THE ATTORNEY GENERA% 

OF ?l3cKAs 

AUSTIN. TaxAa 76711 

March 18. 1974 

The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison 

Executive Director 

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 

John H. Reagan Building 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No. H- 260 

Re: The licensing system 

for the use of aircraft 

in the control of 

predator animals 

Dear Mr. Garrison: 

You have requested our opinion on questions arising out of an 

apparent conflict between two statutes passed by the 63rd Legislature. 

Both relate to the use of aircraft for predator animal control. The 

first bill passed was Senate Bill 251, published as Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., 

ch. 20, p. 23. The second was Senate Bill 44, published as Acts 1973, 

63rd Leg., ch. 147, p. 348. Both can be found in Vernon’s Texas Penal 

Code Auxiliary Laws in the note to Article 901. 

S. B. 251 was enacted by the Legislature on March 22, 1973, and 

applies to eight named counties. S. B. 44 was subsequently enacted on 

May 18, 1973, and applies to 155 named counties, including the eight 

counties to which S. B. 251 applies. However, S. B. 44 includes no 

express repealer provision, either as to S. B. 251, or to other laws in 

general. 

The rule in regard to construction of acts of the same session on 

the same subject is that the whole must be taken and construed as one 

act, and to make a later provision repeal a former, there must be an 

express repeal or an irreconcilable repugnancy between them. Wright 

v. Broeter, 196 S. W. 2d 82 (Tex. 1946); Cain v. The State, 20 Tex. 355 

(1857); 53 Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes $105 (1964); IA Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 23.17 (4th ed. 1972). 

Each of these Acts is complete within itself in establishing a 

system for the regulation of hunting predator animals from aircraft. 

p. 1217 
. - 

The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 2 (H-260) 

Upon comparison, we note differences between the two Acts in the 

following particulars: The definitions of “predator animals” differ, 

the conduct made punishable differs, the ranges of fines which may 

be imposed differ, the information to be contained in an affidavit to 

accompany a permit application differs, the information which may 

be required to be included in the quarterly report differs, the type of 

notice and hearings pursuant to issuance of regulations differs and 

one Act authorizes an annual fee while the other does not. There are 

eight counties to which both Acts apply. 

We cannot conceive of any interpretation of the two Acts by 

which they could be reconciled and harmonized as to the eight counties 

covered by both Acts. We conclude that the two Acts are in irreconcilable conflict. 

When two acts of the same session of the Legislature cannot be 

harmonized or reconciled, that statute which is the latest expression 

of the will of the ‘Legislature will operate to repeal the prior statute of 

the same session to the extent of any conflict in their terms. Ex parte 

de Jesus de la 0, 227 S. W. 2d 212 (Tex. Crim.App., 1950); Wright v. 

Broeter. 196 S. W. 2d 82 (Tex. 1946); Townsend v. Terrell, 16 S. W. 2d 

1063 (Tex. 1929); Stevens v. State, 159 S. W. 505 (Tex. Crim.App. 1913); 

Parshall v. State, 138 S. W. 759 (Tex. Crim.App. 1911); 53 Tex. Jur. 2d 

Statutes 5 105 (1964); IA Sutherland, Statutory Construction $ 23.17 (4th 

ed. 1972); Attorney General Opinion V-990 (1950). 

It is our opinion that S. B. 44, the 155-county Act impliedly 

repealed in its entirety the eight-county S. B. 251 which had been 

enacted earlier in the sarne session. Therefore, the Department is 

to be guided by the requirements of the later legislation in all respects. 

Our determination is supported by the deliberations, of the House 

subcommittee when it considered S. B. 44. There it was indicated that 

the 155-county bill was intended to supercede the eariler legislation. 

See the recording of the April 5, 1973, meeting of the Wildlife Subcommittee of the House Committee on Environmental Affairs on file with 

the House of Representatives. 

pe 1218 
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 3 (H-260) 

SUMMARY 

The licensing system for the use of aircraft 

in the control of predatory animals is controlled by 

Acts 1973. ch. 147, p. 348, which repealed Acts 

1973, ch. 20, p. 23. 

Very truly yours, 

APTRRVED: 

Attorney Gemral of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 1219