U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–400 PDF 2015

OPERATION SOMETHING BRUIN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 19, 2015 

Serial No. 114–48 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DeSAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

MELISSA BEAUMONT, Clerk 

RYAN HAMBLETON, Senior Professional Staff Member 

JEFFREY POST, Deputy Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Government Operations 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 19, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Russell McLean, Attorney 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Allyn Stockton, Attorney 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Mr. Charles Anthony Smith, Acquitted of Charges Related to Operation 

Something Bruin 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Mr. Luis J. Santiago, Special Agent-in-Charge, Atlanta Regional Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Mr. Tony Tooke, Regional Forester, Southern Region, USDA Forest Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49 

Mr. Gordon Myers, Executive Director, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 52 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 54 

Major Stephen Adams, Law Enforcement Division, Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 60 

APPENDIX 

June 1, 2015 Letter from Colonel Eddie Henderson at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division to the Committee ..... 84 

June 4, 2015 Letter from Todd Batta at the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

to Chairman Mark Meadows ............................................................................... 85 

The Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission .................................................................................................................. 86 

U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Policies and Procedures Governing Prosecution and Adjudication of Petty Offenses in the 

Western District of North Carolina .................................................................... 95 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

OPERATION SOMETHING BRUIN 

Friday, June 19, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in the 

Historic Haywood County Courthouse, 215 North Main Street, 

Waynesville, North Carolina, Hon. Mark Meadows [Chairman of 

the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representative Meadows. 

Also Present: Representatives Duncan and Collins. 

Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Ryan Hambleton and Jeffrey 

Post 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order and without objection, the Chair is authorized 

to declare a recess at any time. 

Before I give my opening statement, if indeed you have to take 

a cell phone call, we ask that you would step outside and that you 

move not just outside the room there. The acoustics can be very 

bad sometimes, so we can actually hear your conversation. So if 

you have got to have a conversation or a cell phone call, we ask 

that you move out and kind of down onto the landing outside this 

particular facility. 

Good morning to everyone. I am excited to be here in a field 

hearing here in Waynesville, at the historic Haywood County 

Courthouse. In order for this to happen, we had to rely on people 

here in the county. And it is my great honor to thank Sheriff Christopher and his team and the courthouse staff here. They have been 

great. I want to not only sincerely thank them for their assistance, 

but truly for their service to the public each and every day. I also 

want to thank the public, all of you, for coming out. I hope that 

you will find that this is a valuable investment of your time and 

shine some light on a situation. We have a great crowd here, I am 

very grateful that you would come out. 

I also want to mention that this is a honest-to-goodness Congressional hearing and just like the ones we would have in Washington, 

D.C. Because of this, we need to treat it like one and so we will 

have two panels of witnesses. Our first panel is here already. We 

have members of Congress that are here today. They will have a 

chance to ask them questions. But this is not really a town hall 

and so unfortunately, we are not going to have time for, you know, 

opinions to be given from the audience. It is not a forum like that. 

Hopefully we will be able to ask questions and have the responses. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

If you have a burning question that you want to get asked, that 

you feel like has not been asked, we will actually hold the record 

open where either Congressman Duncan or Congressman Collins or 

myself can actually work together to make sure that those questions are asked for the record. 

So I would appreciate your cooperation. Even though this can be 

a very contentious and emotional issue, I ask that you show the 

rest of the world the kind of Southern hospitality that we are used 

to here in the mountains of western North Carolina. 

Perhaps the best thing about holding a field hearing is that it 

gives Congress a chance to look at things that have happened outside of that beltway in Washington, D.C. You know, there are a lot 

of things that happen on the national news and yet Operation 

Something Bruin is a good example of something that has happened here in western North Carolina and north Georgia. 

As many of you are familiar, back in the 1980s, the federal and 

state authorities undertook Operation Smoky that stopped some illegal, at that point, harvesting of black bears in and around the 

Great Smoky Mountain National Park. That was a successful operation that caught a lot of people that were indeed breaking the law. 

However, about five years ago, many of these same agencies 

began investigating bear poaching again. A new operation was 

begun lasting from 2009 through 2013 that covered western North 

Carolina and northern Georgia. It primarily involved the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission. It was named Operation Something Bruin. We are joined by 

representatives of each of these agencies here today. I want to 

thank them for their time that they came to appear here. But before I continue, I want to make a few things clear. 

First, I support our law enforcement officers, both state and federal. In particular, I want to thank them for their role in protecting 

not only lands and wildlife but the people that they serve. And in 

some cases, their work can be dangerous as has happened even recently over in Henderson County, their work can be very dangerous. And so I appreciate their willingness to endure all those 

things and the dedication that they show to do that. 

I also want to take a moment to recognize the hard work of the 

state and federal prosecutors who try the cases brought before 

them by the law enforcement officers. They are all keeping us safe 

and protected and in this particular case trying to protect our lands 

and wildlife. 

And finally, there have been many instances in the case of Operation Something Bruin where real crimes were committed and 

these people need to be punished. We have laws for a reason, we 

have a criminal justice system that enforces these laws, and those 

are good things. 

With this said though, I do believe that some of the conduct of 

Something Bruin needs to be examined. Over the last few years, 

there has been a tremendous amount of media coverage on how 

this operation was handled. We will hear from witnesses today and 

their representatives about the specifics. However, over the years, 

I have heard complaints about arrestees being entrapped, other coerced, and charges of the arrestees being taken into custody in an 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

extremely aggressive fashion. I have heard about defendants receiving extremely harsh punishment for petty crime offenses and 

undercover officers essentially committing most of the hunting violations. 

I hope that this morning we can shed some light on how this 

state-federal operation was held. Moreover, if we can find things 

that were not handled properly, I plan on working to improve the 

system and prevent mistakes like this from happening again in the 

future. 

Now I am pleased today to be joined by some of my colleagues 

that are not just colleagues, but friends. Congressman Jeff Duncan 

from the great state of South Carolina—and I would like to say our 

hearts and prayers are with you and your state mourning the loss 

in this tragic event that just happened. But I want to thank Congressman Jeff Duncan for being here. 

And my good friend Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia was 

willing to come up today. Some of this happened actually in his 

particular district as he represents much of the mountainous area 

of northeast Georgia I guess officially. 

So, without objection, they are welcome to fully participate in today’s hearing. I recognize Congressman Duncan for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I thank Congressman Meadows for inviting 

me to participate. Just since I learned about Operation Something 

Bruin, there are a number of questions that I hope to get answered 

by participating today both from panel one and panel two. 

I sit on the Natural Resource Committee, I also sit on Homeland 

Security and Foreign Affairs. Lacey Act issues and Natural Resources, Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction falls under Natural Resources, so I am very interested in this. 

I appreciate the Congressman also recognizing South Carolina at 

this very difficult time for our state with the tragic loss of life, and 

I would ask everyone to please continue to lift my state, the City 

of Charleston, and the folks at Emanuel AME Church in your prayers. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Georgia, Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, 

and it is a pleasure to be up here across border. We share this border and I think it is one of the reasons people when they come 

here, they stay here, because this is great for North Carolina and 

Georgia, as we have a great part. And of course, my friend from 

South Carolina, we share another border. So we have got this area 

pretty well covered and again, the prayers of many go to South 

Carolina during this time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It is God’s country. 

Mr. COLLINS. There you go, amen. 

I just want to say thank you for the hearing and also today we 

are going to be hearing from a couple of folks from my part of the 

world, my constituents, Mr. Stockton, Mr. Adams as well. And I am 

pleased to be a part of this also, from what we have seen so far 

and from my personal experience with the Georgia DNR has been 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

excellent, it always has been from my time in the state legislature 

and I think we will see that again today. 

But I think there are a lot of questions that, you know, it does 

deserve a hearing and what you said, Mr. Chairman, was dead on, 

being outside the beltway, letting people see not only what we do, 

but also letting you know that the government—this is the checks 

and balances that we have, this is the Congressional oversight. 

This is exactly what we are supposed to be doing. 

And serving on Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee 

and also being on OGR with you for a couple of years as well, it 

reminds us that is the part that I believe frankly has been forgotten in Congress many times, is that one of our main roles is oversight of how our tax dollars are spent and how our government operates. So I am looking for to the testimony and the questions. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank you. 

I will hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement further than 

where we are right now. 

We will recognize the first panel of witnesses. I am pleased to 

welcome several attorneys who have all represented Operation 

Something Bruin defendants. Mr. Russell McLean, Mr. Allyn 

Stockton and Mr. Stiles is not joining us today, but I would also 

like to welcome Mr. Charles Anthony Smith. Mr. Smith was acquitted of charges relating to Operation Something Bruin. 

We thank each of you for being here with us today and look forward to your testimony. We welcome all of you. 

Pursuant to committee rules, witnesses will be sworn in before 

they testify, do I would ask you to please rise and raise your right 

hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. Please take your seat. Let the record reflect that 

all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we would ask that you 

would try to limit your testimony, your oral testimony, to five minutes. But your entire written statement will be made part of the 

record. 

So we will go to our first witness, Mr. McLean, if you will give 

us your opening statement. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL McLEAN 

Mr. MCLEAN. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. 

Two hundred and thirty plus years ago, the American colonies 

secured their independence from the yoke of tyranny from the British Crown. The colonies set up a Constitutional Convention to create a document establishing our experience in a free constitutional 

government. Mr. James Madison was appointed to draft that document. Madison sent a copy of that document to Thomas Jefferson 

who stated that we must have a Bill of Rights attached, which 

would establish our inalienable rights as given to us by our Creator, to be free from government interference. Madison responded 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

to Jefferson stating that the Constitution is such a limiting document that it would not be necessary to have that Bill of Rights. 

On March the 19th of 1787, Jefferson wrote back to Madison saying that the reasons we have to have a Bill of Rights is not to protect Americans from the abuses of legislative action, but to protect 

our citizens from the abuses of judicial discretion. 

After the Constitution was adopted along with the Bill of Rights, 

Madison thanked Jefferson for his insistence on adopting that Bill 

of Rights. 

Two hundred years later, the United States Supreme Court has 

determined that the plain language of Article III, Section 2 of the 

Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights does 

not provide a defendant with the right to a jury trial if the criminal 

charges only imprisons a person for six months or a fine of $5000. 

The Court further held that that was not a substantial deprivation 

of freedom or property. 

In 1996, the Supreme Court further held that multiple six 

months’ charges would not entitle a person to a right to a trial by 

jury. The Court was wrong. And only Congress can correct this 

abuse of judicial discretion. No man should be imprisoned, not even 

for a day, unless he is convicted by a jury of his peers. 

When the federal courts can impose multiple petty offenses exposing persons to months or even years of imprisonment, we must 

act to preserve the integrity of the judicial system so that citizens 

once again will expect to be treated not with tyranny, but with the 

grand experiment that our founding fathers envisioned. 

Another area of great concern to Congress should be the abuse 

of executive authority given to the federal and state agencies to 

conduct illegal covert operations with impunity. Operation Something Bruin is a prime example. Some of our federal courts have 

recognized this abuse of power and Judge Sanborn said, and I 

quote, ‘‘The first duty of an officer of the law is to prevent, not to 

punish crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting it.’’ In the present 

case, the chief endeavor was to cause and create crime in order to 

punish it, and this is unconscionable and contrary to public policy. 

When the criminal design originates in the mind of government officials, the government is estopped from sound public policy from 

prosecution. Our Supreme Court in 1958 held that public confidence in the fair and honorable administration of justice is the 

transcending value at stake. And the court further held that in the 

area of impermissible police conduct, the protection of our functions 

and the preservation of the purity of its own temple belong only to 

the court and it is the province of that court to protect itself and 

the government from such prostitution of criminal law. 

In recent years, our district courts have held that the function 

of law enforcement is the prevention of crime and the apprehension 

of criminals. Manifestly that function does not include the manufacturing of crimes. The courts have held that it is not the role of 

the judicial branch to rubber stamp whatever imaginative devices 

agencies dream up. It is the duty of the courts to declare all acts 

contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without 

this, all of the reservations of the particular rights and privileges 

amount to nothing. And that is quoting Alexander Hamilton in the 

Federalist Papers at page 78. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

These reverse sting operations transcends the bounds of due 

process and makes the government the oppressor of the people. A 

review of these cooperative agreements in this case you will be presented with and have been presented with show that it was not 

until after the investigation of these men that these documents 

were ever even signed. The operation was conducted for four years 

without a specific inter-agency agreement between the federal and 

state agencies and there is nothing in these agreements that authorize or allow the federal or state agencies to engage in the multitude of crimes that these undercover officers committed. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. McLean. 

I would ask—you know, as much as you may agree, I am going 

to need to ask you to silently shake your head instead of doing applause because this is—it would not be condoned in D.C. and I cannot condone it in Haywood. And so, if you would do that. You can 

just kind of do the nod. All right? And I will make sure that we 

recognize that. 

Mr. Stockton, you are recognized for five minutes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. McLean follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 97400.001
8 

STATEMENT OF ALLYN STOCKTON 

Mr. STOCKTON. Congressman Meadows, thank you so much. I 

can remember—I cannot remember what small town it was, I do 

not know if it was Bryson City or Robbinsville or whatever when 

I first met you, but you have talked straight to us ever since then. 

You said, ‘‘I am going to do this’’ and I did not really believe you 

to begin with, but you followed up on what you said you would do 

and I appreciate it. You were also very candid with us, you said, 

‘‘Look, I know all these folks are not lily white.’’ You told some personal examples and everything and you were exactly right. 

This is not a situation where you have a mass of innocent lily 

white people that were falsely accused of stuff. What Operation 

Something Bruin is in a nutshell though is probably the largest 

mass misdemeanor operation in the history of law enforcement. I 

have never seen so much invested in a crime which our society and 

our laws holds at the lower end of the spectrum. 

This was a situation where—and just to give some background, 

I have a client right now on death row. I have had clients tried in 

the federal courts for major drug trafficking operations. I have 

never seen the amount of law enforcement effort expended on any 

of these cases that I have seen on Operation Something Bruin. And 

my experience with Operation Something Bruin involved three clients. One of them was absolutely innocent. She is a mid-40s accountant. She happened to be dating a person who was a target of 

the investigation in Georgia, although that person—he is here 

today, Edsel Brent Thomas, his part of the investigation had nothing to do with North Carolina, had nothing to do really with bears. 

And basically what it involved—and I will also say, it is in my 

statement—he has one arm—it involved him riding around with 

two undercover agents, one of which was a North Carolina law officer, undercover wildlife officer, the other was a Forest Service officer for North Carolina. Riding around at night shooting deer with 

a spotlight. My understanding is five were taken, only one by Mr. 

Thomas, the others were taken by the undercover officers. Keep in 

mind, Mr. Thomas has one arm, it is impossible for him to both 

hold the light and shoot a deer at the same time. 

That said, you brought up Operation Smoky. That was a legitimate, apparently, operation. I remember that, I was a much younger person. There was apparently trafficking in bear parts and so 

forth. Fortunately, with the advent of Cialis and Viagra, we do not 

have the market for bear gall bladders any more. That is no longer 

something that can be marketed or is marketed. But nevertheless, 

that is something that was used as the impetus for this operation. 

If you look at all the different press releases and the justification 

behind this, it was we need to stop this organized commercial bear 

hunting and selling of bear parts and so forth. 

And respectfully, that is not what Operation Something Bruin 

showed. Operation Something Bruin—basically what it showed was 

the investigation wound up exceeding its authority and its mission. 

There were no—not one instance I am aware of, of any bear part 

or animal part being sold or even discussed. There were no felony 

convictions whatsoever arising out of this and there was no evidence of organized poaching. Clearly there were some misdemeanors committed in this. Most of them, I would submit were 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

instigated by law enforcement. Not just instigated but actually 

committed by law enforcement, and the people that were with them 

got painted with the same brush as the officer committing the 

crime should have been painted with. One in particular who is here 

today, Chad Crisp, was not even a target of Operation Something 

Bruin when they conceptualized it. They came up with him when 

they went to a convenience store and said we want to go bear hunting, who is somebody we could talk to. 

So respectfully—I have said this before—it was more of a solution in search of a problem. There was not the problem with the 

bear poaching that was portrayed when Operation Something 

Bruin came about. And I echo Congressman Collins’ statements 

about the Georgia DNR. In my limited dealings with this, the Georgia DNR were not the problem. Of course, that is just my limited 

dealings with this. Most of what I saw were at the federal and the 

North Carolina state level. But those were my cases though. I am 

sure there were problem with Georgia DNR maybe on some of the 

other cases, but not in mine. 

As Mr. McLean said—and I will end with this—probably if anything can come out of this, I would hope that maybe at one point 

in time, someone like Chad Crisp, who is facing a 20-month sentence, will be entitled to a jury trial for that. He was not allowed 

a jury trial and his case was at the federal district level and was 

removed—after he was acquitted on the first felony charges, they 

removed it, put it in the federal magistrate court because they 

knew he would not get a jury trial and they knew he would get 

loaded up on time. If anything could happen, I would like to see 

something be addressed so we have that right. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Stockton. 

Mr. Smith, you are recognized for five minutes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Stockton follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 97400.002
11 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 97400.003
12 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 97400.004
13 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 97400.005
14 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 97400.006
15 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 97400.007
16 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES ANTHONY SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Honorable Committee. 

I am Charles Anthony Smith, one of ten people in Haywood 

County charged in Operation Something Bruin. I was charged with 

17 misdemeanor violations. 

In September 2013, I was tried in a special session of district 

court. After two days of hearings, charges were dismissed due to 

insufficient evidence. 

In other cases, charges against three other people were dismissed 

due to not having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And in June, 

charges against three other men were also dismissed. 

During my hearing, evidence presented was a recorded phone 

call with North Carolina Officer Chad Arnold, who posed as Chad 

Ryan. The call was about running his dogs on private property in 

the Silver’s Cove fox pen. There was no conversation whatsoever 

which involve bears. During my hearing, Officer Arnold testified he 

never saw me at Silver’s Cove, nor did he know of my whereabouts 

or even if I was in the country on the days he was running his 

dogs. Yet while he released his dogs, he charged me with the violations. 

I learned that I was involved in an investigation on February the 

20th, 2013. There was a knock at the door. I answered the door 

and about 15 officers shouted ‘‘search warrant.’’ They grabbed me 

by my arms and pulled me out of the house. Then the officers 

pushed past me entering the house with assault rifles wearing bulletproof vests. One officer had a handful of papers but he did not 

take the time to show them to me. I was terrified because I was 

at home with my nine-year-old daughter. I told them that she was 

inside and asked them to let her come outside to be with me because she would be very frightened. My thoughts were that she 

might get up and run or she could be harmed or even shot. I repeatedly pled to be with my daughter and every repeated request 

was ignored. 

While the officers searched and held me, I asked them if I was 

under arrest and they replied ‘‘no.’’ The officers kept pushing me 

into the driveway towards their vehicle and I was placed inside one 

in question. I would not answer their questions, but I did ask them 

to bring my daughter out to be with me. 

One officer was Jeannie Davis, special agent, U.S. Forest Service. 

She asked if there was anyone I wanted to tell on and when I did 

not, she placed me in handcuffs and arrested me. 

My neighbor picked up my daughter. When I talked to my neighbor later, she said my daughter was sitting on the couch with several officers in the room, some sitting on the couch. My daughter 

told me they asked her questions and that she was very scared. 

During the time I was in jail, my wife told me she and my oldest 

daughter went to the residence to find out what was going on. They 

found on the property a swarm of multiple officers and 10 to 15 vehicles in the driveway. They approached the residence and were 

told that I had been taken to jail and to wait to talk to the officer 

in charge. The doors were open, officers were in and out, property 

was being placed in brown paper bags and removed. The officer 

never came, so they did enter the house. The officer told them to 

log into their computers, demanding passwords. They were told to 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

stay with the officers and when the officers asked questions, they 

were told that their answers would be assumed by these officers. 

They observed officers photographing documents, which were 

confidential. When search teams left, they did provide a copy of a 

search warrant and a copy of items seized. We determined items 

seized that were not listed in the affidavit to be seized. They did 

not leave a list of damaged or broken items or a list of documents 

photographed. 

There are many things that seems and feels to be against our 

rights as citizens and private property owners. The search, the arrest, and the charges seem to be very wrongly handled. The officers 

themselves reported I was not violent, yet they stormed the house 

like a SWAT team. 

So far, as a result of Operation Something Bruin, I have learned 

several things. I have learned by North Carolina Officer Chad 

Arnold’s testimony under oath in a court of law that wildlife officers can kill bears illegally, can kill bears that are under weight, 

can buy chocolate waste and put it in an individual’s yard, can 

drink alcohol in the capacity of doing their job, can dig ginseng on 

the national park, and commit other wildlife crimes and violations 

and charge other individuals for the crimes that they themselves 

have committed. 

I have also found that officers can join in with other agencies and 

conduct investigations on hunters across state lines before entering 

an inter-agency agreement. Officers can break laws while alone 

and then show up with dead bears and charge hunters with these 

violations. They can secure search warrants for property where no 

known crimes have been committed. It appeared by Arnold’s testimony that the bear poaching exists within those agencies. 

While the misdemeanor charges against me were dismissed by 

the judge, the trauma to my family, invasion of my home, our lost 

feeling of security, the damage to our names and reputation by 

things published in the paper, on TV, and on their websites, these 

things should not be dismissed. 

Steps should be taken to protect others from events such as this. 

Because of this experience, I am asking the individuals who have 

the authority and the power to please go on our behalf and stand 

in the gap to protect our families and others from officers’ actions 

such as these. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 97400.008
19 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 97400.009
20 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 97400.010
21 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 97400.011
22 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 97400.012
23 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 97400.013
24 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 97400.014
25 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 97400.015
26 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for that compelling testimony. 

The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for a series of questions and then we’ll go to the gentleman 

from Georgia and then I’ll follow up. 

The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the Chairman. And thank you for your testimony. 

I noticed in some of the documentation that one of the defendants pled guilty to six offenses and received for that guilty plea 20 

months in prison since the prison sentences were added consecutively. Now this was in federal magistrate court. I guess the question I would have is—and I look at what he pled guilty to: knowingly operating a vessel on the waters of the state of North Carolina between sunset and sunrise without use of navigational lights; 

knowingly and intentionally hunting bear at night and during 

closed season; knowingly and intentionally hunting deer at night; 

knowingly and intentionally hunting deer with aid of artificial 

light; knowingly and intentionally hunting without a license; knowingly and intentionally hunting deer with a firearm during closed 

season. Those look like state game law offenses, not federal offenses. 

So he was tried in federal court and given a pretty stiff sentence 

because they were added together to run consecutively, not concurrently. 

The question I have is, do you think, Mr. McLean and Mr. Stockton, being attorneys—do you think that that would have been the 

sentencing had it been—had he been convicted, pled guilty in state 

court, jury trial or not? 

Mr. MCLEAN. I know it would not have been, plus we would have 

had an opportunity to have a jury trial in North Carolina. That’s 

the critical key. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But set that aside, I agree with you on that. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Setting that aside, he would have gotten a probationary sentence, paid a fine of about $2000 and gone to the house. 

And let me tell you something, he was facing 34 charges, so he was 

facing almost 18 years in prison. I guess you would say the Pope 

shot the bear if he wanted him to to keep from having to do that 

much time. People sometimes plead to stuff they did not do in 

order to keep from having a harsher sentence imposed on them. 

That man—I did not represent him but he was facing 34 counts. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Stockton, do you agree with—— 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes. And this particular person, his charges were 

moved from—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Pull that mic just a little closer because folks in the 

room need to hear too. 

Mr. STOCKTON. His case was moved from federal district court 

where he had just been cleared on felony charges in front of a jury 

trial. And instead of trying the rest of them to a jury, they moved 

them to a judge who has treated us with the utmost respect and 

been very decent and has not been able to find anybody not guilty 

that I am aware of. But they moved those charges to his court and 

he has a propensity for giving jail time. And that is basically the 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

deal they worked out. And it is just—he made the best of a very 

bad situation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am not familiar with this individual. Let me ask 

you this, were these charges, crimes that he committed, were they 

committed on federal land? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Some were, some were not. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The ones of the gentleman that pled guilty, they 

were on federal land? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Three of the charges occurred on one hunt. In 

other words, he went hunting one night with the wildlife undercover agent and they broke it down to whatever happened to be in 

the woods, they charged him with. You know, if there was a bear, 

if there was a deer. They did not even see anything, but they 

charged him with each violation even though he did not shoot a 

thing and just happened to be there on one night. And that got him 

15 months. 

Mr. DUNCAN. This individual that we are talking about? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Yes, sir, one occurrence got him 15 months in prison, one hunt got him 15 months. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, emails provided the committee appear to indicate that the magistrate judge in this western district 

court received a directive from the chief judge that individuals sentenced for petty offenses are not to receive probation. 

Mr. MCLEAN. That came from the U.S. Attorney. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Wow. That is amazing. 

I am going to have some other questions. I want to yield back 

and hopefully have a second round. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, is recognized. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think, following up, and Mr. Stockton, I want to go through 

some of your testimony here because there are some interesting 

point that are concerning. 

It was just pointed out, I think—I serve on the Judiciary Committee, so this falls in line on the other side in the consecutive sentence. I have already contacted my office in D.C. about it and we 

are actually—because there are some criminal justice issues coming up and we will talk about this. 

Let’s go backwards for a second. Mr. Stancil had charges pending 

in Rabun County. That would be with the D.A. Rickman down 

there. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Correct. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Those were dropped because of the prosecution on the federal level; correct? 

Mr. STOCKTON. He had warrants taken out on him. He has never 

actually been arraigned on those charges, Mr. Walt Stancil. Mr. 

Cale Stancil wound up pleading to two misdemeanor charges in 

order to get the felony federal stuff dropped. 

Mr. COLLINS. And Mr. Rickman handled those cases; correct? 

Mr. STOCKTON. That is—his office did. 

Mr. COLLINS. I understand. I have worked with him a great deal. 

Now it is true—and I am asking this—Walter Stancil was found 

guilty by U.S. District Court for violating Lacey Act. Now did you 

represent him in that case? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

Mr. STOCKTON. I did represent him on that, but I think—respectfully, I think the way to put that is he was found not guilty of committing a felony Lacey Act violation. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. 

Mr. STOCKTON. He was found guilty of what we told them we 

were guilty of. He allowed—he had a bear bait that he had legally 

maintained for years for training purposes. In north Georgia, we 

have a training season that comes in three times a year. 

Mr. COLLINS. Right. 

Mr. STOCKTON. And the Georgia—there were two Georgia DNR 

officers who testified at his case and I would submit, as far as I 

knew, everything they said was very credible and truthful and one 

of them, I think it was Jesse Cook, he basically confirmed that 

what Mr. Stancil was doing as far as maintaining those bear baits 

for training purposes was legal. 

Mr. Stancil broke the law though when he allowed Chad Arnold 

to go up there and hunt one of them. And respectfully, that was 

the first time that had happened and had he known the full situation, that Chad Arnold had killed a cub a few days before, that 

would not have happened then. But we told the jury to begin with, 

that is what he did, and that is what he did in Georgia and that 

is what he is guilty of. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I think that is interesting because some documentation we were provided by agencies actually did not go into 

that kind of detail and actually just said he was guilty of this by 

jury trial. So I wanted to focus that. 

Let’s go back to that for just a second though. The issue of this 

camera, there is another issue out there. Let’s go back to that one 

because I think that one is—this one disturbs me. Okay? Private 

property, a camera is placed. Was there ever a warrant or anything 

ever produced for that? 

Mr. STOCKTON. No. And more importantly it is private property 

that the U.S. Forest Service law enforcement placed in a relatively 

large piece of private property up near between Scaly and Highlands. 

Mr. COLLINS. I know exactly where you are talking about. 

Mr. STOCKTON. And it was placed in the middle. And I included 

in my statement basically what I had, the statement of facts from 

the appeal so it kind of reads legally. I kind of cut and pasted that. 

Mr. COLLINS. I am used to that. 

Mr. STOCKTON. But anyway, that situation is bothersome because he was convicted. And Walt Stancil just had his 49th anniversary last week, his son is an ordained Baptist minister, he has 

had one speeding ticket in Louisiana, so I do not even know if that 

counts. But that is the only thing he has ever done in his life that 

was contrary—that he has been convicted of or whatever. But he 

finds a camera, a surveillance camera, a game camera. It is not attached to a tree, it is laying on the ground. It has got—I think the 

evidence was there might have been a stick or something over it. 

Mr. COLLINS. Let me just interrupt you for a minute because I 

think this is important. I am going to ask these questions of the 

second panel coming as well because this is a question on why this 

got there. Number one, it is trespassing; number two, there is another issue here. But it said—and I am believe this is part of your 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

cut and paste from the actual testimony, Officer Southard testified 

that he had placed one of his business cards inside the surveillance 

camera. I think this is an important point. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Said he placed it inside the surveillance camera 

but yet Officer Southard later agreed that Walter never opened or 

disarmed or turned off the camera until after he left Jack 

Billingsley’s home. 

Again, if you walk up on this in your yard—I’m from north—I 

am born and raised in north Georgia, you come on my yard without 

reason, my daddy is a state trooper in the state of Georgia, we will 

get that out of the way real quickly. I fought the law, the law won 

all my growing up years. Okay? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COLLINS. Some of you will get that on the way home today. 

I get that. But this—we want to investigate this further but basically there is no marking, at least what is shown, and contradictory 

testimony. I have also looked through the inter-agency agreements, 

I am not sure where they would find this or whether—again, above 

all the other stuff, undercover investigative work is a needed, valuable tool of all agencies. But this one gets at the heart of what I 

think a lot of people in this room are very concerned about, and 

that is where does that line get blurred when you go on private 

property off a road, you know, and really have no ID. Even if you 

put a big red, white, and blue sign that says this is the federal government, I want to know why you are there to start with, or a 

court had better have allowed you there. And I think that is the 

problem. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Smith, I am going to follow up with you. Am I understanding 

your testimony correctly that you got a phone call—— 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. —and someone asked you if they could run dogs 

in an area that it is legal to run dogs to train for fox hunting or 

whatever and you said it is okay to go there. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. This Silver’s Cove fox pen has been a fox pen 

for probably 50 some years as far as I know. Probably way longer 

and older than I am, there has been dogs up there. This is not a 

place where they do any killing, it is a for-sport dog exercising facility only. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when the officer asked you if they could do 

that, I mean was he inferring that he was going to do something 

illegal or hunt or anything like that, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. He just asked for a date that he could run 

his dogs. There was a little cabin up there that had a calendar on 

it. I didn’t own or lease the land but there was a little calendar up 

there that people just write their names down on when they wanted to come and run. And it was—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So tell me a little bit more, there were—how 

many agents showed up at your door? 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, at my place on Medford Cove, probably 20 to 25 

agents from five different agencies. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

Mr. MEADOWS. And your greatest crime is that you gave advice 

on a telephone call? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. I do not even see how he was able to get a 

search warrant. He did not in Haywood County, he had to go out 

of county to even get one. And I do not see how he even got a 

search warrant just based on a phone call. That is concerning to 

me. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me ask you the other part, because what 

really concerns me is when you talked about your nine-year-old 

daughter. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I start to put myself and think about my kids 

when they were nine and ten. 

And so they took you outside. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And you kept asking well, just let my daughter 

come out. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And their response was no? 

Mr. SMITH. They never did acknowledge me asking for my 

daughter. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So they ignored. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But they do not refute that you asked for your 

daughter to come out. When you had this, they did not say 

that—— 

Mr. SMITH. They never brought it up in court. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Did you bring it up or did your attorneys 

bring it up in court? 

Mr. SMITH. I think Mr. McLean did. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. McLean, did you bring that up in court? 

Mr. MCLEAN. I brought up a lot of things on top of that; yes, sir, 

I did. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, all right. 

So Mr. Smith, when we see this, do you believe that the type of, 

what I would refer to as SWAT team kind of swooping down, do 

you think that that was disproportional to the crime that you were 

even charged of? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So what kind of lasting effect has it had 

on your family? You mentioned that a little bit in your testimony. 

What kind of lasting effect has it had? 

Mr. SMITH. It has hurt our reputation of our name in the community. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because they think you are guilty because you 

were charged. 

Mr. SMITH. True. And just all the media sensation that they had 

over everything, it was just totally uncalled for. And the conduct 

of the officers at my house was outrageous. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Outrageous in what sense? I mean obviously 

there was a number of them. We want to make sure our law enforcement officers are safe. 

Mr. SMITH. All it would have took, if they would have needed me 

to turn myself in, it would have took a phone call and I would have 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

gladly brought myself right up here to the courthouse, to the jail. 

It would not have took 25 officers to come to my house with bulletproof vests and assault rifles to get me to turn myself in or for 

them to apprehend me. It would have took one phone call, I would 

have been up here as quickly as I could have done something my 

daughter and got her safely somewhere. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. McLean, let me come to you since you talked 

about these charges. You know, I think it was mentioned there 

were three different charges—hunting a bear, a deer and a hog 

with a spotlight, but it was one time. 

Mr. MCLEAN. December the 3rd, one time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So did they have different kinds of 

shells for the gun that particular night? Maybe in D.C., they do not 

understand that perhaps you use a different shell to hunt different 

kinds of animal. I mean obviously you could possibly find one that 

would work for all three. 

Mr. MCLEAN. They had one gun. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you do not normally go out hunting for all 

three of those. 

Mr. MCLEAN. The undercover agent had one gun. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So the undercover agent had a gun? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Did the person you—— 

Mr. MCLEAN. No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So your person did not have a gun? 

Mr. MCLEAN. No. But he went with them. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But he had a spotlight and went with them. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Had a flashlight; yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Had a flashlight? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. A flashlight? 

Mr. MCLEAN. You know, one of them big lights. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, so it was a big flashlight. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Pretty good size flashlight. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So here he was out there, but he went 

out and so he got charged with three—— 

Mr. MCLEAN. Whatever they could think of was in the woods 

that night, they charged him and he ended up getting 15 months. 

They did not see anything. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, they did not charge him with grouse hunting at night. 

Mr. MCLEAN. No, but if there was—I do not think there are any 

grouse out there any more. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, maybe that is what it was. All right. So if we 

are doing that, you mentioned how many charges were made 

against him? 

Mr. MCLEAN. He had 34 charges. And I want to say this about 

that, if you do not care. One of your U.S. Forest Service officers 

specifically told Mr. Stiles—and I wish he was here because he is 

the one that came down and related it to us—he said look, you may 

win in district court in front of a jury but we are going to take you 

in front of a magistrate and you will get time. And that is what 

Eric Stiles would have told you if he had been here. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

So he was facing that going in. And that man knew that he had 

34 charges and that was, in my opinion, almost 18 years in prison. 

And so he opted to do what he had to do to keep from getting as 

much time as they wanted him to get. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So 34 charges and if you added the maximum 

sentence for each—— 

Mr. MCLEAN. Six months a charge. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So that would be how many years? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, I am not good at math, but take six and divide it into 34 and that will give you—it would be half of that 

Mr. MEADOWS. Seventeen years. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Seventeen years. I became a lawyer, not a mathematician. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, sometimes being a lawyer is better than 

being a mathematician. 

I am going to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for 

a second round of questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go back to something that Congressman Collins mentioned and that is federal officers coming onto private land. Now 

I realize that in South Carolina, game wardens working for the 

wildlife department can enter private land even without the necessity of showing probable cause without a warrant if they are trying 

to enforce game laws. If they are coming to see if you are baiting 

deer, turkey. You know, if you have made it a water fowl hole and 

all that, they can come on private land. I get that. 

I am real fuzzy on whether a federal officer can enter private 

land without a warrant, because my gut and my understanding of 

Constitutional law says no. 

Mr. COLLINS. That is right. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So I would like some clarification there. Was a warrant issued? Was there, due to the joint jurisdictional operation, 

was there an agreement? And the other question I have is probably 

for the second panel, is when I was a legislator in South Carolina, 

we were approached by U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers to give them the ability to handle Title 51, which was our 

criminal code in South Carolina, offenses. So if they saw someone 

breaking a South Carolina law on U.S. Forest Service property, 

they had the ability to enforce South Carolina law on federal Forest Service property, federal land. 

But I do not remember anything we did in the state giving those 

federal officers the ability to enforce either South Carolina law or 

federal law on private property, non-federal land, without going 

through the normal warrant process. 

So that is just a question I throw out there because I am real 

concerned about what Representative Collins said. 

Mr. MCLEAN. The particular officers you will be talking to shortly will tell you that they had an agreement signed in 2006, what 

is called an inter-agency agreement. But all that basically did was 

deal with federal wildlife violations, such as the Lacey Act. It did 

not provide that they had the right to go enforce South Carolina 

laws on private South Carolina or Georgia property. And it required, in the 2006 agreement, that they had to have a specific 

inter-agency agreement before they could even get involved in 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

those types of activities if they wanted to go undercover, covert operations. So that was the premise that they tried to claim that they 

had the authority. 

Then when I asked for the written authority, they signed it a 

week and a half after they started charging all these guys and 

picking everybody up. All of a sudden it came up and it was signed 

by all of the agencies. 

South Carolina actually did participate in some of these activities, but they realized what was going on, I think, and they 

dropped out of this. Georgia stayed in and so did Kentucky and 

some other agencies, but South Carolina came out. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Just for clarification purposes, going back to what 

Representative Collins was asking, did a Georgia wildlife officer or 

a North Carolina wildlife officer accompany the federal officers as 

they entered private land? 

Mr. MCLEAN. No. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Well, with Mr. Stancil’s situation on the private 

land, there was on occasions state officers, North Carolina state officers that entered with him. It is clear in the statements and everything though, Forest Service Officer Brian Southard said I made 

the decision to do this and everything. 

In Rabun County, Georgia where I am from, 65 percent of the 

county is owned by the U.S. Forest Service. They have got plenty 

to look after on their own. And it is a similar situation in western 

North Carolina. I do not know why the U.S. Forest Service—and 

this was not just any governmental agent that did it, it was a U.S. 

Forest Service person that strayed off of their thousands and thousands of acres to surveil something on 50 acres. 

And you are right, in Georgia I think we are pretty much the 

same way about an officer, a conservation officer can enter on to 

check to see what is going on. But I would submit there is a difference between checking for compliance and surveiling somebody. 

I would submit they should have had a warrant, they should have 

had permission, they should have had some kind of—in the situation with the Forest Service ranger, he should have had some kind 

of jurisdiction to go there. Like I say, if he is putting that camera 

on federal lands, that is one thing. But he was putting it on private 

property. 

Mr. DUNCAN. It was strictly investigating on private property, it 

was not an instance of transiting private property to get to federal 

property. This was uniquely—— 

Mr. STOCKTON. And I gave you too much information in my 

statement. If you will read it, I spell it out from the time you leave 

the state road until you get to where this was, you do not traverse 

any federal property at all. And keep in mind, in his trial, all of 

the testimony was from the officers, everything you see is based on 

the actual transcript of that trial, that I have written there. And 

the officers themselves stated look, it is probably a quarter of a 

mile from the nearest U.S. Forest boundary, you cannot see a U.S. 

Forest Service boundary from where we are at. You do not cross 

the U.S. Forest Service. No, this was a wholly contained private 

piece of property. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you think this was an instance—and this is just 

for my edification—of baiting or luring animals off of federal property onto private property? 

Mr. SMITH. They will go where they want to. 

Mr. STOCKTON. That was probably the argument. Keep in mind 

though, there are legal instances of baiting, there are legal ways 

of baiting. This had been surveiled, and candidly there were no 

baiting cases made out of this. The case that was made out of 

it—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am not familiar with North Carolina and Georgia 

law, you can bait in South Carolina all day. It is the hunting over 

baiting that trips you up. If you are luring animals to hunt, and 

so I can put bait out to view wildlife and photography and all kinds 

of things. It is the hunting aspect, taking of game over baiting, 

where the law kicks in. I appreciate that. 

Let me move on in the essence of time. I want to talk about the 

Lacey Act a little bit because during Operation Something Bruin, 

federal Lacey Act violations could apply if a bear or wildlife was 

illegally killed and then transported across state lines. 

According to media reports, undercover officers, against the advice of hunters, called hunters from surrounding counties to try to 

get them to participate in illegal selling of bear parts such as gall 

bladders. Hunters refused to take part in this illegal activities and, 

according to news reports, no charges were filed in Operation 

Something Bruin related to gall bladders. So related to gall bladders, there was no Lacey Act violations. 

This seems like a huge federal effort, using the Lacey Act as the 

impetus for that, to prosecute and investigate hunting activity in 

North Carolina and Georgia. And at the time, it was developed, 

South Carolina was brought into it for at least the initial discussions and no cases or no investigation was done in my state. But 

they were initially contacted. So it just seems like a tremendous effort. 

Mr. STOCKTON. To give some background on the Lacey Act, it 

came around at the turn of the past century, around the early 

1900s and it was at a time when the birds in the Everglades were 

just being decimated because of women’s hats. That is basically 

part of what brought the Lacey Act around. It was about fighting 

the commercialization of animals. 

What has happened now is—and the way the Lacey Act I guess 

applied in our situation is you have got a situation that Mr. 

McLean’s client was a licensed hunting guide and they considered 

that selling the animal. In my client’s situation, he was not part 

of the commercial operation, the outfitting operation at all. He allowed this undercover officer—and there is no testimony, no evidence whatsoever that my client ever received a dime, but he allowed him to hunt at a place where he had been maintaining legal 

bear baits for training purposes. It became illegal the minute he allowed him to go there. 

But the way they bootstrapped him in the Lacey Act is he knew 

or should have known that that bear would eventually cross state 

lines. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Does he have a crystal ball? 

Mr. STOCKTON. That is what it would take. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. MCLEAN. And that is the same, Mr. Duncan, basically the 

game warden, state game warden in North Carolina, went to this 

bait site by himself, nobody else was there. My client was not even 

in the picture. He shot the bear, he then called his client to come 

back and help him load it, took it to my client’s property in Georgia. They skinned the bear and then he brought it back, the wildlife officer brought it back across the state lines in order to get the 

Lacey violation. 

Mr. STOCKTON. The next day. 

Mr. MCLEAN. The next day—the next day. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not want anything to be 

construed that I am against the Lacey Act. I think the Lacey Act 

has a very immense value in this nation with regard to ivory, with 

regard to a number of other things. I fully support that. I do understand the history of the Lacey Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act and what it did for conservation and protecting certain species. 

But I am concerned about what I am reading and hearing about 

how the Lacey Act was sort of the impetus for the whole operation 

and there were not any violations, there was not any evidence that 

I have been able to see that the Lacey Act was, you know, egregiously being violated here. 

So I thank the Chairman and thank the witnesses and I will 

yield back. 

Mr. STOCKTON. If I may just real quick, the Lacey Act situation, 

my client was charged in North Carolina, indicted for a felony in 

federal court for a Georgia violation, a Georgia misdemeanor violation. And that misdemeanor was the predicate for a potential felony conviction. That is the situation we had. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for a second round. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There is a lot that has been asked here and I think the gentleman from South Carolina answered and really raised a lot of 

things. I want to—some of the times at Congressional hearings not 

only on a specific issue, give you a chance to make a statement but 

also clarify and maybe teach even. 

I may not like this, Mr. Stockton and Mr. McLean, we have—as 

many times among defense attorneys, we have only always—you 

know, we always represent innocent people. We do not. There are 

many times that people need us because they are not innocent. 

But one of the things that is talked about and it has been talked 

about in this administration. There has been a discussion in this 

country for about eight, nine months now about prosecutorial discretion. In fact, our President has said that he is acting under prosecutorial discretion by just basically saying I am just going to five 

or six million people and say I am just not going to prosecute the 

law. That is not prosecutorial discretion, that is just against the 

law. Okay? 

But what we are seeing here, and I want to make this clear because in fairness to our prosecutors and in fairness to our system, 

the issues here in which I have had cases in which I have had multiple charges and it is up to the prosecutor to decide really what 

they want to go forward with, how much they want to charge or 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

how less. Would you not both of you agree that is prosecutorial discretion? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Correct. 

Mr. COLLINS. In its purest sense. So really, as much as we may 

or may not like it, they can in some ways choose the forum in 

which they are going to charges these crimes. Correct? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. I think that is the hard part to understand. And 

this petty offense issue I think makes it very difficult for people to 

understand but I think the bigger picture is, and I want everybody 

here to understand this and maybe you are going to be watching 

later, those of us who got really upset with this administration for 

claiming prosecutorial discretion in an immigration issue in which 

they are just blanketly saying we are not going to touch this because we have the ability to choose, pick and choose which laws we 

want to enforce. That is not what happens a lot of times in these 

cases which are actual prosecutorial discretion. Whether I like it or 

not frankly is irrelevant. They do have that. 

But I do want y’all to expound upon that because you both mentioned it in your testimony. I would just like to hear your comments on that. 

Mr. MCLEAN. And I appreciate the fact that they have prosecutorial discretion. My position is even beyond that. If you are going 

to prosecute me, at least give me a right to go in front of 12 people 

who are my peers to try to see if that prosecutor can get a conviction, because my client is presumed innocent whether he chooses 

to prosecute him or not. I believe that every man who faces any 

day in jail should have the right to have a jury. If we had lost 

every one of these cases in front of the magistrate because they 

wanted jail time, then we would not be sitting here, in my opinion. 

But they denied something that is even far greater than prosecutorial discretion. They denied every man in magistrate’s court the 

opportunity, because they knew they were going to get time, to give 

us a jury trial to let the jury make that determination. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I think the issue you bring up there—and let’s 

continue this—it is something, like I said, I have already said in 

my first line of questioning, is this concern of, you know, especially 

consecutive because many times people are charged with multiple, 

because, you know, just the nature of the offense, it may be petty 

but it is multiple and if it is done consecutively and not concurrently, it presents an even larger issue and I think that is what 

you are pointing out there. 

Mr. MCLEAN. And my point is also, I respect one of our district 

court judges by the name of Cogburn. He in the district court for 

the Middle District of North Carolina. Let me tell you something, 

when he was the magistrate in the 1980s, when he realized that 

the government wanted active time, even one day, he would require, that prosecutor could bring a jury in a magistrate’s court 

and let us try it in front of a jury. And that is the thing that I 

think Congress really needs to look at and change. 

Mr. COLLINS. Anything, Mr. Stockton, you want to add to that? 

Mr. STOCKTON. Just when you were saying that about prosecutorial discretion, it just kind of reminded me of the movie ‘‘Cool 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Hand Luke,’’ where he said, ‘‘Look, calling it your job don’t make 

it right.’’ And that is kind of the situation. Just because they are 

saying look, that is our job, that does not make what has gone on 

here right. 

Like I say, this is not a situation where you have got a lot of lily 

white people, although there are some lily white people in this situation. In my statement, I hope y’all will pay attention to C.J. 

Junaluska. He was a victim, he was an absolute victim because he 

was indicted on a felony in federal court on a lie, absolute lie. No 

other way to put that. It was ultimately dismissed but only after 

he had to worry about it and I think had to hire a lawyer to do 

it. 

Cindy Clanton was indicted—I am not going to say it was on a 

lie, but she just did not do what they said she did. She was just 

completely innocent. 

Jack Billingsley, who is here today, he was charged and ultimately dismissed. And he was just innocent. Like I say, calling it 

their job to bring those charges did not make it right, because they 

put some people who had not committed crimes in a bad situation. 

I represent a lot of hardened criminals, you know, they thrive off 

that kind of rush, that kind of drama but your average law-abiding 

people, even though it is relatively a minor misdemeanor maybe in 

some case, that is a huge issue to their life. You know, people’s 

good names mean something to them. Walt Stancil, it means something to him that he has got a clean record. It means something 

to him that he can tell his grandson that look, I have not been convicted of any crimes or whatever. 

And they are making more out of this than what it ever was. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I think the biggest thing here—and having respect, and from my background, from the state legislature and on 

and basically family background, we need law enforcement and we 

need good attorneys on the other side as well. It is the balance that 

keeps the system operating and when those balances are missed 

and those balances are off kilter, that is when people lose faith in 

the system on both sides. And we need to continue to maintain 

that. 

And I also want to say, Mr. Smith, Mr. Meadows has done a good 

job asking questions, but I just want to thank y’all for your testimony and I appreciate it and yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. I am going to go ahead 

and conclude with a round of questions and then we will make a 

very brief adjournment for the second panel. 

But Mr. McLean, I want to come back to you. You had indicated 

earlier that the agreement that basically authorized this was not 

signed until did you say 12 days after some of the charges? 

Mr. MCLEAN. Just to be on the safe side, let me look, I brought 

it with me. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You actually brought documents with you. 

Mr. MCLEAN. I brought the—okay, apparently the U.S. Forest 

Service signed it on February the 23rd and it looks like that the 

State of North Carolina signed it on February the 28th, 2012. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And this was after—— 

Mr. MCLEAN. Tony got arrested on February the 19th. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it was after Mr. Smith was arrested. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Mr. MCLEAN. And all my other clients too. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you suggesting that these agencies knowingly entered into arresting someone without having the proper 

documentation? 

Mr. MCLEAN. I guess the judges will have to deal with that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am saying are you suggesting. 

Mr. MCLEAN. I believe they are. I believe they did not have the 

authority to do what they claim they did. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So one of the things that was real troubling to me early on and why it raised I guess my sensitivity is I 

heard a number of different stories that were very—they just did 

not seem like it was America. You know, it just seemed like they 

were going a different direction than what our founding fathers. 

One of those had to do with an email that basically said we are 

going to give people jail time instead of probation because I guess 

it was cheaper, is what they said. Now does that make sense to any 

of you on the panel, that it is cheaper to put somebody in jail than 

to give them probation? Under what theory is it cheaper to do that? 

Mr. Stockton. 

Mr. STOCKTON. Well, I think it depends on what you are assigning a value to. If you are saying dollars and cents, maybe you can 

do some fancy accounting and come up with it being cheaper. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it is cheaper to feed them and house them? 

Mr. STOCKTON. But if you are looking at the cost in liberty and 

justice, then it is definitely not cheaper. That is the wrong way to 

go. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I do want to make mention of Mr. Frank 

Whitney, he is the Chief United States District Judge. Because 

when some of this stuff came up, I made a commitment not only 

to some of you but some of the people in the audience here that 

I would follow up personally. And I will say that I called Frank 

Whitney, the Chief Judge, and made him aware of the emails that 

I had received. It was of great concern to me because it appeared 

as if we were intentionally trying to put people in jail instead of 

actually allowing them to either pay a fine or probation. And much 

to his credit, I guess the day after my phone call, he put forth a 

clarification memo that I think now that you have seen. 

Mr. MCLEAN. Actually, I have not seen it, but I am aware of it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You have not seen it but you are aware of it, that 

says that we should have all the options. They should not be forced 

into jail. 

So I guess my question is, with this clarification, do you think 

the ambiguous nature that was there prior to that entered in in 

any way as a factor in terms of sentencing for any of your clients 

as they went forward? In any way. 

Mr. MCLEAN. I do not think I can speak to that. Just truthfully, 

I do not believe I can. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

Mr. MCLEAN. You would ask me to step into the minds of those 

justices and those judges and I cannot do it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right, fair enough. 

Mr. STOCKTON. I have got to say I think that the law enforcement officers in this knew where they could get the most bang for 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

their buck and they moved from district court to the magistrate 

court because they knew there would not be probation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you are suggesting then, Mr. Stockton, 

is that there were charges, felony charges, all these other charges, 

that would allow for a jury trial. And then they saw people getting 

off of a jury trial and they said well, let us just do away with all 

of these that require a jury and let us re-charge them with a misdemeanor where hopefully the result is a little favorable; is that 

what you are saying? 

Mr. STOCKTON. I believe in my heart that is exactly what the situation is. But I am saying that based on the knowledge I have of 

what Brian Southard had said to Eric Stiles about we will just 

move it down to magistrate court and they will give him time. That 

is why I say that. 

You had asked Mr. McLean earlier if he believed that law enforcement had deliberately arrested like Mr. Smith, knowing that 

they did not have the inter-agency agreements. I do not want to assign ill motives to anybody without good reason, because that is 

what has been done to us, that is what has been done to our clients. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Mr. STOCKTON. I can only assume that that was negligent, not 

intentional. But on this situation, absolutely, they moved—and we 

are talking basically about Chad Crisp’s case and his father’s case. 

They basically moved those from the district court down to magistrate court to load them up. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me say, if I were speeding on a 

federal highway, Blue Ridge Parkway, I guess that would be a federal misdemeanor. 

Mr. MCLEAN. It would be. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if I was speeding and they caught me three 

times on the Blue Ridge Parkway, could I, under this same scenario, go to jail for 18 months? 

Mr. STOCKTON. I am not completely sure if a speeding ticket in 

the federal system—— 

Mr. MCLEAN. I saw one get five months. 

Mr. STOCKTON. —allows for that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I could get five months is what you are saying? 

Well, that is encouraging. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I think we get the sense of it. I am looking forward to hearing some of the answers from the second panel. 

Obviously I want to thank each of you for your time, for your testimony here today. 

We are going to take a short break as we seat the second panel 

of witnesses. 

Mr. MCLEAN. We thank you for the privilege of being here. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right, the Committee will come back to order, 

if we can. If you will please take your seat, and if you have to have 

a conversation, take it outside. 

We will now recognize our second panel of witnesses and I am 

pleased to welcome Mr. Luis Santiago, Special Agent-in-Charge of 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

the Atlanta Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

Mr. Tony Tooke, Regional Forester for the Southern Region at the 

U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for being here. Mr. Gordon Myers, 

Executive Director of North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; and Major Stephen Adams, who is with the Law Enforcement 

Division at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 

Thank you all, gentlemen, for being here and pursuant to committee rules, we will ask that y’all be sworn in. So if you would 

please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Again, in order to allow time for discussion and questions as a 

follow-up, please limit your oral testimony to five minutes, but your 

entire written testimony will be made part of the record. And I will 

say that before we go to questions, we will be yielding, after your 

testimony, to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, because he 

is going to have to depart for another engagement. But we will first 

go to you, Mr. Santiago and recognize you for five minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF LUIS J. SANTIAGO 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Good morning, Chairman, Meadows, Representative Collins and Representative Duncan. 

We are here today to talk about our investigation into illegal activities involving money, chocolate and greed. Poachers and unethical commercial hunting guides in Georgia and North Carolina 

have reaped financial gains using baiting stations filled with chocolate waste to attract the American black bear for an easy kill during the hunting season. 

It is an unethical practice and the Service is committed to doing 

as much as it can with the resources we have to make the illicit 

take and illegal trade of wildlife such as the black bear as short 

as possible. 

Demand for bear parts such as claws, paws, meat and gall bladders on the black market is resulting in the rapid decline of Asian 

bear populations and the American black bear is filling the void. 

Typically, poachers sell bear parts to local buyers who in return 

sell them to buyers in Asian American markets. The trafficking of 

bear gall bladder in particular is big business. Used for illegitimate 

medicinal purposes, the price of a bear gall bladder typically starts 

between $50 to $200 and can end up being sold several times at 

prices exceeding $1000 each. 

The continued illegal take of the American black bear to meet increased commercial demand for its parts may eventually have a 

negative impact in its population. As such, the bear is afforded protection under an international treaty known as CITES or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The American black bear is also protected by the nation’s first federal wildlife protection law, the Lacey Act, and state wildlife laws. 

To facilitate this illicit take, poachers use chocolate to lure bears 

and make their capturing them much easier. In this investigation, 

we saw people bait black bears by using chocolate waste products 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

to fill small culverts known as bait stations. It is unlawful in North 

Carolina to place processed food products as bait in any area with 

an established season for hunting black bears. 

The people who do this are poachers, not hunters. They are not 

the hunter conservationists who have led the conservation successes we have seen over the past century and contributed with the 

hunting and shooting sports industry more than $8.4 billion to help 

make America the world’s premier conservation leader. Indeed, it 

was at the behest of citizens and ethical hunters in Tennessee and 

North Carolina that led to this investigation. 

Acting on numerous reports of illegal bear hunting in the southern Appalachian mountains, the Service partnered with the Forest 

Service, Georgia Department of Natural Resources and North Carolina Wildlife Resources in this undercover investigation in 2010. 

The objective was to establish facts to support the apprehension 

and prosecution of individuals involved in the unlawful take, possession, sale, purchase, and transport of American black bears. 

Law enforcement officers infiltrated poaching circles to document 

violations including bear baiting and illegal take of bears and other 

wildlife. The Service’s role in this investigation focuses on the unlawful take and commercialization of the black bear. 

Five individuals were indicted on Service-led charges of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act and a violation of the Lacey Act. 

Prior to trial, the United States Attorney’s Office dismissed charges 

against two of these individuals; one after he pled guilty to a state 

charge for unlawfully taking a bear and a second for his cooperation and limited role. Charges against the remaining three defendants went to trial where two were convicted and the third individual was acquitted of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act. 

The Service’s partnership with state and federal partners in investigations like Operation Something Bruin promotes the sharing 

of assets and information to investigate the illicit take of wildlife 

in the most effective way possible. To date, the Service has expended less than $10,000, excluding salaries, during the investigation. We are hopeful that this small investment in activities to 

counter illegal poaching makes a long impact that results in increased protection of the black bear. 

In closing, I would like to commend the citizens and hunters who 

recognized this unlawful activity was occurring and reported it. 

They are conservation champions. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and I will be 

glad to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Santiago. 

I missed something, how much did you spend? It was in the latter part of your comments. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Ten thousand dollars. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ten thousand dollars. Okay. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Tooke, five minutes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Santiago follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 97400.016
43 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 97400.017
44 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 97400.018
45 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 97400.019
46 

STATEMENT OF TONY TOOKE 

Mr. TOOKE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share the Forest Service’s 

involvement in Operation Something Bruin. I have submitted my 

written testimony for the record, so you have got our official comments. 

I wanted to make a few key points about law enforcement operations, their value to public lands and their value to management 

of the national forests. 

Forest Service manages public lands in 42 states and Puerto 

Rico. The national forests are some of the most beautiful lands in 

the world and they provide high quality wildlife habitat, diverse 

wildlife and fish populations, forest products and unsurpassed 

recreation opportunities. The conservation mission of the Forest 

Service is recognized worldwide, including right here in western 

North Carolina. 

The Forest Service manages 2.1 million acres of public land in 

North Carolina and Georgia. These national forests are some of the 

most highly visited and treasured landscapes in the nation. These 

lands and forests exist today because not only of our visionary leaders from the past, but because of work accomplished every day by 

land managers and the public working together to conserve this 

legacy. 

The Forest Service Law Enforcement Investigation Unit provides 

support to the managers of these lands by protecting the public and 

natural resources. They enforce and investigate violations of federal laws, rules and regulations. Two special agents assigned to the 

national forests here in North Carolina and Georgia investigate a 

wide variety of crimes, including damage to natural resources, wild 

land arson, illegal drug manufacturing, timber theft, property 

crimes, archeological resource protection crimes and others. Because of the size and the scope of this responsibility, Forest Service 

Law Enforcement Investigation routinely works collaboratively 

with other federal, state and local agencies. And that includes the 

protection of wildlife on national forests which is a shared responsibility with the states. We are committed to doing our part to ensure that we have sustainable populations of wildlife for the public 

to enjoy for generations to come. 

First and foremost, Operation Something Bruin was about protecting the public’s interest. The operation sought to end illegal 

conduct that denied others access to the benefits from public land. 

Law abiding citizens, which include ethical hunters, forest visitors, 

and anyone else who supports wildlife conservation, all of these deserve access to these rich and valued public resources. Operation 

Something Bruin was a joint law enforcement operation between 

federal and state agencies. 

The Forest Service participation in this operation focused primarily on initial violations ranging from resource damage, sanitation violations, illegal motor vehicle use, and operating a commercial activity on national forests without permits. 

During 2008 and 2009, the Forest Service began seeing a trend 

of illegal activities associated with the use of the national forests. 

Our officers witnessed and members of the public reported activities that indicated increased activities of illegal baiting, illegal takVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:25 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97400.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

ing of black bear and illegal commercial outfitting of hunting services. The reported violations were occurring on federal, state, and 

private lands crossing multiple jurisdictions. These complex jurisdictional issues combined with the limited investigative resources 

and officer safety concerns led the Forest Service to contact the 

other impacted agencies. The purpose was to combine intelligence 

as well as plan a potential covert operation to surface the violations 

within the respective jurisdictions. These coordinated efforts led to 

the formulation of Operation Something Bruin. 

From 2009 through 2013, this operation was managed jointly, 

but each respective agency had supervision and oversight of their 

assigned resources. As a result of the investigation by the Forest 

Service, 18 individuals were convicted of various crimes including 

operating a commercial activity on national forests without a permit, illegal placement of bait on national forests with the intent to 

hunt bear, illegal hunting of bear on national forest land. 

Three more key points that I would like to make. In the course 

of these prosecutions, the court considered and denied challenges 

to federal jurisdiction while multiple juries convicted defendants alleging entrapment. 

One important aspect in the planning of this undercover operation was the joint decision by all agencies, including the Department of Justice, that if an agent was put in a position that would 

otherwise expose his or her cover, the taking of game was authorized. The Forest Service spent a total of about $70,000 related to 

Operation Something Bruin over a five-year period. 

These are the facts, but there is one more story of Operation 

Something Bruin I want to conclude with. Forest Service law enforcement officers and agents support our mission delivery each 

and every day and I would like to take a moment to recognize them 

this morning for their service. These officers work long hours, usually at odd times and over holiday weekends so the rest of us can 

safely enjoy our national forests and other public lands. This service comes at a cost to these officers and their families, and in some 

cases with great, tremendous sacrifice. So I want to take a moment 

here today to make sure that we honor the service of those who 

protect our public lands and the visitors who enjoy them. 

To conclude, I would emphasize once again that the protection of 

wildlife on national forests is a shared responsibility. The Forest 

Service is committed to doing our part to ensure that citizens have 

sustainable wildlife populations for the public to enjoy for generations to come. 

That concludes my comments. I will be glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Tooke. I would be remiss if I did 

not acknowledge the service of the tremendous law enforcement officers of the U.S. Forest Service. I have had the unfortunate necessity to be at a funeral of a U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officer who was fighting courageously in my district and lost his life. 

And so it does not go unnoticed of the sacrifice, not only the ultimate sacrifice that he and his family paid, but the daily sacrifice, 

the missing of birthdays and anniversaries and others as they 

work. So this hearing in no way, in no shape or fashion is designed 

to impugn the service of so many great public servants. Thank you. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

Mr. Myers, you are recognized for five minutes. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Tooke follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 97400.020
50 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 97400.021
51 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 97400.022
52 

STATEMENT OF GORDON MYERS 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Meadows and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for bringing your important work directly to the people of western North Carolina and for 

the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss our 

role in Operation Something Bruin. 

The Wildlife Commission’s primary mission is to conserve North 

Carolina’s wildlife resources and their habitats and provide programs and opportunities that allow hunters, anglers, boaters, and 

other outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy wildlife-associated recreation. 

That mission is derived from our agency’s statutory purpose, which 

includes protection of North Carolina’s wildlife resources and administering the laws relating to those resources. Those resources 

are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the public. Individuals may only take them within the constraints of law and regulations. 

To accomplish the law enforcement elements of our mission, we 

use a multi-faceted approach which includes focused education, 

public awareness campaigns, and proactive law enforcement. Together, these elements of conservation law enforcement encourage 

ethical conduct by sportsmen, assure proper conditions for scientific 

management of our wildlife resources, and secure significant public 

benefits from those resources. 

The achievements resulting from scientific wildlife management 

in North America over the past century have been astounding. In 

North Carolina, restored populations of black bear, wild turkey, 

and white-tailed deer are a just a few examples of those long-term 

achievements. Conservation law enforcement is fundamental to 

that success. 

Information provided to me indicates the U.S. Forest Service initiated Operation Something Bruin in late 2009. And based on my 

records, I was first informed of the operation in early 2011 when 

our Law Enforcement Division Chief requested authorization to actively assist in the investigation, which was funded and led by the 

U.S. Forest Service. The Wildlife Commission values our partnerships and strong working relationships with local, state and federal 

agencies, including law enforcement and public safety agencies. We 

strive to operate effectively and efficiently by working with those 

partners to reduce duplication of effort and to leverage our resources for mission accomplishment. To that end, we provided one 

undercover officer as well as officers who assisted in the execution 

of search warrants. 

In a letter dated to me May 21, 2015, from the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, references were made to media 

reports citing questionable tactics used in the operation, including 

allegations of entrapment. Entrapment is a complete defense to a 

crime and to the extent that any defendant believed he or she was 

entrapped, the defendant could bring that forward in court. Based 

on my understanding, at least one defendant did raise that defense 

and the issue was determined by a jury. 

That letter also referenced concerns associated with the circumstances under which wildlife was taken by an undercover officer. There is no dispute that wildlife was taken during this operation and it is my understanding that on at least one occasion, 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Wildlife Commission Officer Chad Arnold testified as to the circumstances. When officers work in an undercover capacity, there 

are times when they may need to take specific actions, including 

the taking of wildlife resources in order to maintain their cover or 

their safety. In addition, the potential long-term resource benefits 

that accrue from enforcing our wildlife laws, including the limited 

taking of resources, can protect far more wildlife resources than 

those taken in that undercover capacity. 

That letter also requested information related to charges and 

convictions as well as costs associated with the operation. It is my 

understanding that the prosecuting attorneys reviewed all violations prior to charges being filed. It is also my understanding that 

after charges were filed, some charges were dismissed, many of 

which referenced the Petite Doctrine, which limits and prioritizes 

prosecutions if overlapping jurisdiction exists. In some cases, plea 

deals were agreed upon in which a defendant pled guilty to some 

charges in exchange for the dismissal of others. The decisions regarding pretrial disposition of charges rests with the prosecuting 

attorney’s office. 

There have been wide-ranging media reports on the costs of Operation Something Bruin, including reports that the operation costs 

several million dollars. Based on review by my office, it is my understanding that the direct cost to the Wildlife Resources Commission were less than $12,000. This figure does not include salary 

costs which were paid regardless of the work performed while on 

duty. 

In closing, I have worked for the Wildlife Commission for the 

past 24 years and it is truly and honor and a privilege every day 

to work among staff who exhibit the highest level of professionalism and dedication to resource conservation. I greatly value 

and respect the important responsibilities of our law enforcement 

officers, just as I value and respect the important work that you 

are doing here today. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony and I will gladly 

take any questions. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Thank you for your services. 

Mr. Adams. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 97400.023
55 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 97400.024
56 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 97400.025
57 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN ADAMS 

Mr. ADAMS. Chairman Meadows, Congressman Collins and Congressman Duncan, thank you for the invitation to this hearing and 

for allowing transparency and oversight on behalf of all citizens of 

the United States. Additionally, coming to the people only shows 

care and concern to ensure all parties are equally represented. 

The Department of Natural Resources supports legal and ethical 

hunting under fair chase conditions. The agency is charged with 

managing wildlife populations under the public trust doctrine for 

all citizens of Georgia. Law enforcement is a critical component in 

ensuring that wildlife populations are conserved for present and future generations. 

Today, I will discuss the role and scope of involvement of the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources in the multi-state, multiagency Operation Something Bruin. 

In 2009, the Law Enforcement Investigative Unit of the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources was contacted by the U.S. Forest 

Service and requested to participate in an undercover operation 

that would target unknown individuals believed to be participating 

in illegal hunting activities in remote areas of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Illegal bear hunting, illegal guiding on federal 

property, hunting out of season and in closed areas, illegal sale of 

black bears and parts and Lacey Act violations were all types of 

violations that were thought to be occurring in this region based 

on citizen complaints and fragmented information given to officers 

over several years. Additionally, hunters had begun to use advanced radios, GPS devices, and electronic tracking systems, making enforcement and documentation of violations more difficult. Research previously conducted show that less than ten percent of witnessed wildlife crimes are reported, further hampering enforcement 

efforts. Georgia agreed to participate in the operation by furnishing 

one trained officer during hunting season for the duration of the 

operation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as U.S. Forest 

Service agreed to provide the needed supervisory structure, support 

agents and undercover agents. It was also decided that the undercover portion of the operation would last no more than three years. 

Supervisors with the Georgia DNR maintained contact with the undercover officer from Georgia while he was detached to the operation. Authority for the operation and officers came under a longstanding Memorandum of Agreement between the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

that was last updated in 2006. 

During this operation, there were two black bears that were 

taken in Georgia. These two were taken by an undercover officer 

in 2011. Each of the harvests were made while the officer was in 

a role as a hunter being guided, on duty, and as an official act. In 

addition, both instances were thoroughly documented in writing in 

a Report of Investigation and reported as soon as practical to operation supervision. During the 2011 hunting season, Georgia DNR 

records show 690 bears harvested by hunters in Georgia with 529 

coming from the mountain bear population. 

During the 2013 hunting season, agencies that were participating in Operation Something Bruin made the decision to end all 

covert operations and begin the closeout phase of the operation. BeVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:25 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97400.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

ginning in December 2013 and continuing until February 2014 

when the initial arrest warrants were served, several tasks were 

completed by Georgia DNR officers and supervisors that provided 

multiple layers of oversight on all charges taken by the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources. A small number of supervisors 

who were not aware of the operation were briefed on the operation 

and directed to review all Reports of Investigation that involved 

state charges that occurred in Georgia over the course of the operation. Their charge was to review the Reports of Investigation, list 

out possible violations, review them to make sure that they were 

in compliance with the Law Enforcement Concepts Policy, confirm 

all elements of the crime were met, they were not duplicative and 

not minor administrative infractions. 

After the list of possible charges were reduced to a list that met 

the previously stated criteria, supervisors with Georgia DNR met 

with prosecutors in each judicial circuit where charges were being 

made and briefed as well as received approval to move forward and 

an intent to prosecute the defendants on the crimes outlined in the 

briefings. After the briefings were held, officers secured arrest warrants that were signed by judges for each defendant and each 

charge. 

In addition, a media plan was coordinated to highlight the operation in an attempt to deter other violations. The media plan was 

to give an overview of the operation and discuss the number and 

types of charges made. This number continued to decrease as the 

charges went through the previously mentioned vetting and oversight process. 

On the first day of the takedown phase, Georgia officers, along 

with law enforcement officers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service, made contact with three suspects identified in the operation. Walt Stancil, Cale Stancil, and Jerry Parker 

were all contacted at their residence during the early afternoon 

hours on the first day. All were given copies of the search warrant 

and arrest warrants and the state charges and the search process 

was explained to each by a Georgia DNR officer. Georgia DNR has 

issued and required the use of body worn recording devices since 

2007. The encounters during the takedown phase of all Georgia defendants were recorded using these devices, and all recordings have 

been submitted to the committee as requested. Each video of these 

encounters depicts professional, polite and courteous officers who 

complete their jobs but treat the defendants and their personal 

property with respect. I was at Walt Stancil’s residence for a period 

of time during his arrest and the search of his residence. When his 

attorney, Mr. Stockton, came to the residence, he was allowed to 

speak privately with Mr. Stancil. And while at the residence, Mr. 

Stockton commented to Mr. Stancil in my presence and other officers that he appreciated how we were conducting the arrests and 

searches and they should be thankful that we were being respectful 

to them and their belongings. He had never seen a search warrant 

executed that way and that officers normally dump belongings on 

the ground and have little respect for personal property. I told him 

that is not how the agency did things, and not what we saw from 

our officers. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

The remaining search warrants and arrests of the defendants in 

Georgia were executed over the next two days without incident. 

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to come and testify in 

front of the committee and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 97400.026
61 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 97400.027
62 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 97400.028
63 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Adams. I would like to highlight 

the fact that your agency has been extremely cooperative with this 

committee in terms of the document requests, and everything that 

we have asked for you have been willing to provide. And in a time 

were sometimes that is difficult to do, I just want to say thank you 

on behalf of the committee. We have got unbelievable staff on committee and it makes their job much easier. 

Additionally, Mr. Myers, thank you. You have agreed to provide 

documents on a rolling basis. We look forward to getting those completed documents, but you too have been very cooperative in those. 

And that is what it is all about, it is about transparency, it is about 

restoring trust in government. And when we are open and transparent, we know that the rule of law is here. 

I think it is important that the nine-year-old girl that we heard 

about in this very first panel, that she understands that law enforcement officers are people that she can depend on and trust. 

And in an environment where a lot of the narrative is not that, 

your actions, Mr. Adams and those of your fellow officers seek to 

restore that. And I just want to say thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia is going to have to get out. He has 

made a long trip down and there is not a straight road between 

here and there and so I am going to recognize the gentleman from 

Georgia and then he will be stepping out. 

Mr. COLLINS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 

it and thank you for those kind words. Thank you for allowing me 

to be here. I just want to say thank you to the good folks in this 

great district. From your representation of them, which is outstanding in D.C. and for their turnout today on this issue is really 

amazing. And I think I will come down here for all hearings. I 

just—you know, if I could just sit here and look out the window, 

I would probably have a hard time, it is just absolutely beautiful. 

So thanks. 

One of the issues that I have, and I have served on Oversight 

and Government Reform and still maintain a membership there, I 

just am not there right now. But I do serve on Judiciary. And Judiciary has primary oversight of the Department of Justice. And unfortunately, especially over the last few years, this Department of 

Justice has chose not to be transparent, has chose to be—at times 

to obfuscate, to give half answers. I have had my run-ins with the 

former Attorney General, thank goodness former Attorney General. 

I was hopeful of the new Attorney General to put in a new order 

of openness, but undoubtedly the Department of Justice wanted to 

claim that there are still ongoing criminal cases, decides not to 

come and be transparent about simple things such as the operating 

agreement between North Carolina and the federal Fish and Wildlife. 

If they were here—but oops, they are not—they could then talk 

to me about the mutual consideration or consultation in the North 

Carolina agreement with federal and state prosecutors. I would 

love to ask them that question. I guess they are too busy. 

I would love to ask them if they actually consulted and decided, 

as we heard in the first panel, about where they were going to 

charge and how they were going to charge, what were the decisions 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

made, why are we moving cases, you know, to that prosecutorial 

discretion. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would love to ask those questions but 

again, our Department of Justice decides to hide behind procedure, 

when we are not asking questions about cases. I just want to know 

about their thinking. Again, there is a TV show on called ‘‘Law and 

Order.’’ My wife loves it, I tolerate it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COLLINS. Because it really condenses our criminal justice 

system into really too often bumper sticker answers, but it makes 

a great statement at the beginning. It says, ‘‘This is a story about 

the men and women who enforce the laws and the ones who prosecute.’’ Today, we have before us those who enforce, who put their 

lives on the line, who represent those who do that. And as the son 

of one who watched his dad go out not knowing if he would come 

home and sometimes when he came home bloodied, torn uniform, 

I understand that. I am just highly disappointed that DOJ chose 

again to hide. I have seen this though not only in Oversight, I have 

seen it in Judiciary all the time. It is just sad. 

But let me get to a few things here. One, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, I served in the State House with your 

Commissioner, Mark. Tell him that I am saddened that he did not 

make the long windy road up here, I will have to see him about 

that later, and also Colonel Henderson as well. Give them my best. 

Your amount of cooperation, as the Chairman has said, has been 

very cooperative with this committee. You gave me a statistic, how 

much data have y’all turned over to the committee? 

Mr. ADAMS. Forty gigabits of data. It was a challenge to figure 

out how to get it there on time. 

Mr. COLLINS. I can imagine. But it was turned over. And I think 

one of the things that—that also listed some costs. What are some 

of the cost estimates or what costs, because there has been a lot 

of numbers thrown around. We just heard $10,000, many in the audience was not sure about that, but just from Georgia’s perspective, 

cost on this operation. 

Mr. ADAMS. There were no direct costs related to the operation 

other than salary of the undercover officer that was involved, and 

limited supervisory oversight. The takedown phase, there was a 

small amount of travel incurred. This is a guess, probably less than 

$5000 and that is a high estimate. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. One of the things that has also been brought 

up here is this cooperative agreement issue. And I want to highlight something here, because we do have a cooperative agreement 

in North Carolina, a different agreement, if you would. Your contention is, and I am assuming from other issues that you have with 

Forest Service, that you are operating under the 2007 agreement 

I believe, or 2006 agreement. Is that correct? 

Mr. ADAMS. That’s correct; yes, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. From what you know of this agreement—and you 

may not and if you do not, that is fine—but maybe Forestry could 

answer this. Are there any applicable differences between this 

agreement that would have necessitated the need for this agreement as opposed to what Georgia is operating under and has been 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

operating under. Mr. Adams first and if you would care to comment 

on that. 

Mr. ADAMS. Not familiar with the North Carolina agreement, although I can speak to the Georgia agreement. The Georgia agreement which is signed between the director of our agency, or Commissioner, and the Special Agent-in-Charge of the Southeast Region—I hope I have got that term correct—grants authority to 

rangers with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources who 

have passed the field training status to enforce several federal statutes such as the Lacey Act, CITES, Migratory Bird Treaty, ESA 

and other—Endangered Species Act— and other things. 

The agreement also provides deputization of federal officers as 

Georgia conservation officers. So it is a dual back and forth. 

Mr. COLLINS. So they can come in and—— 

Mr. ADAMS. That is correct. 

Mr. COLLINS. And before I go to Mr. Santiago, because I want 

your interpretation. You operated, even though it has been brought 

up that there is not an agreement with Georgia per se in this, you 

are under, and all of your agreements operate off of that one, it 

would cover this completely; correct? 

Mr. ADAMS. That is correct. We consulted with counsel for Georgia DNR and we felt like that the longstanding MOU which was 

last updated in 2006, prior to this operation’s inception, would 

cover our officers in the performance of their duties. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Santiago, would you agree with that assessment? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Yes. With one clarification that the agreement is 

signed by our Chief of Law Enforcement at our headquarters and 

the Regional Director. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. But as far as the operational aspects of this, 

because—I think there has been some confusion. Why was this 

signed, why did Georgia not, but as far as from the operational perspective, what Georgia operated under, and because North Carolina and maybe Mr. Myers, you want to say why did y’all sign a 

new agreement or did you not have an original Memorandum of 

Understanding? 

Mr. MYERS. Congressman, we are operating under an agreement 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 2006. It is much like the 

agreement that State of Georgia has except in North Carolina we 

do not have the reciprocity where the federal agents can enforce 

the state laws. That is the only difference. 

Mr. COLLINS. That is why you would have felt the need to have 

had this other agreement; correct? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, the other agreement with the Forest Service— 

the agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service gave our officer 

authority out of state. 

Mr. COLLINS. Right. 

Mr. MYERS. The agreement with the Forest Service established 

the relationship on this operation relative to administrative costs 

and other things. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. I am going to wrap up here. I appreciate the 

Chairman’s indulgence and the gentleman from South Carolina as 

well. I think one of the things that was brought up by the Chair 

in this, and it goes back to something that has been in the news 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

lately. There is a lot of good that can come from body cameras, 

there are a lot of questions still out there on how you use them, 

how you are not using them. When they are off, when they are not. 

But I think this is an example that could be used, because even 

the attorney for the family and the family itself, when you were 

able to show that and the respect and the treatment, even in a very 

difficult situation for all involved, not just the officers but also the 

families involved, I think showed that there was a way to do that. 

And I am proud of Georgia for doing that and the way it was handled and your turning over. 

I appreciate the hard work of all in this. Nobody wants to illegal 

hunt. I grew up hunting. You do it the right way. But also the federal government has to be very much aware of the perception that 

many times occurs in this in these kinds of operations when there 

feels like there was, as was said earlier, what is entrapment in this 

defense. There is a very legal definition of entrapment and, you 

know, that is what I think is concerning to many. 

So I think there are a lot of questions raised here. I will go back 

to what I started with though, what you are working through and 

I appreciate you being willing to sit at this panel and testify. And 

I am sure DOJ is listening somewhere. I am not on their best list 

and I am not making it again today, but again, I wish DOJ would 

share the same transparency issues that members of Congress do 

and that you showed here today. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I do excuse myself and I do appreciate the opportunity. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. North Georgia is very fortunate to have you representing them and I thank you for taking 

the time away from your family to come here and hopefully allow 

for greater transparency. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, I appreciate it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So with that, I am going to recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, which by the way is the Vice Chair 

of the Sportsmens Caucus, so he is very familiar with a number of 

these things. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am an avid outdoorsman, love to hunt and fish and travel to do that. 

I am just trying to get my head wrapped around the impetus for 

Operation Something Bruin. So Mr. Santiago, how did this originate? Who contacted who and how did all this begin? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Basically in years prior to the investigation, citizens and hunters in Tennessee, North Carolina reported illegal 

bear hunting to state wildlife officers. And acting on these reports, 

the Service, U.S. Forest Service, Georgia DNR and North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources initiated this investigation basically from the 

concerns of citizens and hunters. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So let me go to North Carolina. Mr. Myers, I do not 

think you were the Executive Director then, but maybe you can answer this. So North Carolina was seeing, and Georgia, were seeing 

large amounts of baiting activity, illegal bear pens—we call them 

pens in South Carolina—trespass, all these activities, and transport. You were apprehending or uncovering gall bladders that were 

being prepared to ship or were crossing state lines. You were hearing from the FBI that these gall bladders were being apprehended 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

or confiscated in other states or ports going out of the country. Is 

that what you are telling me? 

Mr. MYERS. Congressman, based on my information, the United 

States Forest Service began getting reports in 2009 when this 

project was initiated, this operation. And our Colonel came to me 

in early 2011 after he had attended a meeting and was briefed on 

the situation, and in that meeting it is my understand that there 

was enough compelling information that he felt it would be beneficial for the Wildlife Resources Commission—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Were these anonymous tips or were these actually 

interviews? Did you have someone come in and they interviewed 

and they told you specific instances of illegal harvest, baiting, gall 

bladder sales, or all that? 

Mr. MYERS. I do not know the source of the information. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Because anybody can call anonymously. And I 

would believe that there are a lot of people out there—based on my 

history in the state legislature on the committee that handled all 

of our DNR wildlife issues, there are people out there that do not 

want bears killed, period. And they will raise allegations at the 

drop of a hat to stop it from happening. And so if this was an anonymous tip line, that is one thing. If you went out and interviewed 

people that were making these allegations and began an initial investigation from the state wildlife offices that uncovered an enormous activity in North Carolina, western North Carolina and Georgia and South Carolina—is that what you are telling me? That is 

what I am asking. 

Mr. MYERS. This operation was not initiated by the State of 

North Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Georgia? 

Mr. ADAMS. I guess a couple of things. In Georgia, just to clarify 

earlier testimony, bear, feeding of wildlife is legal in Georgia. It is 

when you introduce gun powder that it becomes a crime. The exception to that, however, is bears. There is a specific statute. It is 

O.C.G.A. 27–3-27, that makes it illegal to place feed to congregate 

bear populations. Bears can be habituated to become dependent 

upon humans. It causes them to be problem bears and problem 

bears generally become dead bears. So there is a specific state law, 

absent of hunting, that prevents the congregation of black bear 

populations which is an admitted activity that was being done by 

one of the defendants. 

We had officers who would, for many years, encounter people 

who were training dogs. And that was legal, there was a legal 

training season. There was convenience store talk and things like 

that, anecdotal evidence, that there was more than training occurring sometimes. Training is a legal activity, we certainly support 

it, it is something they could do. 

Additionally, most of the areas that we are talking about are remote areas that are between western North Carolina and northeast 

Georgia—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Can I ask you a question real quick? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is bear baiting, that training, is that a legal activity? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

Mr. MYERS. It is a legal activity certain times of the year. It is 

not legal to hunt bears with dogs in north Georgia. It is legal in 

south Georgia, it is not legal for the mountain population of black 

bears in Georgia. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MYERS. So there was a lot of anecdotal talk that our officers 

in the area, uniformed officers, heard of people being guided, training being used as a guise for hunting and we heard that. Undercover officers during the course of this operation heard defendants 

say ‘‘you do not have a gun, you are not hunting.’’ And I am paraphrasing here. So we did feel like there was some activity. But we 

were contacted by the U.S. Forest Service to start this operation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. U.S. Forest Service, were y’all contacted? I mean 

I know you have got a limited number of officers and what-not out 

there. Were you contacted by outside sources—based on testimony, 

that is how this thing began, and did you verify those outside 

sources? Did y’all investigate, interrogate, question, whatever? 

Mr. TOOKE. Sir, the Forest Service contacted the other federal 

and state agencies and our participation was initially focused on 

different violations, some similar to what has already been mentioned, violations ranging from resource damage, sanitation violations, illegal motor vehicle use. And then operating a commercial 

activity on the national forests without a permit. 

So as our officers began to investigate that, they had their own 

observations as well as reports from the public, from citizens, about 

other crimes, other violations that were uncovered, such as illegal 

baiting of bear, taking of black bear during the closed season, and 

then again the commercial sale of black bear parts. And so in 2009, 

those contacts were made to the other agencies and the agencies 

came together to share information and look into the situation as 

a whole. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So there were allegations that black bear parts 

were being sold across state lines. What evidence was there? Were 

these being seized at airports, being shipped by UPS? Were these 

being seized at ports on cargo ships going out? I mean what evidence was there? 

Mr. TOOKE. I do not have the specific evidence. I just know that 

there were reports of that and that is what they uncovered during 

their investigation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am going to go that it is hearsay. And so let me 

shift gears here a little bit. Does U.S. Forest Service permit commercial activity hunting guides? Not talking about rafting on the 

Nantahala. Does the U.S. Forest Service permit hunting guides on 

U.S. Forest Service property in western North Carolina and north 

Georgia? 

Mr. TOOKE. Yes. We have operator and guide permits on multiple 

national forests across the country. We do have legal outfitting and 

hunting guide permits. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is most of the property considered game management area, is it open to public hunting? 

Mr. TOOKE. All of the national forests in North Carolina are in 

what is called game lands areas, all of the lands here in North 

Carolina. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Just for my edification, are the permits restricted—if I am an outfitter and I want to take folks hunting and 

I get a commercial operator’s permit as an outfitter from the U.S. 

Forest Service, am I restricted to a certain area? 

Mr. TOOKE. The permits I think vary. It depends on what the applicant is asking for. Some of them may request certain parts of the 

forest, some of them may request the entire part. I do not have the 

specific details on the ones that we have. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I know out west if you are a guide and you are permitted, you are usually permitted for use days on certain areas and 

you are restricted to those use days and those areas. 

Mr. TOOKE. Yeah, and I think some of them may be for certain 

time frames and others different time frames. 

Mr. DUNCAN. If y’all suspect illegal guiding activity, are you investigating that? You are going out and meeting with the people 

that were supposedly taken hunting? 

Mr. TOOKE. I would say that our officers probably did it a variety 

of ways, but yes, they could do that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are these permits for just big game or do you have 

to issue permits for people doing any commercial guiding, for turkey hunts, trout fishing, that sort of thing? 

Mr. TOOKE. It would be for whatever is legally available, whatever the legal season is during a legal time, whatever could be legally hunted. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How many of the cases involved illegal commercial 

activity on U.S. Forest Service property with regard to Operation 

Something Bruin? 

Mr. TOOKE. I do not have the specific numbers. I know we 

brought forward 24 individuals. There were 18 that were charged 

and convicted and there were also 10 arrests for breaking of federal 

laws, rules, and regulations. And some of those did include operating a commercial operation without a permit. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am trying to get my head around jurisdiction on 

federal and state. Who owns the wildlife that is out there? Who 

controls that? Is that the State of North Carolina or is that federal? 

Mr. TOOKE. On federal lands, on national forests, we have concurrent jurisdiction with the states to enforce wildlife laws on those 

lands. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So can North Carolina wildlife officers conduct 

their normal activities on U.S. Forest Service property? 

Mr. TOOKE. We have concurrent jurisdiction. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Concurrent jurisdiction, okay. 

I think this next question I have is probably more for the Justice 

Department, but I am curious about the directive to deny probation. Were any of you involved in that directive? 

Mr. TOOKE. I did not hear the first part. I am sorry, sir, the first 

part of your question. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Were either of you involved in the directive in 

terms of to deny probation? Were you aware of it, were you involved in it? 

Mr. TOOKE. That was determined by the prosecutors, if I am understanding your question. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

Mr. DUNCAN. There was an email that was provided the committee that apparently directs the prosecutors to deny probation to 

some of these defendants, assuming they were convicted. 

Mr. TOOKE. Yes, sir, that was totally their decision. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How about change of jurisdiction from a local state 

court to the federal magistrate? 

Mr. TOOKE. Totally their decision. 

Mr. DUNCAN. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, you concur? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Justice Department? Okay. 

How do you respond to the allegations of property damage for 

seized items? And I guess I will start with you, Mr. Santiago. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Through the process of the search warrants, the 

Service did not confiscate any items. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Has there been a specific investigation into the allegations of the defendants who had property seized as to whether 

that property was damaged by elements of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service or North Carolina and Georgia law enforcement? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I have no knowledge of any allegations of damage. 

Mr. MEADOWS. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Allegations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Tooke, are you aware of any then? 

Mr. TOOKE. In the search warrants, in the property that was 

seized, all these warrants were approved by judges, they were all 

reviewed by them. Our officers—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That was not the question. That is a good answer 

to a question that was not asked. But that was not the question. 

You are talking about seizing of property. Are you aware of any 

improper seizing of property or improper holding of property—— 

Mr. SANTIAGO. No, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And damage. 

Mr. MEADOWS. —and resulting damage. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. No, sir. They followed the federal rules of evidence in both seizing it, taking care of it, and returning it, what 

has been returned. I am not aware of any damage. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The committee has been made aware of that and 

the defendants have raised this issue. Whether they have raised it 

with North Carolina and Georgia or the feds, I am not sure, but 

the issue has been raised or otherwise, I would not know about it. 

So what is the process—for the people that are here, what is the 

process for some sort of either reimbursement or an ‘‘I am sorry’’ 

from the federal government or the local law enforcement for damage to items seized? What sort of recourse do they have? So what 

would be the step? If one of these folks that are out here that may 

or may not be defendants in these cases that had items seized that 

were damaged, what would be their recourse? What would the 

process be? Because they are wondering. If an antler was sawed 

off—I mean you cannot replace, that is a trophy, you cannot replace that. Why in the world was it sawed off? What is the ramifications or what is their recourse rather for dealing with that? Mr. 

Santiago. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. There is a tort claim process where a subject can 

file a complaint about the damages. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying they need to sue the federal 

government? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Well, there is a process for it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But that does not normally end well. Is that what 

you are saying, is that is your answer if you did it improperly? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I am not referring to this particular investigation, 

but in circumstances where there are some claims about damages, 

that is the way that we normally handle those claims. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Myers, if North Carolina was involved in the— 

I will not say illegal seizing because there is an investigation going 

on and items that were a part of—were wildlife trophies and other 

things, probably could be seized and be justified, but if they were 

damaged, what is the recourse for the people? What would be the 

process, who would they talk to within North Carolina DNR for 

that? Because—yes, sir. 

Mr. MYERS. Well, we would be contacted and I will preface that 

there is ongoing litigation relative to a tort claim and so I would 

say that the process would be to contact us and we would advise 

them of the tort claim process, which they can file a tort claim and 

there has been one filed in North Carolina. I will also say that we 

were not the custodians of evidence in Operation Something Bruin. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I do not know if Georgia was involved in any of 

that. Sir? 

Mr. ADAMS. I think we took very few things. For example, we 

had a computer person come in and we imaged hard drives instead 

of taking things. And our process for collecting evidence like that 

is to photograph it, document it, and to say what condition it is in. 

Again, in this operation, we were not the custodians, however, we 

may have seized some things pursuant to the search warrant and 

we have not been made aware of any complaints of anything from 

Georgia that was taken. And it would take a simple phone call, 

probably follow up with a letter, saying what was damaged. We 

would probably internally look at evidence photographs to make 

sure that it was not in that state before we got it. And then we 

would move forward. But that would be how we would handle it. 

We have not received any complaints of anything being damaged 

that Georgia DNR took. 

Mr. DUNCAN. They would be rightfully upset, and I would be 

upset, if one of my trophies had been damaged, especially if I 

was—if the case was adjudicated and I was found not guilty and 

they returned my seized items and they are damaged, I am going 

to be upset. 

So are you gentlemen willing to provide to the audience in some 

shape, form, or fashion, maybe through the committee, some sort 

of steps of recourse on who they can contact. Not a negative way, 

and I am going to appeal to the people that have had their items 

damaged, there is a process. Let’s get to that process for some sort 

of recourse short of suing the federal government, which I think is 

obtuse. So let’s try to work through this, because the committee 

has been provided evidence or at least allegations that things have 

been damaged. 

Mr. Chairman, this has been a good hearing. I am going to yield 

to you. I may have some more questions as I think through this. 

I yield back. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me go ahead and follow up on that question, Mr. Tooke. 

Were you the custodian of all the seized equipment? 

Mr. TOOKE. I do not know if we were—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Was the U.S. Forest Service, not you personally. 

I did not say it was in your garage. 

Mr. TOOKE. I do not know if we were of all of it. I know we did 

have evidence that we seized and I think some of it has even been 

returned. And they followed the federal rules of evidence as the 

process and constantly work with the Justice Department in all 

phases of executing that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Where was it held? 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not sure where we—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you do not know where you held it? 

Mr. TOOKE. No, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Was it in a conditioned space? 

Mr. TOOKE. Pardon me? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Was it in a conditioned space? Because one thing 

that is for sure if it was not, it will mildew in western North Carolina. 

Mr. TOOKE. Right. Whatever is required in the federal rules of 

evidence is what our officers followed. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So how do you respond, since you are 

the custodian, to the fact that there was damage to some of the 

items. Is that true or not? Did you take pictures before? 

Mr. TOOKE. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Did you take pictures before? 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not sure. Whatever the steps they were supposed to follow, we looked into that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you have got counsel here, did you take pictures before where you have a before and after. Yes or no? 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You are not sure, okay. Let me go on a little bit 

further because this is extremely troubling. I understand that you 

still have stuff in—somebody mentioned that you still have stuff 

that you are keeping in your custody right now? 

Mr. TOOKE. I think we do, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That it is important to your investigation. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. TOOKE. There are ongoing investigations, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I did not ask that. Is it critical to your investigation? I know there are ongoing investigations. Is what you are holding critical to your investigation, or are you just holding it? 

Mr. TOOKE. No, sir. What is being held I would say is important 

to the investigation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me—you know, I have complimented both state agencies on their response to this committee. 

Is there any particular reason why your response, Mr. Santiago, 

and yours, Mr. Tooke, is less than voluminous? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. We still have some open aspects of the investigation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand that. Are you saying—I got no documents from you. Are you saying that there is not one single docuVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:25 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\97400.TXT APRIL

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

ment that you could have sent this committee that was not involved with an ongoing investigation? Not one. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. As far as I know, the department and the agency 

staff is in conversations about what information can be released. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are going to release it? 

Let me tell you what I am concerned about. I get two letters from 

two different agencies—do y’all work in the same building? You do 

not. I mean I know the answer. Do you work in the same building, 

Mr. Santiago? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you, Mr. Tooke? 

Mr. TOOKE. No, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How can I get two letters with the exact same 

wording except for one sentence, one day apart? How can I do that 

if there is not a coordinated effort to make sure we did not get information. How does that happen? Mr. Santiago. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I cannot answer that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Tooke? 

Mr. TOOKE. We know that the committee has requested documentation. I think we provided one or two. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You provided two documents. 

How many gigabits did you provide, Georgia? 

Mr. ADAMS. Forty. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Forty gigabits and you provided two documents. 

Mr. TOOKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. One of which was just a list and description of 

federal charges. Would you say that that is really trying to be open 

and transparent, Mr. Santiago? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. We provided—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes or no. Is it open and transparent? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. All I can say is that we have ongoing investigations and they are looking at what information can be released. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Since you are going to respond the same way, let 

me ask it a little bit differently. Are you willing to commit here 

today to give to this committee the necessary documents that give 

the background, the process of where we are—are you willing to 

commit to give those to the committee as long as they are not in 

an ongoing investigation of that particular individual? Can I have 

all the other documents? Mr. Santiago, are you willing to agree to 

that? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Mr. Tooke. 

Mr. TOOKE. Yes. They are being reviewed and as soon as those 

reviews are completed and people allow us to do that, yes. But 

there are ongoing investigations and all these documents are being 

given a thorough review by the Department of Justice and others. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are they reviewing your confiscation of private 

property as well? 

Mr. TOOKE. The documentation on that? 

Mr. MEADOWS. DOJ. Yeah, the documentation. 

Mr. TOOKE. The prosecutors, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Mr. Santiago, your opening testimony was 

interesting because you said that the reason that the U.S. Fish and 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
74 

Wildlife got involved is because you saw bear populations decreasing. Is that correct? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. That is correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How do you reconcile that with the North Carolina Wildlife Commission biologist who says that, ‘‘Bear population 

is the highest it has been in 100 years, between 6500 and 7500.’’ 

How do you reconcile that? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. How do you reconcile that? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I believe what I said was that the poaching and 

the take of American black bear may affect the populations in the 

U.S. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, there are a lot of things that may happen, 

but we did—you spent money based on what you said had happened. You know, I mean you are really—because they are looking 

at extending the season on black bear. And you are saying that 

there is just such a devastating effect by this poaching ring, that 

you got involved. How do you reconcile those two? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Again, what I said was that the continuing illegal 

take of American black bear may increase commercial demand of 

its parts, eventually have a negative impact on its population. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I guess my question then, Mr. Santiago, is why 

look at western North Carolina, because that could be true all over 

the United States. And we are seeing an increase in population 

here. So why would you focus just on western North Carolina? Is 

it because you had a successful poaching operation 20 something 

years ago, that you found some guilty folks there? Is that why you 

got involved in western North Carolina? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Well, my guess is that this was the result of the 

information received from the field by the different investigating 

agencies. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to ask, have y’all done physical survey of 

the number of black bears in the Great Smoky Mountains area? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I have no information about that. I would have 

to look into it. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How are you coming up with that determination 

that bear numbers are down? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. That was in preparation for the testimony. I do 

not have that information. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The reason I ask that is—and this is a side track 

for just a second, Mr. Chairman—is we continually see agents of 

the federal government using computer models to try to extrapolate 

and figure out how many numbers of black bear there may be, how 

many numbers of red snapper there may be. Guys in lab coats sitting up in a cubicle in Washington, D.C. somewhere coming up 

with some sort of figure of what they think, and not listening to 

the people out in the field. Not listening to the State of North Carolina on the number of bears here, and not listening to the people 

on the Gulf of Mexico on the number of red snapper that are actually being seen or caught, released or taken on the boat for their 

bag limit. And these computer models are affecting what the American taxpayers can benefit from through recreational activities of 

sport hunting or sport fishing. And so this is not directed at you, 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
75 

it is directed at your agency and it is directed at NOAA and it is 

directed at the other federal agencies, because we continually see 

this, Mr. Chairman, where they are using computer models and not 

actual data. 

I would ask how did North Carolina come up with that number. 

Mr. MYERS. Congressman, we use harvest data on an annual 

basis to try to determine black bear population. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Actual data. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Actual data. Using sightings, using trail cameras, 

using other things; right? Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Two other things before we finish up here, I need 

to get some clarity on. 

One has to do with this memo that was signed after federal and 

state agents got together. Now there was an allegation made in the 

first panel that that was signed after there was actually activity 

going on. Is that the case? Mr. Tooke, Mr. Santiago, either one of 

you. 

Mr. TOOKE. Sir, the Memorandum of Understanding that the 

Forest Service signed with the State of North Carolina was signed 

in February 2012. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. TOOKE. And it is my understanding that we did not have any 

search warrant, state executed, or any arrests until about a year 

later in 2013. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But were state and federal agents working together without an agreement, entering into conversations and 

hunts with other people? Now search warrants are a different 

thing. The one is working together to build a case, but search warrant is a totally different question. 

Mr. TOOKE. The operation could have went forward without the 

specific Memorandum of Understanding. It was just determined 

that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, that disagrees with what Mr. Myers was 

saying earlier in his testimony. He said that y’all needed an agreement to work together. I guess if you did not need the agreement, 

why did you sign it in February? Maybe that is the way I need to 

ask it. 

Mr. TOOKE. There was already an existing agreement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That is correct. So if there is an existing agreement, why did you sign one in February? I mean why would you 

need one in February if there is already an existing one? I am confused. 

Mr. TOOKE. Okay, so the magnitude of the operation was increasing and it was determined that this particular—most of it focused 

on western North Carolina, but not all of it—that it would be helpful to make sure we were clear on roles and responsibilities, how 

information and intelligence would be coordinated. It was non-monetary except for just—it was in there that the Forest Service could 

cover some incidental expenses like fuel of a state officer working 

on federal land. And so we thought that another—this particular 

MOU or agreement could be helpful to go through the rest of the 

operation. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 

Mr. MEADOWS. So magnitude in that a week or 12 days prior, as 

was testified in the first panel, you found something and you said 

well, we had better go and get a memo of understanding because 

the magnitude is getting greater? Because that is what they are 

saying, is 12 days after that, you signed this agreement. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. TOOKE. Twelve days after what, sir? 

Mr. MEADOWS. After some type of—you heard Mr. McLean, he 

was talking about it. It was basically some type of interaction on 

behalf of federal and state agents together that then you went back 

and signed it. 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not aware of that specific incident. That was 

not the purpose of this at all. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So your testimony here today is that you had an 

existing agreement and that the February 2012 agreement was a 

clarifying agreement; is that correct? 

Mr. TOOKE. We have concurrent jurisdiction with the states on 

national forests. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You testified to that already. I am asking you a 

specific question. Is the document that you signed in February of 

2012, was that a clarifying document to your previous Memorandum of Understanding? 

Mr. TOOKE. Parts of it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Or did you need it? 

Mr. TOOKE. Parts of it were. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it was new, some parts of it were new. 

Mr. TOOKE. Well, like the part about incidental expenses, that 

was—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Anything else new? 

Mr. TOOKE. Most of the agreements are pretty common. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That is not what I asked. I said any—you know, 

you are answering good questions—I mean good answers to questions I do not ask. And so, here is what I am asking you: What 

other parts of that memorandum were different? 

Mr. TOOKE. More clarity around the roles and responsibilities for 

this specific operation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So basically, you got some anonymous tips that 

said that you needed to have the federal government come in here 

and help Georgia and North Carolina do their job; is that correct? 

Mr. TOOKE. No, sir, it was not based on anonymous tips. It was 

also based on what our own officers—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But Mr. Santiago and you both have said you got 

numerous phone calls. I wrote down ‘‘numerous.’’ How many is numerous? 

Mr. TOOKE. I know that our officers got reports from the public, 

I do not know how many. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, Mr. Santiago, you said numerous, how 

many are numerous? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I would have to check on that and see how many 

were. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it may be two? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I do not have that information. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
77 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, so you are going to get that information, 

how many anonymous tips that you got. Will you both agree to get 

that information to me? 

Mr. TOOKE. If we have the information about how many contacts—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, so you are saying that you think that you had 

anonymous tips. Either you got them and you documented it or you 

did not. 

Mr. TOOKE. I don’t know if they were anonymous. I know that 

we got—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, okay. Well, if you can let me know the number of tips that you got from the public and when you got them, 

that would be very helpful. Are you both agreeing to do that? 

Mr. TOOKE. If we can do that, sir, yes, we will do that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me come back to the camera. Who put the 

camera on private property? Who put the federal camera on private 

property? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I have no idea. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you have no knowledge of a federal camera? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, Mr. Tooke, who put the camera on federal 

property? 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not exactly sure but I know all of the tactics 

and the operations were reviewed by supervisors and the Department of Justice. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So all those supervisors—that sounds like 

a prepared answer to the question. So let me ask you this, who put 

the camera on private property? I mean obviously there is a supervisor that was involved, so maybe the supervisor knows? 

Mr. TOOKE. They could have, I am not aware that our officer put 

a camera on private property. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, so it was just the allegation, are you saying 

it was on federal property? 

Mr. TOOKE. No, sir, I am not saying either way. I am not aware 

of our officer putting one on private property. 

Mr. MEADOWS. There was not a federal camera involved? 

Mr. TOOKE. No, sir, I am not saying that. There could have been 

a federal camera placed on private property. That would have been 

authorized under this operation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So who did that? 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not totally sure, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right, would that person have been trespassing? Did they get permission to go on federal property and 

leave a camera? 

Mr. TOOKE. All of the Forest Service investigation started on national forests. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So they just lost their way and ended up on private property? 

Mr. TOOKE. If that had went over onto other lands, other properties, our officers, like I said—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. According to the testimony, they were a quarter 

of a mile away from federal land. That is what we heard in the 

first panel. 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
78 

Mr. TOOKE. They could have been authorized to do so, sir, in this 

operation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me ask you if that is the case, 

if they ended up on private land, how do we know with specificity 

that all these things actually happened on federal lands? If they inadvertently got on private land, how do we know that they were 

on federal land when it happened? Do you have specifics on where 

they were? 

Mr. TOOKE. No, sir, and I am not saying that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So your testimony here today is that you do not 

know whether it was on federal land or not. 

Mr. TOOKE. I do not know for sure. I just know that all of the 

tactics and operations were approved and I know that our investigation started on national forests and it could have went to other 

lands. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But would that not have a whole lot to do with 

the federal question in this particular issue? If it did not happen 

on federal lands, how are they being prosecuted federally? 

Mr. TOOKE. Well, for example, under the game lands that we 

have here in North Carolina, it allows for cooperative work. And 

if the state—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yeah, but it would be a state issue. It would be 

a state question, not a federal question, unless they were selling 

bear parts. 

Mr. TOOKE. If they asked for our assistance on private lands or 

state lands, under that, we could provide it. At the same time, 

under our concurrent jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction, which 

has already been ruled upon by federal jurisdiction and the courts, 

by multiple courts as well as a jury. Our officers would have had 

the jurisdiction and the authority to do that. And it began on national forests. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But not if you did not know where you were. 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not saying they did not know where they were, 

sir. I am saying I do not know—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. You knew where you were for prosecuting. You 

just did not know where you were for the camera. 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not saying that. I am saying I do not, specifically myself, know exactly where they were. But I am saying that 

our officers, I know that if they went on those lands, they knew 

where they were and they were following what they were supposed 

to. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Last question. How much of your $10,000 that 

you said that you spent, which I would like a better accounting of 

that, will you be glad to give this committee a better accounting? 

You are saying the total cost was $10,000 for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Less than $10,000. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How much of that less than $10,000 was paid to 

someone to guide your agent? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I would have to research that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Was any of it? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I would have to research it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how would you know that it is less than 

$10,000 if you do not know the breakdown? 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
79 

Mr. SANTIAGO. Because when we conduct investigations—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you were preparing for the testimony, you said 

well, this is what it is. 

Mr. SANTIAGO. No. We have undercover procedures and undercover accounts. And when we open investigations, we keep undercover books and track all the expenses on each investigation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So did you pay people to take you hunting, your 

agent hunting? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. I would have to review the record. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you prepared for this testimony and you do not 

know the answer to that question? 

Mr. SANTIAGO. No, I do not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Mr. Tooke, do you know the answer to that 

question? How much of $70,000 was paid to folks to take them 

hunting? 

Mr. TOOKE. I do not have that with me today, but we have receipts, itemized receipts, an itemized accounting of all the $70,000 

that was spent. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when you hired these guides to take you, was 

it 1000, was it 5000, was it 100? 

Mr. TOOKE. I do not know, sir. Out of the 70,000, 44,000 was 

spent just about all on vehicle expenses and equipment and then 

in the latter phases of the operation, the other 26,000 was spent 

on travel expenses for officers to execute the search warrants and 

support the—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So 44 and 26. 

Mr. TOOKE. Is 70,000, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So then you did not have any money left to pay 

the guides. 

Mr. TOOKE. I am not saying that there was not some of it spent 

on that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am just saying the numbers are not adding up. 

Either you did not pay them much or they are very bad businessmen. I am just trying to figure out, since this was a pay-to-play 

kind of thing. It is troubling to me that we are looking at all of this 

and there is not the money there. 

Mr. TOOKE. It will be in the itemized accounting, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And when can we expect that, Mr. Tooke? 

Mr. TOOKE. I cannot say for sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is 30 days enough time? 

Mr. TOOKE. I cannot say for sure, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Three hundred and sixty five days, is that enough 

time? 

Mr. TOOKE. I cannot say for sure, but I know as soon as those 

reviews are completed and we are allowed to provide it, we will. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will recognize the gentleman from South Carolina. I will let him either ask some questions or do his closing remarks, if he would like. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I just have some closing remarks. 

First off, I want to thank all of you for your service to states and 

to the federal government. I do not want anything to be construed—we are trying to get to the bottom of concerns of our constituents and in our role as watchdogs of the federal government 

on this. And I know the questions were hard and they were put 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
80 

forth in a manner that seemed aggressive at times, but sometimes 

that is necessary. 

I do question the impetus and motives which led to this operation, based on what I am hearing and what I have seen and what 

I have read. 

I am concerned about the federal question and the ultimate decision to prosecute these cases in federal magistrate court. 

I am worried about and very concerned about the issue that Mr. 

Collins raised about federal agents, without probable cause and 

going through the due process of getting a warrant, actually got on 

private property to investigate this. 

I am concerned about the directive to limit and/or deny the defendants their right to probation or any recourses that may be 

available to most people when they are facing prosecution. 

And I am concerned that the Lacey Act was used for justification 

of this operation without hard evidence. Y’all have not been able 

to give me any hard evidence. And so I am concerned that there 

were possibly allegations made by outside parties or groups to the 

taking, harvesting of black bear and that those allegations may not 

have been followed up on to warrant an investigation of this nature 

and of this scope. 

And so I want to thank the Chairman for continuing to delve into 

this. I think it is the right thing to do because I think this was a 

very large operation that happened in North Carolina and there 

were some, I think, some very egregious violations of folks here in 

your state. 

So with that, I will yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I thank you. I thank each one of you. 

The questions that I have asked today have been hard but I can 

tell you that they pale in comparison to the questions that I have 

gotten by email, phone call. I face these people in the grocery store 

and time and time and time again I have been asked ‘‘what are you 

going to do about it?’’ I mean, ‘‘why does my nine-year-old daughter 

have to worry about the kind of treatment that they got.’’ And I 

say that because I have great respect for my law enforcement 

friends all over the place. I can look back and see the sheriff, he 

is a gentleman that has prayed with me and for me and vice versa, 

and there is no one that I respect more than my law enforcement 

guys. 

At the same time, when we allow the federal government—and 

that is where I am coming to this—when we allow the federal government to come in and at times not be the best custodian of personal property, of allowing some of these things to go on on the allegations that I have heard, they are troubling. But the biggest 

issue that I think I have with this may not pertain to any of you 

here. Mr. McLean talked about it early on in his opening testimony. When we allow the stacking of misdemeanor offenses on 

what we would believe—you know, five months in jail for having 

a hunting license expired for less than 48 hours is excessive. It is 

excessive in my book, I think it would be excessive in your book 

as well. Now sometimes we can justify that saying well, we pleaded 

and they were guilty of other things. That is not up to a prosecutor 

to make that decision. It is up to a jury to make that decision and 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
81 

when we stop that very fundamental foundational principle within 

our Constitution, it is troubling to me. 

And so I can tell you that the gentleman from South Carolina 

and I talked about that in terms of these particular offenses and 

the way they were stacked. We plan to address that. We are coming back. 

You know, western North Carolina is a beautiful place and for 

all those that are listening that think that I am going to be soft 

on those who are violating crimes, you have come to the wrong person. I want us to make sure that you adhere to the laws until the 

laws are changed. At the same time, I am not going to allow my 

government to trample on the rights that are foundational and, by 

many, inalienable rights. I am not going to allow that to happen 

and I am going to continue to ask the tough questions. 

Mr. Tooke, I thank you for your willingness to be here today. I 

know this was not the most pleasurable thing. I will say I am 

working with you on a number of other issues and I want to compliment you on your willingness to engage us on those issues as 

well. 

Mr. Santiago, I would encourage your testimony speechwriters to 

go back and check their facts because your opening testimony does 

not match with the facts that we have here in North Carolina. And 

I am troubled a little bit about a narrative that justifies this when 

indeed it may not be represented by the facts. 

So I appreciate your willingness to be here. We are going to continue to follow up and look at these issues. I thank you both for 

your commitment to get us the information to the committee. 

I want to thank the committee for their very hard work, for our 

law enforcement officers, and really the town of Waynesville for not 

only hosting us but making a lot of these folks who have never 

been to western North Carolina before feel welcome. 

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina who is a dear friend. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER

AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
(83) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


AKING-6430 with DISTILLER
84 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 97400.029
85 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 97400.030
86 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 97400.031
87 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 97400.032
88 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 97400.033
89 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 97400.034
90 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 97400.035
91 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 97400.036
92 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 97400.037
93 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 97400.038
94 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 97400.039
95 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 97400.040
96 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 97400.041
97 

Æ 


AKING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 97400.042