What I do not know is that the wildHfe resources were not pro- 

 tected. If there was baiting, the Fish and Wildlife Service had a re- 

 sponsibility to stop the hunt at 1:15 or 1:30 p.m., not hours later, 

 when the amount of the fines had substantially increased. In addi- 

 tion, I understand that the Service cannot stop an individual from 

 hunting in a baited field. Nevertheless, the agents should have ad- 

 vised Senator Williams or somebody involved in the charity hunt 

 that in their professional judgment, there was a problem with the 

 field. By doing so, the resource would have been protected. 



Finally, we will hear testimony from two panels of experts who 

 will discuss what improvements could be made to our baiting regu- 

 lations to better protect both wildlife and sportsmen. Let me con- 

 clude by quoting Sheriff Larry Edmonds, who was cited and paid 

 his fine in the Florida case. He said: "I was only on the field that 

 day because I felt an obligation to be there to support the youth 

 ranches. I do not intend to shoot any more doves, because it is too 

 hard to do it legally when they have laws like this, and this is a 

 bad law." 



As I have mentioned in my opening statement, I have been 

 through this business now for 24 years. This law, I do believe, will 

 have to be changed. 



The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller. 



STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. 

 REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 



Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this, I think, prom- 

 ises to be a most interesting hearing, since the facts seem to be in 

 substantial contention here among the parties. I think in fact what 

 we will see at this hearing is that the questions of baiting are not 

 as ambiguous as you suggest in this particular case. I think we will 

 also see that the Service acted according to regulation, and I think 

 that we will also see that there is a suggestion that somehow, they 

 would act differently in a law enforcement situation than what we 

 would require any other law enforcement agency in that particular 

 situation to act. And that we would somehow suggest that because 

 of the nature of those who were arrested that somehow, this should 

 have been allowed or should have been stopped, or somebody 

 should have been warned when, in fact, the violations of the law, 

 both at the time and the actions of those who were cited and those 

 who went on to have further involvement with the courts that this 

 case is pretty clear in terms of classic baiting. 



But unfortunately, it got beyond that in terms of altercations 

 against law enforcement officials or game officials in this particular 

 case, who were there to enforce a law and were apparently doing 

 it quite properly when, in fact, people decided they were going to 

 abuse them. It would be a shame when we suggest that somehow, 

 if you disagree with a law enforcement agent or in this case a game 

 enforcement agent who becomes a law enforcement agent at the 

 time of violations of the law that somehow there is an ability to as- 

 sault those individuals. I notice that those people who assaulted 

 the law enforcement people here from the Service are not on the 

 witness list. 



But you do not get a right to do that. You do not do that when 

 an officer stops you for exceeding the speed limit when you say I 



