149 



policy rationale is that the baited farm, even if it is not hunted, constitutes an illegal lure 

 that brings birds into an area. This kind of policy could easily become a tool of animal 

 rights extremists. Aggressive feeding/baiting on a few strategically located parcels on 

 Maryland's Eastern Shore could close down hundreds of waterfowl hunting locations. In the 

 strongest terms, we urge FWS to be very careful and not provide anti-hunting zealots a 

 weapon to be used against America's waterfowl hunters. 



Lastly, FWS needs to exercise greater discretion regarding those who unknowingly 

 and unwittingly violate the baiting proscriptions. If illegal baiting is going on, the 

 perpetrators -- organizers, hosts, guides, etc. -- should be the targets. They ostensibly are 

 the ones engaged in the illegal activity as they would have knowledge of the baiting. The 

 unknowing but otherwise diligent hunter should not bear the brunt of the prosecution. 



We have heard FWS complain that it lacks discretion in these cases; we respectfully 

 disagree. It managed to exercise enormous discretion for over 60 years in Alaska regarding 

 spring harvest of migratory waterfowl; the number of prosecuted violators can be counted 

 on your fingers. If FWS has this discretion for direct contravention of the Migratory Bird 

 Treaty Act, it clearly has the discretion not to prosecute unknowing violations of regulations 

 or enforcement policy. 



Thank you again for the opportunity to address this issue. The WLFA reiterates that 

 it supports REFORM of the 20.21 regulations and related policies to achieve greater 

 objectivity so that the diligent and careful hunter can comply with the law and applicable 

 regulations and policies. 



F:\10O67(N3\WPHO09O 



