Tom Hennessey follows the facts

I’m writing to applaud Tom Hennessey for his series on the bear referendum. He makes his position clear, and generally sticks to facts instead of rhetoric. Jerry Stelmok and Donna Milbource, who sent letters to Fan Feedback (BDN, July 10-11) in opposition to the series, both resort to attacks on Mr. Hennessey and hunters in general, without dealing thoughtfully with the issues.

Mr. Stelmok calls Mr. Hennessey’s arguments that the bear referendum is just one step toward the banning of all hunting “ridiculous and paranoid.” What part of the statement by Humane Society senior vice president Wayne Pacelle, “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United State…” did he not understand?

Of course those who would ban hunting choose a relatively unpopular form of hunting to start with, but how long would it be after a successful bear hunt ban before a referendum was brought to stop moose hunting? If a 25 percent success rate for bear hunting is a bad thing for non-hunters, an 80 percent success rate for moose hunting must be more than three times worse. Then how long before deer, partridge, groundhog, and trout?

Ms. Milbource apparently recognizes that bears and people can have problems co-existing. She recognizes that animal habitat is being destroyed regularly. But somehow, she finds this a reason to ban the only proven methods of controlling numbers of bears.

Is she volunteering to take measures to stop urban sprawl? Does she think bears will go live in the deep woods and bother no one if we stop setting our bear bait? If proven methods of controlling the bear population are banned, we can count on more people having property damage, losing pets and livestock, and perhaps even losing children occasionally.

I have spent thousands of hours in the woods, and have never seen a bear in a situation where I could have shot it. Most people who spend time in the woods will agree that it is close to impossible to shoot a bear without using the methods the referendum would ban.

I haven’t hunted for years and have no inclination to shoot a bear, but I am in favor of controlling their numbers. I would rather have hunters do it, who pay for the privilege and contribute to our economy, than professional hunters hired by the state when bear damage becomes unbearable.

I will be voting against the bear referendum, and suggest that anyone who might ever want to hunt or fish, or allow their families and friends to hunt or fish, should do the same.

Lawrence Merrill

Bangor

Maine biologists can’t be wrong

It seems quite ironic that Mr. Fisk (BDN, July 10-11) dissects Mr. Hennessey’s article without once mentioning the views of Maine biologists. He also doesn’t mention the economical impact of bear hunting in most of Maine outside of Falmouth or southern, developed Maine, where the economy is thriving. He seems to base his views on the emotions of the voters, which is a fair method, just not logical.

At the present Maine has the healthiest bear population east of the Mississippi. We also have the best bear biology study program in the eastern United States. He also omits the fact that Maine biologists don’t cater to hunters’ or non-hunters’ views, but what is best for the species they study and try to keep at a healthy population.

They have studied bears in Maine for 30 years and have come to the conclusion that harvesting 3,000-4,000 bears per year will keep the Maine black bears at optimum levels to sustain a healthy population and prevent overcrowding. They haven’t used scare tactics to try to sway voters, but they feel Maine can only support so many bear and by baiting bear we can keep Maine’s bear population at its healthy level.

Baiting bear accounts for 80 percent of the bears harvested every year. That is a fact, not an emotion. By voting yes, we will be taking away from our tax-paid program the only method they know to give us a healthy population of bears without exploiting the species.

Economically speaking this referendum will eliminate millions of dollars directly and indirectly from Maine’s already weak economy; especially outside southern Maine.

I don’t think that economic reasons should sway your vote one way or another, but if proven methods keep our bear population healthy and we can turn it into revenue without sacrificing the bear population, then we should allow these methods to continue. We must vote “no” so that biologists in Maine can do their jobs and Maine guides can do theirs. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Vote on the facts not emotions.

Randall Wade

Jefferson