SB2801

A qualifying trial is a competitive event where dogs chase or pursue the specified squirrels, fur-bearing animals or nongame animals under field conditions. The law defines squirrels as gray or cat squirrels, fox squirrels or red squirrels and uses existing statutory definitions for the other categories. Permits may cover privately owned land or public land authorized by commission rules—not every public hunting area automatically. Final law, sections 43.251–43.252.

The applicant must use the department’s form and provide a name and address, the property address, species to be pursued, any sanctioning hunting-dog club or organization and other required information. The Parks and Wildlife Commission must specify eligible public lands and adopt implementation rules as soon as practicable; it may also adopt wildlife-management and protection rules. The exemption applies only during participation in a permitted trial, and the act does not waive all other wildlife restrictions. This briefing verifies the law, not the current application process or eligibility of a particular property. Final law, sections 43.252–43.254 and act section 3.

The Senate substitute added the direction to credit permit-fee revenue, less allowable costs, to the game, fish and water safety account. It also reconciled two earlier revenue-list amendments and added a clause making this act control over conflicting nonsubstantive 2025 code corrections. Those changes survived into the final law; the $50 fee, nine-day duration and participation exemption were already in the introduced bill. No floor amendments are listed. Introduced bill; Senate substitute; All versions; Amendment index; Final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Registered trial participants who otherwise needed a hunting license may avoid that requirement for the event, while the permit applicant faces the $50 permit fee. Actual savings depend on participation and which licenses people would otherwise buy. The measure does not guarantee lower costs for every participant or authorize a statewide nine-day hunting exemption. Final law.

The fiscal notes could not determine the revenue effect: neither the number of new permits nor the number of hunting licenses no longer sold was known. The later note assumes administrative, computer-programming and vendor-related costs can be absorbed with existing resources and anticipates no local-government fiscal implication. The act makes no appropriation, and its new revenue dedication was subject to legislative funds-consolidation review. “No appropriation” does not mean no revenue loss or no implementation work. April 21 fiscal note; April 23 substitute fiscal note.