SB 2846 proposes a significant restructuring of wildlife disease control authority in Texas by transferring primary jurisdiction from the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). It creates a new regulatory framework that authorizes TPWD to issue quarantines, regulate wildlife movement, require testing and identification, impose administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per day, and enforce criminal penalties ranging from Class C misdemeanors to felonies. While the bill’s aim—to proactively contain threats like chronic wasting disease in wildlife populations—is serious and timely, its current form introduces broad and under-constrained government powers that present substantial liberty concerns.
The legislation increases the scope and authority of the state government in multiple dimensions. First, it empowers TPWD to act unilaterally in defining disease threats, issuing binding rules, enforcing quarantines, and prosecuting violators without requiring a legislative check or meaningful third-party oversight. These authorities, previously more limited and shared with TAHC, now rest solely with TPWD. This consolidation of executive, legislative, and enforcement functions in a single agency is a marked departure from principles of limited government and separation of powers.
SB 2846 also places new regulatory burdens on private individuals, particularly landowners, ranchers, and wildlife-related businesses. These stakeholders may be subject to mandatory testing, restricted movement of animals, and inspections of property, all enforced by criminal and civil penalties. Yet the bill offers no robust due process protections, such as guaranteed notice, hearing procedures, or mechanisms for appeal prior to penalties or enforcement actions. It also does not provide for compensation or recourse in cases where lawful property uses are restricted by state-imposed quarantines. This raises serious concerns regarding individual liberty and private property rights.
Furthermore, although the bill does not impact General Revenue directly, it does create an ongoing cost to the state. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill would require nearly $700,000 in dedicated funds over the first biennium to support two new full-time employees at TPWD and related operational expenses. While administrative penalties might recoup some costs, the fiscal impact is uncertain, and the structure of the penalties risks incentivizing aggressive enforcement. This creates both an accountability concern and an indirect burden on regulated entities, some of whom may be penalized without clear guidelines or appeal rights.
In its current form, the bill fails to respect fundamental liberty principles. It expands the size and coercive power of state government, increases regulatory and enforcement burdens on private citizens and businesses, and does so without sufficient procedural protections, oversight mechanisms, or legislative guardrails. For these reasons, the bill cannot be supported as introduced.
As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2846 unless amended as described. With substantial revisions—particularly amendments that introduce procedural due process, statutory limits on TPWD authority, clear interagency boundaries with TAHC, and property rights safeguards—the bill could be re-evaluated favorably. Until then, it does not meet the threshold for responsible, liberty-aligned legislation.
- Individual Liberty: The bill grants TPWD extensive new authority to compel wildlife testing and movement restrictions, require property access for inspections, impose administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per day, and prosecute individuals for criminal violations (including felonies for repeat offenses). These enforcement tools may be applied to individuals without prior judicial oversight, and the bill lacks explicit due process protections such as notice, hearings, or appeal rights prior to enforcement. This raises serious concerns about the protection of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence in administrative and criminal contexts.
- Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle that individuals, especially landowners and wildlife handlers, are responsible for complying with reasonable public health safeguards. It requires reporting of disease, proper handling of diseased carcasses, and cooperation with wildlife disease protocols. However, the bill does not clearly distinguish between bad-faith actors and those unaware of compliance requirements. The criminalization of unintentional noncompliance, especially when new rules may be complex or rapidly changing, may undermine the concept of moral agency on which personal responsibility rests.
- Free Enterprise: Businesses in the wildlife, hunting, and game ranching sectors face increased compliance costs and legal risk under this bill. The broad regulatory authority over movement, testing, and quarantine could disrupt economic activity on private game ranches, increase liability exposure for outfitters and breeders, and create regulatory uncertainty due to flexible and broadly defined rulemaking authority. With no clear limits on how TPWD might define or revise its list of “diseases requiring control,” the regulatory burden on enterprises is unpredictable, and no relief mechanisms or cost-sharing provisions are provided. This chills enterprise activity and could disincentivize investment in wildlife-related businesses.
- Private Property Rights: The bill poses a direct threat to private property rights by authorizing TPWD to impose movement restrictions on wildlife located on private lands, require landowners to gather wildlife for testing, and access property to inspect or manage wildlife without clearly defined limits. While the bill states it shall not infringe upon the jurisdiction of other agencies (like TAHC), it lacks statutory protections for landowners, such as a warrant requirement, consent process, or compensation for animals destroyed or operations disrupted. This effectively grants the state coercive authority over privately managed natural resources without balancing protections for the property owner.
- Limited Government: Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the bill is its substantial expansion of the regulatory and enforcement scope of TPWD. It consolidates authority to write disease-related rules, enforce those rules with civil or criminal penalties, adjudicate violations through administrative proceedings, and refer cases for prosecution or collect penalties directly. All of this is done with minimal legislative oversight and without sunset provisions, independent review, or limits on rulemaking scope. The bill centralizes power in an executive agency in a way that undermines the separation of powers and erodes the principle of limited government.
