Bear Referendum: The Real Issue
By Joe Bertolaccini
Reprinted from the Ellsworth American
I will begin by saying that I enjoy what many might consider non-consumptive outdoor activities, and I am not a bear hunter. With that as background, I had many inner conflicts, reservations and uncertainties about how to approach the upcoming referendum scheduled for a statewide vote in November that would ban baiting, trapping and hunting with dogs for black bear in Maine.
After reading and hearing all about the loss of business by bear hunting guides, the inhumanity of luring these animals with stale donuts and pastry, massive funding from out-of-state interests, and the slippery slope of eventually losing all of our rights to hunt, fish and trap, I decided to research the relevant facts as best I could and use my God-given sense and judgment to cast a proper vote on this important issue. Following are my findings:
1.Within the past several months, I attended presentations by Jennifer Vashon, a highly qualified and well-informed game biologist who works in the bear management program for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. I will further add that she and other big-game biologist with the department know as much if not more about bears in this state than any other group or agency. The bottom line is that our bear numbers have increased by 28 percent since 1990 to about 23,000 under present management, which includes baiting, trapping and hunting with dogs, and is expected to hold steady at about that level. That is the optimum for Maine, which is designed to be about 75 percent of the maximum population that can exist in the available habitat. She pointed out that our present bear numbers would double in five years if the referendum passes; helped also by the fact that they have no natural predators. Exceeding the maximum level will run a great risk of producing unhealthy and disease-ridden animals as well as becoming a dangerous nuisance in populated areas. Years of data have shown that less than 10 percent of the annual bear kill comes from methods other that those that the referendum would ban. It can logically be deduced then that some 90 percent of Maine’s successful bear management strategies would be lost.
2. Members of the Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society recently voted overwhelmingly to oppose the fall referendum, stating that the ban on baiting will “subvert the species planning process that has been successfully used to balance scientific management and societal goals for 25 years.”
3. Federal and state biologists from northern and central New England who met recently with the Wildlife Society agreed that baiting does not harm the population and also feared that a lack of baiting could result in a booming bear population that the state would be ill-equipped to handle. Bangor Daily News (BDN) April 16, 2004.
4. Proponents of the referendum will argue that other states, such as Colorado and Oregon, have shown no significant decrease in the bear harvest from banning hunting over bait, trapping or using dogs. For those that have been out in bear country, you quickly realize that Maine woods are much too dense for stalking them successfully because of the inability to get a good clean shot if a bear were sighted. It is also felt that the majority of bear hunters would go to other states to hunt because of the difficulty of harvesting a bear in Maine with these conditions, further jeopardizing the state’s management efforts.
5. According to Maine Audubon (BDN Feb. 10, 2004) biologically speaking, the bear hunt (baiting and all) is “sustainable,” meaning that it does not pose a risk of harm to the bear population as a whole. Further, Audubon has chosen not to make value judgments on whether baiting is fair. “Those kinds of decisions are going to be based on one’s personal values—people shouldn’t be told what their values are.”
I understand that it is part of our human rights and freedoms for preferences to vary from individual to individual, but I personally find it objectionable when people who do not know the facts, or don’t want to know, try to legislate the ethics, values and emotions of others who are lawfully doing what’s best for the resource.
In the final analysis, the real issue is not about economics, baiting animals or the slippery slope. It is about the preservation of an essential environmental resource in the face of rapidly increasing development pressures in this state. Frequently, it is difficult to keep emotions in check when dealing with individual wild animals, but proper planning for long-range preservation requires that we consider what is best for populations as a whole. The one specific question that we as voters should be asking ourselves boils down to this: What do we need to do to maintain the healthy bear population that we presently have in Maine?
The answer for me was quite obvious when I sorted out the facts. I will be voting against this referendum, because to do so will help to save bears. After all is said and done, isn’t that what most of us really want?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Retired engineer Joe Bertolaccini is an out-doorsman and a resident of Orrington
Bear-baiting debate is unabated
I am a bear hunter, fascinated with bears since 1970 when I trailed my first, one early snowy November day. Back then, the black bear wasn't hunted much. It was considered a pest instead of a prized big-game animal.
The most successful method of harvesting black bears is by baiting.
The black bear is mostly nocturnal and secretive, making normal stalking hunting a low-percentage method, not to mention the thick terrain the bear inhabits, making a clean shot difficult.
The bait site a bear hunters uses is a cleared area for easy identification and an ethical, close, humane shot. No one I know would harvest a sow while cubs are present.
Once the bear enters the bait site, the hunter can judge the size and whether or not it is with cubs. The hunter can then identify a clean, humane shot.
Most of the time, a bear will circle the bait area, going downwind to check for danger. Many times, a bear will smell the hunter and not come in until after legal shooting time. Some bears are extremely cautious and won't present a shot at all. It is not a given that a bear will be killed from a bait site.
The state does a great job maintaining a large bear population by regulating a controlled hunting season and enforcing the laws.
I ask voters to keep open minds and find out more facts on bear hunting. Please trust the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife personnel to regulate bear hunting by allowing the use of bait, cable foot snares and dogs. Don't be fooled by the emotions of others.
Chris Mizner, Yarmouth ME
With scientific bear management at risk by a possible emotional ballot-box biology vote, some aspects should be noted on the people behind the Humane Society of the United States' mask, who claim they are out for animal welfare.
This organization gives on a small amount of its millions to support wildlife. It actually has given more to support criminals than to the care of animals by supporting domestic terrorist organizations like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.
In the words of HSUS scholar Michael W. Fox: "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." (Wonderful parenting, indeed!)
Our bear and other wildlife studies have been acclaimed to be a model for other states to follow. All you have to do is look at other states that have rejected scientific wildlife management by the ballot box and see the messes they have with overpopulated wildlife.
New Jersey had 58 in-the-house bear complaints last year. California's deer herds have plummeted due to an overabundance of predators. Massachusetts has gone from 20,000 beaver to over 70,000. Plus there are many bear and coyote problems.
I ask you this: Who would you trust with our bears and other wildlife? HSUS with its out-of-state interests, or our own trained biologist of the wildlife department?
Albert Ladd, Byron ME
Response to Op/Ed in the Village Soup Citizen
In reference to "Not so good to be a bear" in the OP/ED page of the June 30, 2004 edition of the Village Soup Citizen, Mr. Harlan McLaughlin of Searsport gives the reader an "accurate depiction of the world of the Maine black bears." In Mr. McLaughlin's "accurate depictions," are some of the most absurd attempts at pleading on the emotions I've read since this referendum hit the news. For instance, if Smokey II (2) actually come home for dinner with the "wife and kids" as Mr. McLaughlin states, it is much more realistic that dinner would actually be the kids themselves! The male bear is one of the biggest factors in cub mortality. The attempt to "humanize" wildlife is a pathetic attempt at derailing one of the most successful wildlife management teams in the country. Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (IF&W) has the most respected bear study and management program in the country. It has come to that point by design.
The abundant bear population in Maine is not to be considered a fairy tale. Maine's bear population is the largest in the lower 48 states, and has grown to this incredible proportion with all current legal methods of bear population control in place! Just imagine what will happen in a few short years of unregulated control. No one in their right mind can state that a smaller population will happen. It might very well balance out, but at what level? How much safety are we willing to concede to find out that number?
We (Mainer's) have been very fortunate to not have suffered any human fatalities from bear attacks. This is a fact often stated by the national anti-human/animal rights people that have invaded our state. Do we need to lose an infant from a stroller, as New York did in 2002, before anyone believes it could happen here? New Yorkers bragged that they hadn't had any fatalities in 35 years. Their bragging rights are over.
New Jersey had several attacks on humans and pets last year, and 58 home invasions (bears inside homes) before they finally had to resort to conducting a hunt to thin the numbers, and to put fear back into a fearless, out of control, population of about 3500 or so black bears. Remember, we have 23,000.
One New Jersey mom was very much opposed to hunting of any kind, believing in the rhetoric being fed to her by the national groups, until a note was sent home to parents by the school principal. Because bear numbers and sightings were getting so prevalent around the school, the principal suggested that parents stop putting their child's lunch in their backpack. Instead, the lunch should be packed in a separate bag, so that it could be thrown toward any bears that happen to show up while the child was walking to school. This might be enough to prevent harm to the child, in a bear's attempt to access the food in the backpack. She voted to allow the hunt to keep NJ's bears under control.
Maine has stories in the news often about car/moose accidents. Imagine if the Washington based group the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), one of the same groups funding this referendum, had been successful in their attempt to stop the moose hunt over 20 years ago. Around 38,000 moose have been harvested in Maine since the moose hunt began. Plus, add in the number of moose that would have been produced by those moose over the years. Imagine the accidents if the moose herd had gone unregulated.
The professionals at IF&W have done an outstanding job of regulating wildlife population numbers. There is a very unique balancing act that is determined by input from the general public, as well as the hunting community. Hunters want opportunity to hunt, and the non-hunters want opportunity to observe. Permits for any-deer, and for moose for example, are raised or lowered to achieve the numbers that offer the best opportunity for us all, without allowing overpopulation of the animals, or allowing the numbers to be a public hazard.
The professionals at Maine's DIF&W determined years ago, that the social capacity for our bear population was 23,000. It has been reached successfully as they projected. It needs to be controlled at this level to keep from issuing notes to parents, as happened with our neighbors to the south. It cannot be done without the current proven successful methods that we have had in place for over a generation.
The group from away is now trying to gag our department professionals from educating the public on the facts of bear management, and is threatening a lawsuit to do it. The (HSUS) apparently finds the scientific facts don't support their emotional based rhetoric of how best to keep Maine's bear population under control. Who is best suited to educate the public on the management technique, than the professionals at IF&W themselves?
Leave the scientific wildlife management to the professionals, not to the Washington based groups that won't be here suffering the consequences of the emotional based referendum, should it pass.
Jeff Hopkins
Winterport, ME
Response to Proponent’s Press Conference, in Kennebec Journal
The news conference conducted by those in favor of the November referendum on bear hunting was a cross between silliness and pure grandstanding.
The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife uses good science and the expertise of qualified biologists to set hunting regulations. When a group from out of state comes in and funds a referendum to change our hunting laws, it only makes sense to defend the department’s policies. There is no science behind the referendum; it is pure emotion.
The recent encounters with bears in residential areas have served to prove that an increase in bear population, which would occur if the referendum passes, would make everyday living a very hazardous undertaking. The pro-referendum group could see the people of Maine leaning toward the “no” vote and felt they needed to provide a little more “junk” for our voters to wade through.
By David Kahl, Wayne ME
Response to Fisk's editorial
It was with disgust that I read the misinformation and propaganda in Robert Fisk’s column supporting the referendum proposed and supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) that would outlaw bear hunting using bait, dogs, and traps. I do not hunt bear, but I believe that this is much more than a referendum on certain hunting methods. I hope your readers will agree.
Fisk begins his column with a statement about Mainers being “knowledgeable voters and independent thinkers.” If he truly believes this, then why does he present an emotional argument in favor of the ban by serving up a page of misinformation, hearsay, and speculation?
Fisk states, “This is not an anti-hunting referendum.” Absolutely false! This is very much an anti-hunting referendum. It is funded and backed by HSUS, whose stated objective is to end all hunting in the country, period!
Next, Fisk stereotypes non-resident hunters as “weekend warriors” and “bottom of the barrel” trophy hunters. This is unfair and bigoted.
If that was not enough, he regurgitates some hearsay from Bill Randall, who is also aligned with HSUS in support of this ban. According to Fisk’s article, Randall had “friends” who broke their dogs’ ribs by beating and kicking them. Besides questioning Randall’s choice of friends, (anyone who did this to a dog should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law), what does this have to do with banning bear hunting in Maine? Absolutely nothing! Fisk is attempting to create a link in your reader’s minds between the abuse of domestic animals and hunting. This is unfair, unethical, and degrading to both pet owners and hunters alike and I hope that logical, prudent Mainers will recognize this propaganda for what it is.
Folks, what is next? A ban on using a bird dog while pheasant hunting? How about a ban on mousetraps? Rat poison? Don’t laugh!
Whether you hunt or not, I hope you realize this is a much larger issue than banning certain methods of hunting. This is about a very large and well-funded special interest group from away, coming to Maine to force its agenda on us. If you allow this to happen, others will follow. You must reject this referendum. If you do not, don’t be surprised when another big-money special interest group forces a referendum on an activity that you and your family enjoy. Did you hear about the vote to ban fishing with bait?
By Jason Beever