76 



Mr. Vento. Well, it seems that we have the problem, I guess. We 

 do it now because we say if there is seed on the heads that are cut 

 that in fact you are in violation. And the assumption is that the 

 seed comes from the grass or whatever that has been cut. I under- 

 stand how we do it. You can do it now if you say you can cut it, 

 and then, if the seeds on the ground are all right, and you say we 

 are going to enforce it in the same way. I am left a little perplexed. 

 I am an enforcement officer out there now; I am not Bruce Vento 

 the biologist. 



Mr. Manning. Let me answer it in this fashion: We are not talk- 

 ing just about cutting seeds. We are talking about any manual ma- 

 nipulation. For instance, in your great State, which I have visited 

 on several occasions, you have vast quantities of wild rice. If, in 

 fact, you pull a pirogue or a boat through that wild rice and 

 through that manipulation cause mature seed heads to fall off, you 

 are baiting. I have seen waterfowlers in your State do that by the 

 thousands. Now, should they be charged with baiting? I do not 

 think so. 



Mr. Vento. Well, I do not know. It depends upon the degree and 

 the amount, whether the grass is cut or not. I mean, there obvi- 

 ously are some — obviously, if I were conducting a case, and I was 

 the attorney, or I was the wildlife officer, I would obviously try to 

 go beyond what is reasonable doubt and what is negligence. Those 

 are questions for a court, not necessarily for me. But I would try 

 to, at least. Any law enforcement officer knows you have to have 

 certain procedures in order to satisfy whatever the rules of law are 

 with regard to this. You know, you are changing or proposing to 

 change those by suggesting it be all right to cut this and have it 

 down and have that seed in there, and I am just suggesting that 

 you would not know by looking at that. I think you would com- 

 pletely blur the addition of additional seed being added under those 

 circumstances. That is my point. At the very least, I think, you 

 have to give at least recognition that you are creating more of a 

 problem under those circumstances than we already even have 

 today. 



Whether it is the right science, the wrong science, or whatever 

 science it is. 



Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, may I address that very briefly? 



The Chairman. Sure. 



Mr. Manning. Sir, whether you mow, disk, burn, just about any 

 manual manipulation that you can imagine, if you do not add a 

 seed source to a particular area, you are only going to produce so 

 much seed. There will only be X amount there. That X amount is 

 what constitutes an attractant to waterfowl. If, in fact, you leave 

 the seed standing, a mallard feeds, for instance, very efficiently 18 

 inches below and 18 inches above the surface of the water. If, in 

 fact, you mow that area, some of that seed will remain on the stem 

 and on that mowed area on the bottom. Other seed will rise to the 

 surface. You have no more seed than you did without mowing by 

 doing that. 



Mr. Vento. Well, I understand that, but obviously, you are argu- 

 ing over the regulation of mowing versus non-mowing versus the 

 addition of additional seed. Obviously, the seed in terms of con- 

 sumption will vary in how it is added and when it is added. But, 



