46 



President said he wanted to do. Now, I do not understand why — 

 that does not make it a law. 



Mr. Streeter. Sir, when we have the regulations and there are 

 issues that have come up, we do take a look at them periodically, 

 and we revise those regulations. 



The Chairman. When is the last time you revised the baiting 

 regulation other than raising the fme? 



Mr. Streeter. The regulations have been revised about 10 times. 



The Chairman. When was the last time other than raising the 

 fine? 



Mr. Streeter. Other than raising the fine, the last time was 

 19 



The Chairman. 1973. 



Mr. Streeter. 1972, I believe it was. 



The Chairman. OK; and what was that revision? 



Mr. Streeter. That was revised to allow for doves to be taken 

 over fields that are managed for wildlife management purposes. 



The Chairman. Wildlife management purposes? 



Mr. Streeter. Yes, sir. 



The Chairman. What does that mean? 



Mr. Streeter. Where a field is planted specifically for feeding 

 and replacing natural vegetation to feed — doves in this case — mi- 

 gratory birds. 



The Chairman. Right; OK. 



Mr. Streeter. But it is not manipulated; it is not mowed; the 

 seeds are not scattered; it is a natural-standing field. 



The Chairman. The gentleman from California. My time is out, 

 and I will come back later. 



Mr. Miller. One, I think when we talk about changing the law, 

 and the issue may be who is liable or not liable. But I think the 

 regulations are fairly clear on baiting. When you read that, if you 

 engage in that practice, you are baiting. Here, apparently, they 

 were excessively engaging in that practice, and it was readily ap- 

 parent to you as enforcement agents. Did any of these cases go to 

 court? There was one young gentleman who testified earlier on the 

 adjacent field; that went to court. Was there any determination 

 there as to whether or not the field was baited or not baited in that 

 case? 



Mr. Oliveros. Yes, there was. 



Mr. Miller. What was the determination of the court? 



Mr. Oliveros. The Federal magistrate judge in that case, in Mr. 

 demons' case, when he made his ruling, he in his ruling said that 

 I find the field is baited and heavily baited, to use his terminology, 

 and I find that anyone who was hunting on that field should have 

 easily known that it was baited. He repeated that ruling at the 

 hearing for the individuals who did the pushing. He went as far as 

 to say that it was so heavily baited that the Government would not 

 have to prove that element on any of the future trials in his court 

 because of the evidence that had been submitted. 



Mr. Miller. So, in the eyes of the court, this was not an ambigu- 

 ous issue. 



Mr. Oliveros. No; the baited condition of the Sanchez field was 

 not ambiguous at all to the court. 



