|
With the
November election now less than three weeks
away, the rhetoric is heating up over a
referendum ballot proposal that would make it a
crime in Maine to hunt bears with bait, traps or
dogs. We share the concerns voiced by many
others that those methods of hunting are lacking
in sportsmanship and less than humane. But we
believe Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife has offered persuasive arguments
that its management of the state’s bear
population would be drastically altered, and not
for the better, if Question 2 on the Nov. 2
ballot is approved.
Not
surprisingly, proponents of Question 2, led by
Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting, take issue with
almost every argument presented by the
department and Maine’s Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Council, a group formed to oppose
the measure.
Recent weeks
have seen publication of an economic survey
indicating that, if voters approve Question 2,
the resulting decline in bear hunting would cost
the state from 563 to 770 existing and potential
new jobs and up to $62.4 million in average
annual economic activity. Proponents of Question
2 have challenged those projections as being
grossly inflated. But even if the numbers were
cut in half, the impact on Maine’s struggling
economy would be significant.
The Department
of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife claims it
cannot control Maine’s bear population, one of
the largest in the country, without the three
hunting methods at issue — methods that account
for about 95 percent of the annual bear harvest.
Both sides
attempt to use the experience of other states
where bear hunting with bait, dogs or traps has
been banned to buttress their arguments.
Proponents claim that in Colorado, Oregon and
Washington, hunting dramatically increased in
the wake of restrictions on baiting and hounding
and that bear kills in those states have
increased, not decreased.
Maine wildlife officials counter
that, in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey,
bear populations have grown out of control since
hunting with bait and dogs was banned.
The ethics of
using bait, traps and dogs to hunt bear is
troubling. The image of a hunter shooting a
creature caught in a giant steel leg trap or
treed by a pack of snarling dogs is not a pretty
one. But increasingly, in many forms of hunting,
man has a growing advantage over his prey. The
days are long gone when most hunters set forth
in search of their quarry armed only with a
bow-and-arrow, spear or knife.
Maine’s
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has
a long history of wildlife management. It has
consistently monitored the state’s bear
population, the largest in the lower 48 states,
since 1969. To stabilize the bear population at
the current desired level of about 23,000, the
department relies on hunting, using presently
available methods, as a primary tool. One may
deplore the use of bait, traps and hounds on the
basis of fairness, and we do. But the department
is charged with the management of Maine’s
wildlife resources and its officials are better
positioned than anyone else to determine the
methods needed to fulfill its mandate.
By most
accounts, Maine’s bear population is healthy,
with numbers that can be adequately supported by
the available habitat. It would appear that the
needs of the species, the public and the state’s
resident and non-resident hunters are balanced.
Given those circumstances, and the potential for
significant harm to Maine’s economy if current
bear-hunting methods are outlawed, we believe
Mainers should heed the advice of the Department
of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The proposal
to criminalize bear hunting with bait, traps and
dogs should be defeated on Nov. 2. |
