Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, KP-0164

In 1918 Fannin County held two countywide local stock law elections adopting prohibitions on specified animals running at large (one for hogs/sheep/goats; one for horses/jacks/jennets/cattle).
The county’s minutes indicate those elections complied with the statutes in effect in 1918.
Texas law is free-range by default; the Legislature may alter that via statewide statutes and local-option stock-law elections (codified in chapter 143 of the Agriculture Code in 1981).
In 1981 the Legislature recodified prior local-option stock statutes into Agriculture Code chapter 143 without a specific saving provision for prior local elections.
The Attorney General was asked whether the 1981 codification repealed pre-1981 local stock laws and whether pre-1981 elections are treated as adopting the current chapter 143 subchapters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1981 recodification repealed local stock laws adopted by pre-1981 elections	The recodification may have superseded or repealed prior local stock-law elections, leaving uncertainty about their continued effect	General savings provisions preserve prior operations and obligations arising from pre-1981 elections	The 1981 codification did not repeal stock laws adopted by pre-1981 local option elections; those prior actions and obligations remain effective under the savings statute
Whether pre-1981 local stock-law elections should be treated as adoption of corresponding subchapters in current chapter 143 and governed by current provisions	Pre-1981 elections cannot automatically be mapped to the new subchapter structure, creating uncertainty about which modern provisions apply	The recodification reorganized but did not substantively change law; current chapter 143 supplies the scope and application for duties created by any valid prior election	A pre-1981 local election remains effective to create the duty to restrain the specified animals, and the current provisions of chapter 143 govern the scope and application of that duty

Gibbs v. Jackson, 990 S.W.2d 745 (Tex. 1999) (describing Texas as a free-range state and Legislature’s power to alter that rule)
Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1998) (presumption that general savings clause applies absent clear contrary intent)
Rodriguez v. Sandhill Cattle Co., 427 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2014) (treating adoption of local stock law as creating duty to prevent animals from running at large)
Harlow v. Hayes, 991 S.W.2d 24 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1998) (applying current chapter 143 provisions to interpret scope of duty created by an earlier local-option election)