After reading the commentary by Matthew Dunlap, “To manage wildlife – or not – in Maine,” on the op-ed page of the Bangor Daily News, Sept. 13-14, the best word to accurately describe my reaction would be “outraged.” I am outraged at the innuendoes, the half-truths and the outright lies presented as being factual. It was fear-mongering at its worst.

A major lie was that the Humane Society of the United States was working to end bear hunting in Maine. That is not true. Hunting in Maine has been a tradition and will continue to be so. Neither Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting nor the HSUS has any intent to change that. What they are trying to do is eliminate three certain practices only, not bear hunting in general. These practices are baiting, trapping and using dogs in the hunt. These practices are all unsportsmanlike, unethical and inhumane.

Another falsehood perpetuated by Dunlap is that elimination of those practices has caused those states that have banned those particular methods to have a flood of nuisance animal complaints. That is also untrue. Rather, in reality, the use of baits should be blamed for creating nuisance problems. Whenever bears or other wild animals attracted to the baits are conditioned or habituated to obtaining their food from bait stations, there is a significant increase in those animals that become a “nuisance.”

It is generally agreed that feeding bears and other wild animals is not a good practice, and especially so on such a large scale. In addition, using baits actually causes a natural increase in bear populations, as bear reproduction is responsive to increases or decreases in natural food supplies. Their populations actually increase in response to an inflated, unnatural food supply, thereby exacerbating the problem of nuisance incidents. Also, baiting is not needed to control bear populations since skilled hunters can still kill bears without using bait stations. Of the 27 states that allow bear hunting, 18 see no need to resort to baiting.

Let’s also look at some additional arguments that support a ban on baiting, trapping and the use of dogs:

. Baiting is not hunting in the time-honored Maine tradition. Baiting has only been legally used for the last 20 years or so, so it is not “traditional.” In addition, the animals are not pursued through Maine forests and fields in a traditional way, but rather are slaughtered at the feeding trough. My son stated it very accurately: “That’s not a hunter, that’s a sniper.”

. Baiting, trapping and hunting with hounds is unsportsmanlike. Most states have banned baiting of game animals for a long time. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service have anti-baiting rules and many hunters believe that luring animals to a feeding site for slaughter is unfair and unsportsmanlike and certainly not in keeping with time-honored Maine traditions.

Concerning the use of hounds, trophy hunters use hounds to relentlessly chase a frightened and exhausted bear until it climbs a tree or is torn apart by the dogs, whereupon the “hunter” shoots the bear at close range. In addition, the use of radio-telemetry, CB radios and other high-tech gadgetry can hardly be described as sportsmanlike. Luring a bear to be slaughtered or allowing packs of trained dogs to do all of the legwork and bear all the risks while “hunters” sit in their trucks and monitor the progress and then go in for the kill is rather unmanly and small-hearted.

. With regard to public and private property issues, baiting is littering and hound hunting leads to trespassing and property damage. Bait stations are legalized dumps where forests and wilderness areas are littered with rotting carcasses, doughnuts, molasses and other debris, practices in which all other contexts would bring heavy fines to public and private land users. While some baiters clean up after themselves when they pull the baits and stands, many do not and the eventual costs for cleaning up these areas are borne by Maine taxpayers and private landowners. And the use of hounds in pursuit of a wild animal is very unpredictable, which can become a very real danger to public and private lands, to other people using the areas, and to other animals, both domesticated and wild.

. These practices are also unnecessary. Baiting is not needed to control bear populations. Skilled, reputable hunters can continue to kill bears without the use of baiting stations as has been proven by the hunting records of other states that have banned the practice. Colorado State Wildlife Division representatives, for example, have said there have been no detectable adverse impacts on either bear hunting or bear management goals since restrictions were placed in that state. Concerning hound hunting, Pennsylvania hunters, for example, continue to kill more than 2,000 black bears annually without resorting to hounds. I believe that our skilled, reputable Maine hunters would continue to do well without using unfair methods.

. These practices are cruel and inhumane to the bears, the dogs and other wildlife. Bear chases can last anywhere from 10 minutes to more than a day, according to chase studies. Long chases stress bears terribly, leading to heat exhaustion and brain damage. Female bears and their cubs have been separated, leading to starvation and death for the cubs. In addition, cubs are often killed by the hunter or used as live training opportunities for the dogs, whereby they are maimed and killed. Death is not instantaneous, as bears shot from trees may suffer broken bones and then must suffer being torn apart by a pack of dogs. On the other side of the coin, dogs may be crippled and killed by the bear during the terminal fight.

Signing the petition to get the issue on the November 2004 ballot is not going to decide the issue. It will do precisely what it states to do: bring the citizens’ referendum to the ballot for a popular vote. To me, that sounds like freedom of speech and democracy in action.

I have serious questions about why a state agency like the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, paid for by taxpayer dollars, should be actively lobbying in favor of the interests of powerful, well-funded special interest groups. I would guess that many other taxpayers and voters in Maine would have similar questions.

Reputable surveys have indicated that 70 percent of Maine people are opposed to using those certain practices to hunt bears. Many reputable hunters also disapprove of those methods. Let’s allow the people of Maine to speak instead of a few powerful, well-financed lobbying groups like the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and the National Rifle Association, which stand to make lots of money by continuing the status quo of unethical and inhumane hunting practices.

Marie Louise Morandi Long Zwicker is a resident of Sullivan.