As I read The Associated Press article (Oct. 27) on page one headlining how the bear referendum is receiving national attention, the wording in the first paragraph strongly suggests the writer’s stance and, perhaps, the Sun Journal’s stance on the subject of the referendum.
Unless that was the purpose of the article, I feel wording could have been used in a more neutral manner. My suggestion would be wording similar to: “In Maine, a hunter can harvest a bear utilizing three methods: baiting, snaring and the use of dogs.” Instead, the writer chose to be graphic and add a little taste of negative sarcasm when depicting the three methods.
If I were reading about the referendum issue for the first time, I would have assumed the Sun Journal was supporting “yes” on Question 1, and that is probably acceptable and I’m out of line here.
Then, I turned the pages and came to guest column writer Kathy Pollard. She is obviously weak in her math skills and has no personal knowledge of the subject, regardless of her “background in wildlife biology.”
I prefer to follow Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife professional biologists and my own personal experience in the woods for the past 42 years.
Linda Mercer, Harrison