TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

DIVISION 2. OPEN SEASONS AND BAG LIMITS

31 TAC §65.42

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on August 20, 2026, adopted an amendment to 31 TAC §65.42, concerning Deer, without changes to the proposed text as published in the July 17, 2026, issue of the Texas Register (51 TexReg 4683). Therefore, the proposed text will not be republished.

The amendment alters provisions governing the take of mule deer by archery equipment to eliminate calendar conflict and allows the use of firearms for the take of white-tailed deer on properties in Collin, Dallas, Grayson, and Rockwall counties that are enrolled in the department's Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP) and meet fencing requirements established in the rule.

Under current rule, the take of white-tailed deer in Collin, Dallas, Grayson, and Rockwall counties is restricted to lawful archery equipment, including on properties enrolled in the MLDP (a habitat improvement program in which participants agree to a harvest quota specified by the department in exchange for enhanced bag limits and extended season dates). The department has received a petition for rulemaking requesting that firearms be made lawful means for the harvest of deer on MLDP properties in the affected counties, provided the property is surrounded by a high fence. The department has determined that there is no biological reason to restrict the means of take for white-tailed deer in Collin, Dallas, Grayson, and Rockwall counties generally, and certainly not on high-fenced properties enrolled in the MLDP; therefore, any lawful means may be used to take white-tailed deer in the affected counties, provided the property is enrolled in the MLDP and surrounded by a fence of least seven feet in height that is capable of retaining deer at all times. The seven-foot value was selected because it is a generally accepted standard and is the standard used in other department regulations governing deer management.

In a previous rulemaking, the commission lengthened archery seasons for mule deer. In the process, an inadvertent calendar conflict was created with other mule deer seasons, which could cause confusion. The amendment remedies that issue.

The department received 11 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed rule that provides an open general season in Collin, Dallas, Grayson, and Rockwell counties on high-fenced properties enrolled in the Managed Lands Deer Program. Of those comments, 10 articulated 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.

Six commenters opposed adoption and stated in various ways that the rules were catering to a very small number of people. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rule is intended to provide additional management flexibility to all landowners and land managers in the affected counties. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that lawful means for deer harvest should remain restricted to lawful archery equipment, but crossbows should be excluded. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the rule is to liberalize means of take in the affected counties and there is no biological reason not to do so; therefore, restricting means of take to lawful archery equipment other than crossbow would defeat the intent of the rule. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that public safety could be compromised if the harvest of deer by firearms becomes lawful. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that it is already lawful in the affected counties to discharge firearms for other purposes (when not specifically prohibited by local ordinance), such as target shooting, and it is currently lawful to hunt species other than deer by firearm in the affected counties, including by centerfire firearms. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that overpopulation on high-fenced properties is the result of poor land management and therefore the rule would reward poor management. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department firmly believes that management decisions on private property are the purview of individual landowners and land managers, who operate under a basic regulatory framework that provides for an adequate supply of the resource for the enjoyment of the public. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule would create "expanded hunting privileges unavailable to neighboring landowners". The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted creates additional management flexibility for interested landowners and land managers and does not create a privilege for any landowner that does not also exist for all other landowners. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed the adoption and stated that the rule would affect seasonal buck harvest in a way that would disrupt age structures that have taken many years to develop. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that individual landowners and land managers are in the best position to determine appropriate harvest strategies on their own properties under the general regulatory frameworks provided by seasons and bag limits (and in the case of landowners participating in the MLDP program, the department establishes harvest quotas for the property). No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed the adoption and stated that high fences are a violation of the Public Trust Doctrine. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that under Parks and Wildlife Code, §1.013, a landowner may construct or maintain fences of any height without affecting the status of wild animals as the property of the people of the state; therefore, there is no conflict with the principle of public trust with respect to wildlife resources. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

Two commenters opposed the adoption and stated that the rule will encourage landowners to erect high fences and result in increased land fragmentation. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that fencing on private property is at the discretion of the property owner and, as noted previously in a response to another comment, the department by statute may not prohibit or restrict the owner or occupant of land from constructing or maintaining a fence of any height on the land owned or occupied. The department further notes that all of the affected counties have experienced rapid and extensive urbanization and land fragmentation over the last 50 years that is unrelated to the department's harvest regulations. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rule encourages commercialization and shifts focus away from conservation. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the department's harvest regulations are resource-focused, habitat-driven, and do not consider the commercial goals, if any, of individual landowners and land managers, other than to ensure a plentiful supply of the resource for public enjoyment, which is at the discretion of the landowner. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

The department received one comment opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment correcting the calendar conflict in mule deer harvest rules. The commenter stated that it is "not necessary to change bow hunting mule deer." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule as adopted does not alter any provision of law regarding mule deer other than to clearly indicate the times when harvest is restricted to archery equipment and the times when harvest is by any lawful means. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The department received 19 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.

The amendment is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

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

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on September 9, 2026.

TRD-202603939

James Murphy

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: September 29, 2026

Proposal publication date: July 17, 2026

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

---