134 



period of their arrival, and before the time of day that doves 

 should have been most active. By entering the field when they 

 did, the agents probably prevented more overlimit vi61ations, 

 which is a major management concern on baited fields. 



The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) carries a strict liability 

 standard, which means that a person does not need to know they 

 violated the law in order for an agent to issue a citation. The 

 Fifth Circuit has issued two important decisions that liberalized 

 the standard for violations of the MBTA. The first was 

 Delahouysse and the second was Sylvester. Both decisions require 

 agents to show that the hunters either knew or should have known 

 the hunting area was baited. Equally important, both decisions 

 placed responsibility for inspecting the hunting area on the 

 hunters . 



In the Dixie County, FL, case, there were substantial amounts of 

 cracked corn, kernel corn, wheat, millet, milo, and bahia seeds 

 present on the field and roads leading into the field on the day 

 of the hunt. Had the hunters made even a minimal effort to 

 inspect the field, they could have readily determined that the 

 field was baited. The agents asked the hunters they contacted if^ 

 the hunters had inspected the field prior to beginning the hunt. 

 In every case, the hunters said they had not inspected their 

 hunting area. 



Congressman Stearns also implied, in the previously cited letter 

 to Chairman Young, that the agents should have warned the hunters 

 about the baited field before the hunt commenced and prevented 

 the hunt . 



The Service does not warn hunters, inspect fields, or post fields 

 for the reasons stated below. 



First, Service agents do not have the legal authority to declare 

 a field off limits or to prevent hunting on a baited field. In 

 Allen V. Merovka, C.A.N.M. 1967, 382 F.2d 589, Service agents 

 posted a field as baited, and they were successfully sued because 

 they had no statutory authority for their actions. In Merovka, 

 the court essentially found the agents had "confiscated" the 

 individuals' property rights without due process by denying them 

 the opportunity to hunt . 



Second, from a legal standpoint, a baiting violation does not 

 occur until a hunter attempts to kill birds "by the aid of 

 baiting, or on or over any baited area." [50 CFR, Part 20.21(i)] 



A person may legally feed doves or any other migratory bird, if 

 he or she makes no attempt to take them. It should be noted that 

 a baiting violation does not occur unless a hunter takes or 

 attempts to take doves over or on the field where the birds are 

 being lured, attracted, or enticed by bait. 



