Many people continue to do many things to ensure that our Association provides honest, factual information in regard to the current efforts to change the baiting regulations and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, itself. The FWOA will, as expected, take the high road in this regard. Others who support the proposed changes continue to mislead the public by making preposterous statements based not on fact but
on...well, to be honest, I don't know what they base their statements on. It's pure fantasy and it sickens me to hear what some of these people will say in their attempts to get these changes passed.
The Director of Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources recently stated at a public meeting that 90% of Service Special Agents supported these proposed changes. Other statements were made at this meeting that were terribly misleading and some were just plain untrue. Even in Washington the rhetoric is hard to comprehend. U.S. Rep Don Young stated that, ``Despite the fact that their own task force urged the elimination of strict liability, I am sure the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will strongly oppose this amendment. Why? Because they currently have nearly a 100 percent conviction rate, they do not believe a defendant should have the right to present evidence and they do not think their agents should be bothered by having to prove their case.''
With that statement this man has impugned the integrity and professionalism of every Fish and Wildlife Special Agent that has ever pinned on a badge and risked his or her life to protect and conserve our nation's natural resources. I challenge every member to write their elected representatives and let them know where you stand on these proposals.
Give them our web page address. There is a wealth of info there. Contact your state game warden or conservation officer associations and inform them of these proposals. Supply them with information and ask them to take a stand on the issue.
The PEER white paper on the baiting issue is out. Outdoor writers and others in the media, have made inquiries to take advantage of the wealth of knowledge and experience the FWOA represents in order to provide accurate information of these issues. The comment period on the proposed changes to the regulations has been extended and all FWOA members are encouraged to forward their comments to the Service as soon as possible.

FROM YOUR SECRETARY­TREASURER...
A Death in the Family
On Father's Day, June 21, NPS Park Ranger Joe Kolodski was murdered by an assailant armed with a high­powered rifle. Ranger Kolodski, stationed at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, is survived by his wife and three young children. FWOA made a contribution to the memorial fund established for the Kolodski children. President Kevin O'Brien sent a note of condolences to Kolodski's widow, Florie Takaki.Charter members Ted Curtis and Tom Bennett attended the memorial service in Bryson City, NC.

Addresses Needed
We've lost touch with a few Charter/retired members: Dave Kirkland, Ricardo Cotte, and Tom Harper. If you have a current address for any of these folks, please drop me a line at FWOA, P.O. Box 45614, Madison, WI 53744­5414.

Welcome New Charter Members!
On behalf of the entire membership, welcome to new Charter members Mike Wade, Tom Karabanoff, Bruce Corley, Gary Young and Greg Jackson.

NEW R­3 Regional Director
The Board welcomes Tim Santel as the new regional director (AKA regional representative) to Region 3. Tim was elected at the Association meeting held on June 2, during regional in­service training. Tim's energy and commitment to FWOA's goals will be a big asset.

Forest Service Officer Dies in Helicopter Crash
June has been a sad month for natural resource officers. On June 27, the bodies of Forest Service Officer Steve A. Bowman and Capt. Charles Harvey, Tennessee National Guard, were found with the wreckage of their helicopter. They were conducting marijuana eradication work on Cherokee National Forest. FWOA will express condolences to the families of these men, and will donate to their memorial funds, as more information becomes available.

Baiting Comment Period Extended
The Service has extended the deadline for comments on the proposed changes to the baiting regulations. The new deadline is October 1, 1998. Let's take this opportunity to educate and inform our allies, and make some new friends for the cause. Don't procrastinate! Get your comments in before the busy Fall begins!

Jack Anderson and Jan Moller are avid waterfowl protectors and expressed their opinions in the following article which first ran in the Superior, WI, Daily Telegram on May 20, 1998, in their Washington Merry­Go­Round column, entitled ``If the law quacks like a duck...''
The first article contained some inconsistencies and was, therefore, rerun in the Washington Merry­Go­Round column on May 22, 1998, this time entitled ``Young unkind to web­footed friends'' by Jack Anderson and Jan Moller.

For the keen observer of Congress, the recent crusade by Representative Don Young, R­Alaska, to relax the laws governing duck hunting may seem somewhat ill­timed and out of place. Shouldn't lawmakers worry about, say, crafting next year's budget before they spend precious time and energy trying to change a law that effects relatively few Americans?
Young's fiery rhetoric on this issue leads one to wonder if the Alaskan has lost all sense of perspective.
First, some background: Since 1918, it's been illegal to hunt ducks and other waterfowl in areas ``baited'' with grains like wheat and corn. It seems our feathered friends can't resist these goodies---even if men with guns are standing nearby.
The laws prohibiting baiting are quite strict. Basically, you can't hunt in a baited area under any circumstances. It doesn't matter whether the hunter laid the bait himself or not---it's the sportsman's responsibility to survey the area to make sure no grain is lying around. Anyone caught hunting in a baited area is arrested and fined.
This may seem overly harsh, yet the law has worked exactly as intended.The duck population, which was dwindling before the 1918 laws were passed, has flourished ever since, although environmental groups are concerned that abuses of the environment are taking a toll on the duck population once again.
Along comes Young, a fierce partisan who doesn't like regulation of any kind. He's been making noise about changing the laws since 1996.``There is no rationale, justification or defense for (the current laws) for migratory birds,'' Young said last month when his House Resources Committee voted unanimously to amend the laws. He has called the current laws ``fundamentally wrong.''
Under Young's proposal, which is now awaiting action on the House floor, a hunter would only be guilty if he planted bait himself or knew that the area was illegally baited. But that would make it too easy for hunters to play dumb, say officials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who must enforce the laws. These officials told our associate Aaron Karp that Young's bill would make enforcing the baiting regulations nearly impossible.
Why are Young and so many of his colleagues so eager to change the baiting laws? We suspect that it might have something to do with the kind of person who often finds himself the victim of the strict regulations; well­to­do, white males.The kind of people who have friends in high places, or are in high places themselves.  The case that got Young so heated up in the first place took place in Dixie County, FL, in October, 1995. Game wardens there issued 88 citations to sportsmen who were hunting doves (unknowingly, the hunters claimed) in a baited area. Among the throng of hunters cited for violating the baiting laws were ``people of leadership positions in their communities,'' wrote Alachua County Sheriff Stephen M. Oelrich, who was one of those arrested, in a letter to Young.
The dove poachers included several elected officials from these state and local levels, three other Florida sheriffs, and, perhaps most mortifying of all, the regional director of the Florida Game and Fish Commission. In his letter, Oelrich told Young of the ``embarrassment'' suffered by these ``innocent people'' whose reputations had been ``tarnished.'' He asked Young to use his power as the Resources Committee chairman to change the laws.Young is doing his best to do just that.
But at least Young is being honest about his intentions, which is more than could be said for Senator John Bricker of Ohio back in 1955. As this column revealed then, Bricker's efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment limiting the president's treaty­making powers---which tied up the Senate for several weeks---were driven by his avid love of duck hunting and his frustration with the no­baiting regulations.
Under the Constitution, a treaty supersedes any state law. And the laws against baiting derive from the Migratory Bird Treaty between the United States and
Canada.Therefore, Ohio couldn't pass any state laws to make life easier for Bricker and his wealthy friends, who hunted ducks in the plush marshes along Lake
Erie.
This infuriated Bricker, who had to sit by powerless as a relentless young game warden named Fred Jacobson arrested Bricker's friends every time they broke the baiting laws. So Bricker wasted the country's time by proposing a bird­brained constitutional amendment.
We had lunch last week with none other than Fred Jacobson.Now retired, the former game warden was in Washington last week to protest Young's efforts to change the duck­hunting laws. A principled man with strong beliefs, Jacobson is just as angered now by Young's efforts as he was by Bricker's deceptive tactics some 43 years ago.

News , TOP , Next Page, Home,