(B) remove the identification tag required by this section from such deer except as a consequence of reducing the deer to possession following lawful take under a hunting license.

(f) Transfer permit.

(1) A transfer permit is valid for 48 consecutive hours from the time of activation.

(2) A transfer permit authorizes the transfer of the breeder deer specifically identified on the transfer permit to one and only one registered facility.

(3) A transport manifest is a written document that specifically identifies the deer in a means of transport at any given time between departure from the source facility identified on the transfer permit and any destination facility identified on the transfer permit. A person in possession of deer during transport under a transfer permit must physically possess a transport manifest under any of the following conditions:

(A) multiple vehicles are employed to transport deer to only one destination identified in a single transfer permit;

(B) a single vehicle is employed for multiple trips to a single destination identified in a single transfer permit; or

(C) a single instance of transport involves stops at multiple destinations.

(4) A transfer permit is activated only by:

(A) utilizing the department's online application; or

(B) notifying the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin by phone or email in the event the department's online application is offline or otherwise unavailable to the general public.

(C) It is an offense for any person to transport a deer under a transfer permit unless the person also possesses a confirmation number issued by the department indicating receipt of the notification for that instance of transport.

(5) No person may possess a live breeder deer at any place other than within a permitted facility unless that person also possesses on their person a department-issued transfer permit legibly indicating, at a minimum:

(A) the species, sex, and unique number of each breeder deer in possession;

(B) the facility identification numbers for the source and destination facilities; and

(C) the date and time that the permit was activated.

(6) Not later than 48 hours following the completion of the movement of breeder deer under a transfer permit, the permit shall be completed and submitted to the department.

(7) A deer breeder may transport breeder deer without a transfer permit from a permitted facility to a licensed veterinarian's medical facility for emergency medical treatment, provided:

(A) the transport occurs by the most feasible direct route;

(B) the breeder deer are not removed from the means of transportation at any point from the time of departure from the source facility to the time of return to the source facility, including at the place of treatment; and

(C) the breeder deer do not leave this state.

(D) If a breeder deer is removed from the means of transportation to the medical facility and is temporarily housed in a location that may house other susceptible species, then a transfer permit reflecting that transport must be activated and completed and an additional transfer permit must be activated prior to the deer returning to the deer breeding facility.

(E) An eligible-age deer that is transported to a veterinary medical facility under the provisions of this section and dies at any time before being returned to a breeding facility will be treated as a mortality within the originating facility for the purposes of the requirements of Subchapter B of this chapter.

(g) Marking of vehicles and trailers. No person may possess, transport, or cause the transportation of breeder deer in a trailer or vehicle under the provisions of this subchapter unless the trailer or vehicle exhibits an applicable inscription, as specified in this subsection, on the rear surface of the trailer or vehicle. The inscription shall read from left to right and shall be plainly visible at all times while possessing or transporting breeder deer upon a public roadway. The inscription shall be attached to or painted on the trailer or vehicle in block, capital letters, each of which shall be of no less than six inches in height and three inches in width, in a color that contrasts with the color of the trailer or vehicle. If the person is not a deer breeder, the inscription shall be "TXD". If the person is a deer breeder, the inscription shall be the deer breeder serial number issued to the person.

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 April 21, 2026.

TRD-202601706

James Murphy

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: May 11, 2026

Proposal publication date: December 19, 2025

For further information, please call: (512) 389-3775