Bear referendum supporters decry scare tactics use

Tom Hennessey’s three-part series on the bear referendum was shamelessly biased in what was more subjective editorializing than an attempt at balanced reporting. The proponents of this referendum have three main issues in the killing of close to 4,000 Maine black bears each year with the use of bait, hounds, and traps. These methods of hunting are inhumane, unsportsmanlike, and unnecessary, which Mr. Hennessey does not even bother to acknowledge, let alone attempt to report. The articles were riddled with the half-truths, unbalanced data, misrepresentations, biased commentary, and glaring omissions.

From the beginning, opponents of the bear referendum have told their supporters they cannot win on the issues and must focus on two positions that can only be characterized as scare tactics. The first of these is that the referendum is the work of “radical out-of-state animal rights extremists who want to end the Maine traditions of hunting and fishing,” as Mr. Hennessey trumpeted.

Maine Friends of Animals initiated this effort and has never sponsored any anti-hunting legislation other than against needless animal suffering such as leghold traps and coyote snaring. We requested, and are very pleased to have, the support of the well-respected The Humane Society of the United States (with 40,000 Maine members), which has never instigated or backed any initiative in any state to restrict deer hunting, duck hunting, or small-game hunting and never uttered a word in opposition to recreational fishing.

It was Maine citizens who were shut out of the legislative process by a handful of legislators and a special interest group. It was 500 Mainers who gathered a record number of signatures. There are only Maine people working in the campaign office, and it is more than 2,000 mainstream Maine citizens, including many hunters, working to end these specific forms of “hunting.” SAM and referendum opponents have and will continue to get support, advice, and money from the NRA, the Safari Club International, non-Maine rod and gun clubs and many other out-of-state groups, which was conveniently left unsaid in the series.

It is a false argument opponents cling to as a diversionary tactic because they cannot defend these unethical hunting methods. Let’s give voters some credit. If we “radical animal rights activists” ever come back with some subsequent anti-hunting legislation, Maine voters can and will vote it down. Let this referendum stand on its own merits.

The second scare tactic that Mr. Hennessey lays out perfectly for the opposition is that we need these practices to control the bear population. If this ballot initiative passes, we will be overrun with dangerous bears that will “endanger the lives of people and pets” and “threaten our families,” according to the opposition’s hand-outs and Web site.

There has never been one study done to support that premise and the evidence points to just the opposite. In the 1990s, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, states similar to Maine in dense forests and bear populations, have reported no bear management problems since voters overwhelming ended these practices, and fair-chase bear hunting is doing well.

Furthermore, not one Maine citizen has ever been killed by a bear in Maine or even seriously injured. As the most respected bear biologist in the country, Lynn Rogers, Ph.D., writes, “Black bears are gentle, elusive, intelligent, timid, and peaceful animals that avoid human contact.”

What this campaign is about, and Mr. Hennessey blatantly omits in his articles, is the cruelty involved. Bear baiting essentially provides out-of-state (78 percent) trophy hunters an opportunity to take home a bear head or rug. That is why so many responsible hunters are supporting this campaign recognizing that these practices make a mockery of fair chase, demean the Maine tradition of hunting, and is not the image we want for our state.

Not once does Mr. Hennessey mention the cruelty to the bears and their cubs that are often wounded by “weekend warriors” at a bait site, never tracked down, and left to die a slow and painful death in the woods. He does not mention how a frightened and exhausted bear may turn and fight, in which case the dogs can be maimed, crippled, or killed, and if the pack of hounds overcomes the bear, the mauling of the animal can be merciless and protracted.

He never mentions the harsh abuse the dogs receive from the bear guides if they chase another species other than a bear. Maine remains the only state in the nation in which a bear can be shot, again at point-blank range, while struggling to remove itself from hours of suffering in a barbaric leghold trap or snare. Make no mistake about it, bear hunting in today’s Maine is an ugly activity.

Mr. Hennessey’s conspicuous omission of the fundamental issues that initiated this referendum is not surprising given that some in this state refuse to even consider any restriction to any hunting practice regardless of how cruel, unsportsmanlike, unnecessary, or unpopular they are.

Maine voters will see through Mr. Hennessey’s articles that recite the opposition’s alarmist strategy and scare tactics and vote Yes in November to end these practices.

Robert Fisk Jr. of Falmouth is the director of the Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting.