# 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 ofaircraft in the control of predator animals Dear Mr. Garrison: You have requested our opinion onquestions arising out ofan apparent conflict between two statutes passed by the 63rd Legislature. Both relate to the use ofaircraft 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 toArticle 901. S.B. 251

### was enacted by the Legislature onMarch 22, 1973, and applies to eight named counties. S.B. 44 was subsequently enacted on May 18, 1973, and applies to 155named counties, including the eight counties towhich S.B. 251applies. 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 ofacts 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 aformer, there must be an express repeal or an irreconcilable repugnancy between them. Wright v. Broeter, 196S.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 ofthese Acts is complete within itself in establishing a system for the regulation ofhunting 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 offines which may be imposed differ, the information to be contained in an affidavit to accompany apermit application differs, the information which may be required to be included in the quarterly report differs, the type of notice and hearings pursuant toissuance 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 ofany 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 ofthe **same** session of the Legislature cannot be harmonized or reconciled, that statute which is the latest expression ofthe will ofthe‘Legislature will operate to repeal the prior **statute** of the same session to the extent ofany conflict in their terms. Ex parte de Jesus de la 0, 227 S.W. 2d 212(Tex. Crim.App., 1950); Wright v. Broeter. 196S.W. 2d 82 (Tex. 1946); Townsend v. Terrell, 16S.W. 2d 1063 (Tex. 1929); Stevens v. State, 159S.W. 505 (Tex. Crim.App. 1913); Parshall v. State, 138S.W. 759 (Tex. Crim.App. 1911);53Tex. Jur. 2d Statutes 5105(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. 251which had been enacted earlier in the sarne session. Therefore, the Department is to be guided by the requirements ofthe later legislation in all respects.

**Our** determination is supported by the deliberations, ofthe 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 theApril 5, 1973, meeting ofthe Wildlife Subcommittee ofthe House Committee on Environmental Affairs on file with the House ofRepresentatives.

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

SUMMARY The licensing system for the use ofaircraft in the control ofpredatory 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