Why Question 1 is Detrimental for Maine Jennifer Byron Central Maine Community College Voting will take place on November 4th, and Maine is again faced with a referendum aimed at banning bear baiting, trapping, and hounding. If passed, it will adversely affect ALL Mainers and create a terrible situation for bears and other wildlife. Get the facts and understand why Question 1 will hurt Maine. Trust our Wildlife Biologists! ________________ The Truth about Bear Hunting: Why Question 1 is Detrimental for Maine Baiting? Trapping? Hounding? What does it all mean? The majority of Mainers don’t have the background with bear hunting to fully understand these terms and what they entail. They cannot comprehend the effects and consequences of banning these practices. So, I am going to break them down for you, and present my opinion at the end. You are welcome to make up your own mind. Question one on this year’s referendum reads, “Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs, or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?” First, let’s get our terms straight. Baiting is “to put a piece of food on (a hook) or in (a trap) in order to attract and catch fish or animals” (Webster). A trap is “a device for taking game or other animals”, and hounding is defined as “using hounds (especially scent hounds) in the pursuit of an animal”. Supporters of the referendum make the claim that these practices are unethical. They are taking the stand that these practices are inhumane and need to be ended. The campaign is being run by Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, and this organization gets the majority of their funding from the Humane Society of the United States. They state that these methods of hunting which are long traditions in Maine are making an unfair chase for the bears. They claim that it is conditioning them to become nuisances when it isn’t hunting season. In other words, it teaches them that humans aren’t that scary, and that they should seek out food in neighborhoods when it isn’t in the woods. One of their other claims is that it increases hunter’s vulnerability by making them come into close range. (fairbearhunt) On the other side of this debate are those who oppose the changes that this referendum will make if passed. This side of the campaign is mostly funded and organized by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW). Maine has the longest running bear management program in the country, and it is (arguably) the best as well. Maine’s bear biologists and DIFW have been monitoring Maine’s bear population since 1975 and collaring 50-100 females every year. These people have an incredible passion for these animals which is why they are saying that they oppose this referendum. DIFW states that the methods used for bear hunting in Maine are the only way to successfully manage the bear population and guarantees that they are completely humane. DIFW says that these methods are even more humane than stalking and killing without the use of bait, dogs, and traps! As a matter of fact, some bear managers and hunting outfitters suggest that in areas with dense forests like Maine that hunters should be required to hunt with these methods. (FAQ of question 1) By drawing the bears into the open with bait you guarantee a cleaner kill, reducing the amount of bears that get away wounded. You also increase selectivity against females that are accompanied by cubs, which would die without their mother. Studies have been performed on the effects of hounding on bears, with the results surprising. It turns out that bears are built for stamina, and they incur minimal stress levels from being pursued. Once in a tree, many of them will simply fall asleep, while a pack of braying hounds are at the base of the tree, unable to climb up. On the subject of traps, we find that the jaw-style traps that are used in the television commercials supporting this referendum are illegal to use in Maine. Nobody is permitted to use them at all. Is this ignorance on the part of the proponents of the campaign? I think not. I believe that they are trying to appeal to the emotional, soft portion of Mainers. The truth is that the only kinds of traps that Mainers are allowed to use are foot snares (with certain kinds banned due to inhumane design) and cage style live traps. (Maine Hunting & Trapping) Such traps are the same ones that are used by wildlife researchers and are considered safe and humane by animal care committees across America. Even those uses of traps have regulations on them to keep it ethical and controlled. One such regulation is that any one hunter can only have ONE trap out at a time. Every trap must be checked daily, and foot snares have a type of stopper on them to 1) prevent small bears and cubs from being caught and 2) to prevent injury to a larger bear that is caught. Needless to say, I think that we are far from informed about this question. DIFW states that the bear population has increased by 30% since the last time we faced this referendum in 2004. In order to stabilize this already increasing population the state of Maine would need 3500-4500 kills per year. Last year, there were 2,845 bears that were tagged. That already isn’t enough to curb the ever-increasing population! On top of that, AT LEAST 2,633 of them were taken by one of the three methods that will be banned in the referendum. That is 92.5% of our annual harvest! If this referendum passes, it will mean a dramatic increase in our bear population. You may be saying, “Hold up! What about still hunting? That will still be allowed. Can’t that take care of our population increase?” The answer? Nope. It can’t. According to DIFW only about 2% of hunters that still hunt or stalk are successful, versus the 25% of hunters that use bait, 20% that use traps, and 30% that use hounds. On top of which, Maine has incredibly dense forests, and bears are extremely wary and elusive (hence the 2% success rate). This leads to an increase in bears, which will lead to more nuisance bears, and we will be hearing about more than just birdfeeders getting stolen. Less contact with people added to increased hunger will end with crops and gardens being ransacked, pets and livestock being snatched, and homes, garages, sheds, and campsites being invaded. What is now a 50-60 million dollar asset to the state will become a multi-million dollar liability. And don’t forget about the impact on the deer and moose population. With increased bears, is an increased need for food. With more bears waking up hungry every spring there will be more fawns and calves being taken due to increased appetite. Supporters of the campaign say that the bear population will stabilize itself. DIFW states that the population will stabilize itself… But only when disease, malnutrition, and starvation force it to, resulting in fewer cubs born. If the thought of starving, diseased bears doesn’t bring to mind inhumane acts then I don’t know what will. Even ignoring the incredible impacts to society that this will have, you can see that this is a bad idea! Let’s now take the time to look at some statistics from other states and provinces. Until recently, bears couldn’t be hunted in New Jersey. As the bear population grew, it resulted in more than 2,000 reported bear/human conflicts each year. An average of 100 homes were invaded by bears searching for food. NJ was spending more than a million dollars per year on educating residents about bears and how to reduce conflicts. In 2010, they reinstated their hunting season and as a result, conflicts have decreased by almost 50%. (FAQ of question 1) In another article, we see a total of 52 jurisdictions surveyed across North America. 17 jurisdictions had both spring and fall hunts and their population increased by 6%. 21 Jurisdictions had only fall hunts and their bear population increased by 51%. Another 14 jurisdictions reported no bear season and their populations grew by a whopping 87%! The remaining 10 jurisdictions reported occasional transient bears but no resident population. The jurisdictions that had liberal hunting regimes tended to hold the bear/human conflict rate at a steady level, whereas ones with a more restricted regime experience a growing trend with respect to conflicts. (Jr., 2014) Now comes the time for you to make your decision. I think that my point has become fairly clear throughout the compilation of these facts. Honestly, I’m not sure how anyone can come to any conclusion other than that Question 1 is bad for Maine. If this referendum passes, there will be irreversible consequences for the whole state. Not just those “up-north folks”. As the population increases, some of the bears WILL move to the coastal and southern regions of Maine. Think about the pros and cons. Question 1 will hurt Maine’s economy, community, and environment. The people will suffer, but not nearly as much as the bears will. Do the right thing, and vote NO on Question 1!! ________________
Posted on: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:02:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015