Texas Administrative Code

TITLE 31 NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
PART 2 TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
CHAPTER 65 WILDLIFE
SUBCHAPTER T DEER BREEDER PERMITS
RULE §65.601 Definitions
If it's controlled under the wildlife code it's legally wildlife! even if the law allows possession.
Link to the applicable law.

Just because a misnomer is used by the state to describe deer in a pen, it doesn't change the fact of what they are. The ARE owned by the breeder. They ARE then his personal property. They ARE then better described by the term "livestock" than "wildlife".

When you're dealing with state employees you're not dealing with the best and the brightest. Because they can't categorize it correctly, doesn't change the facts.

But yes, this is part of what needs to change. The state needs to recognize that when they allowed breeders to own deer, they effectively made them livestock. And let the TAHC under the Ag Commission manage breeder deer as livestock.

Who said this: "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

Einstein

Not taking sides but my instincts tell me there is more to the story as there usually is

Agreed. We don't know the details on the ranch side.

But we know for a fact exactly what the state did. And no way was that justified.

So many questions could/need be asked..... not a lot of info in any statements from anyone that we have seen so far.

Unfortunately, there is no live-animal test to detect CWD.

From the TP&W site

First, CWD is no threat. In all the states that have CWD, there is no statistically significant effect on deer populations or harvest.

Second, there has never been a case of CWD in a white tail in Texas. We have more breeders than any other state, so it stands to reason that CWD doesn't fare too well here.

Third, and most important, TPWD has another option. They, by their own rule, can sample 10% of the herd and then monitor for symptoms.

So, no, they didn't have to kill the entire herd. Period.

They WANTED to.

Where did you get your Doctorate in wildlife biology?

Sounds like stand up folks we should be rallying around. Just like Bundy.

Bundy? Apples and watermelons.

These folks owned both the land and the deer.

And as you know, I've never argued that their actions at this ranch are in need of or worthy of my defense. What does deserve my defense, is personal property rights, the individual's rights against the state using the CWD lie to "justify" the heavy handedness of destroying over 200 deer (worth God knows how much) over a paperwork violation.

A question, is it "unethical" for a rancher to slaughter his prize bull? Now THAT'S apples to apples.
FWIW, exactly what kind of "attorney" are you? I thought attorney's believe even murderers deserve a defense?

These folks owned both the land and the deer.

I believe the land was leased to the breeder and the deer belong to the state. Other than that, that's a pretty accurate assessment.

They ought to send you a retainer fee.

I believe the land was leased to the breeder and the deer belong to the state. Other than that, that's a pretty accurate assessment.