54 



Mr. Streeter. I have one that I will share with you, and per- 

 haps the officers will have others. I know the State of Illinois had 

 approximately 635 defendants, both Federal and State including ci- 

 tations by Federal officers and State officers, in about a 5-year pe- 

 riod, and that is out of 120,000-plus hunters who are hunting each 

 year. It is well less than a fraction of a percent of the hunters that 

 are actually cited. 



Mr. Vento. But, I mean, in the case here of this Florida case, 

 because there were 88 citations, that would be 88 violations; is that 

 correct? 



Mr. Streeter. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Vento. So, I mean, if you were talking about 300 violations, 

 it may only be a half a dozen instances over this period. 



Mr. Streeter. There were 35 instances, 35 Federal cases, that 

 I recall. 



Mr. Vento. In a 5-year period in the State of Illinois; is that cor- 

 rect? 



Mr. Streeter. There were 35 Federal cases, and there were 305 

 defendants in those cases. There were 330 State defendants. I do 

 not know how many State cases. 



Mr. Vento. OK; 305. OK, Federal cases in 5 years, 35 cases. And 

 even if we change that, are there other State laws that also are dif- 

 ferent, then, or are they compatible with the migratory game laws 

 and baiting laws? Are they all the same? For instance, does Min- 

 nesota have laws on this? Would they be the same as what the 

 Federal laws are? 



Mr. Streeter. The states adopt laws within the framework of 

 Federal laws. They may have them more restrictive, but they have 

 to at least adopt the Federal laws. 



Mr. Vento. We do not preempt the State laws? 



Mr. Streeter. No, sir. 



Mr. Halcomb. Only if the State law would be more liberal than 

 Federal law. 



Mr. Streeter. Yes. 



Mr. Vento. More stringent, I think you would mean. I would in- 

 terpret it that they be more stringent so that they can go beyond 

 what we do in terms of limiting hunting. 



Mr. Halcomb. Exactly. 



Mr. Streeter. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Vento. Well, this is an important consideration, Mr. Chair- 

 man, as we get involved in discussing what changes to make. 



Mr. Hansen. It certainly is. 



The time of the gentleman has expired. 



Mr. Vento. Thank you. 



Mr. Hansen. I apologize to the panel. I was in the Armed Serv- 

 ices thing; I was trying to work out. So you probably repeated the 

 things that I want to ask you specific questions about. All I know 

 is what I have read here and what is in front of us, so excuse me 

 for muddling through this. But I get the distinct impression that 

 when the Senator invited these people to the area that a certain 

 amount of media was given this; is that right? I mean, it was in 

 the paper; it was an event of the kind that he was trying to make 

 a big thing out it for this charity event, which is done on a regular 

 basis. As the past speaker of the Utah House, we used to do that 



