51 



tion of the law. And so, if you start selectively enforcing and warn- 

 ing people based on their status in our communities, you know how 

 quick the second-guessing would start on that one? 



The Chairman. No, I understand that. But let us use the exam- 

 ple now, if I may, of the individual who notified the ATF that 

 somebody had a stash of guns. Now, why in the world if you want 

 to save the birds, why was there not some intent to save the birds? 

 You lost 440 birds. And by the way, what did you do with the 

 birds? 



Mr. Oliveros. We used the birds for several things. Some of 

 them were used in training; and some of them were spoiled because 

 of the conditions that we ran into on that field. Others are being 

 held and will be used in training facilities. 



The Chairman. They were spoiled? How could they be spoiled? 



Mr. Oliveros. Well, we had a large number of fields. It was a 

 very hot day. And when you contact that many people, it takes us 

 until almost dark to document the field and all. And some of the 

 birds that were not put on ice, and the hunters had put them to- 

 gether in a bag, I did not feel safe in donating them. In other 

 words, we will donate wild game if we feel it is safe for people to 

 eat it. 



The Chairman. Now, the last question before we go over to this 

 vote: why did you cite those five young college kids in the other 

 field? 



Mr. Oliveros. I was not the officer there. 



The Chairman. But you are in charge. 



Mr. Oliveros. But the reason that they were cited is they were 

 hunting by the aid of baiting. And in that case, they had access to 

 the field; they had access to the owner to ask. They testified and 

 told us that they did not ask anybody, they did not inspect. And 

 the officer that watched them watched them shoot birds going to 

 that baited field. If they had just gone over to the edge of the fence 

 and looked — and several of them were hunting on the fence line 

 when they were contacted. 



The Chairman. But again, though, the judge did not agree with 

 you. 



Mr. Oliveros. He did not. 



The Chairman. He did not. So that might make you raise your- 

 self a question. Now, if the other field was not baited, you had no 

 business citing those young people. If it was baited — now, you can- 

 not make that definition. Again, it explains why this law has to be 

 changed. You say it is clear. You have got a field here; you have 

 got a field there. They are hunting 100 yards in here or 100 feet 

 in here; you have got a field over here that you say is baited. This 

 field is not baited. You say, oh, because the birds are flying over, 

 he is hunting on a baited field. Is that clear to you, Mr. Streeter? 



Mr. Streeter. As the situation has been explained to me, Mr. 

 Chairman, it was a clear situation. These people were within range 

 of shooting birds that were going into the baited field. 



The Chairman. What if I was not even with this hunt, and I was 

 hunting over there, and I had no knowledge the field was baited? 

 You would still cite me. 



Mr. Streeter. Sir, if I had not observed you or you had not told 

 me that you had checked the field out personally, that you had 



