Ethics true issue of Question 2, proposal to ban bear baiting

loading...

After more than a year of emotional arguments, we find ourselves – finally – just five days away from election day, and a decision on Maine’s bear-hunting future.

Over the past year, I have done my best to learn all I could about bear hunting, bear hunters, and those whose livelihoods depend upon the sport.

I have also studied the opposing views, and have listened to those who want to change the way we hunt bears in this state.

You, as newspaper readers, are generally well-informed. You tend to research the issues, make your own decisions, and at this point, probably have a pretty good idea which way you’ll vote when you step into the booth on Tuesday.

What’s printed in this space today may or may not sway you from your beliefs. But over the next few days, I think it’s important to realize that despite the stark, black-and-white, all-or-nothing political commercials you’re forced to ingest every time you sit in front of the TV, the bear issue isn’t quite that simple.

Over the past year, I’ve come to believe a number arguments that have been made by both sides and to dismiss many others.

Here’s where I stand. Do with it what you will.

I don’t believe in a “slippery slope.” I don’t believe that we won’t be deer hunting in Maine in 50 years … no matter how people vote on this question.

With that said, I do believe that we ought to fight to defend our outdoor heritage on the grounds that it is our heritage, and that it’s something that we value … no matter what “slippery slope” may or may not exist down the road.

I don’t believe that if uncontrolled, bears will run amok and eat my neighbor’s children. Neither do I want to find out. Bears are wild. They are unpredictable. And they will go where they need to go in order to eat.

I believe that any time you dismiss someone’s opinion by assigning them a convenient label (“The Antis,” for instance), you’ve done exactly the same thing they do to you (“Ignorant hunter,” for instance) and have ignored the fact that in some cases, you might even agree with someone from “the other side” … had you chosen to listen to them.

I believe that 99 percent of people who think bear-baiting is an easy, automatic, “unethical” way to hunt have never, ever, spent even an hour in a tree stand waiting for a bear to approach a bait.

I believe in our guides and hunters more than I believe those representing animal rights groups that would be just as happy if all hunting were outlawed.

Think this is an exaggeration? Think again. Maryland just reinstated a bear hunt, and the Humane Society of the United States was among those who sued to stop the hunt.

In Maine, the HSUS is against “baiting, hounding and trapping.” In Maryland, they’re against hunting bears altogether.

To national groups, Maine amounts to nothing more than another convenient spot to mount an animal-rights battle. Don’t forget that.

I believe state bear biologists know more about bears than I do. I believe they know more about bears than Robert Fisk and Cecil Gray and Bill Randall do. And I think they know more about bears than George Smith and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine do.

I believe the biologists know more about bears than the vast majority of us. And I believe that we ought to listen to them.

Further, I believe that the state’s bear biologists are scientists first, state employees second, and that they aren’t in cahoots with anyone, least of all the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.

Remember this: While SAM and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are allies in this referendum fight, that’s not always the case. Ask any DIF&W employee how many times their department has been on the other end of SAM’s pointed verbal (and political) sword.

SAM, you see, exists primarily as an advocate for sportsmen, and as an instrument of change. If everything is perfect in our fish-and-wildlife world, SAM isn’t necessary.

As we know, things aren’t perfect.

And as state officials know, SAM will continue its mission, whether the DIF&W likes what it hears or not.

I believe – no, I know – that there are hundreds of good, hardworking, honest, ethical guides out there, trying to scrape a living out of the Maine woods … just like others have done for generations.

And I believe that the referendum, if passed, would in many cases devastate their way of life.

I don’t trap. I don’t own hounds. And I don’t believe I’d get revved up about hunting bears in either of those manners.

Neither do I want to take those opportunities away from those who enjoy the practices.

There is, I figure, a vast difference between choosing not to participate in something because you don’t consider it particularly engrossing, and taking that next big step: Outlawing it for everyone else, because it’s distasteful to you.

Finally, I believe in ethics. Each person’s ethics are their own. And I believe “ethics” is the true slippery slope in this issue.

My ethics aren’t yours, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you what yours should be.

Please consider offering me the same courtesy when you vote on Tuesday.

John Holyoke can be reached at jholyoke@bangordailynews.net or by calling 990-8214 or 1-800-310-8600.