62 



me about it, and I told them I would be glad to show any of them. 

 I told a large group of hunters as we were recording information 

 any of them who wanted to follow me out there, I would be happy 

 to show them the bait, that it was readily available. No one re- 

 sponded that they wanted to. 



I then went out there. While I was gathering bait, I had several 

 hunters drive by me on the road, and they acknowledged, yes, 

 there is the bait in the road; we can readily see it. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Did you inform the landowner that this oper- 

 ation was going on? 



Mr. Oliveros. No, I did not. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Did you make an attempt to? 



Mr. Oliveros. No, I did not. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Did you make an attempt to acquire a search 

 warrant before searching his land? 



Mr. Oliveros. No, I did not. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time is up, but, 

 you know, I do want to just make a couple of observations and com- 

 ments. 



You know, in 1986, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt 

 with this, and the Congress has not dealt with the question of bait- 

 ing, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals did deal with it in a 

 case involving Kenneth A. Manning. And Judge Arnold, the circuit 

 judge, wrote in that decision that to convict the defendant of taking 

 or attempting to take geese by aid of baiting or on the theory of 

 abiding and abetting, the Government had to prove beyond a rea- 

 sonable doubt that the field in question was baited and that the de- 

 fendant aided. I mean, that is 91 defendants — that they aided, 

 abetted, coerced or induced another to take the birds by aid of bait- 

 ing. And none of these people aided or abetted in the baiting. And 

 the fact is that in spite of all of the eloquent debate that we hear 

 from the ranking member over there, the fact is that we have lost 

 our focus. 



And you know, Mr. Oliveros, as I sat here and listened to your 

 testimony, I do not have a doubt in the world but that you are very 

 sincere in your approach to your job. But the fact is that our Fed- 

 eral agencies are trampling over the rights of humans in a sincere 

 attempt to be focused on something that does trample on human 

 rights. The fact is that there was no attempt to find the person who 

 baited the field. The courts have addressed this very clearly. The 

 Congress has not, but the courts have. And, you know, I am just 

 concerned about the fact that when we see this kind of excessive 

 use of the authority that you have vested in you and the trust that 

 you have been given, it breaks down the trust and the relationship 

 the American people naturally should entrust to their Government. 



And I would just ask that in the future, we not approach each 

 other as adversaries but that we truly — I mean, I need to have you 

 truly try to understand that although you were sincere in what you 

 did, you were sincerely wrong with regards to the rights of people 

 who should not be accused and convicted by your court without due 

 process and without following the protections that have been set up 

 for just this kind of a procedure. 



You did not come here to be lectured by me. I am not lecturing 

 you. I am appealing to you to take another look at the excessive 



