hearings as being a way that we can learn something, not just ex- 

 change rhetorical flourishes, Mr. Chairman. 



The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield for one moment? 



Like I say, this is not the first time I have been involved in this 

 issue. When we were on the Fish and Wildlife Subcommittee, we 

 had about five different hearings on this issue. 



Mr. Vento. Yes. 



The Chairman. What has happened is this law is an ambiguous, 

 bad law. The gentleman from California talks about speed limit 

 signs. Now, if I see a speed limit sign, I know what the speed 

 should be. But if I am hunting on a field, and I have been invited 

 there, and I do not know it is baited, and I am arrested for it, that 

 is wrong, because I do not know what the speed limit is. 



Mr. Vento. You know what the old Navy adage is: ignorance of 

 the law is no excuse. 



The Chairman. Well, ignorance is an excuse when we do not 

 change the law. I do not know why you are defending this law. 

 Both of you are defending this law; it is a bad law. 



Mr. Vento. I am suggesting that simply because you do not 

 know something does not mean you are right in terms of your be- 

 havior, Mr. Chairman. 



The Chairman. The comment here — if you will listen to the testi- 

 mony, then, you will make up your mind, if you defend the law 

 then, I will be terribly disappointed. 



Mr. Vento. OK. 



The Chairman. This is a bad law; it has to be changed. 



Mr. Vento. Well, I do not know that that is the case, Mr. Chair- 

 man. I am very concerned about the fact because I understand that 

 the incidence of hunting and the associated agricultural activities 

 are often compatible, and that they work and work together. I 

 think the issue here of actually, for instance, in wet soil manage- 

 ment for ducks and geese, which goes on — and there are a lot of 

 groups that work in good faith. The Pheasants Forever groups, the 

 Ducks Unlimited, many others, and the clubs and organizations 

 have a real interest in promoting, I think, a sound habitat and pro- 

 duction and, for that matter, reproduction and sustaining various 

 populations of species that they are interested in game hunting. 



The fact is, though, that some of the incidents of doing this, if, 

 in fact, you are just doing this for the purpose of the propagation 

 of the species and maintaining it, then, it should not really be asso- 

 ciated with the incidence of hunting. But when a club or organiza- 

 tion puts up and does wet soil management, and then, during the 

 hunting season, mows it down and leaves the seeds lying on the 

 ground all around the duck blind, it does not take much imagina- 

 tion. It does not take much imagination to understand that the 

 purpose here is not just a good faith effort to, in fact, manage the 

 habitat for the propagation of those species but to, in fact, increase 

 the success rate in terms of hunting. 



And so, I would suggest that if you suspended the hunting activ- 

 ity from the incidence of these manipulations of vegetation that we 

 would have no question. I understand that some states have good 

 natural vegetation for propagation of species and a good success 

 rate with regards to the exotics like pheasants or the indigenous 

 species like ducks in my State. Some states have better habitats 



