Seeing as Maine’s upland bird season took wing yesterday, I’d sooner be writing about pointing dogs locked up stiff as starch, the smell of burnt powder mingling with the cidery scent of autumn, and feathers drifting in covers dripping melted frost. Trouble is, lately I’m finding it difficult to concentrate on anything other than the forthcoming referendum – Question 2 on the November ballot – aimed at prohibiting bear baiting, bear hunting with hounds, and bear trapping. To my annoyance, I’ve thought about the blatant, anti-hunting initiative while fishing, hunting, painting, writing, reading, eating; and I curse it while lying awake in the wee hours because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Think about it, a mere handful of referendum activists are forcing hundreds of thousands of sportsmen from across this state and beyond to defend their hunting heritage. Think about the time, effort, and money expended in establishing the Maine Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, the official title of the coalition formed to fight the referendum. Think about arranging press conferences, meetings, forums, debates, and organizing the fund-raiser Bear Banquet held recently at the Augusta Civic Center. The prodigious event produced an incredible total of $200,000.

Greatly appreciated was Gov. John Baldacci’s banquet appearance to reaffirm his opposition to the referendum. Likewise, U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud’s presence stated his position on Question 2, as did Walter “Bud” Pidgeon’s and Rob Sexton’s, president and vice-president of government affairs, respectively, of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. Thankfully, USSA pledged its magnum support to the coalition at the outset of the referendum.

When you think about the costs of television ads necessary to counter Maine Citizens For Fair Bear Hunting presentations, you’re thinking about major money. And the meter is running. Nevertheless, hunters, fishermen, and trappers continue to donate the funds necessary to fight the referendum. In many cases that means getting another year out of the old Evinrude or perhaps another season out of a shotgun or rifle that’s shot loose. Politics, obviously, and if that doesn’t sour your chowder, nothing ever will.

Maine Citizens For Fair Bear Hunting, however, the group that put the referendum in place, is sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest and most affluent anti-hunting organization. Think about it. I did, and my thoughts convinced me the referendum wouldn’t be on the ballot if it were not for money changing hands. Clearly, this ballot-box attempt to erode Maine’s hunting heritage and deprive the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife of its most effective methods of managing Maine’s bear population is not homemade.

Aside from the referendum being ridiculous – there is no scientific or conservation reason for it – I have to admit that following its tracks has been interesting. For example, HSUS has threatened to sue the state for allowing DIF&W involvement in opposing the referendum. In other words, the anti-hunting organization doesn’t want scientific information compiled by the most comprehensive and respected black bear management program in this country broadcast to the public. Therefore, MCFFBH asked television stations to discontinue running an ad featuring DIF&W bear biologist Jennifer Vashon, but to no avail. Of course, MCFFBH’s ad featuring the killing of a trapped bear is offensive. It was intended be. But think of how offensive the killing of a veal calf in a slaughterhouse would be if it were televised. Also, keep in mind that according to DIF&W records, only 2 percent of Maine’s annual bear kill involves trapping.

Still, the question begs: Why are HSUS and MCFFBH opposed to the public receiving scientific information regarding bear biology and management? Records show that the states of Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts lost referendums in spite of their bear-specialist biologists publicizing factual information. However, DIF&W records (ref: www.mefishwildlife.com) also show that since the passage of those referendums, bear populations are increasing in those states. Consequently, more bears are being shot as nuisance animals.

In that regard a Reuters release e-mailed to me from Dave Mendenhall of Castine was timely: On Sept. 20, Tom Isaac, an Aspen, Colo., resident who was paralyzed in a skiing accident, lay helplessly in bed for nearly two hours while a 500-pound bear known locally as “Fat Albert” rummaged in the kitchen. Wildlife agents found the bear sleeping in Isaac’s dining room the next afternoon. The release stated that, because bears are now fattening in preparation for hibernation, reports of the rummaging animals are frequent in Colorado’s mountain communities.

Think about it: The number of bears making tracks in Massachusetts has doubled in the past 10 years. Moreover, Maryland’s bear population has increased by 127 percent in a 10- year period. Small wonder that the state’s first bear hunt in 50 years was recently approved. Paul Perditto, director of the Maryland Department of Natural Resource’s Wildlife Heritage Service, says the two-week hunt is a highly regulated, structured management strategy that is consistent with the decisions of a citizen advisory task force. Not surprisingly, anti-hunting groups are threatening to stop the hunt by taking the matter to court. If that happens, USSA will lead the fight to protect the hunt.

Under current hunting regulations, Maine’s bear population of 23,000 – one of the highest nationwide – has increased by nearly 30 percent since 1990. Think about that and you may conclude that eventually more bears will have to be removed from the population to maintain social carrying capacity. A thinking person also will ascertain that, in spite of everything being said and written about bear hunting, sportsmanship, hunter ethics, and fair chase, the primary reason for voting NO on Question 2 is bear management – which affects every living soul in this state.

As for hunter ethics, fair chase, and sportsmanship, those are codes of conduct to be decided by hunters, not by people who have never hunted. Naturally, bear baiting is being described as cruel. Semantics aside, it can be said that a bear shot on a bait is no deader than a bear shot on a beech ridge. No matter how it’s sliced and served, the bottom line is that, with baiting in place, only 25 percent of Maine bear hunters fill out their tags. If the referendum passes, the success rate of Maine bear hunters will drop to 3 percent. Think about it.

Now think about this: In 2003, the total of bear permits purchased by Maine resident and nonresident hunters was 11,321. Therefore, if baiting and hunting with hounds were the surefire methods of tagging a bear that they’re proclaimed to be, nearly half of Maine’s bear population would have been killed last year. Considering that DIF&W’s bear-management program provides for an annual kill of only 15 percent of the bear population, a substantially higher kill would result in either more restrictive hunting regulations or a closed season.

In reading the pro-referendum letters and guest columns appearing in this paper and other publications, I can’t help thinking that some of them are assets to the coalition. Simply put, invectives accusing the DIF&W of disseminating false information regarding bear management are absurd and the public is perceiving them as such. Common sense dictates that the business of managing Maine’s bear population should be left to wildlife biologists who make it their business.

Accordingly, the Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society’s position statement on the referendum declares: Be it resolved, That the Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society opposes the referendum to ban the use of certain hunting techniques because it subverts the species planning process that has been successfully used to balance scientific management and societal goals for over 25 years, and; That the Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society opposes the referendum because it would limit regulated, responsible, safe, and sustainable human use of a highly valued species, and may limit the ability of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to maintain the black bear population at ecologically, and socially desirable levels.

Because hunting is proven essential to successful wildlife management, you’d think an initiative to change bear-hunting regulations and management methods would include alternative plans. Think about it. I did, and when MCFFBH’s director, Robert Fisk, presented the organization’s positions and arguments at a recent Industrial Forestry Forum held in Brewer – Tenley Meara, a registered Maine guide and member of DIF&W’s Advisory Council, represented the coalition – I asked him if he had an alternative plan for managing Maine’s bear population. When he answered, “Bears are self-regulating,” I responded by saying New Jersey’s bear population should be reminded of that. Last year, an estimated 2,000 bear complaints were recorded in the Garden State – 58 of which were home invasions.

As surely as a bear steps in its own tracks, if the referendum passes, others will soon follow. Keep in mind HSUS director Wayne Pacelle’s published statement: “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States.” Think about it; and while you’re at it, think about HSUS endorsing politicians in state elections. The message is clear: From now on, people who sign their names to hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses will have to fight to defend and protect their treasured traditions, cultures, and heritage.

Money, obviously, is critical to combating anti-hunting attacks. Not only for funding counterattacks, but in affecting voters as well. Think about it: A recent study to determine the economic impact of bear hunting in Maine shows the sport brings in $62 million annually. God and everybody else knows this state can’t afford to lose that income. Not to mention the 770 or so associated jobs. The study was conducted by Noreen Norton, director of economic development for the Eaton, Peabody Consulting Group, and Dr. Charles Colgan, a University of Southern Maine professor and chairman of the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service.

During the aforementioned forum, a member of the audience asked Robert Fisk how MCFFBH proposed to replace the loss of income to guides if the referendum were enacted. His answer, that guides would be hired by wildlife watchers, campers, hikers, and the like, resulted in ripples of laughter. Later, I asked Fisk if he thought it made sense to place the future of Maine’s bear-management program, which sets the standard for states nationwide, in the hands of voters who knew absolutely nothing about bears, bear hunting, or bear management. He didn’t have an answer to that question. You can answer it, though, clearly, emphatically, and finally by voting NO on Question 2. There’s so much at stake – to lose and never regain – that you shouldn’t have to think about it.

Tom Hennessey’s columns and artwork can be accessed on the BDN Internet page at www.bangornews.com. Tom’s e-mail address is: thennessey@bangordailynews.net