86 



The Chairman. Now, in my case, in reality, what other laws, 

 Steve, do we have on the books other than the IRS where you are 

 guilty until you prove yourself innocent? 



Mr. BOYNTON. Well, the one that comes to mind — everybody has 

 been talking about driving today, but I think if a driver is drunk 

 driving down the street the wrong way with his lights off, they will 

 impute intent to violate the law. He may in fact have no intent, 

 because he is "blotto". But they impute intent. There may be some 

 areas in toxic waste. And that is another thing, Mr. Chairman, is 

 that these migratory regulations are picking up other areas of non- 

 hunters. A fellow puts out pesticides on his crops. If it kills migra- 

 tory birds, he is guilty of violating the migratory bird laws. 



The Chairman. Of baiting or destruction of migratory birds? 



Mr. BOYNTON. If he is putting out seed that contains poison to 

 migratory birds, and they are killed, they can get him under the 

 regulations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 



The Chairman. But to be specific, Steve, to my knowledge, I can- 

 not think of any other area 



Mr. BOYNTON. No. 



The Chairman, [continuing] — where you are guilty, and you have 

 to prove your innocence before the agency. That is what that letter 

 says: you can appeal this to the court, but you are guilty until you 

 do appeal it. 



Mr. BoYNTON. The problem is, Mr. Chairman, there is no "prov- 

 ing" you are innocent. If you are there, and the bait is there, you 

 are guilty. 



The Chairman. Even if you are not knowledgeable. 



Mr. BOYNTON. Knowledge has nothing to do with it. It is no 

 scienter. They say if you are there, and the bait is proven to be 

 there, and you have a loaded gun, you are hunting over or with the 

 aid of bait. Pay your fine or "do hard time." 



The Chairman. The lady from Idaho? 



Ms. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

 for encouraging me to stay. I did not realize that there was another 

 panel on the agenda, and this testimony has been extremely inter- 

 esting. 



Mr. Reiger, there was a time, I remember, when the employees 

 of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

 agents, were an integral part of the communities. It does not seem 

 like they are part of the communities any longer? 



Mr. Reiger. Well, I have two personal memories involving law 

 enforcement in which I was an allegedly guilty party. When I was 

 13, I was stopped by a State warden. I was running my trap line, 

 and he asked if I had my license. I said I had a license; I did not 

 have it with me. I was liable. He did not say that, though. He did 

 not write me a ticket. He said I will meet you at the drug store 

 in town at noon; bring your license with you. I did; he saw it; he 

 gave me a Coke; we talked about trapping. I thought the guy 

 walked on water. 



Then about 1972, Maryland introduced a State duck stamp, and 

 I was a guest of the National Geographic Society that day hunting 

 at a blind on Kent Island, Maryland. And I picked up my non-resi- 

 dent license in transit. I signed my State non-resident license and 

 I had my Federal duck stamp already signed, but I did not know 



