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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

It would convey to those that lease from owner, they would be "agent of".

^^^^^


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.

Where are you seeing that a landowner or agent is exempt altogether? Looking at C 5 A from the bill. I read that is it allows the landowner or his agent of the land adjacent to shoot venomous snakes or nonindigenous rodents and only those animals from the bank or bed of stream. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/analysis/html/SB01236F.htm


SECTION 1. Transfers Section 284.001, Parks and Wildlife Code, to Subchapter B, Chapter 1, Parks and Wildlife Code, redesignates it as Section 1.014, Parks and Wildlife Code, and amends it as follows:
Sec. 1.014. New heading: USE OF CERTAIN WEAPONS IN OR ON BED OR BANK OF NAVIGABLE RIVER OR STREAM PROHIBITED.
(a) Makes no changes to this subsection.
(b) Redesignates existing Subsection (c) as Subsection (b) and creates an exception under Subsection (c), rather than Subsection (d).
(c) Provides that this section does not apply to:
(1) makes no change to this subdivision;
(2) makes a nonsubstantive change to this subdivision;
(3) an individual engaging in fishing using archery equipment, if the individual is in compliance with Subsection (e), rather than Subsection (f);
(4) the discharge of a firearm during the legal taking of an alligator; or
(5) the discharge of a firearm from the bank of a navigable river or stream to take a venomous snake or nonindigenous rodent by:
(A) an owner of the land adjacent to or through which the navigable river or stream runs; or
(B) an agent of an owner described by Paragraph (A).

Where are you seeing that a landowner or agent is exempt altogether? Looking at C 5 A from the bill. I read that is it allows the landowner or his agent of the land adjacent to shoot venomous snakes or nonindigenous rodents and only those animals from the bank or bed of stream. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/analysis/html/SB01236F.htm


SECTION 1. Transfers Section 284.001, Parks and Wildlife Code, to Subchapter B, Chapter 1, Parks and Wildlife Code, redesignates it as Section 1.014, Parks and Wildlife Code, and amends it as follows:
Sec. 1.014. New heading: USE OF CERTAIN WEAPONS IN OR ON BED OR BANK OF NAVIGABLE RIVER OR STREAM PROHIBITED.
(a) Makes no changes to this subsection.
(b) Redesignates existing Subsection (c) as Subsection (b) and creates an exception under Subsection (c), rather than Subsection (d).
(c) Provides that this section does not apply to:
(1) makes no change to this subdivision;
(2) makes a nonsubstantive change to this subdivision;
(3) an individual engaging in fishing using archery equipment, if the individual is in compliance with Subsection (e), rather than Subsection (f);
(4) the discharge of a firearm during the legal taking of an alligator; or
(5) the discharge of a firearm from the bank of a navigable river or stream to take a venomous snake or nonindigenous rodent by:
(A) an owner of the land adjacent to or through which the navigable river or stream runs; or
(B) an agent of an owner described by Paragraph (A).

^ Interesting. So, no one gets to hunt this huge swath of land with a rifle? This gets to be a real mess making it unenforceable. I'm a land owner, I'm on my private land, I see a great buck standing in the middle of the dry river bed. I shoot it. I can retrieve it without trespassing. I don't see a game warden citing me for shooting across a property line for shooting into the gradient boundary due to the ambiguity of the property line. What a cluster.

^^^^^^

Yep.

'Gradient Boundary' by itself is difficult to establish (in the field) per the letter of the law. It would literally take a surveyor to accurately pin-point the boundary line in any kind of dispute.




I have no proof....but I suspect all these years....(in practice) it has gone more like this:

1. Land Owner (if not owning the land on both sides of the navigable stream) could simply shoot anywhere on their property AND down into the stream bed....not to exceed the bank on the far side (other peoples property).

2. John Q. Public hunting the public stream....limits shots from the stream bed up to the readily identifiable 'High Bank' which logically represents the private property line. Not legal but easier to identify a 'hard' boundary than a half way point.

In the past....the Land Owner was free to use his property and the public property of the stream as long he/she didn't do anything to exclude the public's use of it.

The 'public' was limited to using only the public part of the stream (Gradient Boundary).

With the new law (effective Sept. 1st 2023) neither party will be able to lawfully hunt the public part of the stream except as stated in the Senate
Bill with respect to weapons limitations.

The Land Owner can no longer sit on their own property with a Grandson/Granddaughter and 'plink' at sticks floating by in the stream because use of a .22 lr (or ammo impact) would not be legal below the Gradient Boundary. Thank You Texas legislators.

What's the violation? Trespass by projectile?

Or something like that....it would seem:



[img]https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1236/id/2819525[/img]

What's the violation? Trespass by projectile?

So you're good if you get a pass through shot and it impacts your land on the opposite side, or no pass through, or GW can't find impact of pass through..........Like I said, a real cluster.