Question 1 proponents want total hunting ban
Nick Archer
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.
Rep. Edgecomb is ‘most trusted and reliable’
To the editor:
As a former State Legislator who served six years with Peter Edgecomb in the Maine House of Representatives, I feel an obligation to let the people of Senate District 1 know that Rep. Peter Edgecomb was one of the finest lawmakers that this area has ever had. Because of his integrity and very quiet character, he became one of the most trusted and relied-upon Reps in the House. His knowledge of important issues and his unique perspective of an issue and its effects on the citizens of Maine were always profound and analytical. Peter became a source of information and knowledge on agricultural and educational bills.
Many times I have seen Rep. Edgecomb arrive at the Statehouse early in the morning or stay late at night to study and review upcoming bills, always keeping in mind what their unintended consequences would be on the citizens of his district. I have never seen Rep. Edgecomb “take a walk” on an important vote that he felt might be used against him. I have witnessed some Reps “take a walk” on roll call votes they felt uncomfortable with, but never Peter. You could always count on Rep. Edgecomb for a profound analysis of the benefits or the negative consequences of an issue.
I can say without hesitation that Peter was in no one’s pocket and always had the strength, courage and conviction to think for himself. It is important for the people of Aroostook County to support Peter Edgecomb on Nov. 4, as this is a crucial time, especially during these tough economic conditions.
Lastly, Peter has never allowed himself to resort to negative ads or negative campaigning, and I have never heard him denigrate or speak ill of his opponent.
Bernard L.A. Ayotte
State Rep., Dist. 3
Caswell
Bellows supports campaign finance reform
To the editor:
Since the Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, more and more money gets poured into political campaigns, we know less and less about where that money comes from, and campaigns focus more and more on attacking opponents and less and less on addressing our many important problems and their solutions.
Many recent polls show this Supreme Court does not reflect the judgment of the American people: a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents support campaign finance reform that would make the raising and spending of unlimited amounts of money by Super PACS (Political Action Committees) illegal. One Gallop poll showed that at least half of Americans support radical reform that would provide a 100 percent government-funded campaign system for federal elections (firedoglake.com).
Susan Collins is not the candidate to work for such reform in the Senate. She says she wants to increase transparency in campaign finance, but voted against the Disclose Act which would “require that corporations, labor unions, trade associations, nonprofit advocacy groups and super PACs disclose campaign contributions and expenditures of more than $10,000 or more within 24 hours of spending the money” (Portland Press Herald, 2012/07/25). She says she is opposed to the Citizens United decision, but she voted against the Udall Amendment which would have provided for the reversal of that decision.
Shenna Bellows is the right candidate to work for meaningful campaign finance reform. She supports both the Disclose Act and the Udall Amendment. The exorbitant amounts of money now spent in campaigns negatively affects political decisions about all the problems I care most about: affordable and accessible health care for all; the economy and income inequality; food integrity; global warming and the environment, quality education; infrastructure upgrades; and social justice for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
Shenna Bellows has the experience, the priorities, the drive, and the intelligence to find solutions to all of these problems. Visit her website at http://bellowsforsenate.com, and please vote for her.
Alice Bolstridge
Presque Isle
The bear referendum, again!
To the editor:
I am tired of being portrayed as a threat to society or that I am unfair and unethical. I own guns and I hunt. I got my first .22 for Christmas 52 years ago when I was 10. My three boys got their first guns between the ages of 10 and 12. They show great respect and safety with their firearms and I am proud to share the outdoors with them.
In a large part of this country, it has become “politically incorrect” to admit to being a gun owner. While I respect everyone’s right to have an opinion or strong view on this subject, I am not going to be made to feel guilty or like I am a second-class citizen for having mine. I own guns.
For the last 34 years I have been a registered Maine Guide. Three to seven months out of each year since 1980, I have taken people hunting and fishing. I am not going to let anyone or any group make me feel ashamed of this. I am proud! There has not been a single day in the last 34 years where I felt that I had been unfair or unethical in my pursuit of any wild fish or game. In fact, many days I felt the game had been unfair with its lack of cooperation.
This brings me to the main reason for this letter, the 2014 bear referendum.
For the last 25 years, I have managed or guided bear hunts over bait for two major sporting camps in northern Maine. These hunts are always a challenge — never the sure thing some would have you believe. It’s easy to get bears to come to bait; the same as they will come to beechnuts, raspberries, apple trees, oats, garbage barrels, bird feeders, or any other food source. They are so opportunistic. But get them to come to that bait during daylight hours with a hunter there? The bears know this is not a natural food source; they come in very wary. The hunter must be aware of wind, his movement and any noise he might make. Now, it becomes like any other big game hunt, no matter the method. You have to beat the bear’s nose, ears and eyes to win. The bear wins much more often than the hunter, just ask the thousands who go home each year without a bear. This hunt is far from unfair or unethical.
I do not hunt big game with dogs, nor do I trap. However, I am willing to bet the farm that if you opened your eyes, ears and mind to the people that do, or went along with these people just once or twice, you would find them both fair and ethical. Even if you do not want to participate in these methods of game management, “do not judge” others who do.
I am proud to learn of the strong coalition that is coming together to fight this referendum, and I promise to do my part to help — including putting what money I can where my mouth is. But the sad part that I am hearing about this is there are a few among us (guides, hunters, trappers) who are siding with these strong anti groups. All I can say is, “Be careful who you crawl in bed with.” If this referendum is successful, just maybe they will come for your part of the sport next. They want to stop all hunting and trapping.
I say, stand shoulder to shoulder, all guides, hunters, fishermen, trappers, environmentalists, and anyone else who wants to protect our outdoor heritage. We should, and will, vote this referendum down. My kids and now grandkids deserve the privilege to make up their own minds about these methods and our IF&W should have these tools of management to work with. Vote no on One.
Mike Langley, Maine Guide
Ashland
Sen. Collins’ impeccable record
To the editor:
Over the past few months, I have watched the political ads, most of which are untrue and some that are downright twisted. I think a lot more citizens would like to see positive campaigning.
Our state is a small state of approximately 1.3 million and is a virtual drop in the bucket when compared to the 310 million Americans living in our great country. The impacts some of our elected officials have made in Washington, D.C., seem gigantic by comparison. Margaret Chase Smith, Ed Muskie, Bill Cohen, George Mitchell and Olympia Snowe were all senators who transcended party politics. Each placed the concerns of this country first and foremost. Each knew the magnitude of trust Mainers placed in them, and each made our state proud.
For the last 18 years, our Sen. Susan Collins has stood tall alongside that same tradition. Like her predecessors, Susan has served the citizens of this state first. She approaches each and every issue, not from a partisan perspective but, rather, from a practical one based on what is best for Maine. I have had the great pleasure of sitting in on a congressional hearing in the Senate chambers and heard firsthand how she stands up for the citizens of Maine and the things she strongly believes in. Her record is impeccable and honest.
On Nov. 4, join with me in voting for our Senator, Susan Collins, and be assured that the great Maine tradition of statesmanship is carried on. She has never missed a roll call vote and serves us with the utmost integrity.
Patty LeBlanc
Presque Isle
Experience matters
To the editor:
On November 4, we in House District 146, (Perham, Woodland, Wade, Washburn, Castle Hill, Mapleton, Chapman, Westfield, Mars Hill and Blaine) have an opportunity to elect a local, dedicated advocate for Aroostook County to work for us in Augusta.
Troy Haines, a bright, articulate Mapleton small business owner will be a strong legislative voice for our rural district. As someone who has run a small business for 11 years, created jobs, met a payroll, and paid property and business taxes, Troy understands the issues facing small businesses and struggling families; issues of health care, heating and energy costs, elder care, agriculture and education.
A University of Maine graduate, Troy Haines has lived, worked, voted and paid taxes in the district for 35 years. A knowledgeable problem solver, he has worked extensively with statewide agencies such as Farm Bureau, Maine Organic Farmers’ and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), Maine Farmland Trust (MFT), and Maine Sustainable Agriculture Society (MESAS) in support of local, sustainable agriculture. Troy understands both the plight and the potential of Aroostook County family farms. In addition, Troy’s 13 years of experience as a municipal employee for Mapleton/Chapman/Castle Hill has provided insight into the problems of small town government.
Troy Haines has a very youthful, inexperienced opponent, Dustin White, and while I applaud young people getting involved, I am concerned about what this opponent can contribute to solving the many serious problems the next legislature will have to tackle. I’m not sure what a 23-year-old with limited work and life experience can bring to the legislative table to deal with economic development, education reform and funding, healthcare, agriculture, protecting the environment, the rapidly growing crisis of how to care for our elderly population, or the rising property taxes, we’re all facing.
A recent municipal Candidate Forum hosted by Van Buren, provided voters the opportunity to judge the candidates’ qualifications, political views, speaking ability and evidence of independent thought. Troy Haines was there. His opponent skipped the event, (the only candidate to do so), so we are left with many unanswered questions. Then there is the residency issue. There is a real possibility that Dustin White lives outside the district. He, only in the last month, changed his residence from Presque Isle to claim that he lives with an aunt and uncle in Washburn. This situation invalidates his candidacy and does not inspire confidence. We need someone who legitimately lives in the district, and wants to serve its people, not someone who is looking to pad a resume.
Voters in District 146 deserve a representative ready to go to work. Troy Haines has been a hard working member of this district all his life and has the knowledge, work ethic, skills and experience that hardworking families can count on. I urge you to join me in voting for Troy Haines for District 146.
Stan Maynard
Orchard Hill Farm
Woodland
Michaud is ideal candidate for governor
To the editor:
Congressman Mike Michaud is the ideal candidate for governor of Maine. The state needs a leader in the Blaine House who understands how government works, what is best for the state, how to get things done, and what constitutes a productive working atmosphere between the legislature and the administration.
While serving in the Maine House and Senate, Mike became known as a dedicated, hardworking legislator who respected his fellow lawmakers regardless of party or background. His willingness to work across the aisle resulted in several bipartisan bills that became law. Mike earned the respect of Republicans by establishing an ambiance of trust and collaboration. When he became president in an evenly divided Senate, he also forged a positive working relationship with the administration, which appreciated his good intentions, leadership and expertise.
Many of us are appalled at the present negative ads. They attempt to make the voting public insecure about a candidate. It’s easy to do when you’ve not spent a day in office and never cast a single vote. The reality is that as a lawmaker one casts many votes on several issues. It’s the easiest thing to pick one vote to mislead. The effect of such duplicity is that legislators become paralyzed and don’t spend the time, the energy and the research to solve the problems confronting our state.
Congressman Mike Michaud has served honorably and effectively with intelligence and savoir-faire. Maine people deserve him as our governor.
Ross Paradis
Former state representative
Frenchville
Humane Society lawsuit is political stunt
By David Trahan
When diagnosing disease, doctors use their nearly decade of specialized schooling, plus their experience, plus all available research, to diagnose ailments. Wildlife biologists use exactly the same formula to determine how to manage bears, and all other wildlife. Maine biologists receive specialized schooling, they constantly collect and analyze research, and they use Maine’s 40 years of bear management experience to recommend how to balance bear populations and human conflicts.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has filed a lawsuit to stop state biologists and game wardens at the Department Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIF&W) from participating in the referendum to oppose Question 1. The use of our courts to silence our most informed and knowledgeable people on this complicated issue has only one purpose: Silence those who can most effectively tell the truth.
The entire “Yes on 1” campaign has, from its inception, been based on claims that states with similar bans on baiting, dogs, and foothold snares have seen increases in license sales, and no problems with nuisance bears. In addition, proponents have made claims that baiting grows bear populations. For the average uninformed voter, claims like these sound logical and reasonable. But there is only one group in our State that has firsthand experience with these issues, and the resources to contact other states and get the facts from fellow wildlife professionals to determine the truth. These are our State biologists – and they have found that every state that banned bait and dogs has seen increases, sometimes dramatic, in both bears and bear problems, including attacks on people.
HSUS and their leader, Wayne Pacelle, who are the chief advocates for Question 1, have a long history of opposing all hunting. Under intense criticism from the radio media and groups like the one I represent, just a week ago they took down from their website this policy statement: “As a matter of principle, the HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport because of the animal trauma, suffering, and death that result.” They then replaced this ant-hunting policy with a much more moderate, almost pro-hunting policy. This chameleon-like transformation and whitewash is indicative of the tactics being employed by HSUS and the “Yes on 1” campaign, and it illustrates why we must have experienced professionals as part of this debate.
Polls are showing that Maine people are going to handily defeat Question 1, and that Maine’s DIF&W is trusted, and the most credible source of information on bears. Each and every time HSUS and their Maine leader, Katie Hansberry, puts out a false claim, and DIF&W methodically uses facts to tell the truth, the “Yes on 1” campaign loses credibility. That is the reason HSUS is now using the Maine courts to silence the experts.
The most disturbing element of the “Yes on 1” campaign tactics is their desperate assault on the credibility of the individual bear biologists and the DIF&W. Their claims that because hunting license fees fund the DIF&W, biologists are therefore biased and can’t be trusted, is as ridiculous as saying that because doctors are paid by insurance companies, they can’t be trusted with your care.
In 1967, the magnificent bald eagle was listed as a federal endangered species. Biologists and fish and game departments around the country, including our DIF&W, were tasked with the job of recovering this iconic bird from the edge of extinction. The American people, knowing sportsmen fees were paying for bald eagle and all endangered species recovery and protection, placed their trust in these same biologists. And guess what, the eagle flies free and fully recovered. For an organization like HSUS, which claims to care about all wild animals, to attack our society’s most trusted wildlife protectors, has the potential to destroy our nearly 100 years of animal management and protection. And for what purpose? To win a referendum.
Imagine one morning your child awakes with a horrible stomachache and vomiting. You rush your child to the emergency room expecting to see a doctor, but when you enter the hospital a representative from your health insurance company stops you and hands your child a baby aspirin, and says, “Sorry, but you can’t see the doctor. Call in a week.”
We would all reject this scenario as reckless and irresponsible. The same thing should happen with the lawsuit by the Humane Society. The integrity of our First Amendment right to free speech can only succeed when our society fosters a debate environment, where people can communicate without threats and intimidation, or the use of our courts as a tool to silence the truth. That holds true not just for the bear debate, but for all debates!
David Trahan of Waldoboro is executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.
Conservation vs. ‘animal welfare’
By Rep. Steve Wood
Sportsmen and women are America’s original conservationists, and play a critical role in conserving our nation’s treasured fish and wildlife, and their habitat. The unique American system of conservation funding, based on a “user pays — public benefits” model, ensures these valuable resources are managed by professionals using the best available science. Through this system, excise taxes on the sale of firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle, motorboat fuel, and other sporting goods are combined with revenues from hunting and fishing licenses to fund state fish and wildlife agencies — the primary managers of our nation’s fish and wildlife. Sportsmen and women contributed over $2.3 billion through this system last year alone.
Anti-sportsmen organizations, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), consistently attempt to undermine this incredibly successful system by attacking our time-honored traditions while painting themselves as having the best interests of our fish and wildlife at heart. Contrary to what they would have you believe, and much to the chagrin of their supporters, of the $120 million spent by HSUS in 2013, only about 1 percent actually went to benefit animals through donations to animal shelters. Much of the central activity of HSUS is centered on political campaigns and public relations efforts designed to spread mistruths about America’s outdoor heritage and the important role it plays in conservation.
We need look no farther than our own borders to see the true nature of HSUS. Here in Maine, HSUS is reported to have pledged to spend $3 million to sway the voters into banning bear hunting with the use of dogs, bait and traps when they head to the polls on Nov. 4.
Maine’s bear management program is rooted in responsible and sustainable harvesting practices and is celebrated for its success. As a result of this success, over $60 million per year is added to Maine’s economy by bear hunting, and critical conservation dollars are generated for bear conservation efforts. Baiting, trapping, and hunting with dogs are key features of Maine’s management strategy, and account for 93 percent of the annual harvest. Even with these techniques allowed, the population has increased 30 percent over the last decade to now include 30,000 bears statewide. Biologists from Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife — the leading wildlife management experts in the state — have publicly stated that they are opposed to banning these traditional methods, and the HSUS has now sued them for doing so.
If you truly care about our state’s wildlife, head to the polls on November 4, and vote “No” on Question 1. Then, regardless of whether you intend to use them, go buy a hunting or fishing license. Every penny you spend on your license will go directly to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and will be put to use conserving our fish, wildlife, and the incredible habitat in which they thrive.
Representative Steve Wood (R-Sabattus) is co-chair of the bipartisan Maine Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus.
