23 



to press charges. And they were. He asked me if I had any ques- 

 tions; I did. I said can you show me the bait, please? He said I can- 

 not right now; we are busy. He said but if you would like to, you 

 could walk out about 100 feet into the field, and you can clearly 

 see the bait. 



Well, I did; I did not see any bait. Now, I am a student of the 

 Agricultural College at the University of Florida. I have taken sev- 

 eral courses in agriculture, horticulture, agronomy. I know what 

 seed look like. I have had seed ID; I have had tests on it; I have 

 been examined. I know what wheat seed, I know what cracked 

 corn, I know what rye and the various seeds that were supposedly 

 in this field are. I did not see any. I was not satisfied. 



I made up my mind right then that I was not going to be intimi- 

 dated, and, therefore, I was going to request that I have a court 

 appearance, and I did; I had a court appearance. I was found not 

 guilty by U.S. Magistrate Richard Belz, and it was on three main 

 points that I was found not guilty. U.S. Magistrate Richard Belz — 

 and I am quoting here: "Mr. demons could not reasonably see the 

 small grains on the other field." Then, he went on to say: "And his 

 responsibility was not clearly defined in the law as to how large of 

 an area he was to inspect prior to or during the hunt." One of the 

 other key points he said was: "Mr. Clemons has been invited to 

 hunt at other invitational hunts where fields were clearly planted 

 with crops bearing seeds meant to attract birds, yet he was not 

 cited by wildlife officers present at those hunts as actually going 

 across the grain of the law. But in this particular incidence, he was 

 cited. Therefore, by lack of clarity and consistency with the law, I 

 find Chadwell Clemons not guilty." And I left the court room feel- 

 ing that justice had been served. 



Let me state this before I close. I realize my time is up. After 

 I was met by the wildlife officer, after I had been questioned, after 

 I had questioned him, I left that field very confused and felt very 

 violated by an agency that I have a great deal of respect for. And 

 I hope today and in the months to follow that this Committee will 

 see fit to change a law that is ambiguous. 



Mr. Miller, I would like to speak to your point about the speed 

 limit. If a person driving a car breaks the speed limit, well, then, 

 by God, they should be punished. But, Mr. Miller, if you are driving 

 a car, and you are breaking the speed limit, and I am riding with 

 you, that officer better not give me a ticket for your violating the 

 law. I had no intent, and I had no knowledge that I had broken 

 the law. I was there innocently hunting. And if others in the field 

 had the same circumstances, then I think justice should be served, 

 and these people should be refunded their money. 



[The statement of Mr. Clemons may be found at end of hearing.] 



The Chairman. I do thank you gentlemen for fine testimony. 



The gentleman from California? 



Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Clemons, you proceeded in court; is that correct? 



Mr. Clemons. Yes, I did. 



Mr. Miller. What court was that? 



Mr. Clemons. It was a U.S. court in Gainesville, Florida. 



Mr. Miller. It was Federal court? 



Mr. Clemons. Yes, it was a Federal court. 



