When I read the headline, “Bear Baiting: Bane or Boom?,” written by Misty Edgecomb (BDN, Sept. 15), it piqued my interest. Part of that pique was because I am a former bear-baiting guide. But before getting into the pros and cons of bear baiting, let me make one thing clear that will also provide, in part, a premise and add to the validity of the succeeding comments.

Bears do not need to be managed with the use of bait or any other management tool for that matter. They are one of the most self-regulating, large animals in the world. Bears, unlike most other creatures, are not the prey of any other specie. Perhaps that’s the reason for Mother Nature’s built-in regulator.

Black bears, at least the Maine variety, manage themselves well in many ways. They have a low reproductive rate of about 15 percent. The females don’t normally breed until they are 4 years old and breed only every other year. Compared with most other animals, their litter size is small, averaging two cubs, which means the average female produces only a dozen or so offspring in her lifetime. There are other subtle controlling factors as well, but these are the main ones.

Bounties on bears, as the article stated, were eliminated in 1957. That happened for good reason. Our wildlife officials finally realized that bounties on bears and all other animals that were looked upon as lowly creatures to be eliminated were a waste of taxpayer dollars, unnecessary, and played no role whatsoever in the management of a species. For the same reasons, bounties on bobcats and porcupines were also eliminated.

For nearly 20 years after the elimination of bear bounties, there was little interest in hunting bears. People occasionally shot them on the dumps in rural Maine, just as one might shoot a rat. There was simply no reason during this period for anyone to go bear hunting, for most people found their flesh unpalatable, as most people still do today. There were, however, a few hunters who enjoyed chasing a bear with a pack of hounds. This was back in the days when it was a sporting chase, quite unlike the bear hunts of today, with tracking collars that negate most of the “fair chase” concept of hunting.

Admittedly, wild animals cause problems when they invade the space claimed by human beings. Bears are no exception, and government files hold records where compensation was paid to farmers and others who were victims of bear predation and crop damage. At certain times and in certain places, bears are still a problem. Several beekeepers can attest to that. But remember, this is happening in spite of our wildlife managers’ claim that they are successfully managing bears by permitting the use of bait to assist the hunter in killing his prey.

So how did we go from the day of trapping the bear for the bounty to a very limited interest in bear hunting by any method to the present-day, vigorous activity of hunting bear with the use of bait? The answer, quite simply, is found in the profits made by those who cater to nonresident hunters.

Well-educated students of economics know how well entrepreneurs can and do justify their actions when they come to making profits. That is exactly what has happened in this new wave of hunting bears with the use of bait. The “fair chase” concept of hunting has been cast aside for the ease of making the quick buck. The attributes necessary for a successful bear hunt require little skill. All that’s required, by those who call themselves “bear guides,” are the ability and means to transport a bait bucket, and a nonresident person who has purchased a hunting license but is not necessarily a hunter. Then, they head to a tree stand 150 feet off a well-traveled way.

Why do our wildlife managers sanction this sucker-type hunting? They too, in their own way, are entrepreneurs, for they need funds for their management coffers. Not only do they get the benefits of the $86 nonresident license fee, but they also charge the nonresident an additional $65 for a bear stamp that is required for the privilege of hunting bears by the use of bait.

What the entrepreneurial government managers and commercial bear baiters fail to tell the public is that there are successful ways to harvest bears without the use of bait.

One very successful way is by using anise and placing it in natural food areas where bears tend to congregate during the early fall. Learning how to hunt bears, using one’s skills as a hunter and a little patience, will produce results nearly equal to that of bait hunting. A side benefit is the reward one receives feeling the heightened elation of success of a real hunter, vs. one of a dub shooting a pig in a barrel.

Another benefit is that it retains the integrity of “fair chase” hunting that all true hunters support. It would provide a natural hunt rather than a conditioned one, both in style and animal.

It also would eliminate the tons and tons of food and garbage that is put out on private lands that many landowners object to. Most importantly, it would eliminate the oftentimes violent turf wars that go on between bear-hunting factions. The claim of turf and its resultant problems caused by bear baiting has risen to such a level that many commercial baiters are willing to pay $100 for an exclusive bait site, and in some instances thousands of dollars for exclusive commercial baiting privileges for entire townships. One commercial bear baiter claims to have exclusive rights on 500,000 acres, of course, at the detriment of the recreational resident bear hunter who must go and find another niche to hunt and hope he is lucky enough to find one.

It is fair and reasonable to say that baiting bears has no future. Bear baiting and all its physical and social problems will be the demise of hunting and the hunter in the near future. This quote from the home page of Maine’s largest bear-baiting guide speaks for itself:

“Baiting bears is much like training your dog. Since animals learn by repetition, we are conditioning them to the sound of our trucks, human scent, the noise we make while placing the bait. The bears soon associate this routine with the arrival of food; much like Pavlov’s dog and the ringing of the bell.”

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are leading hunters astray when they suggest that hunters should band together and support each other and be concerned about The Humane Society of the United States. The Humane Society is not opposed to “fair chase” hunting, for they too recognize the value and necessity of hunting as a wildlife management tool.

The nonhunting public of the future will not support the shooting of a pig in a barrel. Since the activity of bear baiting has not been done away with legislatively, then the voice of the people should speak loud and clear at the ballot box.

I believe we ought to hunt bears during the months of October and November in the same “fair chase” manner that we hunt deer and other wildlife. Every citizen in Maine, including sportsmen, will be the benefactor if we do.

Bill Randall is a former hunter, Maine guide, bear baiter and bear trapper who lives in Winthrop.