The season is quietly turning, with the weather cooling as the rhetoric heats up on the election campaign trail. The referendum on bear hunting promises to be among the most hotly debated of the ballot issues. The proponents argue that the question is whether Maine should allow current hunting practices to stand, practices that they hold to be morally outrageous.

Hunting always generates controversy in the public debate. People are either passionate adherents or detractors, and many intelligent and thoughtful arguments have been waged over the years among friends.

The practical effects of the passage of Question 2 could be problematic, despite the philosophical roots of the question. Even if one dismisses the assertion by opponents that the loss of the most common bear-hunting methods – baiting, hounding, and trapping – will result in an inevitable increase in nuisance bears, the penalties described in the bill represent, if passed, the most onerous in conservation law. But what could be onerous about the provisions of a “fair” bear hunt?

A violation of the proposed statute would be hard to define. While the bill overtly proscribes bait, for example, it also says bait “include[es], but is not limited to” baits placed in the woods – so taking a bear in a blueberry field or on a beech ridge, both naturally occurring food sources, could be legally construed as baiting.

While baiting is already illegal for deer hunting, there is specific exception made for hunting in naturally occurring feeding areas – an exception missing in the referendum

question. And one would not have to be successful in order to be in violation of the law.

Simply trying is enough to warrant prosecution; doing so twice nets the would-be offender a Class C felony conviction, with a five-year jail sentence and a $5,000 fine, none of which may be suspended. Compare this to the penalty for violation of a protection from abuse order or drunken driving, both of which have been identified as Public Enemy No. 1 in Maine; both are misdemeanor convictions.

Violators of the bear law could also expect to have all of their fish and wildlife licenses permanently revoked. This would be unique in conservation law, which currently prescribes no more than a 10-year revocation period for violations as serious as assault while hunting.

The proposed law is quite clear, however, about the disposition of nuisance bears. Only a state or federal wildlife official may deal with a nuisance bear. They will be able to use bait and dogs, although why they would need bait to attract a bear that won’t go away escapes me. But you can’t deal with a bear yourself if one gets into your garage; you’ll have to wait for the state or federal wildlife official. Good luck.

The only fair bear hunting the proponents seek is no bear hunting at all, which is what they would achieve with passage of Question 2. Given Maine’s topography and the habits of black bears, any hunter would tell you that a chance encounter with a bear in the woods is a very special rarity, despite the fact that Maine has one of the nation’s highest populations of black bears.

It will be up to all of us on Nov. 2 to decide the future of wildlife policy in Maine. As the season quietly turns, it’s worth noting that Maine’s highly regulated bear season – which began in late August – is almost over, and there’s been no controversy at all, except for that stirred up by the proponents of the referendum question.

Considering the focus of society on solving real problems like the ones described above, should we be creating new ones?

Rep. Matthew Dunlap, D-Old Town, is the House chair of the Joint Stand-ing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.