Texas Senate Bill SB460

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 1/31/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/30/11
• Voted on by Senate: 4/7/11
• Refer: 2/14/11
• Out of House Committee: 4/20/11
• Report Pass: 3/30/11
• Voted on by House: 5/25/11
• Engrossed: 4/7/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 4/11/11
• Report Pass: 4/18/11
• Enrolled: 5/25/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to regulation of the import, export, and management of mule deer; providing penalties.

Impact

This legislation significantly influences state laws concerning wildlife management by introducing stricter regulatory practices. It requires that all engaged in the management of mule deer must obtain a permit from the state, which brings private management activities into line with state regulations. By structuring the management of deer populations through a permit system, SB460 aims to promote sustainable practices and ensure that the public's interests regarding wildlife are safeguarded. The measures taken for the permitting system reflect a commitment to better wildlife conservation efforts and adherence to responsible management practices.

Summary

Senate Bill 460 aims to regulate the import, export, and management of the mule deer population in Texas by establishing a framework for issuing deer management permits. It introduces specific provisions allowing the Department of Parks and Wildlife to grant permits that empower holders to manage wild mule deer on designated lands. The bill stipulates conditions under which deer can be detained for propagation, the number of deer that can be killed, and establishes special seasons with specific bag limits for deer hunting under these permits. The holders of the permits are considered to be managing the deer population on behalf of the state, indicating a shift towards more structured state oversight in wildlife management.

Contention

While the intent of SB460 focuses on sustainable management of wildlife, there may be contentions around issues such as the enforcement of restrictions on hunting activities and the potential financial burden of obtaining permits. Critics may argue that the requirement for permits could limit hunting activities or impose additional costs on both commercial and recreational hunters. Moreover, the bill's provisions for management plans and inspections by the department could be seen as overly regulatory, possibly sparking debates around state versus individual rights in managing wildlife. Advocates for wildlife management might contend that these regulations are necessary to prevent overhunting and ensure wildlife populations remain stable in the environment.