When did Senate Bill No. 94 repeal the Parks and Wildlife Code provisions listed in article 1, section 37, including fur-bearing-animal rules?

Texas AG Opinion JM-52: Proclamation-Triggered Wildlife Code Repeals

Plain-English summary

JM-52 concluded that each Parks and Wildlife Code provision listed in article 1, section 37 of Senate Bill No. 94—including fur-bearing-animal provisions—was repealed when a Parks and Wildlife Commission proclamation regulating the conduct covered by that provision took effect.

"We believe that each provision of the code that is listed in section 37 is repealed on the effective date of a proclamation of the Parks and Wildlife Commission that regulates the conduct proscribed by that provision."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

The legislature used a different schedule for section 36, repealing those provisions on the Act's effective date, August 29, 1983. Section 37 instead incorporated the proclamation-based method of Parks and Wildlife Code section 61.004.

"[T]he legislature repealed the provisions of the code included in article 1, section 36 of the bill on the effective date of the act, which is August 29, 1983."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

"The legislature repealed numerous other provisions of the code in section 37, but with the intention that the repeal not be effective until the Parks and Wildlife Commission by proclamation regulates the conduct controlled by each of those provisions."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

JM-52 rejected a reading that would limit the trigger to wildlife resources otherwise regulated under chapter 61. That would make section 37's inclusion of other provisions an idle gesture.

"We do not believe that it ever contemplated that the proclamations to be issued could affect only those statutes pertaining to wildlife resources that are under the regulatory authority in chapter 61."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What did Senate Bill No. 94 seek to accomplish?

It placed conservation control and game management under the Parks and Wildlife Department's sole authority.

"Senate Bill No. 94 was enacted to place conservation control and game management under the sole authority of the Parks and Wildlife Department."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

When did section 36's repeals take effect?

On the Act's effective date, August 29, 1983.

"[T]he legislature repealed the provisions of the code included in article 1, section 36 of the bill on the effective date of the act, which is August 29, 1983."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

When did section 37's repeals take effect?

Provision by provision, when a commission proclamation regulating the corresponding conduct became effective.

"[T]he statutes listed in section 37 would be deemed to be repealed only when a proclamation issued by the commission takes effect."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

What did section 37 say about its effective mechanism?

It said the listed provisions were repealed, effective as provided by Parks and Wildlife Code section 61.004.

"Section 37 states that the provisions 'are repealed,' but 'effective as provided by Section 61.004, Parks and Wildlife Code.'"
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

How did section 61.004 operate?

When a law made chapter 61 applicable to wildlife resources in a county or place, existing general or special laws regulating those resources were repealed when the commission's related proclamation took effect.

"Section 61.004 provides that a law making chapter 61 of the Parks and Wildlife Code applicable to all or a portion of the wildlife resources of a county or place repeals any provision of general or special law regulating the taking or possession of those wildlife resources when the commission's proclamation relating to those wildlife resources takes effect."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

Why did the trigger apply to provisions beyond chapter 61?

Because otherwise the legislature's express listing of non-chapter-61 subjects in section 37 would accomplish nothing.

"Otherwise, the listing of statutes in section 37 other than those pertaining to conduct that is regulated under chapter 61 could only be regarded as an idle gesture because a Parks and Wildlife Commission proclamation could never reach those statutes."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

Did one proclamation repeal every section 37 provision at once?

JM-52 described a conduct-specific process: a listed provision was repealed when an effective proclamation regulated the conduct that provision proscribed.

"[T]he repeal would become effective only on the effective date of a proclamation issued by the Parks and Wildlife Commission."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

Background and statutory framework

The Parks and Wildlife executive director requested an interpretation of section 37, which repealed numerous Code provisions using section 61.004's effective-date mechanism.

"You have requested an interpretation of article 1, section 37 of Senate Bill No. 94, which was enacted by the Sixty-eighth Legislature to repeal numerous provisions of the Parks and Wildlife Code."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

JM-52 applied the fundamental statutory-construction rule of ascertaining and giving effect to legislative intent.

"A fundamental rule in the construction of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

Holding

"The legislature repealed each provision of the Parks and Wildlife Code enumerated in article 1, section 37, Senate Bill No. 94, Acts of the Sixty-eighth Legislature, including provisions relating to fur-bearing animals, on the effective date of a proclamation of the Parks and Wildlife Commission regulating the conduct proscribed by that provision."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

Citations and references

Statutes discussed by JM-52:

• "Senate Bill No. 94, 68th Legislature" Official PDF
• "article 1, section 36 of Senate Bill No. 94" Official PDF
• "article 1, section 37 of Senate Bill No. 94" Official PDF
• "section 61.004 of the Parks and Wildlife Code" Official PDF
• "chapter 61 of the Parks and Wildlife Code" Official PDF

Cases cited by JM-52:

• "Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 599 (Tex. 1975)" Official PDF
• "McDonald v. State, 615 S.W.2d 214, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)" Official PDF

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0052
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1983/jm0052.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

August 2, 1983

Mr. Charles Travis
Executive Director
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, Texas 78744

Opinion No. JM-52

Re: Whether provisions in Senate Bill No. 94 repealing certain provisions for fur-bearing animals are effective

Dear Mr. Travis:

You have requested an interpretation of article 1, section 37 of Senate Bill No. 94, which was enacted by the Sixty-eighth Legislature to repeal numerous provisions of the Parks and Wildlife Code. We believe that each provision of the code that is listed in section 37 is repealed on the effective date of a proclamation of the Parks and Wildlife Commission that regulates the conduct proscribed by that provision.

"A fundamental rule in the construction of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593, 599 (Tex. 1975). Senate Bill No. 94 was enacted to place conservation control and game management under the sole authority of the Parks and Wildlife Department. See Bill Analysis to Senate Bill No. 94, prepared for House Committee on Environmental Affairs, filed in Bill File to Senate Bill No. 94, Legislative Reference Library. In so doing, the legislature repealed the provisions of the code included in article 1, section 36 of the bill on the effective date of the act, which is August 29, 1983. The legislature repealed numerous other provisions of the code in section 37, but with the intention that the repeal not be effective until the Parks and Wildlife Commission by proclamation regulates the conduct controlled by each of those provisions. Section 37 states that the provisions "are repealed," but "effective as provided by Section 61.004, Parks and Wildlife Code." Section 61.004 provides that a law making chapter 61 of the Parks and Wildlife Code applicable to all or a portion of the wildlife resources of a county or place repeals any provision of general or special law regulating the taking or possession of those wildlife resources when the commission's proclamation relating to those wildlife resources takes effect.

We believe that when the legislature referred to section 61.004 in section 37 of the bill, it simply meant to adopt the method set forth therein. In other words, its intent was that the statutes listed in section 37 would be deemed to be repealed only when a proclamation issued by the commission takes effect. We do not believe that it ever contemplated that the proclamations to be issued could affect only those statutes pertaining to wildlife resources that are under the regulatory authority in chapter 61. Otherwise, the listing of statutes in section 37 other than those pertaining to conduct that is regulated under chapter 61 could only be regarded as an idle gesture because a Parks and Wildlife Commission proclamation could never reach those statutes.

Therefore, it is our opinion that the legislature clearly intended to repeal all statutes listed in section 37, but that the repeal would become effective only on the effective date of a proclamation issued by the Parks and Wildlife Commission. See McDonald v. State, 615 S.W.2d 214, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).

SUMMARY

The legislature repealed each provision of the Parks and Wildlife Code enumerated in article 1, section 37, Senate Bill No. 94, Acts of the Sixty-eighth Legislature, including provisions relating to fur-bearing animals, on the effective date of a proclamation of the Parks and Wildlife Commission regulating the conduct proscribed by that provision.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Acting Chairman
Jon Bible
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Bruce Youngblood