As the November bear referendum draws closer and closer, some of us in the outdoor community will keep tabs on who supports our hunting heritage and who opposes our right as sportsman to make our own choices.

Make no mistake. The attempt by well-heeled outside forces to close down Maine’s traditional bear hunt is an assault on all sportsmen, not just bear hunters. It is also an affront to scientific wildlife management, and a threat to our state’s rural economy and our cultural sovereignty.

George Smith, the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), has said that any outdoor or conservation organization that “goes neutral” or abstains on this critical issue might as well get in bed with the enemy. He is right. When an issue like the bear referendum looms on the horizon with such profound implications for all of Maine, there is no room for comfortable fence walking.

When the vote is concluded next fall and the smoke clears, those outdoor and conservation organizations that sat on the fence will be conspicuous. Perhaps not in the eyes of the general populace, but Maine sportsmen will take note and remember, and well they should.

It may be early in the game, and a lot can happen between now and mid September when the bear referendum battle heats up, but we are beginning to see some fence walking by a few organizations that should count sportsmen among their natural constituencies.

Most notable among these is the Maine Audubon Society. In a press release a few months ago, Audubon proclaimed that it would remain neutral. In a statement that seemed hypocritical to me, Audubon reasoned that though traditional bear hunting over bait was an effective bear management tool that made sense, it didn’t feel comfortable telling its members how to vote. Funny, that consideration never kept Audubon from speaking out in the past. Audubon commended state wildlife biologists for running the best bear research program in North America; yet it stops short of taking a stand that would get behind these same biologists that it applauds. In straddling this historic issue Audubon has, in effect, abandoned Maine sportsmen, many of whom are dues paying members of this prestigious national organization.

Another prestigious national conservation organization, Trout Unlimited, told me that it would not be taking a position on the bear referendum. TU, like Audubon, has by reputation been an active lobby force to be reckoned with and never hesitated in the past to speak out. That its leadership fails to embrace the idea that anglers are also sportsmen is regrettable. Dozens of other state angling clubs, thankfully, appreciate the connection and have gotten on board with both money and volunteer support.

Of note, too, are the postures of Maine’s large sporting goods retailers who depend on sportsmen dollars for their livings. It is good to see that the Kittery Trading Post, Indian Hill Trading Post and a number of other smaller retailers are listed as financial contributors to the Campaign Coalition of Maine’s Fish and Willdife Conservation Council. Conspicuous by its absence is Maine’s hunting shoe retail icon, L.L. Bean.

Most noteworthy of all at this point in the political campaign to save traditional bear hunting is the recent decision by the Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society in a formal vote to oppose the bear referendum. This is significant and more than offsets Audubon’s copout. The state chapter of the Wildlife Society is itself a respected and prestigious scientific and educational organization comprised of professional wildlife biologists from across Maine. In a position statement the society listed a number of reasons for its laudable decision including the recognition that hunting bear over bait is a worthy and wise method of bear management.

The society’s position statement reads in part: “That the Maine Chapter opposes the referendum to ban the use of certain hunting techniques because it subverts the species planning process that has been successfully used to balance scientific management and societal goals for over 25 years, and;

“That the Maine Chapter opposes the referendum because it would limit regulated, responsible, safe, and sustainable human use of a highly valued species, and may limit the ability of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to maintain the black bear population at ecologically, and socially desirable levels.”

For my money, the society is to be particularly applauded for this observation in regard to hunting over bait: “It should be a matter of individual choice.”

V. Paul Reynolds is editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal. He is also a Maine Guide, co-host of a weekly radio program “Maine Outdoors” heard Sundays at 7 p.m. on The Voice of Maine News-Talk Network (WVOM-FM 103.9, WCME-FM 96.7) and former information officer for the Maine Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. His e-mail address is paul@sportingjournal.com.

Copy the Story Link