It’s interesting to note as the debate warms up over whether the state should be doing more to control moose populations in northern Maine that it was only 20 years ago that a debate raged over whether Maine should manage the moose population at all. Moose hunting eventually became the subject of a citizen’s initiative referendum, which lost in the 1983 general election by a tally of 185,603 votes opposed to the measure over 121,125 in favor.

The Oct. 9, 1984 edition of the Lewiston Journal reported the demise of the anti-moose hunting group SMOOSA (Save Maine’s Only Official State Animal) and included a prediction from the group’s leader, the late Maine Times editor John Cole. “Cole predicts history will repeat itself in about 20 years, and the moose herd will once again, as it was 45 years ago, be reduced to practically nothing.”

Apparently that hasn’t happened, as the moose population has increased some 50 percent in the same space of time that roughly 20,000 moose have been taken by hunting. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has, in that space of time, been alternately accused of inflating moose permit numbers to boost department revenues, and of being too conservative in allocating permits based on vague science. Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin has reconvened the Moose Working Group to re-examine the state’s management goals in the wake of an outcry in Aroostook County generated by an unusually high number of moose-car fatalities.

It’s still uncertain what the outcome of Commissioner Martin’s efforts will be. More moose permits may be allocated in the northern Maine wildlife management districts, or they may not be. Even if more permits are allocated, the problem of moose in the roads might be only slightly alleviated; the problem being that if there’s one moose in the state, at some point it’s going to cross a road. Nonetheless, in the wake of repeat tragedies, people have appealed to the state for some relief, and the state would be wrong to dismiss those concerns. If the 1983 referendum had passed, however, the discussion would be academic. The question would be how to address the moose problem without hunting, without a budget, and with a subsequent rancorous debate. But I doubt it would be limited to the St. John Valley.

The premise of dictating wildlife policy by referendum, while nothing new, isn’t going away. Many states, including our neighbor to the south, Massachusetts, have adopted laws banning certain hunting and trapping methods by referendum in recent years. The results have left wildlife professionals frustrated by a flood of nuisance animal complaints, yet with no tools or budgets to address them.

The outcome of the 1983 moose referendum didn’t end the debate on moose hunting. Many people abhor hunting in general and moose hunting in particular, and exploit every opportunity to make their opinions well known. As citizens of the state, they have the right to have their desires factored into policy decisions. In other words, the moose belong to no one interest group, but rather are held in common by all the people, and must be managed accordingly. Conversely, however, the voters stated in 1983 that no one interest group should be allowed to place that common resource off-limits to everyone else.

The backers of the old moose referendum are back for more. The Humane Society of the United States, an animal rights organization whose relationship to your local animal shelter is approximately the same as the United Nations’ relationship to United Van Lines, is pushing for a referendum to end bear hunting in Maine. They maintain that the methods used to hunt bear aren’t fair, as they argued 20 years ago that “moose hunting should be banned because it is not sporting.”

Never mind that Maine has the highest population of black bears in the lower 48 states. Never mind that bears are an opportunistic omnivore whose confrontations with civilization are nearly always problematic. Or that the hunt is a major engine in the rural economy. Never mind that they have never supported any hunting by any method, fair or otherwise, despite the Orwellian language they peddle. For that matter, you can throw all the facts out the window. They just don’t like hunting, and they want it banned. But like the moose situation in 1983, where will that leave us in 20 years?

The Oct. 31, 1983 Bangor Daily News editorial urged voters to reject the moose referendum, presciently counseling, “When the moose population reaches the point at which some management effort is necessary to keep it under control, we see no alternative that is preferable to regulated hunting. Unfortunately, if this referendum passes, that option will not be available.” Something to think about before you sign a petition to limit your future options on wildlife management.

Matthew Dunlap is a Democratic state representative from Old Town, and serves as House chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.