i can also tell you what we would've been able to demonstrate how we ever fully litigated this case was that nobody -- you you would not have been able to demonstrate anyone in the department from low-level officer to the highest level commander had any intent of that. in fact we did not know. he would've told you quite differently. they genuinely were not been able to approve and prioritize crack enforcement even know i'll drug delivery arrests were for cracked delivery also cracked representative only one third of the open drug transaction is a seattle department was addicted to crack. [laughter] i wanted to use that for so many years. we started collaborating. they did not know that. they would sit in outmost sincerity though it could not dislodge on cross examination and tell you that it was not more important than powder, methamphetamine and they say that's more interesting. i just don't know why. we documented there were white people delivering drugs in the drug market and after we published, commanders read it and said that was fascinating. i've been lazy ago i and they were down there appeared for going to take a look at that right now. so the invisibility of the exact same behavior conducted by white people was true. they did not actually see them as potential criminals. they thought they were waiting for the bus. so we could show an impact standard the actual instance of the behavior racially and we can show who was arrested for it. if that was an operational because standard we could get somewhere. short that the question is why, i don't think it useful to work. >> so as a former prosecutor, what you think of the idea that in order to deal with the problem of racism we should ratchet back the rap? >> well, i want to say something. maybe we have alluded to it a little bit here, when we think about the war on drugs, it starts fairly. if we can kind of get away from crack and math and some not the people selling the things that we focus on finite crimes, maybe we will have some headway there. that's about as controversial. >> i think we have time for one more question. yes, man. >> so you mentioned the seattle response focused on how back on felony drug cases, but in new york and i'm assuming seattle, two for every felony there is going to be 20 and here in new york even more people getting arrested for low-level misdemeanors with the same disparity. has there been any focus on not? because that massively criminalizes communities, people of color, leads to loss of the planet,, days of work, kind of civil rights issue we have in new york city. >> absolutely. in new york, there is a police decision to categorize them in in in demeanor. it's not due at demeanor. in saudi with the same phenomenon. back in 2008 for budget reasons only the prosecutor decided to file as misdemeanors felony drug possession cases. but she only got attracted to misdemeanor if this demeanor if you flat. he took the case to trial it would not be turned court. you have to go mainstream. as a result of that -- most people to plead misdemeanors. as a result of that, we experienced what people refer to as discouraged officer syndrome. phenomenally, the drug arrests rate for drug time -- practically every drug offense is a felony in washington not. only possession of marijuana under 40 grandison misdemeanor. so there's been a 63% reduction in drug arrests from 2000 until 2010. this is not the results of any intentional policy. this is purely an officer reaction to incentive ensor do materialization of these cases by other players in the system. but what is fascinated with the advent of this law-enforcement diversion program, an ideological structure has now risen to provide support for these opposite decisions such that what they used to talk at and be the discipline of taken misguided joke on another look at you and say why would we make an arrest for possession of a crack pipe? they look at you like i would be insane. you're right, although you did it. and they're now just like i'm urging a really profound value shift in almost a misha about that would make no sense to do it that way. messages via great deal of hope is that there actually is, if we can provide a policy level consensus in the community level consensus that it's okay for the police to police these crimes differently with different outcomes, officers are more than willing to do things more rational and less harmful and put the incentive structure around their change. >> i think it's a great achievement of economic panel depend on recently sent a it on a note of hope. so will you join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> next, a look at hunting and angling rights issues. no harm, federal affairs stricter for the u.s. sportsmen alliance discusses his support for the sportsmen heritage act that passed in the u.s. house this week. this is 40 minutes. >> joining us right now, bill horn of the u.s. sportsmen alliance, the federal affairs director, hello. >> guest: good morning. how are you? >> host: tell us what the alliance does. >> guest: hunters, fishers, founded in the mid-70s, basically to combat the anti-hunting on the anti-phishing county and protect the rights of sportsmen and women to engage in these long-established traditional activities. >> host: so i comes to activities, with the intersection of federal policy? >> guest: obviously the federal goveolicy? >> guest: obviously the federal government has major landholdings organizing various publicly and systems. burgesses gruffly in management, 500 plus u.s. forest service with over 190 million acres of national forest wildlife refuge system.100 million acres of wildlife refuge and its managed at the fish and wildlife service and even within the park system elements of the national park system expressly open to hunting as well. all of the public lands provide enormous opportunities for fishing and hunting that most of us are dairy committee to protect them the rights to continue to fish and hunt on those plans as we have for nearly century. >> host: while the threaten those rights? >> guest: basically radical animal-rights groups, anti-hunting groups, sunset the nickname like the humane society united states who are just committed to basically running the anglers and hunters off public lands and private lands to do. obviously washington context is the intersection to federal public lands that we care about in this legislation was desired or designed to address. >> so if this is the sportsmen heritage act of 2012. what is the purpose? >> guest: is really for folded. and a modicum of four different bills to fix different problems. title i come which started out as a separate bill called h.r. 2034 and has a senate counterpart s. 2066 essentially establishes them on that public lands in forest service lands are present to be open to hunting and fishing. that doesn't exist in present law. most of the laws written years ago it was so radical animal-rights movement. teddy roosevelt and company saw no need to put an express provisions for angling and hunting because the concept someone would be opposed to those traditional activities was just off the radar screen. so this essentially establishes that those plans at hunting and fishing are legitimate activities in those lands are present if we open until the agencies can exercise their retain discretion to make closures as are necessary if the closures and restrictions are based on facts and evidence. >> host: some of the democrats are opposing this bill and say there are laws that mandate as far as when it comes to federal land whether to open or closed. >> guest: they don't. the law does not expressly provide for the type of access for angling and hunting. the fish and hunt these lands for entire countries existence largely as a matter of tradition. not so much as a matter of express provisions of law and that is what this is designed to correct empire. the second part of bill codifies recent epa decisions and determination that the toxic substances that of 1976 does not authorize epa to either ban lead fishing thinkers and lovers like but pales are led and ammunition notwithstanding the fact that a variety of activists have been petitioning epa to take that step would epa said no, they have now filed suit in federal court. these provisions in the bill codifies the recent epa determination that they do not have that authority under the 1936 back. >> to allow blood products to be used in this? has played hurt animals? >> guest: that is regulated and averted circumstances. in some cases is determined that it does -- for example when i was assistant secretary of the interior we took steps to prohibit the use of lead shot shells for migratory waterfowl ducks in use. it has been replaced in that context with other types of non-toxic material. but in other circumstances, there is no good science demonstrating the use of the fishing thinkers causing any appreciable problems for the use of traditional lead ammunition is causing any major problems. and so there is that policy issue. the other side is a legal one, which is to donate 76 toxic substances that give epa that authority? this administration's epa said no, this provision in the bill would codify that decision and confirm it. to other parts of the section involving recreational shooting uncertain blm lands. this is provision determined necessary because the bureau of land management in recent years has taken a series of steps very hostile to traditional recreational shooting out there, particularly in the west. >> host: this is land of structure in place to allow you to hunt or fish? >> guest: this would basically be recreational shooting. you go someplace, obviously far out of town, put tin cans on iraq and use them plinking and target shooting and that type. the provisions of the bill are designed to overcome some recent decisions by blm that are very hostile to this activity and even though the agency later backed off on a lot of that, but lucian was we need to codify that. we need to make this fix and statute. the fourth feature is a very specific six. canada for many years has allowed hunting of polar bears because withstanding the fact that they are deemed threatened under the endangered species act, present polar bear our record highs. canada allows hunting. here is americans are not there before the bears are put on the endangered species list, took the bears and in the listing occurred they had imported 41 of these trophies. and this bill essentially allows those 41 hairs taken pre-listing but before they could be brought into the country post listing to come into the country and get them out of the legal limbo and red tape their present accounting. >> host: talking about legislation passed with sportsmen issue you if you want to ask questions of bill horn, u.s. sportsmen alliance, federal affairs director. number on the screen. someone for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independence. c-span.org is the e-mail and send us a tweet at c-span wj. what reasoning would you get about the need to make sure it beats remain open for hunting and fishing purposes? >> guest: there's a couple reasons. long-time traditional activity people have engaged in and there's no reason not to continue this. secondly, we adopted in this country under the leadership of teddy roosevelt and the folks of his air what we are referred to as the north american wildlife model. most people don't appreciate that the fastball to funding for wildlife conservation comes from anglers and hunters in the form of license fees, duck stamps, other types of stamps and very specific federal excise taxes levied on hunting equipment and fishing gear. you could buy a fishing rod, there is an excise tax on there that goes into a special fund that is later dispersed for sports fish restoration projects. this makes it anglers and hunters, fees and taxes exceed a billion dollars a year. that is what drives wildlife funding. it doesn't come in large measure from general tax revenue. and if you obviously cut off and begin to restrict access and opportunities for angling on hunting, the license sales drops come at the duck stamp sales drop, the excise revenues drop in the money that goes in the conservation begins to dry up and we are fearful that we live in an ever-increasing urbanizing society. most urbanites are not going to want to basically pay extra taxes or have their general tax funds direct you to wildlife conservation as a set for 100 years has been basically pay for that antonin hunting community. >> host: north van, oregon on our independent line for bill horn. >> caller: how you doing this money? >> guest: fine, thank you. >> caller: i live in a state of oregon, which is owned about 60% of the federal government. and they are constantly, constantly shutting those down, blocking roads, digging ditches, putting case up, restrict access to public lands for hunting and fishing. and you know, what can a person do -- poster what reasons do they give commissary? >> caller: what reason do they give? >> caller: they want to protect the wildlife for the trees where the drainage or the river system or whatever. but it's like you have some cheap bureaucrats in some area just decides, had, i want to block this area off and i don't know what they want to do? make a park to where you can blog, but but not touch? >> host: let's let our guests answer. >> guest: part of what is driven this bill, which is there has been levels of increased hostility from the federal land agencies that a traditional access and hunting and angling and a lot of frustration in boiled up i think the color is an example of that. and the decision was radigan fittingly for these problems to continue to build, let's take some type of preventive action right now and begin to codify about the hunting and fishing are very important traditional activities on this plan. agencies are supposed to provide for these activities. you can make the closures and restrictions are necessary and where appropriate, but the presumption is they are open for his come a close second and we hope that having congress sends a very clear signal to land managing agencies that take steps to facilitate traditional access to these lands. housecoat is it only to hunters? >> guest: this is a bill that is about fishing and hunting. some of the critics have raised what are my mind red herrings that are secret provisions in here to open the lands to oil and gas and mining and offered vehicles and categorically untrue. that was very carefully put together by the committee folks, very carefully put together in cooperation with the hunting and angling community and it is the hunting and fishing though. this is not a mining or oil and gas are raising or any other form of commodity development. >> host: ohio on the republican line. carlos next. go ahead. >> caller: i'm here. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i have a few questions. yes or no responses. have you ever shot a polar bear? >> guest: i have personally not. >> caller: have you ever shot a wolf? >> guest: i have n->> caller: ht a wolf? >> guest: i have not. >> caller: have you ever shot a snow white not go? >> guest: no, but a friend to have. >> host: let's stop the question and tell us why you're asking. why are you asking these questions? givest the reasoning. >> caller: i'm trying to establish the credibility of your guest is the hunter. >> guest: i can tell you i have been a hunter for probably 40 plus years. primarily a bird hunter and that connor. on rough ground, woodcock, like well mostly in the western mountains of virginia. duckhunting quite a bit. i don't do much big game hunting, but i'm an avid or hunter and lifelong fly fishermen and angling to do. >> caller: >> host: one follow-up. >> caller: do you own a bumper sticker that says save a buck -- >> host: will leave it there. most of the activity you do on public or private land? >> guest: private land in virginia, west virginia i hunt in the george washington national forest and of course talk about we pay special fees to be that an obviously from a personal perspective, i am really interested in making sure that we maintain access to public lands so we can continue activities. >> host: what type of oversight with recreational hunters like you from shooting or capturing endangered animals? >> guest: that's heavily regulated by the states. one goes out to hunt, the state sets the seasons, bag limits, established methods and means. you have to have the requisite licenses and fees in order to go on to those public lands, you have to comply with the rules and regulations that are enforced by game wardens, fish wardens, for service personnel are out west. it's very heavy regulated activity and i think we have found over the years that the vast percentage of anglers and hunters are law-abiding citizens who live by these very carefully established rules and regulations. >> host: democrat line shot from yesterday and north carolina. >> caller: good morning, everyone. mr. horan, you mentioned the humane society was sort of mislabeled. i think when it comes to your organization, sportsman minds, and must be mislabeled because to me it is an unfair business. you walk up there with high-tech gear. you have night scopes, night vision, tree stands, computer, engineered devices. that is not hunting. that is murdering of animals. i mean, where's the fairness? when you talk about roosevelt and all those and you go back to bb crocodile does, they were hunters. there was a level playing field. now you could be a hundred yards away and kill an animal. how is that sportsman? what is so sportsman about that? >> guest: i would simply say not everything is high-tech. we have all hunters are in the field and go out and out without when arizona state provides special archery seasons and most of us to do our bird hunting are using shotguns and shot at what she is effectively same technology in 1880 and really hasn't changed in the last one or 20 years. i would reject the notion this is sort of a high-tech killing exercise. anyone who has done significant hunting appreciate the difficult. he spent more time in the woods and you bring home not as much as you would necessarily like. a lot of folks spend a lot of time at the bringing of a deer or turkey or the dark. it is a pursuit. it is not necessarily about bringing home dead critters. >> host: what is the difference or at least the amount of people who hunt for recreation and then for food? >> guest: the only parts of america where you've really got genuine subsistence hunting any longer is in remote parts of. some of the villages where they really don't have access to other forms of food. for most folks, you know when the lower 48 states, this is a choice. obviously, you can augment your diet with the venison or ducks and a lot of folks catch a lot of fish, put them in the freezer and provide an important part of the annual assessment, but most of us here have a choice. and this is a choice. it is the ability to engage in this traditionally dvd. there is a long heritage of it. folks who engage in a find it is its interaction with nature. it is connection. you become part of the process. you're not just a watcher anymore. you are participating. we have discovered that level of interaction, connection and commitment brings a commitment to conservation. so beyond a billion dollars the angling and hunting community provides every year for conservation to the licensees, you look around and look at the wide array of organizations that are supported by the sporting community for conservation, whether it are national wild turkey federation are the rocky mountain elk foundation for the trout unlimited people, the ducks unlimited folks, the laundry list of organizations than a commitment to conservation supported by the hunting and angling community are as long as