95 



contribution to government -sponsored wildlife programs when, at 

 their own expense, they provide supplemental wildlife feeding. 



A problem arises, however, when hunters inadvertently hunt 

 in an area where supplemental feeding is an ongoing or recent 

 practice. There have been many instances where so-called 

 "innocent hunters" have found themselves on the wrong side of 

 the law simply because they were unaware that supplemental 

 feeding had been practiced in a particular area. 



Almost 10 years ago - - when I was still in Congress - - my 

 concern over these cases led me to develop a simple proposal 

 that would protect the innocent hunter from prosecution in 

 baiting cases. I suggested that use of a simple, triplicate 

 form to indicate supplemental feeding of wildlife, by citing the 

 date, area, and amount and type of grain or feed being used. 



One copy of this form would be posted at the site of the 

 feed distribution. A second copy would be mailed to the 

 relevant wildlife agency. And the third copy would be retained 

 by the legal owner or farm manager. 



This simple requirement would provide the necessary 

 information to law-abiding hunters and wildlife agents, and it 

 would give landowners documentary evidence for their feeding 

 activities . 



I continue to think that it represents the simplest 

 solution to a wholly avoidable problem: 



* It would keep legitimate hunters out of feeding areas. 



* It would save law enforcement resources for cases 

 involving real violations. 



* And it could help to protect landowners from charges 

 of baiting when what they are doing amounts to 

 legitimate supplemental feeding. 



It is my suggestion that this proposal be adopted in a 

 limited area on a trial basis. Let us determine whether it 

 eliminates the problem. And if it does, then let it be applied 

 nationwide. 



Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions 

 you or the other members of the committee may have. 



