148 



Unfortunately, no action was taken to implement this recommendation. We are 

 persuaded that the Committee ought to push FWS to pursue actively the original 

 recommendations made by its own 1990 Commission. 



Reform of the 20.21 regulations and associated policy should focus on three goals. 

 First, the purpose of the baiting regulations ought to be clearly stated. We would 

 recommend that this purpose be as follows: to restrict the use of bait in order to guard 

 against excessive take of migratory birds and to enhance sporting conduct, recognizing the 

 principles of fair chase, by protecting against practices that turn otherwise wild migratory 

 birds into unwary targets on par with barnyard chickens. Conservation of migratory birds 

 is the goal - not the compilation of arrest statistics or the execution of high profile busts. 



The second goal must be the creation of objective rules and policies that hunters can 

 comply with. I have overseen the FWS, practiced law in this field for years, hunted doves, 

 ducks, and geese for years and still hunt these birds with a great deal of trepidation. I 

 scrupulously examine fields before hunting and make pointed inquiries about agricultural 

 practices. Yet I still cannot be sure that I am complying with FWS regulations and 

 enforcement policies. Can an agent find some tiny amount of leftover grain from an earlier 

 legitimate feeding program? Does the agent agree that the agricultural practices used in 

 the field are bona fide? Can the agent determine that baiting has occurred on an adjacent 

 field that 1 have never seen and cite me for taking birds on their way to that field? All of 

 these determinations are so subjective that even the most diligent and careful hunter can be 

 cited for a violation. We are convinced that is bad public policy. The rules must be remade 

 in a way that the diligent and careful hunter who makes the effort can be assured that he 

 or she is in compliance with those rules. 



Objectivity regarding the determination of bona fide agricultural practices is also 

 necessary. The WLFA commends the Southeast Region of the FWS for its policy decision 

 to defer to the states regarding what constitutes agricultural practices within each respective 

 state. This is clearly an area where one federal prescription cannot fit all the circumstances. 

 Moreover, deferral to the states does assist the diligent hunter to comply with the rules. We 

 have found state fish and wildlife personnel generally willing to offer specific guidance and 

 advice regarding what are legitimate agricultural practices. This enables the diligent hunter 

 to take to the field with a high degree of assurance that they are following the law. 



In contrast, in our experience, FWS enforcement personnel are unwilling to provide 

 similar advice or guidance. I am aware of hunt organizers contacting FWS to ask agents to 

 examine a field and give it a clean bill of health in an effort to fully satisfy the 20.21 

 regulations. These organizers have been turned down flat. Even the IRS is willing to help 

 citizens with tax compliance - why can't FWS help with migratory bird regulations 

 compliance? 



The WLFA is also extremely concerned with attempts by FWS to close hunting in 

 very large zones proximate to farms where waterfowl feeding is occurring. The apparent 



