173 



scatterer's intent to determine if the planting or operation is 'normal' or "bona fide'" and 

 blithely imposed strict liability that basically renders the exceptions meaningless. 63 F. 3d at 345. 



Although the Boynton case is a perfect example of trying to put the round peg of strict 

 liability into the square hole of reasonable regulation enforcement, there are several other points in 

 the case that bear review. 



First of all, the Magistrate Judge agreed with the Fish & Wildlife Service that a crop for 

 harvesting must be contemplated to come under the exception. The district court overruled that 

 position and was upheld by the court of appeals. Strike one for the Fish & Wildlife Service. 



In further confiision, the court of appeals found that the pamphlet entitled What Is Legal, 

 issued by the Fish & Wildlife Service to supposedly make clear what the regulations actually 

 meant, was "to some degree contradictory." 63 F.2d at 342-343. Strike two for the Fish & 

 Wildlfie Service And, "[b]ecause the [FWS] has interpreted its own regulations in an ambiguous 

 marmer, [the court] must resolve the ambiguity." Id. This was strike three for the Fish & Wildlfie 

 Service but the defendants still lost the game. 



It would seem a pertinent inquiry that if the Fish & Wildlife Service and the courts cannot 

 agree on what the regulations means, how the h — is sportsmen expected to know? 

 Unfortunately, the answer is that he or she is not, it is what the court or the Fish & Wildlife 

 Service Law Enforcement officials say it is at any given time in any given situation. As was said 

 in the first case that ever considered the issue, "hunters shall investigate at their peril..." United 

 States V. Reese, 27 F.Supp. 833, 835 (W.D.Tenn 1939). The only problem with that statement is 

 that today there is no uniform guideline as to exactly what is, and where is, the "peril " they are 

 to investigate. 



In another baiting case, an action was brought against an incorporated duck club and two 

 individual hunters where thirteen (13) kernels of com were found in a pond over which they were 

 hunting. United States v. Lonergran, No. Misc. 89-0468 (E.D. Cal. 1989) There are two 

 interesting points in this case. First of all, the pond was in the approximate center of a 3400 acre 

 working farm where com was the main crop.. A fi^esh water stream flowed into and out of the 



8 



