## Facts

- Stephen S. Boynton, James R. Booth, and Bernard Dadds, Jr. hunted mourning doves in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland, on September 4, 1993.
- The hunting location contained wheat seeds that attracted doves, making it a baited area for purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i).
- The wheat consisted of “screenings” (low-quality grain mixed with chaff) broadcast by a spreader in an approximately ninety-yard swath near a partially dried pond.
- The grain lay on dry ground above and below the usual water line, was not incorporated into the soil, and had not sprouted after about a month.
- Defendants conceded they were hunting over grain but claimed the regulatory exceptions for grain scattered by “normal agricultural planting or harvesting” or by “bona fide agricultural operations or procedures.”
- After a bench trial before a magistrate judge, defendants were found guilty; the district court affirmed, and defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the exceptions in 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i) for “normal agricultural planting or harvesting” and “bona fide agricultural operations or procedures” are determined by an objective standard or by the subjective intent behind scattering grain.
2. Whether scattering wheat screenings in the manner and location shown qualified under either exception, exempting defendants from liability for hunting over a baited area.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions for hunting migratory birds over a baited area.
- The court held the regulatory exceptions are applied under an objective standard, not the subjective intent of the person who scattered the grain.
- On the record facts, the method and circumstances of distributing screenings did not constitute normal planting/harvesting or bona fide agricultural operations or procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Hunting migratory birds over a baited area under the MBTA and 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i) is a strict-liability offense.
- The exceptions for grain scattered by “normal agricultural planting or harvesting” and “bona fide agricultural operations or procedures” are interpreted objectively by reference to recognizable agricultural practice.
- A defendant cannot invoke an exception based solely on asserted agricultural purpose; the conduct must, in method and context, match genuine, ordinary agricultural operations.
- Practices that leave attractive grain on the surface in a way inconsistent with normal planting or farming procedures fall outside the exceptions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the defendants’ MBTA convictions, ruling that the baiting exceptions turn on an objective assessment of whether the grain’s distribution reflected normal or bona fide agricultural practice, and concluding that broadcasting unsprouted wheat screenings near a pond did not qualify.


United States v. Boynton, 63 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 1995)