“. .
WE ,L~TTORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
March 27, 1972
Honorable Bill Warren opinion No. M-1182
County Attorney
Shelby County,~Courthouse., Re: Whether it is lawful
P. 0. BOX 627 for any person to make
Center, Texas 75925 use of a dog or dogs
in hunting, pursuing,
or taking deer: in any
portion of Shelby
Dear Mr. Warren: County, Texas-
You have-requested, an opinions of this office on the
following,,-question,rephrased:
Whether it-is lawful for any person to make
use~of a dog or:dogs.-inhunting, pursuing, or
taking deer fin any portion of Shelby County,, Texas?
The answer to your question requires us to consider and
harmonize: two different acts:of,.the.~legislature.
These are:
(1) Article 880, Vernon's Penal Code, first enacted in
1925, and last.amended-.by~Acts 62nd Leg. R.S. 1971, Ch. 543,
p. 1855 reads as follows:
"Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful
for any person.-or personseto~make use of a dog or
dogs,.in the:.hunting-of~.ourpursuing~or taking of
any deer,. Any,:personor~,persons owning or con-
trolling,any dog*-or-dogs and~who permits or allows
such.:dog*.or.dogs::to.,.,run;
trail, or pursue zany deer
at.any:.~time:sha3.l:be:deemedguilty of a misdemeanor,
and~upon:convictionshall:~be,'fined ,~in-anysum
ofnot, lessthanTwenty-fives Dollars ($25), and
not more than;-Two-Hundred-Dollars ($200); pro-
vided;.however;;:.that~this.-article~shallnot ~apply
-53?6-
Honorable Bill Warren, page 2 (M-1102)
to the Counties of~Brasoria, San Augustine, and
Fort Bend., ~And,;,.provided,further,that it shall
be.Xawful,to~ uses dogs for-the. purpose of trailing
a wounded-deer in.the Counties of.Concho~;Jones,
Zapata, andbngelina.
(2) Article, 88Ob,, Vernon's Penal,Code, (Acts 55th Leg.
2nd C~;S., 1957 Ch. 13, p. 170):
"Sec. 1. It shall be,unlawfulfor any
person,to‘make use-of a dog.-or dogs in the ,hunting
of'or ~pursuing.or-taking of-~,anydeer in that
portion of,Shelby-County,,Texas lying and being
situated:South..and.West~of,U.S.'Highways 59 and
96,,and being that portion of Shelby County lying
South. and West of,the public,,highways leading
from.Carthage,inPanola.County, Texas. through
Tenaha. and-Centeq in Shelby County, Texas, to
San Augustine, in San,Augustine~ County, Texas at
any time."
The, provisions~of Article 880 state generally that it
shall,be,-unlawful.for'any'person-to.usedogs in the hunting
of,or.~pursuing or taking of zany-deer.~ Certain counties are
exceptedfromthe,~application of,.Article 880,but Shelby
County~fs--not-one...of.
those~counties: Article 880b, provides
that it shall,be ~unlawful.for ~anyone'to-use dogs in the
hunting-of or pursuing ortaking of deer in a specified
portions of Shelby County.
In construing a'statute a~court is not restricted to the
body.of the.statute.~ It may refer to~otherprovisions, such
as the-caption. ,The'title may. show the legislative intent.
53 Tex$Jur. 248, "Statutes",Section 168.
Every provision, clause, or word-of an act wills be con-
strued with, reference-to, its leading idea, orgenexaf purpose,
and~broughtso far.as~,possPble.%ntoharmony~,therewith. Thus,
where a.statute-,is,desPgned.to afford a remedy for existing
evils; it should.be,-given,such interpretation as will afford
a reasonable,.remedy; ~"Contrariwise:, a construction- that is
repugnant to,~the object of~the law or that,will defeat,
thwarti'or.unduly~limft its,plainpurpose, will be avoided.
53 ,Tex.Jur;2d; p.237; "Statutes",Sec. 163.
,-5377-
. .
Honorable Bill Warren, page 3 (M-1102)
It is therefore most significant to view the language
of the caption and-other.language,in the body of Article
880b, as enacted.in 1957, to determine whether the legis-
lature intended to impliedly authorize the use'of dogs in
hunting of deer in a portion of Shelby County, thereby
creating an exception to, the general, provisions of Article
880. The caption reads as follows:
"An Actmaking,it unlawful for any person to
make use of a dog ordogs in then hunting, pursuing,
or taking of any deer in the South and West portion
of Shelby County, Texas, at any time; providing
penalties for violation of this Act; and declaring
an emergency. v
Sections 3 of the Act,~the emergency clause,lreads:
"The fact that-,the,deer.population of Shelby
County,is being rapidly depleted through the use
of dogsin hunting in that~ county, thereby making
it necessary that immediate measures be taken for
the conservation of these animals, treats an emer-
gency and an imperative public necessity . . . fl
In applying the above rules of statutory construction as
would best, show the legislative intent, it,is apparent that
the legislature has by Article 880 and 880b expressly pro-
hibited the hunting of deer with dogs in any portion of
Shelby County at.any time. To construe Article 880b to
impliedly authorize the use of dogs in hunting of deer in a
portion of Shelby County, as an exception to Article 880
would be wholly fnconsistent,with the language of the Act
and in effect would contribute to the expressed evil which
the Act seeks to suppress, "the depletion of~the deer pop-
ulation through the use of dogs in hunting in Shelby County."
' Acts 55th Leg., 2ndC:S. 1957, Ch.13, p.170.
-'
5378'^
Honorable Bill Warren, page 4 (M-1102)
The amendment of Article 880, the general law statute,
as recently as 1971, without any exception for Shelby County,
futther supports the view-expressed above.
You are therefore.advised that.it is unlawful for any
person~to make use of a dog or dogs in the hunting of or
pursuing-or taking of deer in,any portion of Shelby County.
S U:M, M A R Y
,It is unlawful for any person to make use
of a dog or dogs in the hunting of or pursuing
or taking of deer in any portion of Shelby County,
Texas, at any time.
Prepared by Guy C. Fisher
Assistant~,Attorney,General
APPROVED:
OPINIQN~COMMITTEE
KernsTaylor,.Chairman
W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
Sally Phillips
Harriet Burke
San Jones
Scott Garrison
SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLA WHITE,
First Assistant
-5379-
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion