So if I am understanding correctly the Texas state senate just quietly ended hunting on rivers in the state under this new bill. It was originally put as just a few counties but at the last second Senator Perry (former Warden) made a last second amendment to make this state wide. I am reading this wrong or has one heard differently? is there any action being taken to fight back on this?

I don’t have a clue but I’m ok with it if it is, it’s definitely not right though.

its doesnt restrict the land owner from hunting his land though.

Just restricts rifle, slugs, and arrows so should not affect waterfowl

It’s a bs intrusion into rights.

No carrying of a shotgun with slugs or arrows on navigable waterways. This affects a few places I hunt. Some hard to access places I access by creek or river via canoe or mud boat. I assume wmas will not be effected but that is an assumption.

I primarily hunt Oklahoma public as they do better for the hunters. But this could affect hunters all over Texas.

I wonder if you can carry it in a case.

I have no issues with it. A few bad apples brought this on doing stupid stuff hunting illegally or pushing the limits.

Lol. Any hunter that doesn’t have issue with this is a fool. They’ll come for your rights next.

More laws is never a fix for outlaws. That’s liberal “govern me harder daddy” mindset.

I would not hesitate to carry it under the conditions described above. The law covers "use" of certain firearms. No law against responsibly transporting. I did in State parks, a rifle. It wasn't carried openly. I had it in a case, in a backpack. This made it legal, as stated it could not be carried openly. A violation would be if you used/hunted with it.

There's a great, informative thread on this new law in the Open Hunting thread.

The game warden that works the Pease river, 25 years, 60 miles of river wrote two tickets to public hunters in all that time. These violations were for non compliance with Hunter Education certification.

The trouble is around bigger towns or metro areas.

I’m willing to bet this has more to do with the king ranch than metro areas.

Soooo....what if the hunter owns that land on both sides of the creek/stream/navigable body of water?

Are they restricted from hunting on the water with a rifle/bow/shotgun-slug?

If so, that is BS.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1236/2023

I had to cut from a screen shot to show the line through changes and underlined new text change from the original.

I read the only provision for an adjacent landowner is to shoot a venomous snake or nonindigenous rodent. Or alligator as you would have to be on the private bank to shoot an alligator on public water anyway.

Looks like shotgun with shot is still allowed and bowfishing with bowfishing equipment. Slug would be a no as it is not "shot".

I could not find the TPWD definition of "shot", but the Outdoor annual is a summary of TPWD code and other laws so the current outdoor annual would have been taken from the same bill before it was just amended. Below would be that part in the outdoor annual before this change coming up Sept 1. A slug was never considered to be "shot" before, so would not now. Buckshot may or may not still be legal as "shot", but you would have to ask TPWD on that. And on any of this for that matter. All is just my common sense opinion of what I am reading in the bill.

From current outdoor annual:
"discharge a firearm or shoot an arrow in or on the bed or bank of a navigable stream in Dimmit, Edwards, Frio, Hall, Kenedy, Llano, Maverick, Real, Uvalde, or Zavala counties. This law does not apply to persons fishing by means of archery equipment or shotguns loaded with shot, including buckshot. A shotgun slug is prohibited."

https://lonestaroutdoorshow.com/202...b-1236-stripping-texans-hunting-rights/#

It was mentioned by a GW interview on the above link that you can still hunt deer with buckshot. I do find that odd in that they removed the use by bow but you can still use a shotgun with buckshot. I think in the short term, the publicity of this will increase the number of hunters short term on a given river using buckshot to hunt deer and hogs and using shotguns for other game. Many had no idea you could hunt our river beds this way, but with all the publicity they will now.

Best I can tell, it looks like the amendment to change this from a few counties to the entire state was only about a month before it was signed and passed. And added only after the public comment period so few even knew about the change. If one could follow the money I would not be surprised if a state legislator or two received some significant campaign donations from one or more wealthy state landowners in exchange for slipping this through at the last minute.

Know that the one posted at the start of that thread may be before it was amended. There are no longer any counties listed like that one. They should be lined through.

Yes it's illegal if they are on the water (floating). It's now only legal if they're using a shotgun with shot.

It was already illegal to hunt everything but waterfowl from public water. This has been the law for a long time.

It is unlawful to hunt any wild animal or wild bird, including exotic animals, on foot or from a vehicle on any public road or road right- of-way, or a boat on public water, except that migratory waterfowl may be hunted from a boat or any floating craft (except a sinkbox) under certain conditions.-TPWD Outdoor Annual

Also you can't legally hunt flooded posted private land without landowner permission, but you can legally float over it.

It is unlawful to hunt any wild animal or wild bird on or over privately-owned land that is submerged under public freshwater due to seasonal or occasional inundation or submerged under saltwater above the mean high tide line. The property must be posted to indicate that hunting is prohibited.-TPWD Outdoor Annual

This part is interesting. That is incorrect that this has been law for a long time. Some years ago the regulation and wording was changed from "waterfowl" to "migratory game" in that "except for migratory" part. I did get written clarification from TPWD law enforcement at the time. A good example would be those that pole for Rails from a boat. I just looked at TPWD Code and the way it is written in there does not indicate shooting "migratory birds" from a floating craft as prohibited. It does not separate waterfowl from migratory. Under migratory it specifically says it is legal if not covered under prohibited acts and there is no distinction between the two within the prohibited acts as far as the on water part. It only separates the two when talking about non toxic shot. I know the outdoor annual is a summary of all regulations state and federal, but I can't find where they are getting the "except that migratory waterfowl" when TPWD code indicates it should read "except that migratory game birds" unless there is another regulation somewhere else federal or state that they are pulling that from.

See Section C, 5 A. Doesn't apply to them at all.

^^^^^


Interesting (as written). I didn't catch that when reading it previously.

I would have thought the Land Owner would be subject to the same restrictions as the public once they reached the Gradient Boundary (when standing upon their own land). It just occurs from a different position. BUT...that is not what it states per the bill (as written).

Rather... it suggests the Land Owner (or agent) is exempt from the restrictions in the Bill altogether.

That sheds a little different light on it for me.

That has been my contention all along. The land within the Gradient Boundary is public, but land owners get to use it an enhanced manner over the general public. It doesn't suggest it at all, clearly states that it does not apply to them.

Who woulda thought that the land grab was a thing. Wonder if the landowner's hunting lease people are granted the same immunity. They always were before. I think this is worthwhile as a court case against the state of Texas, abuse of power.

You have impressed me with your grasp. I take any negative things I might have posted to you back.