TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

PART 2. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

CHAPTER 69. RESOURCE PROTECTION

SUBCHAPTER C. WILDLIFE REHABILITATION PERMITS

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on May 28, 2026, adopted the repeal of 31 TAC §69.47 and amendments to §§69.43 - 69.46, 69.48, 69.49, and 69.52, concerning Wildlife Rehabilitation Permits. Sections 69.44, 69.45, 69.46, 69.48, 69.49, and 69.52, are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 24, 2026, issue of the Texas Register (51 TexReg 2602). The repeal of §69.47 and amended §69.43 are adopted without change to the proposed text and will not be republished.

The change to §69.44, concerning General Provisions, removes proposed subsection (a)(8) because it is redundant of §69.45(f), concerning Permit Required; Permit Privileges, and alters subsection (c) as proposed to make abundantly clear that except as specifically provided by rule, wildlife possessed under a rehabilitation permit and being displayed to the public cannot be touched by the public. The change also clarifies that the requirement for wildlife to be restrained at all times does not apply to birds when being flown as part of educational demonstration.

The change to §69.45, concerning Permit Required; Permit Privileges, alters subsection (a)(1) as proposed to allow Type A permittees to utilize no more than two subpermittees. Under the rules as proposed, Type A permittees were prohibited from using subpermittees. The department was persuaded by public comment to liberalize the requirements and intends for the change to provide for limited use of subpermittees by Type A permittees as a trade-off for accomplishing the objective of the rules while minimizing disruption of current provision of services by qualified permittees. The proposed change also alters subsection (a)(2) to allow Type B permittees to supervise activities at no more than one satellite facility. The department was persuaded by public comment that allowing an extremely limited utilization of satellite facilities would still allow the department to achieve the goal of limiting the proliferation of satellite facilities. The proposed change also alters proposed subsection (a)(3) to allow Type C permittees to utilize no more than 15 subpermittees and operate no more than 15 satellite facilities. Under the rules as proposed, Type C permittees were limited to no more than 10 subpermittees and no more than five satellite facilities. The department considers the level of experience required for issuance of a Type C warrants a liberalization as an acceptable trade-off for accomplishing the objective of the rules while minimizing disruption of current provision of services by a large number of permittees. Finally, the change also stipulates that a licensed veterinarian with at least two years of experience treating or rehabilitating wildlife is eligible for the Type D rehabilitation permit, to include veterinarians with at least two years of documented wildlife experience. The department is persuaded by public comment that two years of wildlife experience as a licensed veterinarian is sufficient to provide confidence that a person is capable of effectively complying with the requirements applicable to Class D permit holders.

The change to §69.46, concerning Application for Permit, alters subsection (a) to reduce the minimum requirement for wildlife rehabilitation experience for licensure, from 800 hours to 600 hours, and clarifies that the 600 required hours of experience must occur over a minimum of two calendar years. The department is persuaded by public comment that reducing the total number of hours of experience while providing a time constraint effectively accomplishes the goals of the rule as proposed.

The change to §69.48, concerning Permit Renewals, removes language regarding quarterly reports, which are being eliminated by the amendment to §69.52, concerning Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping.

The change to §69.49, regarding General Facilities Standards, provides for purposes of clarity a legacy provision for current permittees conducting wildlife rehabilitation activities in facilities that would otherwise not be eligible for registration in the future under the rules as adopted. The change also stipulates that if such legacy permits are allowed to expire, the facility would have to meet the requirements of the subsection in order to be registered again.

The change to §69.52, concerning Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping, would eliminate quarterly reporting for permittees in possession of deer and instead require the annual report required of all other permittees. The department has determined that standardization of reporting requirements provides for beneficial streamlining of program administration. The change also alters proposed new subsection (g) to eliminate a provision that would have required local animal control authorities to acknowledge notification requirements in writing. The department has determined that the provision would have imposed a significant and avoidable burden on local health control authorities.

In 2021, the department conducted an extensive revision of wildlife rehabilitation rules to address longstanding concerns regarding programmatic inefficiency, noncompliance, and abuse (such as the persistent problem of permits being used to keep wildlife as pets or curiosities, which is not only undesirable, but unlawful). Because those revisions were quite significant, the department anticipated that additional revisions in the near term would be necessary in order to address unforeseen issues, eliminate conflicts, and make improvements. The rules as adopted are intended, collectively, to reorganize the subchapter, address problematic processes, and improve administrative efficiencies with the goal of strengthening and improving the delivery of wildlife rehabilitation activities in Texas.

The amendment to §69.43, concerning Definitions, adds definitions for "animal control authority," "large wildlife rehabilitation center," "licensed veterinarian," and wildlife health crisis." The amendment defines "animal control authority" as "the local governmental entity responsible for regulating and/or enforcing laws applicable to the possession, control, welfare, and disposition of animals." The department has received numerous requests from various law enforcement and first-responder entities for assistance in identifying places and locations where persons may be holding wildlife, because first-responders find it helpful to know about the possibility of encountering captive wildlife in the course of their duties, and because there may be local ordinances and laws that apply to such situations. Therefore, the rules require permittees to notify the local animal control authority of the existence and location of facilities, and an unambiguous definition of that term is necessary to facilitate compliance and enforcement.

The rules make regulatory distinctions based on the intensity and magnitude of rehabilitation efforts. Wildlife rehabilitation activities can vary greatly in scale and pace; some rehabilitators have very narrow areas of specialization and others operate what amount to trauma centers that can have significant staff and treat many animals per day or year. The amendment to §69.45, concerning Permit Required, acknowledges these scales by defining "Large Wildlife Rehabilitation Center" as "a registered facility that has received at least 3,000 animals in each of the preceding three years and employs the permittee on a full or part-time basis to conduct activities for which a permit under this subchapter is required," which is necessary to tailor regulatory provisions accordingly.

The department has determined that it is necessary to define "licensed veterinarian" as "a person licensed by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to practice veterinary medicine in Texas," which is necessary to ensure that all persons providing veterinary medical services to wildlife rehabilitators are lawfully able to do so by the state of Texas and are professionally accountable in the state of Texas.

The amendment also defines "wildlife health crisis" as "a circumstance or set of circumstances that threaten wildlife populations, biodiversity, ecosystem stability, or animal or human health, including through zoonotic pathogen spillover." The definition is necessary because the term is employed in current rule and the standard applied by the department to such situations should be clear with respect to the threshold for department responses to disease emergence, such as that posed by New World Screwworm, that threatens public wildlife resources and potentially, livestock, pets, and humans.

Finally, the amendment corrects and relocates current paragraph (12) to preserve meaning and alphabetical order.

The amendment to §69.44, concerning General Provisions, consists of several actions. The department has determined that the current section is unwieldy and thematically inconsistent; therefore, the amendment rearranges and reorganizes existing provisions according to shared applicability and relocates some provisions to other sections as noted.

The amendment relocates current subsections (e) - (l), (n), (q), and (r) to subsection (a) and redesignates those provisions as paragraphs, which is intended to group generally applicable provisions in one place. Current subsections (e) and (f) become new paragraph (3)(A) and (B) under subsection (a); the contents of current subsection (c) is retained but become new subsection(a)(4); current subsection (g) becomes new paragraph (5); current subsection (j) becomes new subsection (a)(6); current subsection (n) becomes new subsection (a)(7); and current subsection (q) becomes new subsection (a)(8).

The amendment to §69.44 retains the provisions of current subsection (d) as new subsection (b)(2) and adds new paragraph (1), which requires subpermittees to be at least 18 years of age and to have passed a department-administered examination with a score of 100 percent. The department has encountered situations in which persons listed as subpermittees are clearly too young and/or unqualified to be conducting or assisting in permitted activities; therefore, the department believes a standard is appropriate. The department believes it is reasonable to require that all subpermittees be at least 18 years of age and to have demonstrated a basic understanding of wildlife rehabilitation.

The amendment combines the provisions of current subsections (h) and (i) and places them in new subsection (c) concerning Display to the Public.

The amendment to §69.44 also creates new subsection (d) to address the possession of non-releasable wildlife. Wildlife is by definition animal life that is meant to live in a state of nature and not in a state of domestication. In the natural world, animals that cannot survive don't. In many cases, wildlife brought to wildlife rehabilitators cannot be restored to a state of health that would allow survival in the wild and thus cannot be returned to the wild ("non-releasable"), which dictates euthanasia unless there is a compelling argument for allowing the animal to be kept for use for education, socializing other wildlife of the same species, or some other specialized use that benefits the species or human understanding of wildlife. Current rule requires non-releasable wildlife to be euthanized except as provided for approved educational, fostering, or socialization purposes, or transfer to zoological, scientific, or educational permit holders; however, the department continues to be concerned about situations in which wildlife is being retained in contravention of these understandings, in effect, becoming pets or curiosities, and in some cases the department has reason to suspect that persons have obtained wildlife rehabilitation permits solely for such purposes, which defeats the entire purpose of the concept of wildlife rehabilitation. The department believes that the highest and best reality for wildlife is to live in the wild as part of and contributors to native ecosystems and that wildlife incapable of survival in the wild should be euthanized unless it can be used to benefit the species or human understanding of biology because the animal cannot live as nature intended. The department also wishes to avoid any possibility of inadvertently creating a legal pathway for the intentional acquisition of wildlife for personal use or enjoyment. For these reasons, the rules as adopted require non-releasable wildlife to be kept at the permittee's registered facility and explicitly prohibit public display except as provided for educational purposes. The amendment also requires non-releasable wildlife approved for educational display to be restrained at all times (with an exception as noted for birds being flown for educational demonstration) and prohibit any touching or handling by the public at any time. The department reasons that explicit provisions carrying criminal penalties for violation are useful to emphasize that wildlife resources are owned by the people of the state and are not to be treated as pets, curiosity pieces, or commodities. For similar reasons, the current requirement restricting the possession of non-releasables to persons with at least three years as a permitted rehabilitator has been altered to increase the period of experience to five years. The amendment also relocates current §69.45(b) in new subsection (g).

The amendment to §69.45, concerning Permit Required, retitles the section to acknowledge the addition of new provisions to create four categories of wildlife rehabilitation permit, based on level of complexity, and to enhance quality control measures for satellite facilities.

The department has long experienced administrative difficulties associated with the various and disparate levels of operational complexity within the regulated community. As noted previously in this preamble, the universe of wildlife rehabilitation in Texas is very diverse, ranging from permittees who are highly specialized and work with a very small number of animals at a single facility to permittees who supervise large numbers of subpermittees and volunteers that treat a wide variety of animals at numerous satellite facilities. The one-size-fits-all nature of the current regulatory structure is problematic, particularly from the perspective of disease management, reporting and recordkeeping, and effective monitoring and tracking of the activities of subpermittees and volunteers. The department acknowledges the legitimate usefulness of satellite facilities, subpermittees, and volunteers, but is also concerned about both the abuse of those privileges (intentional and accidental) and the unwieldiness introduced by its complexity. There is an ongoing problem with the proliferation of subpermittees and volunteers under multiple permittees, permittees being listed as subpermittees under other permittees, geographical dispersion of satellite facilities, phantom facilities, and other, similar types of problems. Therefore, the rules as adopted eliminate the current one-size-fits-all approach and replace it with a system of graduated permit types stratified by magnitude of subpermittee/volunteer/satellite facility activities.

The amendment creates the Type A permit to address the basic or introductory level of rehabilitation activities. This permit level is the entry or default level of permit issuance but could also be utilized by permittees with very narrow and/or high specialized practices (for example, a rehabilitator that specializes only in rabbits). The Type B permit addresses moderately more complex rehabilitation activities and would authorize up to five subpermittees, whose activities must be confined to the supervisory permittee's registered facility and no more than one satellite facility. To qualify for issuance of a Type B permit, the applicant is required to document a minimum of two years' experience as a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in Texas. The department believes that two years of experience as a wildlife rehabilitator should be the minimum standard for supervision of other persons conducting wildlife rehabilitation activities as authorized under the subchapter. The Type C permit addresses complex rehabilitation activities, authorizes the permittee to supervise up to 15 subpermittees at up to 15 satellite facilities, and requires the permittee to document at least five years of experience as a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in Texas as a condition of issuance. The department has determined that it is reasonable and logical to allow expansion of permit privileges in proportion to demonstrated responsible experience. Finally, the Type D permit addresses very large wildlife rehabilitation activities conducted by permittees who are paid employees of an organization. A Type D permit authorizes any number of subpermittees at any number of satellite facilities, but is conditioned on the permittee meeting patient volume requirements, having at least two years documented experience as a permitted wildlife rehabilitator (in any state or states) and being a paid employee of a large wildlife rehabilitation center, as defined in the rules. The department reasons that very large wildlife rehabilitation operations operated or sanctioned by bona fide conservation/conservation-oriented organizations that employ experienced, demonstrably responsible permittees can be entrusted with significant latitude in conducting permitted activities.

The amendment also alters current subsection (c) to strengthen oversight provisions applicable to satellite facilities. The current rule requires supervisory permittees to visit satellite facilities no less frequently than once every 120 days to verify compliance with applicable provisions of the subchapter. The department has determined, on the basis of encountering several failures with respect to permittees ensuring that satellite facilities are compliant, that it is necessary to prohibit wildlife rehabilitation at any satellite facility unless the supervisory permittee has personally inspected the facility within the previous 120 days and documented in writing that the facility is being operated in compliance with the applicable provisions of the subchapter. In this way, the department intends to ensure that public resources are receiving appropriate care.

The amendment moves current subsection (b) to §69.44 as noted previously in this preamble. Additionally, the amendment creates new subsection (c) to prohibit any permittee from being listed as a subpermittee by another permittee. The department has encountered significant issues untangling webs of interconnected persons performing wildlife rehabilitation under multiple authorizations, which confounds department processes, most notably, the ability of the department to conduct epidemiological investigations in the event of a wildlife health crisis.

The amendment also relocates the provisions of current §69.44(q) as new subsection (f), reworded to acknowledge that amendment of permit provisions in the event of a declared wildlife health crisis would be effected by emergency rulemaking. Although other provisions of the rules allow the department to waive provisions of the subchapter in response to wildlife health crises, the department wishes to avoid any suggestion of engaging in ad hoc rulemaking in such situations and therefore seeks to make it abundantly clear that any amendments of permits in response to a health crisis will be done under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Parks and Wildlife Code.

Finally, the amendment prohibits the possession of any animal under a wildlife rehabilitation permit for longer than 365 days unless recommended in writing by a licensed veterinarian and the department. As mentioned previously in this preamble, the intent of wildlife rehabilitation is the return of wildlife to native systems, with exceptions for certain non-releasables. The wildlife rehabilitation permit is not a pet permit, nor is it a companion-animal permit. The department reasons that a year is sufficient time to restore most injured or sick wildlife to a state of health that would permit re-introduction to the wild, with the proviso that there could be legitimate reasons for additional time in extenuating circumstances.

The amendment to §69.46, concerning Application for Permit, imposes specific experiential requirements for permit issuance. Current rules require only completion of a training course offered by a professional wildlife rehabilitation organization within three years of the application for a permit. The department has determined that this is inadequate and has resulted in issuance of permits to persons who seek a wildlife rehabilitation permit for purposes unrelated to bona fide wildlife rehabilitation (such as keeping wildlife as pets or conversation pieces), in addition to enabling permit issuance to persons who are not serious about or are otherwise insufficiently committed to or experienced enough to ably practice wildlife rehabilitation. To remedy this situation, the amendment requires applicants to document a minimum of 600 hours of wildlife rehabilitation experience at any level and to have been either a subpermittee in Texas or a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in any state for a minimum of two years. The department believes that persons meeting these requirements have demonstrated genuine commitment to the practice of wildlife rehabilitation. Subsection (b) exempts current permittees from the new requirements, but stipulates that any person who allows a permit to lapse and subsequently seeks a permit must meet reapply for a permit under the new requirements. Additionally, new applicants are required to provide evidence of at least 20 hours of training or coursework provided by an accredited professional organization or an entity approved by the department, which is intended to replace the current educational requirement of any training within the previous three years, which is vague. The department believes it is appropriate to quantify the amount of professional training and establish a credible standard in order to ensure that applicants have made a credible and efficacious investment in continuing education and training.

The amendment to §69.46 also eliminates the current requirement for a letter from a licensed veterinarian known to the applicant and replaces that standard with the requirement of a letter from a licensed veterinarian affirming that the veterinarian will provide veterinary consultation services to the applicant if a permit is issued. The department reasons that the current standard is little more than proof that two people are acquainted, whereas the amendment as adopted requires an affirmation of willingness to provide professional advice and/or services, which the department believes is a higher standard that will improve the quality of wildlife rehabilitation in the state. Finally, the amendment reduces the minimum required score on a department-administered wildlife rehabilitation test, from 100% to 80% on a more comprehensive exam. The department assesses that persons who are capable of meeting the enhanced standards of the new provisions need not be held to the 100% standard.

The amendment to §69.48, concerning Permit Renewals, comports the provisions of subsection (a) to accommodate the changes made elsewhere to replace quarterly reporting with annual reporting for certain permittees, and amends subsection (b) to require at least eight hours of training annually, as well as a letter from licensed veterinarian attesting to the willingness to provide consulting services to the permittee. The department believes it is important for permitted wildlife rehabilitators to participate in continuing education furnished by recognized professional organizations and associations so as to be aware of and familiar with current developments and trends that improve the quality and efficacy of wildlife rehabilitation delivery. Similarly, as discussed earlier in this preamble, the department believes it is important to document access to veterinary professionals for specialized expertise necessary to inform successful outcomes. The amendment also alters subsection (c) to cite the department's rules governing the process for denial of permit issuance or permit renewal.

The amendment to §69.49, concerning General Facility Standards, creates new subsection (b) to prohibit the registration of any facility located in a domestic residence that shares air handling equipment or access to water, housing or exercise space, or food in common with another domestic residence. The department seeks to eliminate wildlife rehabilitation activities in environments where the facilitation of disease propagation and spread is possible via cross-contamination or physical contact with sick wildlife, and to prevent wildlife rehabilitation activities in environments that are inappropriate in terms of noise and other disruptions that could interfere with or confound effective rehabilitation efforts (e.g., apartments, duplexes, townhomes, etc.).

The amendment to §69.52, concerning Reports and Recordkeeping, alters the title of the section to reflect notification requirements created by the amendment in the form of possession of documentation of inspections of satellite facilities required under the amendment to §69.45. The amendment also relaxes reporting requirements for all permittees that do not rehabilitate deer. In a previous rulemaking in response to the emergence of chronic wasting disease (CWD), the department imposed quarterly reporting requirements on all wildlife rehabilitators. The department has been persuaded that annual reporting is sufficient for all permittees, including those with deer.

The amendment requires permittees to notify the appropriate local animal control authority, for reasons mentioned earlier in this preamble in the discussion of the amendment to §69.43, concerning Definitions.

Finally, the amendment creates new subsection (i) to require notification of the department upon learning of, discovering, or being informed that a reportable disease has been confirmed to exist in an animal or facility for which the permittee is responsible. The department believes it is axiomatic that the presence or detection of disease is something that should be reported immediately, so as to allow the department and any other involved entities the greatest amount of time to respond effectively.

The department received 1,323 comments opposing adoption of all or part of the rules as proposed. Of those comments, 362 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 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.

Two hundred and one commenters opposed adoption of the proposed rules and stated that limitations on the number of facilities and subpermittees would impede and diminish the delivery of rehabilitation services and ultimately harm Texas wildlife. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that it is statutorily obligated to protect and conserve the state's indigenous wildlife, which includes establishing and enforcing regulations to ensure the proper care, management, and operation of permitted facilities in which wildlife is held and treated for rehabilitative purposes. The department further notes that the rules provide a pathway for subpermittees to eventually become rehabilitators, which is intended to function as mechanism for training qualified rehabilitators on a continuing basis. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Twelve commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rules as proposed would result in a reduction in the number of rehabilitators, causing the untrained general public to conduct wildlife rehabilitation on their own, which would not be beneficial. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is illegal to possess live wildlife without a permit. The department further notes that there is no reason to believe that the rules as adopted present an appreciable or comparative barrier to persons seeking to engage in wildlife rehabilitation activities, for that would defeat the purpose of the rules. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Ninety-six comments opposed adoption of the proposed rules and asserted that the rules will result in increased wildlife mortality because fewer rehabilitators will be available. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted do not significantly alter the current pathways for persons with an interest in wildlife rehabilitation to do so as volunteers, subpermittees, or permittees, and in fact have the potential to result in an overall increase in the number of permittees delivering efficacious rehabilitative care for wildlife. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two comments opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the requirement for a subpermittee test score of 100 on a department-administered test holds them to a higher standard than an individual applying for a rehab permit. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the test is not difficult, is open-book, and may be taken as often as necessary to achieve a test score of 100. The department believes the provision is an effective way of achieving minimum confidence that subpermittees are aware of the rules and statutes governing wildlife rehabilitation, which was a problem the rules as proposed were intended to address. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two comments opposed adoption and stated that rehabilitators are not funded by the department yet are subjected to additional regulations and requirements that may be costly while performing a valuable public service. The department agrees that wildlife rehabilitators perform a meaningful public service, but notes that the decision to obtain a wildlife rehabilitation is strictly voluntary, the permit is free, and the department expends considerable resources administering and enforcing the program. The department additionally responds that the rules as adopted are not onerous and are intended to ensure that the public interest with respect to the possession of live wildlife resources is protected. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that requiring a letter from a veterinarian attesting to the willingness to provide wildlife consultation services is burdensome. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is important to document access to veterinary services when such expertise is or becomes necessary. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Five commenters opposed adoption of the rules and stated that the prerequisite 800-hour training requirement and two-year period as a subpermittee are excessive. The department disagrees that requirements are onerous but is persuaded that a reduction to 600 hours of training within two different calendar years offers acceptable assurance that a person will possess the knowledge and experience to provide effective rehabilitative care and has made changes accordingly.

Forty-two commenters opposed adoption of the rules specifically on the basis of the proposed stratification of facilities by intake volumes and the graduated restrictions on the number of subpermittees and satellite facilities based on the intake volumes. The department is persuaded that some liberalization can be provided without interfering with or confounding the purpose of the provisions in question, which is to eliminate the unmanageable confusion resulting from the proliferation of unpermitted locations and people that the department has determined undermine its ability to ensure that public resources are being adequately cared for. Changes have been made accordingly.

Fifty-eight commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules are onerous, overburdensome, out of control, overly bureaucratic, excessive, government overreach, invasive, or some other similar descriptive language meant to characterize the department's actions as arbitrary, egregious, and unnecessary. The department notes that most of the comments seemed to be directed at the fact that rehabilitators are subject to regulation in general 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 wildlife of the state, which includes the assurance of efficacious care and treatment of public resources entrusted to permittees for rehabilitative purposes. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that a shortage of volunteers would result, leading to limitations on effective care for wildlife resources. The department disagrees that the rules as adopted will introduce significant perturbations in rehabilitation activities and the ability for volunteers to engage in permitted activities, as the limitations on the numbers of volunteers are proportionally scaled to the intake volume of the facility. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Three commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are burdensome and time consuming. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the department has an affirmative responsibility to ensure that rehabilitation activities involving live public resources are conducted responsibly; thus, there is an inherent need to monitor and track individual wildlife from intake to final disposition, and for that information to be reported to the department. There is no scenario in which reporting and recordkeeping could be eliminated. The department does not believe the standards created by the rules as adopted are onerous or burdensome, and notes that the rules as adopted actually decrease reporting frequency. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the department should allow for virtual inspections. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that virtual inspections would not allow the department to physically verify full compliance with facility standards and permit requirements. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed the adoption of the rules as proposed on the basis of the proposed effective date. The department disagrees that the proposed effective date (which is not actually part of the rule text) is problematic. The department acknowledges that the rules as adopted create the necessity in some cases for significant operational and administrative changes for permittees and believes that an effective date of September 1, 2027 allows current permittees an appropriate amount of time to take necessary actions to ensure compliance. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the proposed rules and stated that all permittees should be subject to all provisions starting on the first day of effectiveness of the rules and there should be no legacy provisions or exceptions. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it is reasonable to make accommodations in certain circumstances for current permittees who have demonstrated responsible behavior and possess acceptable compliance history. No changes were made as a result of this comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the proposed rules and stated the rules are cruel and that the department does not care about wildlife. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules do not violate, allow, or encourage the violation of any animal welfare laws or standards and that it is the department's statutory duty is to protect and conserve wildlife resources. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption of the proposed rules and stated disagreement with the proposed prohibition on the conduct of rehabilitation activities in certain domestic environments. The department assesses that the commenters misinterpreted the provision in question but nonetheless disagrees with the comments and responds that the provision in question is not an absolute prohibition and applies only to structures that share certain environmental infrastructure with spaces inhabited or occupied by other people and animals unrelated to the permittee, which is necessary to prevent potential disease transmission. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Fifteen commenters opposed adoption of the proposed rules and stated disagreement in various ways with the proposed provisions prohibiting the conduct of rehabilitation activities in certain domestic environments, stating that the provisions would prevent urban, low-income, fixed-income, or retired individuals from participating in permitted rehabilitation activities. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted are intended to minimize the potential for disease transmission and ensure that wildlife rehabilitation activities take place where noise, disturbances, and other environmental factors do not negatively impact rehabilitative efforts. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption of the proposed rules stating concerns with the ability for the department to amend permit provisions during a wildlife health crisis, claiming it granted broad discretionary authority without procedural safeguards or clearly defined limits. The department disagrees and responds that permit amendments are evaluated, granted, or denied as provided by applicable regulatory and statutory processes. The rules as adopted require the existence of a wildlife health crisis and require the agency to engage in emergency rulemaking, which must be conducted as provided by statute, in order for the permit amendments to become effective. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Eight commentors opposed the adoption of the proposed rules due to disagreement with how the Type C and Type D permits were initially proposed. Most commenters expressed in various ways their concern for a perceived gap between the two permit types with respect to subpermittees and satellite facilities. The department agrees that the proposed allowances created a gap between the two permit types and in response made changes to increase the number of subpermittees and satellite facilities allowed under Type C permits.

One commentor opposed adoption of the proposed rules stating that the requirement for a permit holder to be present while educational display activities are being conducted for permits Type A, B, and C, but not for Type D favors paid centers over volunteer operations. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that Type D facilities are subject to heightened oversight and accountability as a result of the employment requirement. This enhanced level of overall supervision allows the department to extend flexibility by not requiring the permit holder to be physically present at all times during educational display activities. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Three commenters opposed adoption of the proposed regulations and expressed concern regarding the required length of time before an individual becomes eligible to retain non-releasable wildlife and the required disposition of such wildlife if the individual does not meet the qualifications. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the primary objective of the regulations is to ensure the restoration of wildlife health and the return of rehabilitated animals to the wild whenever possible. Under existing regulations, non-releasable wildlife must be euthanized unless the department authorizes retention for educational purposes, fostering or socialization activities, or transfer to a qualified zoological, scientific, or educational permit holder. Limiting retention of non-releasable wildlife is necessary to prevent the establishment of a pathway for wildlife to be kept for personal use or enjoyment. The adopted regulations increase the minimum eligibility requirements to ensure that permittees approved to retain non-releasable wildlife have obtained sufficient experience and training and are capable of providing appropriate, long-term care. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Twenty-two commenters opposed adoption of the proposed regulations and stated in various ways that the rules were developed without adequate consultation with wildlife rehabilitation permit holders across the state and that additional permit holders should have been included in the development process. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that department thoroughly involved the permitted community in the proposal process. The Wildlife Rehab Council, which is made up of permitted rehabilitation permit holders from across the state with varying taxonomic specialties and business structures, was consulted to evaluate the proposed rules and receive feedback. The department also met on a recurring basis with working group and subcommittee members, hosted webinars for all permit holders across the states for purposes of soliciting input, and presented the proposed rules to the Wildlife Diversity Advisory Committee, which includes wildlife permittees, subject matter experts, and landowners. The department has consistently engaged with the permitted community and has solicited and incorporated stakeholder input throughout the development of the rules. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Five commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated in various ways that the rules are ineffective, that the department has deviated from its mission, and that the regulations are ambiguous, overly complex, or not grounded in practical reality. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that it has a statutory obligation to ensure that individuals entrusted with the privilege of rehabilitating the state's wildlife resources are capable of doing so and meet established minimum standards. The department believes the rules as adopted are effective, understandable, and enforceable. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eleven commenters opposed adoption of the proposed regulations and stated that the department should prioritize enforcement of existing regulations rather than implement new ones. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the regulations are necessary to address continuing issues that create unnecessary administrative challenges and complicate or threaten adequate protection of wildlife. The department further responds that its motivation for amending regulations is grounded solely in its statutory duty to conserve and manage public wildlife resources, not to create additional regulatory provisions for the purpose of increasing enforcement actions. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Sixty-one commenters opposed adoption of the proposed regulations and expressed a desire for the department to support permitted rehabilitators without imposing additional restrictions, and to allow all current rehabilitation facilities to remain in operation. The department disagrees with the assertion that the rules as adopted are unnecessary and responds that the clear existence of problematic processes in the regulated community warranted regulatory response to ensure the fulfilment of the department's statutory duty. The department further notes that an effective date of September 1, 2027, allows sufficient time for any permittee to achieve compliance. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Twelve commenters opposed the adoption of the rules as proposed and stated the requirements regarding continuing education would reduce the number of rehabilitators and subpermittees. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that many professions, occupations, and jobs utilize continuing education to ensure the proficiency of practitioners and the requirement for eight hours of applicable training annually is helpful without being burdensome. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated there should be "no more bureaucratic culling of Gods creatures." The department disagrees that it conducts or condones any sort of culling programs with respect to rehabilitation of wildlife. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Three commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and alleged differential requirements for deer with respect to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) management in comparison to rules governing other types of permits issued by the department. The department disagrees that there is any conflict with other types of permits with respect to CWD management efforts. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received 69 comments supporting adoption of the rules as proposed.

31 TAC §§69.43 - 69.46, 69.48, 69.49, 69.52

The amendments are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.022, which requires the commission to adopt rules to govern the collecting, holding, possession, propagation, release, display, or transport of protected wildlife for scientific research, educational display, zoological collection, or rehabilitation and authorizes the department to issue a permit to a qualified person to collect, hold, possess, display, transport, release, or propagate protected wildlife for scientific research, educational display, zoological collection, or rehabilitation.

§69.44. General Provisions.

(a) General.

(1) Activities authorized by a permit issued under this subchapter shall be conducted only by the permittee and/or subpermittees named on the permit or volunteers in compliance with the requirements of this subchapter.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection, activities authorized by a permit issued under this subchapter shall be conducted only at a rehabilitation facility or satellite facility registered with the department via an electronic application designated by the department for that purpose.

(3) Wildlife held under the authority of a permit issued under this subchapter:

(A) shall not be commingled with domestic pets, livestock, exotic livestock, exotic fowl, or non-indigenous wildlife; and

(B) may not be sold, bartered, or exchanged for any consideration. A permit issued under this subchapter shall not authorize a person, firm, or corporation to engage in the propagation or commercial sale of wildlife.

(4) A permittee or subpermittee may possess sick or injured wildlife while not at a registered facility or satellite facility only for the amount of time necessary to stabilize and transport the wildlife to a registered facility or satellite facility.

(5) A permittee shall conduct rehabilitation in an environment which minimizes human contact and prevents human and domestic animal imprinting or bonding.

(6) A permittee shall not conduct activities governed under this subchapter on the same property as a fur-bearing animal propagation facility or deer breeding facility unless specifically authorized in writing by the department.

(7) All medical treatment, including vaccinations, shall be performed in consultation with a licensed veterinarian and in accordance with all applicable laws regarding extra-label use of medications and biologicals.

(8) The department may designate a manual process in lieu of any electronic application requirement of this subchapter if for whatever reason the electronic application is unavailable.

(b) Subpermittees and Volunteers.

(1) A subpermittee must:

(A) be at least 18 years of age; and

(B) have scored 100 percent on a department-administered wildlife rehabilitation examination within the previous five years

(2) A volunteer may engage in permitted activities if:

(A) the volunteer is identified on the daily volunteer log as required under §69.52 of this title (relating to Reports and Recordkeeping); and

(B) the supervisory permittee or a subpermittee is present. At any time that the supervisory permittee or a subpermittee is not present, volunteer activity must be limited to feeding, watering, cleaning of cages and enclosures, and other custodial activities that involve only incidental contact with wildlife.

(1) Except for permitted educational purposes, wildlife possessed under a rehabilitation permit shall not be touched by or come in contact with anyone other than the permittee and/or subpermittees, volunteers, licensed veterinarians, or the staff of licensed veterinarians at any time.

(2) A permittee shall not allow the viewing, exhibit, or display to the public of animals possessed under a rehabilitation permit unless specifically authorized by permit provision.

(d) Non-releasable wildlife.

(1) No person may conduct educational display activities involving non-releasable wildlife under Type A, B, or C permits unless the supervisory permittee is present during the activity. Non-releasable wildlife:

(A) must be housed at the supervisory permittee's registered facility;

(B) shall not be displayed to the public except as provided in this subchapter for educational activities;

(D) except for birds being flown for demonstration purposes, shall be restrained at all times during educational events in such a fashion as to prevent physical contact with the public; and

(E) shall be euthanized except as provided by this paragraph.

(2) Permission to retain non-releasable wildlife may be granted only to permittees who have at least five years' experience as a permitted wildlife rehabilitator.

(3) The department may permit the retention of non-releasable wildlife for approved educational, fostering, or socialization purposes, or for transfer to zoological, scientific, or educational permittees. Requests must be made in writing to the department, and no transfer shall take place until the department has approved the request. A request to retain non-releasable wildlife under this subsection shall include a statement from a licensed veterinarian that the animal is non-releasable and the reasons why the animal is non-releasable. The department will not authorize the retention of an animal that because of a disease or condition poses a danger to humans, other animals, or itself.

(4) Permittees possessing non-releasable raptors shall band the raptors with markers supplied by the department.

(e) Deer. Wildlife rehabilitation of white-tailed deer and mule deer is restricted to fawns only. No permittee or subpermittee may accept or possess a white-tailed or mule deer that is in adult pelage (no spots). All white-tailed or mule deer received by a permittee shall immediately be identified by the attachment to the pinna of either ear of:

(1) a Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) button tag approved by the department; and

(2) a "dangle" type tag bearing the unique identifier assigned to the deer by the department.

(3) The RFID tag required by this subsection must have an associated 15-digit animal identification number conforming to the 840 standards of the United States Department of Agriculture, which number shall be reported to the department in accordance with the applicable provisions of §65.92 of this title (relating to Reports and Recordkeeping).

(4) It is an offense for any person to remove or allow the removal of a tag required by this subsection from a living white-tailed or mule deer.

(5) A permittee or subpermittee who transfers a white-tailed or mule deer shall notify the administrator of the wildlife rehabilitation program at least 24 hours but not more than 48 hours prior to and following the completion of the transfer.

(6) Deer must be released, transferred, or euthanized by the end of the calendar year in which they were born or at the time they grow adult pelage, whichever occurs first.

(7) The department may require any deer held under a permit issued under this subchapter to be tested for chronic wasting disease.

(f) Disposition of Euthanized Wildlife. Euthanized wildlife and wildlife that has died while under the care of a permittee shall be:

(1) transferred to a person authorized by law to receive such wildlife;

(2) disposed of in a Type 1 landfill; or

(3) interred or incinerated onsite in compliance with any applicable local, state, or federal law regarding animal carcass burial or disposal.

(4) Open-pit disposal and burn-pile incineration are prohibited.

(g) Exceptions.

(1) Except as otherwise provided under Chapter 65, Subchapter B, of this title (relating to Disease Detection and Response), licensed veterinarians may hold, possess, and transport wildlife to provide emergency medical care or stabilization care until they are stabilized and able to be transferred, at which time the wildlife must be transferred to a permitted rehabilitator.

(2) This subchapter does not apply to department personnel, or transport by animal control officers or peace officers in the performance of official duties.

§69.45. Permit Required; Permit Privileges.

(a) Except as may be otherwise provided by this subchapter, no person may possess wildlife for purposes of rehabilitation unless the person possesses a valid permit issued under the provisions of this subchapter, as follows.

(1) A Type A permit authorizes the permittee to supervise volunteers and no more than two subpermittees, but does not authorize the permittee to conduct activities at any satellite facility.

(2) A Type B permit authorizes the permittee to supervise volunteers and no more than five subpermittees, but does not authorize the permittee to conduct permitted activities at more than one satellite facility. The department will not issue a Type B permit to any person unless that person is able to document a minimum of two years of experience as a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in Texas.

(3) A Type C permit authorizes the permittee to:

(A) supervise volunteers;

(B) supervise no more than 15 subpermittees: and

(C) conduct permitted activities at no more than 15 satellite facilities. The department will not issue a Type C permit to any person unless that person is able to document a minimum of five years of experience as a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in Texas.

(4) A Type D permit authorizes a permittee to:

(A) supervise volunteers;

(B) supervise any number of subpermittees; and

(C) conduct activities authorized under this subchapter at registered satellite facilities. The department will not issue a Type D permit to any person unless that person:

(i) is able to document a minimum of two years of experience as a:

(I) permitted wildlife rehabilitator; or

(II) licensed veterinarian treating or rehabilitating wildlife; and

(ii) is an employee of a Large Wildlife Rehabilitation Center.

(b) A person may possess protected wildlife for rehabilitation purposes at a satellite facility, provided:

(1) the person is listed as a subpermittee on the valid permit of a supervisory permittee and possesses a copy of the valid permit at the satellite facility;

(A) the supervisory permittee has registered the facility with the department;

(B) the facility is in compliance with the facility standards set forth in §69.49 of this title (relating to General Facilities Standards) and any additional standards or requirements set forth in the permit provisions of the supervisory permittee; and

(C) the subpermittee engages only in the rehabilitation activities authorized by the department to be undertaken at the satellite facility, including but not limited to restrictions on numbers and kinds of animals, life stages, and any other restrictions deemed necessary by the department.

(2) A permittee who registers a satellite facility with the department shall be responsible for the conduct of the subpermittee at the satellite facility with respect to all activities governed under this subchapter and applicable permit provisions.

(3) No activities regulated under this subchapter shall take place at a registered satellite facility unless the supervisory permittee has personally inspected the satellite facility within the previous 120 days and documented in writing that the satellite facility is compliant with the provisions of this subchapter and applicable permit provisions. The department may prescribe alternatives to physical visitation for permittees with a demonstrated history of compliance.

(4) The department will not authorize the registration of more than one satellite facility per subpermittee.

(5) No person may be a subpermittee for more than one permittee.

(d) No permittee shall change facility location or receive unauthorized species, or conduct unauthorized activities unless the permittee possesses an amended permit authorizing such activity.

(e) Permits issued under this section may be issued for any period of time not exceeding three years from the date of issuance.

(f) The department may declare a wildlife health crisis in response to a disease outbreak or other conditions or circumstances that threatens wildlife species in the state. During a wildlife health crisis, the department may amend any permit provision (to include prohibition of the movement or transfer of wildlife into or from any facility) by emergency rule.

(g) No permittee shall possess an animal for longer than 365 days unless recommended in writing by a licensed veterinarian and specifically authorized in writing by the department.

§69.46. Application for Permit.

(a) An applicant for a permit under this subchapter must:

(1) be at least 18 years of age;

(2) have at least 600 hours of documented wildlife rehabilitation experience, obtained over at least two calendar years; and

(3) have been either:

(A) a permittee or subpermittee in Texas for at least two years; or

(B) a permitted wildlife rehabilitator in another state for at least two years; or

(4) The department will consider wildlife rehabilitation experience lawfully obtained under an equivalent permit issued by another state.

(b) The requirements of subsection (a) of this section do not apply to any person who, as of the effective date of this subsection, holds a valid wildlife rehabilitation permit issued by the department; however, a permittee who allows a permit to expire without renewal after the effective date of this subsection must comply with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section if that person seeks to obtain a permit again.

(c) Applications shall be made on forms supplied or approved by the department. Incomplete applications will not be processed.

(d) Applications must be accompanied by:

(1) a copy of the certificate of completion or similar documentation provided by the course provider, of at least 20 hours of training/coursework provided by or under the auspices of the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Coalition, the National Wildlife Rehabilitator's Association, or other organization or entity approved by the department;

(2) a letter of recommendation from a permitted wildlife rehabilitator with at least three years' experience as a permitted wildlife rehabilitator attesting to personal knowledge of the applicant's experience and competence at wildlife rehabilitation; and

(3) a test score of at least 80 percent on a department-administered wildlife rehabilitation examination.

(4) a letter from a licensed veterinarian attesting willingness to provide, if the department issues a permit to the applicant, wildlife veterinary consultation services to the permittee.

(e) Permits for the taking or holding of federally protected species shall not be valid unless the permittee also possesses a valid federal permit authorizing possession of those species.

(f) Except for persons authorized to do so under the terms of zoological permits, no person holding a permit authorizing the propagation for sale of wildlife shall be authorized to rehabilitate those species.

§69.48. Permit Renewals.

(a) Renewal applications shall be made on a form provided by the department and shall be submitted with the annual report required by §69.52 of this title (relating to Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping) by no later than January 15 of each year.

(b) Renewal applications shall not be processed until the department has received all reports required by §69.52 of this title accompanied by evidence of at least one of the following:

(1) completion of at least eight hours per permit year of training or coursework provided by or under the auspices of the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Coalition, the National Wildlife Rehabilitator's Association, or other department-approved organization or entity;

(2) a current Wildlife Rehabilitator Certification provided by the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Coalition; or

(3) attendance at a national wildlife rehabilitators conference within the preceding three years; and

(4) a letter from a licensed veterinarian attesting willingness to provide wildlife veterinary consultation services to the permittee.

(c) The department may deny a renewal as provided in Chapter 56 of this title (relating to Agency Decision to Refuse License or Permit Issuance or Renewal and Agency Decision to Suspend or Revoke Affected License or Permit.

§69.49. General Facilities Standards.

(a) All facilities shall be subject to inspections by the department. A first-time applicant's facilities shall be inspected by the department and no permit shall be issued until the facilities are determined to satisfy all of the applicable facilities standards of this subchapter.

(1) The department may specify individual caging requirements on a case-by-case basis.

(2) Clean water shall be available at all times except where medical circumstances require the temporary denial of water.

(3) Feces and waste materials shall be removed on a daily basis except for species which normally re-ingest fecal material.

(4) Cages shall be cleaned and disinfected using non-irritating methods.

(5) A person authorized by permit shall observe and provide care for wildlife at least once daily unless otherwise specified by the permit.

(b) As of the effective date of this subsection, the department will not allow the registration of any facility located in a domestic residence that shares air handling equipment or access to water, housing or exercise space, or food in common with another domestic residence (e.g., apartments, duplexes, townhomes, etc.). A permittee who operates a facility described by this subsection may continue to conduct wildlife rehabilitation activities at the facility after the effective date of this subsection; however, if the permit under which the facility was originally registered is allowed to expire without renewal after the effective date of this subsection, the provisions of this subsection apply.

(c) White-tailed deer and mule deer held under a permit issued under this subchapter shall be confined at all times within a department-approved enclosure (indoor, outdoor, or both) that is constructed in such a fashion as to prevent both escape and contact with other deer or susceptible species as defined in Chapter 65, Subchapter B, of this title (relating to Disease Detection and Response). The department will not authorize the rehabilitation of deer by a permittee if the permittee's facility is not in compliance with this subsection.

§69.52. Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping.

(a) At each registered facility for which a permittee is responsible, the permittee shall maintain, on a form provided or approved by the department:

(1) a daily log of all animals acquired or received for rehabilitation. The daily log shall, at a minimum, consist of the following:

(A) the species and sex (if possible) of each animal acquired or received;

(B) the date and time that each animal was acquired or received;

(C) the name, address, phone number, and, if possible, an email address for each person from whom an animal is acquired or received;

(D) the approximate or exact geographical location where each animal was found before being acquired or obtained;

(E) a reference identifier assigned to the wildlife;

(F) the RFID tag number assigned to a white-tailed or mule deer; and

(G) final disposition data for each animal, including:

(i) the cause of final disposition;

(ii) the date and time of final disposition; and

(iii) the method and location of disposition, including but not limited to:

(I) GPS coordinates for any release location;

(II) the name, address, phone number, and email address of the landowner of a property where wildlife is released; and

(III) the name, address, phone number, email address, and permit number (if applicable) of any person to whom wildlife is transferred, if wildlife is transferred; and

(2) a daily log of all volunteers who engage in permitted activities at the permittee's facility. The daily volunteer log shall record:

(A) the first and last name of each volunteer;

(B) a valid phone number and email address for each volunteer;

(D) the time the volunteer arrived at the facility; and

(E) the time the volunteer departed the facility; and.

(3) if authorized to conduct activities at a satellite facility, documentation of facility inspections required by §69.45(b)(2) of this title.

(b) Each permittee shall complete and submit to the administrator of the department's rehabilitation program an annual report documenting all permitted activities conducted by all individuals listed on the permit, including activities conducted by subpermittees at satellite facilities. The report shall be submitted by January 15 of each year

(d) The reports required by this subsection shall be submitted to the department via an electronic application designated by the department for that purpose.

(e) The reports required by this section must be filed even if no permitted activities took place during the reporting period.

(f) The following shall be retained at the permitted facility and kept available for inspection by the department for a period of two years from generation:

(1) copies of all reports required by this section;

(2) the daily logs required by this section; and

(3) the written landowner permission to release wildlife required under the provisions of 69.51(g) of this title (relating to Release of Rehabilitated Wildlife).

(g) Within 10 days of the effective date of this subsection or the issuance of a permit under this subchapter, as applicable, a permittee shall notify the appropriate local animal control authority of the existence and location of each registered facility that is operated by the permittee within the jurisdiction of the local animal control authority. The notification required by this subsection shall be made in writing and documentation (original or copy) of the required notification shall be maintained at each registered facility for inspection by department personnel.

(h) A permittee shall notify the department within 24 hours of learning, discovering, or being informed that a reportable disease is confirmed to exist in an animal or within a facility for which the permittee is responsible.

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 October 21, 2026.

TRD-202604456

James Murphy

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: September 1, 2027

Proposal publication date: April 24, 2026

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

31 TAC §69.47

The repeal is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.022, which requires the commission to adopt rules to govern the collecting, holding, possession, propagation, release, display, or transport of protected wildlife for scientific research, educational display, zoological collection, or rehabilitation and authorizes the department to issue a permit to a qualified person to collect, hold, possess, display, transport, release, or propagate protected wildlife for scientific research, educational display, zoological collection, or rehabilitation.