66 



particular, in the common waterfowl hunter. I would like to direct 

 my remarks this afternoon to the specific issue of Federal water- 

 fowl baiting regulations as they pertain to the management of wet- 

 land vegetation. First, let me say that I am not a proponent of wa- 

 terfowl baiting. Rather, I seek a revision of Federal rules that will 

 permit certain non-baiting management practices that are, in my 

 opinion, inappropriately prohibited. Federal regulations prohibiting 

 the use of bait for hunting waterfowl have not been significantly 

 revised for decades, however, waterfowl management practices 

 have been steadily evolving, and as a result, baiting regulations 

 today create a disincentive for waterfowl hunters to develop and 

 manage certain important wetlands in a way most beneficial to wa- 

 terfowl. 



I am referring specifically to wetland habitats dominated by spe- 

 cies commonly referred to as moist soil plants. Stands of moist soil 

 plants like millets, smart weeds, pig weeds and chufa are valuable 

 for a number of reasons and provide a great benefit to a variety 

 of wildlife in addition to waterfowl. Unfortunately, practices like 

 mowing or disking that are designed to facilitate hunter access, 

 decoy placement and duck retrieval in stands of moist soil plants 

 can, according to existing Federal law, create a baited situation. 



This same law makes it possible for hunters simply walking 

 through vegetation to inadvertently scatter seed or create a "bait- 

 ed" situation or hunters pulling boats in an area like Minnesota or 

 Wisconsin through wild rice and knocking the heads off of mature 

 plants to create a baited situation. Waterfowl hunters on this con- 

 tinent pride themselves on being conservationists. We in the Fed- 

 eral and State agencies and academia should not encourage them 

 to apply practices like moist soil management that benefit the re- 

 source and then prohibit these conservationists from responsibly 

 using those habitats. 



In Illinois and elsewhere, hunters often ask law enforcement offi- 

 cers why creating paths through vegetation to a hunting site or cre- 

 ating a small opening to place decoys is considered baiting. The 

 standard answer is that the Federal regulations prohibit distribut- 

 ing or scattering of feed so as to constitute a lure, attraction or en- 

 ticement to areas where hunters are attempting to take waterfowl. 

 Hunters feel trapped by regulations that bind them so tightly that 

 regardless of intent, it is nearly impossible to avoid violating the 

 letter of the law. Our well-intentioned intent to prevent legal loop- 

 holes has resulted in a law that can easily make criminals out of 

 honest people. 



Let me emphasize that it is not my desire to criticize the fine en- 

 forcement agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Most are merely 

 enforcing rules in a book whose pages have yellowed with time. I 

 am critical, however, of the regulations. It is time to improve the 

 law. And, as you will hear later from Secretary Cooper, I am con- 

 fident that we can continue to protect the waterfowl resource that 

 we treasure without imposing regulations that discourage the pro- 

 tection and management of valuable waterfowl habitats by well- 

 meaning sportsmen and sportswomen. 



It is my belief that today's prohibition of baiting was primarily 

 intended to prevent people from hunting over areas where corn, 

 wheat or other grain crops were deposited in unnatural or additive 



