Sportsmen and officials within the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife may be heartened by the defeat of Question 2, a measure to ban the baiting, hounding and trapping of bear. But, they should quickly celebrate their victory and then get down to the business of changing the way the department is funded.

As long as IF&W remains highly dependent on revenue from hunters and fishermen, the department will work to serve their interests, as well it should. Statistics clearly show that hunters are far in the minority in Maine. As more and more nonhunters feel the state’s wildlife agency does not serve their interests, they come to resent the department, maybe even leading referendum drives to limit hunting. The challenge for years has been to get these nonhunters, who want wildlife managed so they can photograph it, enjoy it passing through their back yards or simply know it lives in the woods far from their urban homes, to contribute financially to the department.

The only way this can be done is to support IF&W with money from the General Fund, not through hiker fees or special taxes on binoculars. The state was on track to do this before the return of budget deficits. As difficult as it will be, lawmakers, including Gov. John Baldacci, should look for a way to allocate General Fund money to the department or risk furthering the divide between hunters and nonhunters.

Although Question 2 was defeated statewide by a 53 to 47 percent margin, it fared well in the southern part of the state. The results were the exact opposite – 53 percent favoring the ban, 47 percent opposed – in the 1st Congressional District. In Portland, 68 percent of voters supported the ban. These are the parts of the state where the population is growing. Without support from these areas, the policies of IF&W and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine will continue to be challenged and, in five or 10 years, a similar referendum would likely pass.

Changing the department’s funding will help avoid this (outlawing practices like steel bear traps will also help). Ironically, the department and sportsmen who support it thought they were helping IF&W when they supported a constitutional amendment to protect its revenue. The amendment, passed by voters in 1992, says that the state cannot divert monies collected by the department through license fees, permit sales, fines and property rental, to other uses. This has left many lawmakers to believe that the department has enough money. It doesn’t.

A recent review by a legislative committee found that the department is barely able to fulfill its mission with the money it gets from fees and fines. For this reason, the Legislature several years ago approved increasing the IF&W budget by $4 million from the General Fund, with this money representing a contribution from nonhunters. That money, however, never materialized after the state faced budget shortfalls.

Shortfall or not, the department needs money from the majority of Maine residents who don’t hunt. Then, it must begin listening to their concerns. The alternative is more costly and divisive referendum battles. That won’t be good for sportsmen or wildlife.