70 



STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, WASHINGTON COUNSEL, 

 WILDLIFE LEGISLATIVE FUND OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC 



Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor- 

 tunity to appear today before you on behalf of the WildHfe Legisla- 

 tive Fund of America. 



Going quickly to the central issue, it is our opinion that the exist- 

 ing regulations and enforcement policies regarding the use of bait 

 are simply too subjective, too obscure and put thousands of law- 

 abiding hunters at risk for potential violations, which, frankly, they 

 will not know about until they happen. And please understand our 

 position: we do not support baiting as a technique for the hunting 

 of migratory birds, but we do support the establishment of clear, 

 objective rules that a diligent hunter can understand and can com- 

 ply with. No one can say that the existing regulations and policies 

 satisfy this rather reasonable requirement and good public policy. 



Now, the sporting community, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wild- 

 life Service, have long recognized the need for clarification and sim- 

 plification of these rules and policies. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Director's 1990 Law Enforcement Advisory Commission report spe- 

 cifically proposed a revisitation of the regulations at 50 CFR 20.21, 

 and I commend you to Recommendation 6, found in Section 4 of 

 that report. 



Unfortunately, no action has been taken in the intervening years 

 to implement this recommendation, although now, we understand 

 that things are beginning to stir, and I commend the Committee 

 for having this hearing. I think that might have stirred the pot a 

 little. We are persuaded that the Committee ought to push the 

 Service very hard and push the community as a whole to pursue 

 actively the original recommendations made by the 1990 commis- 

 sion report. 



Now, reform of these regulations and associated policy should 

 focus on three goals. First, the purpose of the baiting regulations 

 ought to be clearly stated, and conservation of migratory birds 

 must be the fundamental goal. The second goal must be the cre- 

 ation of objective rules and policies that hunters can comply with. 

 Now, in my personal case, I have overseen the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service; been a practicing wildlife lawyer for years; hunted ducks, 

 doves and geese for many years; and still hunt these birds with a 

 great deal of trepidation. I scrupulously examine fields, as rec- 

 ommended by Mr. Streeter, make pointed inquiries about agricul- 

 tural practices. Yet, I still cannot be sure when I walk into a field 

 that I am complying with the regulations and the enforcement poli- 

 cies. 



I will give you an example. There was one farm I used to hunt 

 on the Eastern Shore where subsequent hunters were arrested and 

 fined. One of them was sent to jail for 30 days and convicted of vio- 

 lating the baiting regulations because the farm had a goose feeding 

 station situated 4,899 feet from where the blinds were located. 

 Now, I presume that that type of prosecution indicates that the 

 diligent hunter must scout and scour an area covering 3 square 

 miles before he can safely step into the blind, and I submit that 

 that is absolutely absurd. That type of overreach needs to be cor- 

 rected. 



