The 2004 bear referendum significantly raised the awareness of wildlife animal cruelty, unethical hunting practices and how we manage our wildlife in Maine. The referendum flushed out the fundamental reason we had a referendum – the complete control of wildlife issues by a handful of legislators; a special interest group, notably the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and a state agency, that are politically, ideologically, personally and financially connected. One has to look no farther than the fact that the present Inland Fisheries and Wildlife deputy commissioner was a lobbyist for SAM, and 12 of the 13 members of last year’s legislative IF&W Committee were also members of SAM.

The referendum shed much-needed public light on the fact that those who enjoy Maine’s wildlife in a non-consumptive way – and far outnumber sportsmen – have very little ability to influence wildlife legislation. This natural resource belongs to all Maine citizens, not an association (SAM) of only 11,000 Maine hunters.

What needs to change?

1. People who enjoy Maine’s wildlife in a nonconsumptive way, such as wildlife viewing, nature walks, primitive outdoor camping, bird watching, kayaking, outdoor photography, etc., represent nearly twice the revenue brought to the state than from all hunting and fishing revenue combined.

Eco-tourism is on a 15-year increase, while hunting numbers have been on a continuous decline during this same period.

Associations that represent these non-consumptive users need to be more political and demand meaningful participation in decisions. This is a sleeping giant that could make a difference if coalesced.

2. Legislative conditions and membership of the Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, which statutorily mandates what IF&W shall do, need to be diversified. The legislative leadership must appoint nonhunters to this committee.

3. The funding for IF&W has to come from something other than hunting and fishing licenses. This dedicated funding has engrained sportsmen with a proprietary attitude toward wildlife issues and DIF&W. General Fund money needs to be used and nonconsumptive users should be willing to pay their fair share.

4. The IF&W Advisory Council needs a more balanced representation of interest groups with a change in the make-up of the council and its duties. It should be an independent council to allow varied opinions and fresh ideas, instead of the present rubberstamping of the commissioner.

5. Animal cruelty has to be considered in wildlife management decisions. Many Maine citizens still have the image of a black bear agonizing in a steel leghold trap knowing it cannot escape.

A useless coyote snaring program allowed 60 percent of these snared canines to slowly strangle to death over three days and-or be clubbed to death. A coyote is genetically 99 percent the same animal as a domestic dog. If this was done to a pet dog, it surely would be considered aggravated animal cruelty, which is a felony offense. Cruelty is not even on the DIF&W radar screen and it’s time it became a factor in considering hunting and wildlife practices.

6. Hunters who don’t agree with the present hunting leadership and their agenda need to speak out just as they did on the bear referendum and more recently against Sunday hunting legislation sponsored by SAM which has divided even former SAM allies. I would say be true to your hunting tradition and move to clean up the image of hunting by policing your own ranks, respecting the animals you kill, and promoting hunting ethics. The more the extremists control your agenda, the more their negative image benefits anti-hunters.

A day after the 2004 election, a Bangor Daily News editorial stated, “Advocates of the ban need only to look at Maine’s shifting population to figure out that their time is coming – unless alert lawmakers act sooner. A sensible step would be to separate baiting from trapping and hounding, protect the first and ban the latter two.” We have a bear trapping bill and a bear hounding bill before the IF&W Committee; if the same no-restriction-on-any-hunting-practice groups prevail, the battle will ultimately tarnish all hunters, create a greater divide among hunters and non-hunters, and likely stimulate other referendums.

Thus far, the indications have not been favorable. SAM and the Maine Trappers Association have defiantly said they will fight the bear trapping bills even though Maine remains the only state in the country to still allow this barbaric practice. SAM called for a constitutional amendment that would end wildlife ballot initiatives simply to protect its influence on wildlife matters. It is time to smell the Starbucks. It is time for common sense inclusion and compromise.

Far-right sportsman organizations and their legislative and department allies have hijacked wildlife management and their intransigence is their Achilles heel. Hunters in Maine may be at a crossroads if they continue to dismiss the majority of Maine citizens with their proprietary attitude. Doggedness and divisive positions are not in the best interest of hunters, the hunting tradition, or Maine. It is time for hunters to consider alternative leadership.

Leaders who are not bound by inflexible and rigid ideology, but leaders who would rather see hunters become a part of the cutting edge and are viewed as positive agents for change.

Robert Fisk Jr., of Falmouth, is president and director of Maine Friends of Animals.