George Smith, the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, is right: University of Maine funds and supplies should not be used to advocate for a referendum that would ban bear baiting. But, following the same logic, state resources – those of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife – should not be used to fight against the referendum either.

As far as egregious actions go, an instructor’s use of the university’s e-mail and phone systems to forward anti-bear baiting messages hardly warrants the impassioned outcry from Mr. Smith who has requested copies of the offending e-mails, phone calls and photocopying records. Far more troubling are the comments of state employees on this issue. Earlier this month, Deputy DIFW Commissioner Paul Jacques said: “The department will be opposed to this referendum and will speak against it based on our sciences and our policies.” The onetime SAM lobbyist and former state legislator described himself as “a conduit to hunting groups” on this issue. In his group’s monthly newsletter, Mr. Smith repeatedly boasts of a SAM and DIFW “partnership” to oppose the bear referendum.

Based on comments from both men, the Attorney General’s Office is already looking into DIFW’s involvement in the issue at the request of a concerned citizen. The question is whether it is appropriate for state employees to advocate for one side of a contentious issue, in this case the use of bait, often stale pastries, to lure bear to be shot. The referendum, which may appear on the November 2004 ballot if enough signatures are collected this fall, would also ban hunting bears with dogs and bear trapping.

A July memo to Gov. Baldacci from his natural resources adviser offers some guidance, but it is clear from recent actions that stricter oversight is needed. In the memo, the governor was advised that DIFW personnel “should be allowed to provide scientific, historic and background information to the public; respond to questions from the media or citizens about issues raised in the referendum; and respond to misinformation and untruths spoken or published by any individual or organization on any side of the debate.

“Information provided should not be presented in a biased or one-sided fashion,” the memo added. One may be left wondering whether “a conduit to hunting groups” is unbiased or one-sided.

Part of the problem, is DIFW’s identity crisis. The agency has long believed its responsibility lies with hunters, who bring revenue to the state, although their numbers are dwindling, while the number of people who seek out animals simply to look at them are increasing. The department might review its own reason for being, which, according to its web site, is “to ensure that all species of wildlife and aquatic resources in the State of Maine are maintained and perpetuated for their intrinsic and ecological values, for their economic contribution, and for their recreational, scientific, and educational use by the people of the State.” The economics of wildlife – bear hunting brings in about $12 million a year – are there, but only as part of a larger mission.

Activists on both sides have predicted a heated battle over the bear hunting referendum. State employees should avoid warming things up.