59 



gressman So-and-so, and you are firing over a baited field. I do not 

 think so; I do not think so. 



This law may or may not be right. This law may or may not need 

 to be changed. But let us not pretend that it is this law that caused 

 this activity, OK? And the fact is that it is hard to believe with our 

 glasses or without our glasses that you would walk around this 

 field that did not have vegetation, that was not being used for agri- 

 cultural purposes and you would see this, and you would not tell 

 your best friend or yourself and say I think we ought to get out 

 of here. And this notion that somehow, you are supposed to warn 

 them — maybe the people baiting this field decided that having all 

 of these political people here was cover, and they could shoot it the 

 next day. And you are supposed to selectively now decide who you 

 warn and who you do not, if it is a good charity, a bad charity; if 

 it is on the up-and-up; if the right people are involved, you are sup- 

 posed to call or not make a call? I do not know that anybody can 

 meet that test, and I promise you, had you made that call, you 

 would have been roasted in the local newspaper by some editorial 

 board telling you that here were people whom you protected who 

 otherwise would have violated the law. Because that is the way it 

 works in this society: everybody second-guesses everybody. And so, 

 you sort of would have been damned if you do and damned if you 

 do not. 



I think the evidence is so compelled in this case that I am 

 shocked that the people who want to change this law would use 

 this as Exhibit A for changing the law. There is no ambiguity about 

 this, and there is little ambiguity about the law. There is some 

 question about who, in fact, should be liable when the infractions 

 take place. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Vento. Will the gentleman yield? 



Mr. Miller. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Actu- 

 ally, my time has expired. 



Mr. Vento. The observation that was made by Mr. Halcomb is 

 that everyone is responsible, that the implication that the land- 

 owner or whoever did the baiting, the suggestion is that they are 

 all liable. You know, the only question here is that if they were so 

 concerned about the Fish and Wildlife Service judgment, did any- 

 one ask the Fish and Wildlife Service or the law enforcement offi- 

 cers whether the field was baited or what their judgment was? I 

 mean, they could have at least stopped and did that if there was 

 a question about it, but there was no question that came to Mr. 

 Streeter, Mr. Halcomb or Mr. Oliveros, I take it. 



Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman from California has ex- 

 pired. 



The gentlelady from Idaho? 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Halcomb, we mentioned earlier that there was a case involv- 

 ing Kentucky Governor Julian Carroll involving a baiting case. 



Mr. Halcomb. Yes, ma'am. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. And apparently, you were a witness in that 

 case. 



Mr. Halcomb. Yes, ma'am. 



