Question 2 backers criticize study Lost revenue estimate ‘useless,’ supporters of bear baiting ban say

Supporters of Question 2 on Thursday issued a harsh critique of an economic study released last month by their rivals, who estimated that Maine could lose as much as $62 million if bear baiting, trapping and hunting with dogs is banned by voters.

The pro-ban analysis released Thursday called the previous study commissioned by Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council “flawed and useless,” citing statistical problems and evidence of bias.

The survey of 45 hunters that Eaton Peabody Consulting conducted to predict the spending habits of tens of thousands of bear hunters should have included – at a bare minimum – 310 people to be valid, the analysis said.

However, the pro-ban analysis done by two economists did not make any alternative predictions about how the loss of bear hunting would affect Maine’s economy.

“If they don’t agree with our numbers, then where are their numbers?” asked Edie Leary, spokeswoman for Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, a coalition made up primarily of hunting groups that aims to defeat the referendum.

Bob Fisk, spokesman for Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting, the group behind the referendum, said Thursday he does not believe that precise financial predictions can be made.

Generally, he believes, based on his staff’s analysis of other states’ responses to baiting and hound hunting bans, that Maine would lose some income during a “transition,” but that guide services and other businesses that depend on the bear season could attract new business, even increasing their profit in the long run.

Maine has a healthy black bear population and the highest bear density in the nation, he said, adding a point from his organization’s analysis – that the referendum opponents’ study failed to consider the potential impact of hunters who now avoid Maine’s bear season because they dislike baiting. Those hunters might come to spend their money on “fair chase” hunting, the type of stalking hunt that would remain if Question 2 passes, he said.

In fact, the analysis charges Eaton Peabody Consulting with massaging their data to create the highest possible economic impact, “presumably because as the chief advocates against the initiative, they found it convenient and helpful to do so.” Leary, the paid spokeswoman for the anti-ban coalition, is employed by Eaton Peabody, and campaign finance records indicate that the coalition has paid the consulting company more than $100,000 for its services thus far.

Leary answered the accusation Thursday, saying that the research and advocacy efforts were kept separate.

“The first draft [of the economic study] I saw was the study that everybody saw,” she said.

The coalition stands by its figures, Leary said, noting that one of the two economists who conducted the referendum proponents’ analysis is employed by an animal advocacy group in California.

“It’s another linkage to a national group that has no understanding of bear hunting in Maine,” she said, citing the qualifications of the local analysts who conducted her group’s study.

“They know Maine,” she said.

The full Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting analysis is available online at www.fairbearhunting.org while the original economic study commissioned by the coalition is available on the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Web site at www.samcef.org