SAM trying to distract voters on bear referendum

The referendum to end trapping, hounding and baiting of bears should have generated numerous opportunities for respectful, rational discussions of bear-hunting methods among Maine voters.

Instead, a coalition of extremists, including commercial bear baiters and out-of-state trophy hunters led by SAM (Sportsmen’s Alliance of Maine), has shut down the possibility of a reasoned public-policy debate with their dishonest, “the end justifies any means” campaign that demonizes bears and the “hidden agendas” of referendum supporters.

The fact is, SAM doesn’t want a public discussion of these vicious, archaic hunting methods, because studies reveal that the more voters know, the more they oppose them. SAM’s only hope is to distract voters with lies and hysteria.

Now comes Tom Hennessey, “following the tracks” of SAM, echoing the hysterics and predicting an end to life as we know it, if the referendum passes. Riddled with half-truths and downright fabrications, Mr. Hennessey’s columns are brimming with pistol-packin’ rhetoric; his central metaphor is particularly troubling, creating an image of panicked hunters arriving at the polling places, not reasoned and thoughtful, but bullies “loaded for bear.” Is this the image Maine’s recreational hunting community wishes to project?

Is Mr. Hennessey aware of the damage he inflicts upon Maine’s hunting heritage by parroting SAM’s fraudulent agenda? Does he long for the “traditions” of punt guns and dynamiting fish? When these unconscionable practices were stopped generations ago, did it ultimately end all hunting and fishing?

Dismissing society’s evolving attitudes about wild animals and reasoned criticisms of unacceptable hunting methods with a plot theory worthy of McCarthy-era paranoia, Hennessey conspires to subordinate the best interests of ethical hunters to SAM’s obsession with its shrinking power over Maine wildlife. Scores of surveys show that Americans support hunting but steadfastly oppose the practices this referendum will end. To suggest that Maine voters could be duped into abandoning their age-old support of hunting, because they reject the abusive practices of trapping, hounding, and baiting, is absurd.

Hennessey tries to buttress his hyper-emotional rhetoric by quoting “biologist and bear specialist” Randy Cross, while failing to identify Cross as a commercial bear baiter with a shocking conflict of interest. Meanwhile, Hennessey ignores significant statements from another bear specialist, Ken Elowe, who wrote that Maine bears can be hunted “quite successfully” without baiting, but only a small percentage are, because commercial baiters want to “favor” their trophy-hunting “sports” with a higher kill rate.

Is Hennessey oblivious to bear hunters and biologists in other states who disparage baiting as lazy and shameful? North Carolina’s bear hunters’ association petitioned their state to end bear baiting because it was causing strange behavior and tooth decay. Tom Beck, Colorado bear biologist, wrote that baiting is preferred by those who measure hunting by a high kill rate rather than a quality experience: “How fulfilling is it to shoot a bear with its head in a barrel of jelly-filled donuts?”

Biologist Jerry Apker says that baiting “does not result in viewing the black bear with a high degree of respect…anyone can throw junk food out there for a bear and kill one, if they are patient enough.”

Hennessey implies there is scientific support for bear baiting when, in fact, there is not a shred. Agency numbers are designed to convince us that bear baiting is indispensable in barely controlling the population, and knee-jerk opposition to this referendum among bureaucrats is nothing more than a classic turf battle that has nothing to do with scientific wildlife management. Instead, ever-increasing tons of junk food placed by baiters in the bear “factory” (so-named by Hennessey) boost production of an ever-larger crop of bears to be sold off by the head to trophy hunters with more money than skill.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that baiting harms wildlife, and all species in the Maine woods are known to visit bait sites. A 2003 survey of peer-reviewed science weighing the effects of baiting and feeding concludes that providing artificial food to wild animals may influence their distribution, seasonal movements, survival, digestive health, and facilitate disease transmission. The authors further conclude that “the potential for negative ecological effects as a result of providing food to wildlife through artificial feeding or baiting is high.” Yet, this unhealthy, revolting practice is passed off as Maine’s principal bear management “tool.”

Between now and November, we can expect SAM to continue to blitz us with snake-oil science and phony plot theories. They will swear that referendum support is from away, while winking and gleefully accepting money from the NRA and out-of-state trophy hunters. And, they will grossly sensationalize every bear-human encounter, some of which may be SAM-directed “street theatre,” to purposely generate an unfounded fear of bears.

Here’s a challenge: Come on, SAM, let’s discuss the real issues of trapping, hounding, and bear baiting. SAM? Are you there…? SAM…?

A wildlife policy analyst, Susan Cockrell’s writings have appeared in numerous wildlife publications including The Wildlife Society Bulletin. She lives in Holden.