37 



that law enforcement has worked with people like you. I think that 

 is very important. 



Mr. Oelrich. Well, I think that is very important, too. And one 

 of the things here that I guess has been unsaid is that the relations 

 between Florida Freshwater Fish and Game Commission and the 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not very good. And the reason 

 that they are not very good is primarily this baiting law. The State 

 agents have wanted to stay away from this broad interpretation 

 and no intent factor. They would probably better be able to speak 

 to that than me. 



But I would add a caveat to your bill or proposed legislation that 

 says unless you can show that the sheriff or the State officials are 

 somehow in collusion or turning their backs on this or somehow 

 letting the violations of the law go on that you contact them. And 

 certainly, no one here in this instance, both State wildlife people 

 nor local law enforcement, had any intent to let this go on with im- 

 punity, if you will. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I do hear your gavel. I just 

 want to respond. 



The Chairman. Thank you; I appreciate it. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. And I would like to simply say my proposed 

 legislation does have that provision in it. They must appeal to the 

 Attorney General then. 



The Chairman. The gentleman from California? 



Mr. Miller. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that what our concern 

 is is the suggestion that somehow this case is a metaphor for the 

 Federal officials somehow violating common sense or the reason- 

 able man test or other suggestions that we have had here when, 

 in fact, what they were doing was enforcing the law under the di- 

 rection of the law. This law has attached to it strict liability. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Would the gentleman yield? 



Mr. Miller. In just a minute. 



This law has attached to it strict liability. The Migratory Bird 

 Treaty, we, in fact, were in the position a number of years ago 

 where the Secretary had to close down a wildlife refuge because, 

 in fact, the Fish and Wildlife Service people themselves could have 

 been arrested for continuing to conduct the activity, and farmers 

 had to plug the drains on their lands because they were strictly lia- 

 ble for the taking of those migratory birds in the Pacific flyway, 

 where thousands of birds were showing up with two heads and 

 three wings and no feet and all of the rest of it because of the 

 toxics in the runoff of the land. Strict liability: they did not have 

 to know they were taking those birds; they did not have to know 

 that they were poisoning the land. But the fact that they were 

 doing it, and it was taking those things 



I am quite surprised in the course of our discussion last night, 

 Mr. Chairman, to find out that no liability attaches to the land- 

 owner. I think that is outrageous. Here, the crime is shooting over 

 land. It is not baiting the land; it is shooting over baited land. And 

 I guess we will never know who baited this land, because nobody 

 is going to go to court over that. But the fact of the matter is that 

 this law is being enforced. If it is going to be changed, it is going 

 to be changed. But we ought not to use this as a vehicle to pound 

 law enforcement officials. 



