83 



quired to walk within a mile radius of that blind to find out if there 

 is alleged bait? The courts have said yes; that is a legal fact. 



Now, this is a basic violation of Anglo-American jurisprudence 

 that a man ought to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 Many hunters have been driven from the field, as Mr. Reiger has 

 said, because they do not want to be tainted with the idea of "I 

 have got a violation against me." I think the saddest thing that 

 came up in this hearing was that young lad who was precluded 

 from going into the ROTC because he had a Federal misdemeanor 

 against him. That is absurd. I might also add that the lad who tes- 

 tified was very, very lucky that he was not found guilty, because 

 it is a no-knowledge question. If you are there, you are guilty. 



The second area, the biggest issue that has to be reviewed is the 

 "zone of influence": how far is far? In the case that was the 4,800 

 feet, I had an aerial photograph of that area. I went up to the top 

 of the photograph asking that the Fish and Wildlife agent how far 

 was the zone of influence. It was 7 miles to the top of that photo- 

 graph. He said yes, that was still within the zone of influence. That 

 is absurd. 



Mr. Chairman, I think it is very, very important that this Com- 

 mittee undertake the responsibility — I noticed in the last panel, 

 you said if the Fish and Wildlife Service does not do it, this Com- 

 mittee will. I suggest you do not wait. I think the task force ought 

 to be appointed. Whether you do it through the Congressional 

 Sportsmen's Caucus or you do it by committee staff and outside 

 consultants, that is the way it should be done. There is a wealth 

 of talent out there, from judges to attorneys to fish and wildlife 

 managers, and indeed, law enforcement agents. The agents need 

 the guidance as much as the sportsmen. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



[The statement of Mr. Boynton may be found at end of hearing.] 



The Chairman. Thank you, Steve. And I can suggest that my di- 

 rection to the staff is that we are going to immediately start writ- 

 ing the bill. We have had our hearing. But I want the input of peo- 

 ple like yourself and George and the previous panel. I need legiti- 

 mate suggestions when we write this legislation, because you 

 watched Mr. Miller, and you watched Mr. Vento. They like the sta- 

 tus quo, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service loves the status 

 quo. And my goal is to try to change the status quo, because there 

 is some more acceptance in what is occurring under our Federal 

 Government. 



Which reminds me: Mr. Reiger, do you believe that there is an 

 incentive for the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct stings and 

 grab headlines, to build maybe possibly a bigger enforcement part? 



Mr. Reiger. I think that has possibly occurred in the past. I 

 think that certainly happened under not quite a related situation, 

 under Operation Falcon is what the Service called it, in which fal- 

 coners, who are a particularly vulnerable group — they are a very 

 small number of people in our society — and a very elaborate sting 

 was set up for them, which, I believe, cost the Federal Government 

 about $3.5 million, and the only major falcon dealers that anybody 

 could find was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service itself. 



That sort of thing is, obviously, the Service looking for headlines. 

 If you have weak leadership, as I have often observed before, if you 



