Bear debate needs to be civil and informative

The question that should be posed to Susan Cockrell (BDN, July 13) and her animal rights allies is this: why are you trying so desperately to muzzle the scientists and bear experts at Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife?

Cockrell’s inflammatory BDN column, attacking the exceptionally well-written series of articles on the bear referendum by the widely respected BDN outdoor writer Tom Hennessey, is full of the rhetoric commonly used by the national animal rights extremists.

The most ironic passage in her diatribe is her charge that the Sportsman’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.”

Cockrell’s column came one week after the Humane Society of the United States and its anti-bear hunting allies held a press conference to threaten a lawsuit against Gov. Baldacci and his administration to stop the scientists and leaders at the DIF&W from continuing to express their opinions on the bear referendum.

Speaking for HSUS and its allies was Portland criminal defense attorney Bruce Merrill, certainly an interesting choice for a spokesman and lawyer. Bill Randall, spokesman for Hunters for Fair Bear Hunting, explained why his group objects to the department’s opposition to this ballot measure, stating, “They sit with the opponents, declare their opposition and vigorously debate proponents.”

Of course they do. These are the nation’s foremost experts on black bears. They feel strongly that the HSUS referendum would make it impossible for them to control bear populations in Maine.

Even attorney Merrill had to concede, at his press conference, that the department and its employees were doing nothing illegal. “We’ve purposely used the word ‘improper’ and in no cases used ‘illegal,” because that implies criminal,” said Merrill. “What this does is create a situation where ‘supporters of the ban’ are not getting a fair shake. It’s about good government.”

Sure it is. Actually, it’s about attempting to make sure the government, with the scientists who are most knowledgeable on this issue, is unable to express and explain its opposition to the HSUS initiative.

In a recent outside professional assessment of DIF&W’s wildlife division, authorized by the Maine Legislature, national experts concluded: “The Wildlife Division is well respected and is particularly admired for their biological expertise and use of wildlife science.”

Particularly noteworthy were the comments on the Wildlife Division’s public outreach program from John Organ of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Federal Aid.

“Maine’s approach to wildlife management is highly regarded,” said Organ. “They have by far the best planning process and have innovated an approach that develops management systems that chronicle how species will be managed. No other state has such an advanced approach.”

It is understandable, strategically, that HSUS and its allies do not want these well respected and admired scientists to be able to explain why they are opposed to the bear initiative.

But it is beyond understanding how they can charge that SAM “has shut down the possibility of a reasoned public-policy debate.” We’re not trying to muzzle anyone. We’re not suing anyone. We want everyone to be heard on this critically important issue.

This is not the first time the anti-bear forces have made bizarre claims and demands.

In mid-June, when a rampaging bear had to be shot by South Portland police officers, Cecil Gray of Bingham, one of the leaders of Hunters for Fair Bear Hunting, demanded an autopsy of the bear, based on his belief that SAM and its allies may have drugged the bear and set it out in South Portland.

Let me state clearly right here that I am not that clever or capable.

Following the media’s coverage of many bear problems throughout the state over the past two months, including the cancellation of recess at the Bridgeton elementary school because a bear was marauding outside the building, Gray charged in a BDN article by Misty Edgecomb that these incidents were “getting overblown. They’re obviously trying to link (nuisance complaints) to this theoretical bear increase.”

“Those behind the referendum accuse their opponents of using nuisance bears to frighten the public into voting in their favor this fall,” wrote Edgecomb.

Well, we don’t write or publish the Bangor Daily News or any other Maine daily newspaper. The population of bears is growing and bears are a problem throughout the state. Certainly those problems are newsworthy, no matter how much Gray would like to keep them quiet and unreported.

Cockrell jumped on board Gray’s bandwagon in her BDN column, charging that SAM “will grossly sensationalize every bear-human encounter, some of which may be SAM-directed ‘street theater,’ to purposely generate an unfounded fear of bears.”

Wow. Now they have me directing bears in a theater setting – yet another example of how little these folks really know about Maine black bears. I might approach a bear with the director’s baton, but shortly thereafter the bear would have the baton and I’d be doing the dancing!

I wish Cockrell would travel to Standish to talk to 18-year old Nick Talbot, attacked in his back yard by a bear on June 10, and explain to him that his fear of bears is unfounded. Better yet, explain it to his mother.

George Smith is the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine