“.

.



## 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 tomake Center, Texas 75925 use of a dog or dogs in hunting, pursuing, or taking deer:in any portion of Shelby Dear Mr. Warren: County, TexasYou have-requested,an opinionsof this office on the following,,-question, rephrased: Whether it-is lawful for any person tomake use~of a dog or:dogs.-inhunting, pursuing, or taking deerfinany 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.-orpersonseto~make use of a dog or dogs,.inthe:.hunting-of~.our pursuing~or taking of any deer,. Any,:personor~,persons owning or controlling,any dog*-or- dogs and~who permits or allows such.:dog*.or.dogs::to.,.,run; trail, or pursue zanydeer at.any:.~time:sha3.l:be:deemed guilty of amisdemeanor, and~upon:convictionshall:~be,'fined ,~in-anysum ofnot, lessthanTwenty-fives Dollars ($25), and not more than;-Two-Hundred-Dollars ($200);provided;.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~usesdogs for-the.purpose of trailing awounded-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.-ordogs in the ,hunting of'or~pursuing.or-taking of-~,any deer 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,,highwaysleading 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 thehunting of,or.~pursuingor taking ofzany-deer.~Certain counties are exceptedfromthe,~application of,.Article880,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 portionsof Shelby County.
In construing a'statute a~court is not restricted to the body.of the.statute.~ Itmay refer to~otherprovisions, such as the-caption. ,The'titlemay. show the legislative intent. 53 Tex$Jur. 248, "Statutes",Section 168. Every provision, clause, or word-of an act willsbe construed 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 aswill afford a reasonable,.remedy;~"Contrariwise:,a construction-that is repugnant to,~theobject 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 toview the language of the caption and-other.language,in the body of Article 880b, as enacted.in 1957, to determine whether the legislature 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:

"AnActmaking,it unlawful for any person to make use of a dog ordogs in thenhunting, pursuing, or taking of any deer in the South and West portion of Shelby County, Texas, at any time; providing penalties forviolation of this Act; and declaring an emergency.v Sections3 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 emergency 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 prohibited 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 toArticle 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, "thedepletion of~the deer population 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 ,Itis unlawful for any person tomake 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-