Question 1 proponents want total hunting ban
This fall’s referendum to end bear hunting — and be assured, bear hunting will indeed end if Question 1 passes — is based on false premises; that by ending the practices of baiting, hounding, and trapping, bear hunting will continue on as always; but from now on, it’ll be done fairly.
Also, the proponents are arguing that by passing Question 1, bear hunting will no longer be cruel. It’s cruel, many declaim, to put out bait, and then shoot a bear as it gorges on food left in the woods for the purpose.
What’s curious about these two premises is that the terms are being defined by anti-hunting interests from out of state who believe that any hunting is unfair and cruel, regardless of the practice or circumstance.
People who support this referendum entirely because they dislike hunting and think it should be banned should be respected for the honesty of their views. The voter who doesn’t hunt or care much about it one way or the other, however, may want to proceed with caution. Hunting laws are structured around scientific research on the sustainability of game populations, using regulated methods to maintain society’s expectations toward conservation. The balances of nature and public policy goals are not taken into account at all by Question 1, leaving the uncommitted voter in a precarious position about what’s true and what’s not.
Baiting is a hunting method that is poorly understood. The assumption posited by the authors of Question 1 is that in placing a bait for a bear, the hunter doing the baiting should get away quickly after placing the bait so as not to be stampeded by hungry bears. In fact, in Maine hunters are allowed to place and maintain bear baits for up to 30 days prior to the start of the bear season. The reason is that bears are incredibly shy and cautious, and in raiding a bait site, probably believe that they are stealing from the food cache of another bear. It can take weeks of careful circling and checking from a distance before they finally begin accessing the bait. Plenty of hunters using bait have ended the bear season empty-handed because they weren’t there when the bear showed up, or the bears only came in at night, or the bait simply wasn’t in a place where the bears wanted to be.
Similar misconceptions abound over the use of dogs in hunting. The idea that dogs run bears to exhaustion over miles upon miles is pure Hollywood drama. In fact, bears will tree within a few hundred yards from the outset of being scented, and hunters will only make a safe shot on a bear if it is alone, mature, and without cubs. In North Carolina, hunters can use dogs to hunt deer with — because of plenty of suitable habitat and an abundance of deer. In Maine, hounding of deer is illegal not because it’s cruel, but because there aren’t enough deer in Maine to withstand the harvest levels that hounding would produce. The same is true for baiting; many states allow baiting of deer and other species because the method is supported by sound wildlife biology.
Maine’s bear program is the best in the country. Using methods that track bear productivity, winter survival and the condition of the population as a whole from generation to generation beginning in the 1950s, our scientists have a better understanding of black bears than scientists or policymakers in any other state in the nation.
So what’s the problem?
The issues presented by the proponents of Question 1 are purely social. They are not based in science, and in fact would put scientific management out of the reach of Maine policymakers and citizens. If it is unfair and cruel to use bait, dogs and traps to hunt bear, than why are they only seeking to ban these practices in bear hunting? Why not also ban trapping altogether? Why not ban the use of dogs in rabbit hunting, duck hunting, and bird hunting? And while they’re at it, why not ban the use of decoys in duck, goose and turkey hunting? And what about sled dog racing? Isn’t that cruel?
Is it as cruel to shoot a bear while it’s feeding at a farmer’s wrecked beehive as it is at a bait site? The honest anti-hunter will say it makes no difference; the dishonesty behind Question 1 is that the proponents pretend it does for the sake of trying to gain votes. The reason why they aren’t attempting to ban all the above activities is simply because they know they can’t win. So they’re targeting bear hunting for now, but if they succeed, they’re certain to be back for more.
After all, Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) famously declared, “We would ban all sport hunting if we could.” Little wonder that he wants to define cruelty and fairness in the debate on bear hunting here. But neither Pacelle nor any of his California associates will be here to answer to the farmers and homeowners who will doubtless struggle under the burden of soaring bear populations. No, they’ll have moved on to another state, to ban something else.
Maine voters turned down an almost-identical question in 2004. In the intervening 10 years, has the public been besieged with a crisis of cruelty and unfairness in bear hunting? I would challenge anyone to cite a single case that has been in the public eye.
Perhaps most insulting, the bear referendum wants the voter to assume that hunters are, by their very nature, depraved monsters who will take any advantage just to kill something. I think Mainers know their neighbors better than that, and understand where Maine’s soaring history of wildlife conservation originates from; Maine people, Maine scientists advising Maine policymakers, and the vision of Maine hunters for tomorrow’s conservation. On November 4th, Mainers should reject Question 1.
Nick Archer is the vice president of the Presque Isle Fish and Game Club.
