Sportsmen loaded for bear   

By Tom Hennessey

Editor's note: First of three parts

Reprinted from the Bangor Daily News

After following the tracks of Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting, the organization ostensibly responsible for the forthcoming bear referendum, there's no doubt in my mind that, come Election Day, the majority of Maine's sportsmen will arrive at the ballot box loaded for bear. Otherwise, the referendum will be enacted, thereby encouraging future anti-hunting initiatives aimed at ending the hunting heritage symbolic of this state. It's as simple as that.

Because many Maine residents have no knowledge of bears, bear hunting, and bear trapping, they will find themselves at the proverbial fork in the road regarding which way to vote on the referendum question: "Do you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps or dogs, except to protect property, public safety or for research?" For that reason, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine's bear-campaign coalition, officially called Maine's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, are focused on informing and educating the public to the social, economic and political impacts the anti-hunting initiative will have on the state, if enacted.

First, voters should know the referendum is sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States and is funded almost entirely by national anti-hunting organizations, particularly the Fund for Animals. Considering the position statements on hunting published by HSUS and FFA, Robert Fisk Jr., MCFBH director, raised eyebrows statewide by saying the group's only intention is to reform bear hunting. Accordingly, Fisk's statement that MCFBH has not sought assistance from any national anti-hunting organizations prompted SAM executive director George Smith's rebuttal, which appeared recently in The Maine Sportsman Magazine: "Fisk's most recent newsletter identifies the anti-bear hunting/trapping petition as 'a petition sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States.'"

Fisk, a former state representative, is president and executive director of Maine Friends of Animals, which he says is not affiliated with HSUS. Yet, according to SAM, Hillary Twining of Jacksonville, Vt., a staff member in HSUS's regional New England office, is on the advisory board of Maine Friends of Animals. Also, Katherine Bragdon, a campaign consultant paid by HSUS to assist Fisk in organizing the bear referendum, worked out of his Portland office. There's more, but at this point let's leave it that one doesn't have to be a Master Maine Guide to read those tracks.

Here, then, for the edification of the uninformed as well as the misinformed, are the HSUS and FFA position statements on hunting.

HSUS: "The Humane Society of the United States is strongly opposed to the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or for sport, because of the trauma, suffering, and death to the animals which results. The HSUS also opposes such killing because of the negative effect upon the young who may learn to accept and live with needless suffering and killing. The HSUS believes that a civilized society should not condone the killing of any sentient creature as sport.

"The HSUS believes that the characterization of wild animals as 'game' denies their intrinsic value and belittles their ecological importance. The Society finds that a great deal of wildlife allegedly killed for management reasons actually is killed as 'game' for 'sporting' purposes. In such cases, we oppose both the killing and the duplicity." More succinct are the words of HSUS senior vice president Wayne Pacelle, which appeared in an issue of Full Cry magazine: "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States...." No less arrogant, last year Pacelle came to Maine hunting for Gov. John Baldacci's support of the bear referendum. Suffice it to say, Pacelle got skunked.

FFA’s statement on hunting: “The Fund for Animals is unalterably opposed to the recreational killing of wildlife. Besides being a piteously unfair and cruel slaughter of innocent animals, sport hunting is also ecologically destructive.”

Clearly, the goal of both organizations is to ban all hunting and trapping nationwide.

A trophy hunt

Make no mistake about it, bagging Maine’s bear hunt via ballot initiative would be a big-game trophy for anti-hunting and animal-rights organizations. It would be silly, therefore, to think HSUS and FFA set their sights on Maine's bear hunt without first studying the target. Among the factors thought to have attracted the groups' attention were DIF&W decisions to ban the trapping of snapping turtles and to suspend the coyote-snaring program. Additionally, in 2002 the department's bear-management program was left in limbo, so to speak, when Craig McLaughlin, the biologist in charge of it, took a position with Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources. Not until July 2003 was wildlife biologist Jennifer Vashon named leader of DIF&W's bear-management program. Furthermore, the state's 2003 budget shortfall resulted in the downsizing and elimination of positions in DIF&W, causing unrest within the ranks. Undoubtedly, those signs were read as indications that Maine, long the Northeast's bastion of bear hunting, was wounded.

In the mid-1990s, anti-hunting organizations succeeded in using the ballot box to prohibit bear hunting in several states. Idaho and Michigan, however, were not among them. The record shows that the anti-hunting initiatives in those states were soundly defeated. In Michigan, an important factor in the defeat of the 1996 referendum to ban bear baiting and bear hunting with hounds was a counter initiative that included a committee of professional wildlife scientists. Obviously, the factual information presented to the public by the counter initiative was more convincing than the anti-hunting rhetoric of the referendum's proponents.

To say the organizational and fund-raising skills of the many sportsmen's groups, statewide and nationwide, that came forward to fight the Idaho and Michigan referendums were exceptional would be an understatement. In the final analysis, however, it has to be said that the initiatives were defeated by sportsmen and women arriving at the ballot box loaded for bear. Thus, the trail was blazed for Maine's sporting community to follow in defending and protecting its hunting heritage. Keep in mind that because of its commitment to cripple Maine bear hunting, HSUS recently announced that it will not finance the concurrent ballot initiative to ban bear hunting in Alaska.

Money talks

With an annual income of nearly $70 million, HSUS is the nation's largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization. According to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, HSUS's income is solicited primarily from pet owners who are duped into donating because of the organization's misleading title. The USSA reports, however, that less than 1 percent of HSUS's income is allocated to humane societies and animal shelters.

To the gratification of Maine sportsmen, USSA's National Bear Hunting Defense Task Force has joined SAM's bear-campaign coalition in opposing the referendum. The USSA's position is stated by senior vice president Rick Story, who wrote in a recent article titled, "To Bait or Not to Bait?": "Because of flat terrain and heavy cover in many states' bear range, the use of bait provides the only logical and reliable means of enabling hunters to take sufficient numbers of black bears to fulfill state agencies' harvest goals." The article was published in USSA's monthly newsletter.

So what does HSUS do with its millions? Look no further than the $226,793 initially raised by Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting: 94 percent of the money came from HSUS and FFA donations of $91,792.53 and $135,000, respectively. Of course, the range of those financial guns is far-reaching. An example is HSUS's support of the following state legislative bills: Maryland, a bill to end all hunting of bears in that state; New Jersey, a bill to end the free-chase hunting of bears in that state; Vermont, a bill to outlaw hunting as a means of controlling nuisance bears.

Accordingly, HSUS is opposing the following legislative bills: Georgia, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and harvest game; Oklahoma, a bill to create a constitutional right to hunt, trap and fish; Illinois, a bill titled the "Illinois Hunting Heritage Protection Act." Understand that the status of the bills is subject to change.

Additionally, HSUS is opposed to the use of animals in education, medical research, sporting events, circuses, rodeos, aquariums, livestock and poultry farming, commercial breeding of dogs, and so on. God help the blind who depend on seeing-eye dogs and law-enforcement agencies that use dogs for tracking criminals and detecting drugs and explosives.

A Down East hunter said it succinctly: "Next thing you know they'll be opposing baseball and football because the balls are made of cowhide and pigskin."

Like the titles of anti-hunting bills, the provisions accompanying referendum questions often are written in language intended to confuse and deceive voters. However, Norman "Skip" Trask, a former deputy commissioner of DIF&W who is now the legislative liaison for the Maine Trappers Association, wasn't fooled when he read the tracks of LD 1938, the language of the bear referendum. Nor was Bill Ferdinand, an attorney with Eaton Peabody Consulting Group, the team hired to manage SAM's bear-campaign coalition. Subsequently, Ferdinand outlined two legal problems:

1. The proposed law is written so that, if implemented, it would be a crime to hunt using even natural bait of agricultural crops to attract bears. The definition of baiting in the proposed law states: "Bait, including but not limited to, doughnuts and other pastries, grease, meat, fruits, vegetables, honey and [any other food known to be attractive to bear, may not be used to hunt or attract bear."] Without defined exemptions, the proposed bear-baiting ban includes naturally occurring bait and agricultural crops. Clearly, the proposed law would shut down all means to hunt or attract bear.

2. The proposed law only allows state or federal officials to deal with nuisance bears. Regarding the latter, it's difficult enough to find the proper authority to deal with stray dogs, let alone bears. Moreover, who will pay for policing nuisance-bear complaints, which surely will increase if bear hunting is prohibited via the referendum? Owing to the aforementioned state budget cuts, DIF&W doesn't have the money or the manpower. Think about it. And while you're at it think about the LD 1938 provision that would require deer hunters to purchase bear permits so they could shoot bears incidental to deer hunting.

Allowing that money talks, it can be said that the fund-raising voice of the bear-campaign coalition is being heard and heeded. In a word, the support from sportsmen throughout Maine, New England and beyond has been incredible. The campaign began with a full-choke charge of $242,333 fired in response to SAM president Edye Cronk's fund-raising appeal mailed to 103,000 homes, in-state and out-of-state. Seventy-five percent of the donations came from Maine residents. A month later, the campaign coffer had increased to more than $400,000. With its sights set on matching the impending HSUS television campaign, SAM is allocating $3 of every $4 received to its media budget.

Currently, donations to the coalition have reached $800,000, with 67 percent coming from Maine residents. While the average individual donation is a gratifying $54, more than a few donors have written personal checks for $1,000. Considering the donations and pledges of tens of thousands of dollars coming from clubs and organizations near and far, it can be said that the financial guns of sportsmen committed to defeating the referendum are also far-reaching.

The Maine Trappers Association's check for $50,000 blazed the money trail, followed by a magnum pledge of $100,000 from the Maine Professional Guides Association. In addition to an early $10,000 donation to help start the campaign in 2003, followed by a Christmas gift of $30,000, the aforementioned U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance pledged an additional $40,000. And from The County, not surprisingly, came $30,000 raised by The Aroostook Chapter of Maine's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, which includes all the sportsmen's clubs in that neck of the woods. Here I'll say it would be difficult to find people friendlier and more accommodating than the outdoors addicts whose main lodges are located in Aroostook County. But when it comes to their outdoor traditions and cultures - their way of life, actually - they don't take kindly to being crowded.

The geography representing the coalition's 6,050 donors thus far affirms that hunters, trappers, and anglers are massing to meet the referendum's frontal attack on their heritage. And while they fired high-caliber contributions at killing the referendum, Gov. John Baldacci provided hard-hitting political ammunition by publicly stating: "We have the most experienced, qualified team of bear scientists anywhere in the country. We can manage our own resources. We don't need groups coming in from out of state and telling us how to do it." From where I'm standing, I'll say that shot struck dead center.

Furthermore, I'll say that in a lifetime of addiction to Maine's woods and waters and nearly 30 years of cobbling outdoors columns, I have never seen sportsmen so motivated and committed to defending and protecting their heritage. Conversely, however, it's disappointing to know that a few sportsmen's organizations have chosen to take neutral positions on the bear issue. Anglers who think their sport is exempt from the radical agendas of animal-rights extremists are fishing with frayed leader. I don't know about you, Sport, but when animal-rights groups take to describing fishing as, "hunting in water," I read that as a signal to tighten my drag and brace my feet. Without exception, every sportsmen's club, group and organization in this state should stand and be counted in opposing the bear referendum.

Not until the last couple of decades have the rights and privileges of Maine sportsmen been threatened by anti-hunting activism from away. Therefore, having been raised in homes where rifles and shotguns were as common as coffeepots, the state's widespread sporting community at first regarded the anti-hunting rhetoric as nothing more than earaches. But after years of being criticized and ridiculed by emotionally driven anti-hunters who made organized attempts to abolish hunting -the 1983 referendum to stop the moose hunt and the Non-hunters Rights Alliance's 1993 legislative bill to end hunting were both killed by SAM-guided opposition - Maine sportsmen realized they must fight to protect the traditions and cultures they once practiced so casually and comfortably. Hence, the continuous support for SAM's bear campaign coalition.

Nevertheless, at the risk of being repetitious I remind that no matter how much money is raised or how effectively it is used, the forthcoming anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-Maine referendum can only be defeated by individual sportsmen and women arriving at the ballot box loaded for bear.