71 



We are also disturbed that it has been difficult to get Fish and 

 Wildlife Service enforcement to assist people in affirmatively com- 

 plying with the law. We are aware of various hunt organizers con- 

 tacting Fish and Wildlife Service agents to ask them to examine a 

 field the day before a hunt to give it a clean bill of health, to state 

 that yes, this field is not baited so people can come safely and know 

 that they are not going to get arrested by someone jumping out of 

 the weeds. These citizens have been turned down flat, and we, 

 frankly, are perplexed by that. Even the IRS is willing to help us 

 fill out the tax form, and I do not understand why the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service cannot help us with migratory bird regulation com- 

 pliance. 



Now, our greatest concern is focused on the attempts by the 

 Service to either close hunting or to prosecute hunters within very, 

 very large zones proximate to areas where feeding or baiting is oc- 

 curring, much like the Eastern Shore case I cited. The apparent 

 policy rationale is that the baited site or the site where feeding oc- 

 curs, even if it is not hunted, constitutes an illegal lure that will 

 bring birds into a very, very large area. Our worry in addition to 

 the fairness and equity issues created by putting hunters at risk 

 is that this could easily become a tool available to animal rights 

 extremists to shut us down. What would stop one of these extrem- 

 ists from going over to the Eastern Shore, strategically acquiring 

 a few parcels, feeding the heck out of them and beginning to put 

 big, mile-wide circles all over the Eastern Shore? It would not take 

 too long to put a whole heck of a lot of waterfowl operations and 

 clubs completely out of business. 



We urge the Service to be extremely careful and not provide the 

 anti-hunting zealots with a weapon to be used against America's 

 waterfowl hunters. 



Let me close and say that I think much of the problem here can 

 be addressed with the exercise of prudent discretion by the agency 

 and U.S. attorneys. The Service ought to target the knowing per- 

 petrators of prohibited baiting activity, but it ought to proceed with 

 great care and caution when it goes after hunters who did not 

 know or could not know of these baiting or feeding activities that 

 may have occurred. Prosecuting hunters shooting within a mile of 

 a feeding station strikes me as an abuse of discretion, and I think 

 much of the problem that we have heard about here today could 

 be cured by action within the agency. Obviously, we commend ac- 

 tion by this Committee as well. 



Thank you very much. 



[The statement of Mr. Horn may be found at end of hearing.! 



The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and I can assure the gen- 

 tleman that his testimony strikes home. I remember that case in 

 the Eastern Shore area. That is an example again of why people 

 want to defend the Fish and Wildlife Service. That type of indiscre- 

 tion, I think, is inappropriate. And we are going to change that. 

 For the Fish and Wildlife people in this room, we are going to 

 change this law if you do not. Mr. Manning, I commend you for 

 being the chairman of this, but believe me, you are just the chair- 

 man of an advisory committee. And you make some great rec- 

 ommendations, and if Mr. Streeter and his superiors do not want 

 to do it, it is not going to happen, and apparently, they do not want 



