160 



b 1969, a Special Citizen Committee on Baiting Regulatians was convened by tfien Director John 

 GottKfaalk, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. That ad hoc committee was tasked to conduct a critical 

 review of the r"'^"B baiting regulatians and make recommendatians for changes and improvement The 

 similaiity of that effixt in 1 969-70 to your present Committee eSorts are remarkable. In 1969, the Committee 

 was res|>onding to "an tncreasing incidence of baiting violations and mounting complaints by hunters". 

 Principal oonlentians by tlw hunters m 1969 were thar 1) tfw regulauons are ambiguous and insufficiently 

 definitive; 2) die regulatiaos permit excessive latitude in judgment by wildlife enforcement personnel; 3) the 

 rvgulatioos, coupled with arrest-oriented, over-zealous enforcement tactics, allow the arrest and conviction of 

 imocent hunteis; 4) ^ legulations emphasize the liability of die hunters without imposing equal liability on 

 the actual baiters aad/or landowiters; and 3) the currmt regulations support, and even inspire inequities. 

 Sounds ^miliar relative to the same issue(s) in 1996, doesn't it? (Note: I would be happy to make a copy of 

 the 1969-70 Committee report on Baiting available to your Committee for reference). 



iBa 



The 1969-70 Coounktee had to deal witfi the same basic questions the current Committee en Resources will 

 have to deal with in r^ards to the overall baiting issue: 



1 . Should Ae current baiting regulatians be repealed or substantially altered to allow baiting of birds by 

 hiaiteis as a "l^aT hunting medtod. 



2. What is Ae "Cost/benefit Ratio" ofmore permissive baiting regulations related to: 



A. Harvest impacts on the migratory bird resource. 



B. Hwiting e^ics related to "feir chase" 



C. "Clvifying" the baiting regulations. 



D. Impact on Wildli& Enforcement Officer's effort to deal with illegal baiting. 



3. Is there a wi^ to improve the present baiting regulations so they are more clearly understood and more 

 consistently enforced without being more liberal. 



These three major issues and tfie 4 sub-issues are usually at the heart of the matter when any baitmg 

 cuntroversy arises. Most often, the issues are propelled to light by a hunter or group of hunters, or a 

 commercial hunting club who was "done wrong" by an "over-zealous, jack booted, Gestapo, anti-hunter. 

 Communist" Wildlife Agent(s) who cited them imo court Much ado is made to the press, ftiaids, stale 

 l^islators, and, believe it nor not, to you members of Congress, as to the bad taste and bad judgment of the 

 offisnding officers. The usual outcome is that the offending hunteis are actually found guilty by the court 

 system for baiting violations, but continue to seek solace and support to relax baiting regulations so that th^ 

 are "not confiised" and they fwther have the opportunity to "make the area more attractive to the ducks 

 (doves) (geese)." 



We also hear hysterical cries dut the aiforcement of baiting regulations is "creating violators out of 

 sportsmen" or that "it is driving hunteis away from the sport of watetfowUng" George Reiger, an outdoor 

 writer widi Field and Stream, is fond of saying that mean-spirited virildlife officers, without virtue and 

 common sense, roam the woods in search of the "cheap case", preymg on sportsmen like they (we) are the 

 «iemy. He puts forth the notion that ethical behavior will (should) somehow just happen as ^mrtsmen 

 become more morally responsible Any attempts to regulate behavior in the field by "enforcing" law and 

 order wiU only hurt the hunting tradition, according to Mr Reiger. 



