38 



I am sure that you and the other sheriffs who were there have 

 had their judgment challenged, and this was too gross, you know, 

 you used too many personnel; there were too many cars; a high- 

 speed chase. People make decisions in the course of events, and I 

 guess they could have called up. But maybe somebody would have 

 then attacked them for calling up the political people and telling 

 them that someone baited the field when they did not call the guy 

 down the road maybe. We all sit in a fishbowl here, but what con- 

 cerns me is the suggestion that somehow these people who were 

 enforcing the law were not of integrity. I think the evidence is 

 going to show that they asked people to come together; they were 

 trying to take licenses and IDs from people, and you know you 

 have got a large number of people here with guns. They got them 

 together, and afterwards, I think they said if people want to come 

 out and see the bait, you are welcome to do this. 



Well, this is all about difference of opinions, Mr. Boe. You have 

 your opinion, OK? And they have theirs. They have their evidence, 

 and you have yours. Unfortunately, we have two different panels 

 here. We maybe should have had them together. But the point is 

 this: the suggestion that somehow, these people do not have integ- 

 rity; somehow, they do not care; they are here to hurt people, that 

 that is what the view of the Federal Government is. To make this 

 all a metaphor for me is just so unreasonable to people who are out 

 there. 



You know, we lose fish and game people all of the time. We lose 

 them to people who harm them, who assault them, who batter 

 them, who threaten their families. I have tried to get this Commit- 

 tee to hold hearings five different times. We have had their offices 

 blown up; we have had their children threatened. We are surround- 

 ing a bunch of people in Montana who have threatened the judges 

 of the courts there. 



So, I think we have to be careful. You are here on a proper mis- 

 sion, I believe, to get the law changed. And the gentleman here be- 

 lieves in that mission, and that may work out. But to suggest that 

 people who are charged with enforcing the law — we have this at 

 every level of law enforcement. People do not believe it should be 

 point one; they believe it should be point four. They believe it 

 should be two DUIs, not three DUIs. I mean, we go back and forth 

 all of the time. That is not the officer who, when he finds you driv- 

 ing under the influence, has to take you in. That is what my con- 

 cern is here this morning, that this is somehow in a pattern that 

 is developing in this Committee that somehow all of our law en- 

 forcement officials out there really do not have the interests of the 

 taxpayer or the hunter or the fisherman or the property owner at 

 heart. 



I am sure there would have been hell to raise if they had inter- 

 rupted this thing saying that we believe this field is baited. You 

 said this is for a charity; this is for orphans; this is for this; this 

 is for that. The IRS busts charities every day who are there in the 

 best names, but they just do not happen to be paying their taxes. 



So, that is not enough cover. And I think what we know about 

 law enforcement more often than not is that you are damned if you 

 do, and you are damned if you do not. And that is the problem. 

 And that is just as big a problem for Fish and Wildlife agents as 



