BREWER – Members of the Maine chapter of The Wildlife Society, a group composed primarily of professional scientists, voted Thursday to oppose the bear referendum this fall.

Echoing similar arguments made by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Audubon Society, the group found no biological reason to ban trapping bear and hunting bear over bait and with dogs.

In fact, the ban on baiting may interfere with DIF&W’s bear management program, society members said Thursday.

“[The referendum] subverts the species planning process that has been successfully used to balance scientific management and societal goals for 25 years,” the society’s position statement reads.

Members of the group voted 34-4, with a single abstention, to approve the lengthy statement, which avoids taking an ethical position.

Ethics vary from hunter to hunter, from scientist to scientist. In fact, there were significant differences of opinion within the group Thursday, with some saying that individual hunters ought to define what is ethical in their sport and others arguing that a minority group, such as the hunting community, would be smart to consider the views of society at large in order to protect their tradition.

“If wildlife is a public trust, shouldn’t the public have a role in determining how wildlife is treated?” asked Mark McCollough of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Old Town office.

Ultimately the group decided that its role was not that of ethicist.

“Participation in or support of wildlife-related activities that do not have long-term detrimental impacts on wildlife populations or their habitats should be a matter of personal choice,” reads the society’s official position statement.

A panel of state and federal wildlife biologists from Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, as well as representatives from organizations involved with the referendum, were invited to address the group before its Thursday afternoon vote.

Skip Trask spoke for Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, a group formed to oppose the referendum. Bill Randall of Hunters for Fair Bear Hunting represented those in support. Representatives from the U.S. Humane Society and Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting were invited but neither was able to attend.

Much of the discussion focused on what the impacts of a successful referendum might be. Though scientists agreed that baiting does not harm the population, many feared that a lack of baiting could result in a booming population that the state would be ill equipped to manage.

Whether they allow baiting or not, most Eastern states, where both bear and human populations are on the rise, are experiencing a growth in bear nuisance complaints.

Maine has about 23,000 bears. If the referendum passes, that number could double in five years, said Jennifer Vashon, bear biologist for DIF&W.

Randall said that hunters stalking bears could keep the population in check if the hunt were liberalized. Trask argued that Maine’s woods are too thick for good bear hunting, and that out-of-state hunters who shoot most of Maine’s bears would simply take their money elsewhere.