To the editor:
I don’t understand the logic of the supporters of the bear referendum. It should be accepted that when the animal’s population exceeds the capability of the habitat, animals will starve. I don’t think that anyone can argue that starvation isn’t cruel. In the Sept. 6 Bangor Daily News, Daryl DeJoy, director of Wildlife Alliance of Maine, is quoted as saying, “Yes, we are going to see a point where bears starve.” Why would these people argue against keeping the population in check so the bears don’t starve?
They compare Maine to other states and quote success rates of “still hunting.” Maine is not like other states. We don’t have wide open areas. We have very thick second growth. The bear know that the hunter is there long before the hunter knows the bear is there. When one sees a bear in the wild, it’s usually only for a few seconds, a long ways off and more often than not, running at full speed.
Hunting over bait and hounding offers major advantages. Close range, passing up one that is too small, and waiting for a clean shot. Getting a good shot while “still hunting” is usually almost impossible.
I feel that the supporters of the referendum are putting their feelings ahead of facts that are supported by the science behind a 40-year study. I also believe that the Humane Society of the U.S. has an ultimate goal of banning all hunting and trapping in Maine and if they are successful this fall, they won’t stop until they succeed.
Dan Robertson
Woodland
