Exotic pet laws in Texas

31 TAC § 65.353(b); Parks & Wild. Code § 65.002

Except as provided in this subchapter or Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, no person may possess a live alligator;

The alligator has its own chapter in Texas, which governs its possession to the exclusion of other licensing laws, and the proclamation bars possessing a live one. Its permits are for alligator farmers, dealers and control hunters, and Chapter 43 Subchapter C covers scientific research, zoological collection, rehabilitation and educational display. No pet route.

How this rule works: Read from Cornell LII; the official Texas Administrative Code viewer is an Appian portal. Subsection (b): "Except as provided in this subchapter or Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, no person may possess a live alligator". The subchapter's permits are for alligator farmers, dealers, control hunters and nuisance hunters, and Chapter 43 Subchapter C covers permits for scientific research, zoological collection, rehabilitation and educational display.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.175; Health & Safety Code § 822.101(4)(M)

TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the issuance of a permit.

Texas lists the black bear, Ursus americanus, as state threatened, and TPWD permits for threatened animals go to science, zoos, education and rehabilitation. The dangerous wild animal statute also names "a bear" and would require a local certificate, but the threatened listing comes first: a certificate does not authorize possessing a threatened animal.

How this rule works: The § 65.175 figure is an image in the Texas Register, so TPWD's own compilation is the readable copy. It lists the black bear (Ursus americanus) and the white-nosed coati (Nasua narica) as state threatened. TPWD's species protection page, https://tpwd.texas.gov/wildlife/wildlife-diversity/nongame/listed-species/species-protection/, states the consequence: its regulations "prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the issuance of a permit", and the permits are for science, zoos, education and rehabilitation.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.175; TPWD Species Protection

TPWD regulations prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the issuance of a permit.

The white-nosed coati is a Texas native at the edge of its range and is state threatened, on the § 65.175 list as TPWD compiles it. Possession needs a TPWD permit, and those are issued for science, zoos, education and rehabilitation. The nongame caps cannot help, because § 65.325(b)(8) takes threatened species out of that subchapter.

How this rule works: The § 65.175 figure is an image in the Texas Register, so TPWD's own compilation is the readable copy. It lists the black bear (Ursus americanus) and the white-nosed coati (Nasua narica) as state threatened. TPWD's species protection page, https://tpwd.texas.gov/wildlife/wildlife-diversity/nongame/listed-species/species-protection/, states the consequence: its regulations "prohibit the taking, possession, transportation, or sale of any of the animal species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the issuance of a permit", and the permits are for science, zoos, education and rehabilitation.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Health & Safety Code §§ 822.101(4)(H), 822.103, 822.107, 822.116(b)

"Dangerous wild animal" means: ... (H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; ...

Named at clause (H), so a bobcat needs the dangerous wild animal certificate of registration from the local animal control office or the sheriff, at most $50 an animal, with liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence, and § 822.116(b) lets any municipality or county prohibit it outright. The nongame rules expressly exclude bobcats at § 65.325(b)(3), and the bobcat is not a fur-bearing animal under § 71.001.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The statute everyone cites for Texas, and the one that answers the fewest questions on this map. § 822.101(4) is a closed list of twenty clauses, nineteen named mammals plus "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision". It contains no reptile, no bird, no rodent and no invertebrate. Where it does bite it bites hard: § 822.103(a) requires a certificate of registration issued by the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency; § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence; and § 822.116(b) expressly preserves the power of any municipality or county to prohibit the animal outright.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code § 43.851(a)(2)(C); 31 TAC §§ 55.651(2), 55.652(a)(1)

The commission by rule shall establish permits that allow permit holders to possess or transport in this state a live nonindigenous snake, including a hybrid of any kind, that is: (1) venomous; or (2) a constrictor that is one of the following: (A) African rock python, Python sebae; (B) Asiatic rock python, Python molurus; (C) Burmese python, Python bivittatus; (D) green anaconda, Eunectes murinus; (E) reticulated python, Python reticulatus; or (F) southern African python, Python natalensis.

Python bivittatus is named in the statute and again in the rule, so a Texas keeper needs a recreational controlled exotic snake permit, renewed annually and running September 1st to August 31st. It is a permit rather than a ban, which separates Texas from the states that prohibit the species outright. Two practical details: 31 TAC § 55.653(c) makes the sales receipt a temporary permit for 21 days from the date of sale, so a buyer is not immediately in violation, and Parks & Wild. Code § 43.856(b) makes releasing one a Class A misdemeanor rather than the Class C that covers permit offenses. The species was added by name in 2021 by H.B. 2326; before that it had to be read into "Asiatic rock python, Python molurus", which is the parent species it was split from.

How this rule works: Texas regulates six constrictors by name and every nonvenomous snake beyond them not at all. The list is in the statute at § 43.851(a)(2) and repeated in the rule at 31 TAC § 55.651(2): African rock python, Asiatic rock python, Burmese python, green anaconda, reticulated python, southern African python, plus any hybrid, plus all venomous snakes not indigenous to Texas. H.B. 2326 in 2021 added Python bivittatus by name, after the Burmese was split off from Python molurus and the older wording left it arguable. A recreational permit is available to private keepers under 31 TAC § 55.652(a)(1), which is what separates this from a ban, and § 55.653(c) makes the sales receipt a temporary permit for 21 days from purchase.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Health & Safety Code §§ 822.101(4)(I), 822.103, 822.107, 822.116(b)

"Dangerous wild animal" means: ... (H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; ...

Named at clause (I), the serval's position: a certificate of registration from local animal control or the sheriff, liability insurance of at least $100,000, and a local power to prohibit outright. The Canada lynx is not a Texas animal, so the state threatened list does not reach it; it is federally threatened, which brings federal rules on interstate sale.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The statute everyone cites for Texas, and the one that answers the fewest questions on this map. § 822.101(4) is a closed list of twenty clauses, nineteen named mammals plus "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision". It contains no reptile, no bird, no rodent and no invertebrate. Where it does bite it bites hard: § 822.103(a) requires a certificate of registration issued by the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency; § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence; and § 822.116(b) expressly preserves the power of any municipality or county to prohibit the animal outright.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code § 43.851(a)(1), (b), (d); 31 TAC §§ 55.651, 55.652

Sec. 43.851. PERMIT. (a) The commission by rule shall establish permits that allow permit holders to possess or transport in this state a live nonindigenous snake, including a hybrid of any kind, that is: (1) venomous; or (2) a constrictor that is one of the following:

Every cobra is a nonindigenous venomous snake, which needs a controlled exotic snake permit. § 43.851(b) has the commission establish separate recreational and commercial permits, so a private keeper has a route. The king cobra and the Asian Naja species are on CITES Appendix II, which governs import and export, not keeping.

How this rule works: Texas regulates six constrictors by name and every nonvenomous snake beyond them not at all. The list is in the statute at § 43.851(a)(2) and repeated in the rule at 31 TAC § 55.651(2): African rock python, Asiatic rock python, Burmese python, green anaconda, reticulated python, southern African python, plus any hybrid, plus all venomous snakes not indigenous to Texas. H.B. 2326 in 2021 added Python bivittatus by name, after the Burmese was split off from Python molurus and the older wording left it arguable. A recreational permit is available to private keepers under 31 TAC § 55.652(a)(1), which is what separates this from a ban, and § 55.653(c) makes the sales receipt a temporary permit for 21 days from purchase.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Health & Safety Code §§ 822.101(4)(D), 822.103, 822.107, 822.116(b)

"Dangerous wild animal" means: (A) a lion; (B) a tiger; (C) an ocelot; (D) a cougar; (E) a leopard; (F) a cheetah; (G) a jaguar; (H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; (K) a caracal; (L) a hyena; (M) a bear; (N) a coyote; (O) a jackal; (P) a baboon; (Q) a chimpanzee; (R) an orangutan; (S) a gorilla; or (T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

The cougar is named at clause (D). It is also a Texas native that the nongame rule leaves out by name at 31 TAC 65.325(b)(2). A certificate of registration from the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, is required under § 822.103, with liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence under § 822.107, and § 822.116(b) lets any municipality or county prohibit the animal outright instead. Federally, the Big Cat Public Safety Act of 2022 (16 U.S.C. § 3372(e)) bars any person outside a licensed exhibitor, sanctuary or state institution from breeding or possessing a cougar unless the animal was born before December 20, 2022, and registered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days, so no new pet is lawful anywhere in the country whatever the state rule says. The Florida panther subspecies is also endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The statute everyone cites for Texas, and the one that answers the fewest questions on this map. § 822.101(4) is a closed list of twenty clauses, nineteen named mammals plus "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision". It contains no reptile, no bird, no rodent and no invertebrate. Where it does bite it bites hard: § 822.103(a) requires a certificate of registration issued by the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency; § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence; and § 822.116(b) expressly preserves the power of any municipality or county to prohibit the animal outright.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 63.001(a), 63.002, 44.001(3), 44.002, 44.006

No person may sell, place in captivity, or engage in the business of propagating any game animal of this state unless the person has obtained a license issued under this chapter from the department.

The gray or cat squirrel is a Texas game animal, and § 63.002 bars possessing a live one for any purpose the code does not authorize. Chapter 44 is the authorization: a game breeder's license, which names red and gray squirrels, is needed to place one in captivity. The license lets the holder keep game animals "for the purpose of propagation or sale", and no section authorizes holding a squirrel purely as a pet, so the license is a breeder's one that a keeper would hold on those terms.

How this rule works: For this chapter a game animal is a pronghorn, javelina, or red or gray squirrel. § 44.002 bars selling, placing in captivity or propagating any of them without a game breeder's license, and § 44.006 lets the licensee hold one in captivity "for the purpose of propagation or sale", which is a breeder's license rather than a keeper's.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code § 43.851(a)(2)(D), (b), (d)

Sec. 43.851. PERMIT. (a) The commission by rule shall establish permits that allow permit holders to possess or transport in this state a live nonindigenous snake, including a hybrid of any kind, that is: (1) venomous; or (2) a constrictor that is one of the following: ... (D) green anaconda, Eunectes murinus;

Named as one of six constrictors that need a controlled exotic snake permit, available in a recreational version for private keepers. Federally, the green anaconda has been injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act since 2015 (50 CFR 16.15(a)), which bars importing one into the country or shipping one to Hawaii or a territory; USARK v. Zinke (D.C. Cir. 2017) held it does not bar shipment between the continental states.

How this rule works: Texas regulates six constrictors by name and every nonvenomous snake beyond them not at all. The list is in the statute at § 43.851(a)(2) and repeated in the rule at 31 TAC § 55.651(2): African rock python, Asiatic rock python, Burmese python, green anaconda, reticulated python, southern African python, plus any hybrid, plus all venomous snakes not indigenous to Texas. H.B. 2326 in 2021 added Python bivittatus by name, after the Burmese was split off from Python molurus and the older wording left it arguable. A recreational permit is available to private keepers under 31 TAC § 55.652(a)(1), which is what separates this from a ban, and § 55.653(c) makes the sales receipt a temporary permit for 21 days from purchase.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Health & Safety Code §§ 822.101(4)(A), 822.103, 822.107, 822.116(b)

"Dangerous wild animal" means: (A) a lion; (B) a tiger; (C) an ocelot; (D) a cougar; (E) a leopard; (F) a cheetah; (G) a jaguar; (H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; (K) a caracal; (L) a hyena; (M) a bear; (N) a coyote; (O) a jackal; (P) a baboon; (Q) a chimpanzee; (R) an orangutan; (S) a gorilla; or (T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

The lion heads the list at clause (A). A certificate of registration from the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, is required under § 822.103, with liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence under § 822.107, and § 822.116(b) lets any municipality or county prohibit the animal outright instead. Federally, the Big Cat Public Safety Act of 2022 (16 U.S.C. § 3372(e)) bars any person outside a licensed exhibitor, sanctuary or state institution from breeding or possessing a lion unless the animal was born before December 20, 2022, and registered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days, so no new pet is lawful anywhere in the country whatever the state rule says.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The statute everyone cites for Texas, and the one that answers the fewest questions on this map. § 822.101(4) is a closed list of twenty clauses, nineteen named mammals plus "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision". It contains no reptile, no bird, no rodent and no invertebrate. Where it does bite it bites hard: § 822.103(a) requires a certificate of registration issued by the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency; § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence; and § 822.116(b) expressly preserves the power of any municipality or county to prohibit the animal outright.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 71.001(1), 71.005(c), 71.010

No person may capture or possess a live fur-bearing animal for any purpose, except as otherwise authorized by this code, unless he has acquired and possesses a fur-bearing animal propagation license.

The raccoon is a fur-bearing animal under § 71.001(1), and § 71.005(c) requires a fur-bearing animal propagation license to possess a live one "for any purpose", so the license is a keeper's license as well as a breeder's; the fee is $50.75. The definition is headed "wild", which is the argument a captive-bred animal is outside it, but the word reads as describing the species rather than the animal's history. Not on the dangerous wild animal list, and fur-bearers are excluded from the nongame caps. Cities and counties may still regulate it.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The definition at § 71.001(1) reads "wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria", and the bare word "fox" is what makes people read Texas as a fox ban state. It is not one. Chapter 71 and the proclamation at 31 TAC §§ 65.371-65.375 govern taking, trapping, pelts and fur dealing; § 65.375(a)(2) says there are no bag or possession limits for fur-bearing animals; and nothing in either bars keeping one. The series is also headed by "wild", which a captive-bred animal is not.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 71.001(1), 71.005(c), 71.010

No person may capture or possess a live fur-bearing animal for any purpose, except as otherwise authorized by this code, unless he has acquired and possesses a fur-bearing animal propagation license.

The red fox is a fur-bearing animal under § 71.001(1), and § 71.005(c) requires a fur-bearing animal propagation license to possess a live one "for any purpose", so the license is a keeper's license as well as a breeder's; the fee is $50.75. The definition is headed "wild", which is the argument a captive-bred animal is outside it, but the word reads as describing the species rather than the animal's history. The dangerous wild animal list names the coyote and the jackal and no fox.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The definition at § 71.001(1) reads "wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria", and the bare word "fox" is what makes people read Texas as a fox ban state. It is not one. Chapter 71 and the proclamation at 31 TAC §§ 65.371-65.375 govern taking, trapping, pelts and fur dealing; § 65.375(a)(2) says there are no bag or possession limits for fur-bearing animals; and nothing in either bars keeping one. The series is also headed by "wild", which a captive-bred animal is not.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code § 43.851(a)(2)(E), (b), (d)

Sec. 43.851. PERMIT. (a) The commission by rule shall establish permits that allow permit holders to possess or transport in this state a live nonindigenous snake, including a hybrid of any kind, that is: (1) venomous; or (2) a constrictor that is one of the following: ... (E) reticulated python, Python reticulatus;

Named as one of six constrictors that need a controlled exotic snake permit, available in a recreational version for private keepers. Federally, the reticulated python has been injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act since 2015 (50 CFR 16.15(a)), which bars importing one into the country or shipping one to Hawaii or a territory; USARK v. Zinke (D.C. Cir. 2017) held it does not bar shipment between the continental states.

How this rule works: Texas regulates six constrictors by name and every nonvenomous snake beyond them not at all. The list is in the statute at § 43.851(a)(2) and repeated in the rule at 31 TAC § 55.651(2): African rock python, Asiatic rock python, Burmese python, green anaconda, reticulated python, southern African python, plus any hybrid, plus all venomous snakes not indigenous to Texas. H.B. 2326 in 2021 added Python bivittatus by name, after the Burmese was split off from Python molurus and the older wording left it arguable. A recreational permit is available to private keepers under 31 TAC § 55.652(a)(1), which is what separates this from a ban, and § 55.653(c) makes the sales receipt a temporary permit for 21 days from purchase.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

§ 822.101(4)(J), (T); §§ 822.103, 822.107, 822.116(b)

"Dangerous wild animal" means: (A) a lion; (B) a tiger; (C) an ocelot; (D) a cougar; (E) a leopard; (F) a cheetah; (G) a jaguar; (H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; (K) a caracal; (L) a hyena; (M) a bear; (N) a coyote; (O) a jackal; (P) a baboon; (Q) a chimpanzee; (R) an orangutan; (S) a gorilla; or (T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

Texas catches the Savannah in the same sentence that frees the Bengal. Clause (T) reaches "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision", and the serval is listed at clause (J), so a Savannah is a dangerous wild animal and § 822.103(a) bars keeping one "for any purpose" without a certificate of registration from the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none. The fee is capped at $50 an animal, § 822.107 adds liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence, and § 822.116(b) lets any municipality or county prohibit the animal outright. No generation line is drawn, so on the statute's words a late-generation Savannah is as much a hybrid of a serval as an F1.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The statute everyone cites for Texas, and the one that answers the fewest questions on this map. § 822.101(4) is a closed list of twenty clauses, nineteen named mammals plus "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision". It contains no reptile, no bird, no rodent and no invertebrate. Where it does bite it bites hard: § 822.103(a) requires a certificate of registration issued by the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency; § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence; and § 822.116(b) expressly preserves the power of any municipality or county to prohibit the animal outright.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

§ 822.101(4)(J); §§ 822.103, 822.107

"Dangerous wild animal" means: (A) a lion; (B) a tiger; (C) an ocelot; (D) a cougar; (E) a leopard; (F) a cheetah; (G) a jaguar; (H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; (K) a caracal; (L) a hyena; (M) a bear; (N) a coyote; (O) a jackal; (P) a baboon; (Q) a chimpanzee; (R) an orangutan; (S) a gorilla; or (T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

Named at clause (J), between the lynx and the caracal. Two things about the Texas certificate are unusual. It is issued by the local animal control office, or by the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency, so the answer is administered county by county and § 822.116(b) lets any of those counties prohibit the animal outright instead. And § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 for each occurrence, the highest insurance figure on this map. § 822.113 makes possession without the certificate a Class C misdemeanor per animal per day, and § 822.114 adds a civil penalty of up to $2,000 on the same per-animal, per-day basis.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The statute everyone cites for Texas, and the one that answers the fewest questions on this map. § 822.101(4) is a closed list of twenty clauses, nineteen named mammals plus "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision". It contains no reptile, no bird, no rodent and no invertebrate. Where it does bite it bites hard: § 822.103(a) requires a certificate of registration issued by the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency; § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence; and § 822.116(b) expressly preserves the power of any municipality or county to prohibit the animal outright.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 71.001(1), 71.005(c), 71.010

No person may capture or possess a live fur-bearing animal for any purpose, except as otherwise authorized by this code, unless he has acquired and possesses a fur-bearing animal propagation license.

The striped skunk is a fur-bearing animal under § 71.001(1), and § 71.005(c) requires a fur-bearing animal propagation license to possess a live one "for any purpose", so the license is a keeper's license as well as a breeder's; the fee is $50.75. The definition is headed "wild", which is the argument a captive-bred animal is outside it, but the word reads as describing the species rather than the animal's history. Not on the dangerous wild animal list.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The definition at § 71.001(1) reads "wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria", and the bare word "fox" is what makes people read Texas as a fox ban state. It is not one. Chapter 71 and the proclamation at 31 TAC §§ 65.371-65.375 govern taking, trapping, pelts and fur dealing; § 65.375(a)(2) says there are no bag or possession limits for fur-bearing animals; and nothing in either bars keeping one. The series is also headed by "wild", which a captive-bred animal is not.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Health & Safety Code §§ 822.101(4)(B), 822.103, 822.107, 822.116(b)

"Dangerous wild animal" means: (A) a lion; (B) a tiger; (C) an ocelot; (D) a cougar; (E) a leopard; (F) a cheetah; (G) a jaguar; (H) a bobcat; (I) a lynx; (J) a serval; (K) a caracal; (L) a hyena; (M) a bear; (N) a coyote; (O) a jackal; (P) a baboon; (Q) a chimpanzee; (R) an orangutan; (S) a gorilla; or (T) any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision.

The tiger is named at clause (B). A certificate of registration from the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, is required under § 822.103, with liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence under § 822.107, and § 822.116(b) lets any municipality or county prohibit the animal outright instead. Federally, the Big Cat Public Safety Act of 2022 (16 U.S.C. § 3372(e)) bars any person outside a licensed exhibitor, sanctuary or state institution from breeding or possessing a tiger unless the animal was born before December 20, 2022, and registered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days, so no new pet is lawful anywhere in the country whatever the state rule says.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The statute everyone cites for Texas, and the one that answers the fewest questions on this map. § 822.101(4) is a closed list of twenty clauses, nineteen named mammals plus "any hybrid of an animal listed in this subdivision". It contains no reptile, no bird, no rodent and no invertebrate. Where it does bite it bites hard: § 822.103(a) requires a certificate of registration issued by the local animal control office, or the county sheriff where there is none, rather than by a state agency; § 822.107 requires liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence; and § 822.116(b) expressly preserves the power of any municipality or county to prohibit the animal outright.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 71.001(1), 71.005(c), 71.010

"Fur-bearing animal" means wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria.

The opossum is a fur-bearing animal by name, and § 71.005(c) requires a fur-bearing animal propagation license to possess a live one "for any purpose", which makes it a keeper's license as well as a breeder's, the reading the raccoon gets. Fur-bearers are excluded from the nongame caps.

How this rule works: The definition at § 71.001(1) reads "wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria", and the bare word "fox" is what makes people read Texas as a fox ban state. It is not one. Chapter 71 and the proclamation at 31 TAC §§ 65.371-65.375 govern taking, trapping, pelts and fur dealing; § 65.375(a)(2) says there are no bag or possession limits for fur-bearing animals; and nothing in either bars keeping one. The series is also headed by "wild", which a captive-bred animal is not.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 63.001(a), 63.002, 43.352(a), 43.357(a)

The department shall issue a permit to a qualified person to possess live breeder deer in captivity.

The white-tailed deer is a game animal, and § 63.002 bars possessing a live one except as the code authorizes. The deer breeder's permit is that authorization, and the holder may keep breeder deer "for the purpose of propagation or sale", in an enclosure capable of keeping other deer out, with records, tagging, genetic and disease testing rules on top. That is a breeding operation, not a pet license, and it is the only route.

How this rule works: The only route to a live white-tailed or mule deer in captivity. § 43.352 has the department issue a permit to a qualified person to possess live breeder deer, and § 43.357(a) lets the holder breed them and hold them "for the purpose of propagation or sale". The disease detection rules in 31 TAC ch. 65 subch. B sit on top.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(A); § 65.331(e)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

Both Terrapene species that occur in Texas are on the § 65.331(e) list, the eastern box turtle and the ornate box turtle, so the cap is six per species and commercial activity is barred outright. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it. Texas is a state where the box turtle question is often reported as a flat ban and it is not one; it is a low cap with no sale. The related restriction to know is § 65.331(b), which bars possessing or using a net or trap capable of catching a turtle while on or in public water, dip nets and small minnow traps excepted.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(B); § 65.331(d)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

The eastern flying squirrel is named on the § 65.331(d) list, and the word "squirrels" is not what puts it there; the list names Glaucomys volans specifically. So Texas allows 25 without a permit and bars selling, offering for sale, exchanging or bartering any of them. This entry previously read as unrestricted, citing the fur-bearing animal definition at Parks & Wild. Code § 71.001, which is a closed list of eleven animals that includes no squirrel. That reading was correct about the fur-bearer chapter and was looking at the wrong rule. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(A); § 65.331(e)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

The § 65.331(d) list names three Texas garter snakes, the western blackneck, the checkered and the western ribbon, and it does not name Thamnophis sirtalis. The common gartersnake is instead on the § 65.331(e) list, which drops it to the lower cap: six without a permit, and no selling, offering for sale, exchanging or bartering at all. This entry previously read as unrestricted, citing the dangerous wild animal statute, which contains no reptile. The rule that answers a native Texas snake is the nongame subchapter, and within it the two lists give different answers to two garter snakes. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(B); § 65.331(d)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

Anolis carolinensis is on the § 65.331(d) list, and it is native across the eastern half of Texas, so a keeper may hold 25 without a permit but may not sell, offer for sale, exchange or barter one. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it. This is the animal on this map where the Texas cap is most likely to surprise someone, because green anoles are sold nationally as cheap starter lizards and the buyer is the one the cap follows.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(B); § 65.331(d)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

Both Texas hognose species are on the § 65.331(d) list by name, the western Heterodon nasicus and the eastern H. platirhinos, so whichever one a keeper has, the answer is 25 without a permit and no commercial activity. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it. The western hognose is the ordinary pet-trade animal and is squarely native to Texas, so the captive-bred qualification is the one that matters here.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(B); § 65.331(d)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

Lampropeltis triangulum is named on the § 65.331(d) list, and milksnakes are native across east and central Texas, so this is nongame wildlife: 25 without a permit, and no selling, offering for sale, exchanging or bartering. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it. That is the difference between this animal and the corn snake in Texas, which is not native and is not capped at all.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(B); § 65.331(d)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

The black-tailed prairie dog is on the § 65.331(d) list by name, which makes it nongame wildlife with a hard cap of 25 and no permit below that, provided the keeper does not sell, offer for sale, exchange or barter one. This entry previously read as unrestricted on the strength of the dangerous wild animal statute, which is accurate and is the wrong rule: that list contains no rodent, and Cynomys ludovicianus is native to the Texas panhandle and plains, which is what brings the nongame rule down on it. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it. Taking one from the wild is a further question governed by the hunting license requirement in § 65.327(c)(1).

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC §§ 65.325(a), 65.327(b)(3)(B), 65.331(d); Parks & Wild. Code § 43.851(a)(1)

Western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) Rock rattlesnake (Crotalus lepidus) Blacktail rattlesnake (Crotalus molossus) Mojave rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus) Prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)

Texas answers its own rattlesnakes and everyone else's differently. Five native rattlesnakes are on the 65.331(d) list, so a person may hold up to 25 of each without a permit, captive-bred animals included. A rattlesnake not native to Texas is a nonindigenous venomous snake, which § 43.851 puts under a controlled exotic snake permit, available to private keepers for recreational purposes. Local ordinances were not checked.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(A); § 65.331(e)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

Trachemys scripta is on the § 65.331(e) list, which is the lower tier: six without a permit and no sale, offer for sale, exchange or barter. The slider is native across most of Texas, which is what brings the rule down on it, and the same list names the Big Bend slider separately. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it. The federal four-inch rule under 21 C.F.R. 1240.62 is the other half of the answer for hatchlings and is unaffected by any of this.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(A); § 65.331(e)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

The common snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina, is on the § 65.331(e) list: six without a permit, no commercial activity. Do not read across from the alligator snapping turtle, Macrochelys temminckii, which Texas lists as threatened under 31 TAC § 65.175, where § 65.171(b)(2) bars taking, possessing, transporting, importing, exporting or selling it altogether. Two snapping turtles, two entirely different answers, and the name is what runs them together. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

31 TAC § 65.327(b)(3)(B); § 65.331(d)

A person without a nongame or nongame dealer’s permit may: (A) possess six or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife; and (B) possess 25 or fewer specimens of a species of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(d) of this title, provided the person does not engage in commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife.

Ambystoma tigrinum is on the § 65.331(d) list and is native across most of Texas, so the answer is 25 without a permit and no commercial activity in them. The cap reaches captive-bred animals: § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so a pet shop receipt does not lift it. Note the § 65.331(e) list names eight other Ambystoma and Eurycea salamanders at the lower cap of six, so the tiger salamander is on the more permissive of the two lists rather than outside the scheme.

How this rule works: The rule that decides a Texas pet question whenever the animal is native, and the one the dangerous wild animal statute distracts from. § 65.327(a) starts from a prohibition, "no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife", and § 65.327(b)(3) then gives an unlicensed keeper two numbers: 25 of a species on the § 65.331(d) list, six of anything else. Three definitions carry the weight. § 65.325(a) says nongame wildlife "includes captive-bred nongame wildlife", so buying from a breeder does not lift the cap. The same sentence limits the subchapter to VERTEBRATE wildlife, which is narrower than the statute it implements, since Parks & Wild. Code § 67.001 says "vertebrate and invertebrate", and that gap is what leaves every terrestrial invertebrate outside the scheme entirely. And § 65.326(2) defines commercial activity as "the sale, offer for sale, exchange, or barter", so buying is not itself commercial activity, and § 65.327(b)(1)(B) lets a permitted dealer "sell lawfully obtained nongame wildlife to anyone". The two species lists are attached figures rather than statutory text: the (d) list names about 100 species, and the (e) list is longer and expressly "not limited to" what it names, so a native species on neither list falls to the six cap.

Checked against the published text on October 1, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 71.001(1), 71.005(c)

"Fur-bearing animal" means wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria.

Not on the dangerous wild animal list. The fur-bearing definition names "fox" with no species, and § 71.005(c) requires a propagation license to possess any live fur-bearing animal. Whether "wild ... fox" reaches a nonnative fox bred in captivity is the question: the fennec fox cell reads it as not reaching one, on the word "wild" and on Chapter 71 being written for Texas populations, and the text arguably reaches it anyway.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The definition at § 71.001(1) reads "wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria", and the bare word "fox" is what makes people read Texas as a fox ban state. It is not one. Chapter 71 and the proclamation at 31 TAC §§ 65.371-65.375 govern taking, trapping, pelts and fur dealing; § 65.375(a)(2) says there are no bag or possession limits for fur-bearing animals; and nothing in either bars keeping one. The series is also headed by "wild", which a captive-bred animal is not.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 71.001(1), 71.005(c)

"Fur-bearing animal" means wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria.

Not on the dangerous wild animal list. The fur-bearing definition names "otter" with no species, and § 71.005(c) requires a propagation license to possess any live fur-bearing animal, so the question is whether "wild ... otter" reaches a captive-bred Asian otter or only the Texas river otter. CITES Appendix I since 2019 governs international trade separately.

Cities and counties here can prohibit what state law permits, so check your local ordinance too.

How this rule works: The definition at § 71.001(1) reads "wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria", and the bare word "fox" is what makes people read Texas as a fox ban state. It is not one. Chapter 71 and the proclamation at 31 TAC §§ 65.371-65.375 govern taking, trapping, pelts and fur dealing; § 65.375(a)(2) says there are no bag or possession limits for fur-bearing animals; and nothing in either bars keeping one. The series is also headed by "wild", which a captive-bred animal is not.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.

Parks & Wild. Code §§ 71.001(1), 71.005(c); Health & Safety Code § 822.101(4)

No person may capture or possess a live fur-bearing animal for any purpose, except as otherwise authorized by this code, unless he has acquired and possesses a fur-bearing animal propagation license.

Chapter 71 is a possession rule as well as a trapping one: the fur-bearing animal definition names "fox" with no species, and § 71.005(c) requires a fur-bearing animal propagation license to possess a live one "for any purpose". Whether that reaches a fennec is the question. The definition is headed "wild", which a captive-bred fennec is not, and Vulpes zerda has no Texas population for the chapter to manage; read as describing the kind of animal rather than its history, the text reaches it anyway. The dangerous wild animal list names the coyote and the jackal and no other canid, and the rabies rules carry no fox possession ban.

How this rule works: The definition at § 71.001(1) reads "wild beaver, otter, mink, ring-tailed cat, badger, skunk, raccoon, muskrat, opossum, fox, or nutria", and the bare word "fox" is what makes people read Texas as a fox ban state. It is not one. Chapter 71 and the proclamation at 31 TAC §§ 65.371-65.375 govern taking, trapping, pelts and fur dealing; § 65.375(a)(2) says there are no bag or possession limits for fur-bearing animals; and nothing in either bars keeping one. The series is also headed by "wild", which a captive-bred animal is not.

Checked against the published text on October 8, 2026.