Referendum questions are never as straightforward as they appear on the ballot and the bear-baiting measure is no exception. This question is more than an issue of ethical hunting and fair chase. It has far-reaching wildlife policy, economic and legal implications, many of which will only be settled in the courts or by the Maine Legislature. That is why I feel strongly that these complex questions should be dealt with in the Legislature where the issues can be teased apart, debated and dealt with appropriately. But that opportunity is gone and we must simply vote yes or no on a complex question.

Maine has one of the largest and healthiest bear populations in the country, between 20,000 and 30,000 animals. This is hard to believe because we rarely see one. I’m in the woods a lot and I’m lucky to see one bear a year; they are shy and secretive, making them hard to locate.

Harvest levels, about 3,500 animals a year, are within recommended levels to sustain the population. In addition, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has one of the best bear research programs in the country. Population levels, reproductive and mortality rates and movements are monitored in two to three areas of the state annually. This referendum would greatly restrict MDIFW’s ability to manage and regulate bear populations, a legislatively mandated responsibility. Is this how we want wildlife populations managed in Maine? So the issue is not whether we should hunt bears or the appropriate number of bears to harvest, it is how we choose to do this.

Now to the tough part, ethics. Who should determine what is ethical, the Legislature, the public or the individual? In most cases I believe it should be the latter; in this case the sportsman.

What feels ethical to one person may not to another. When serving in the U.S. Army in Germany, I hunted wild boar over bait from tree stands. It was the accepted way to hunt and the only way to reduce boar numbers that were damaging neighboring farms. Was this ethically wrong? Did it violate the principles of fair chase?

Frankly it was exciting and I’d do it again. The fact that I choose not to hunt bears over bait is not an ethical one for me, it simply doesn’t appeal to me, but I’m not about to dictate to others whether it is or isn’t a proper way to hunt. If you go to Texas to hunt deer or turkeys, more than likely you will hunt from a stand over bait. Is this wrong?

These are tough questions and why I believe it should be an individual’s choice not one dictated by law. How about running bears with hounds? If it is OK to hunt bobcats and snowshoe hares with dogs why are bears being singled out, or is this just the tip of the iceberg? What about dogs being used to hunt upland game birds or decoys to attract ducks? You can see the question of ethical hunting and fair chase is a difficult one.

.

Beyond ethics there are some significant impacts that this question will have. Although the referendum proponents argue that other types of bear hunting will increase and overall harvest rates won’t change much over time, this simply is not true. Because Maine’s bear population is located primarily in forested central and northern Maine other types of hunting will not be very successful.

When I go out West I see bears all the time even though the bear densities are well below Maine’s. Should this referendum question pass, I predict Maine’s bear harvest will drop by 75 percent. So what, some say. Well, if there ever was a Two Maines issue, this is it. Bear hunting brings tens of millions of dollars into rural Maine in a six-week period. A time when summer activities are waning and snowmobiling is several months away. And these are primarily dollars from out of state. Grocery store and filling station owners, guides, sporting camp owners and many others are all dependent on this important source of income. If there was only one reason to vote against this referendum question, this would be it for me.

Reduced harvest will mean larger bear populations and over time significantly more nuisance bear complaints. MDIFW, the agency responsible for nuisance animals, has neither the time, funds nor manpower to deal with these complaints. It’s a Catch-22; reduced bear hunting means fewer license and registration dollars to the department while workloads increase. Many states to the south of us are experiencing increased bear-human interactions and are initiating or expanding bear hunting to try and deal with these problems.

So, it’s not just a simple question on ethics. It is a complex issue impacting many lives, especially in rural Maine. I urge you to vote no on this question and ask your legislators to deal with specific issues that you may have in a more appropriate legislative arena.

Ray Owen of Orono is professor emeritus of wildlife ecology at the University of Maine and former commissioner of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.