Paul Reynolds’ column recently described the bear-baiting question as a “threat to our hunting heritage.” In fact, the referendum and the Humane Society never proposed to eliminate hunting. In Colorado, Oregon and Washington, where baiting and hounding were recently banned, traditional fair-chase hunting increased by nearly 300 percent. It was that kind of “hunting heritage” that referendum proponents wanted to restore to replace the inhumane methods currently used.

The issue was cruelty, not hunting – and 103,000 Mainers signed the petition supporting the initiative and 335,000 citizens voted for it from conviction, not because of some dark, out-of-state conspiracy.

And speaking of that, let’s not forget that out-of-state trophy hunters shoot 80 percent of our bears and helped with finance. The International Bow Hunters Organization, based in Ohio, added $5,000 to opposition coffers, and the California Houndsmen for Conservation donated another $10,000. Irving Woodlands in Canada gave $25,000, an amount exceeded only by Ballot Issues Coalition from Maryland, which contributed $25, 250.

Reynolds smeared referendum supporters as “idle rich animal rights extremists from Upper Manhattan.” Well, I’m not from Manhattan, nor are most of the 47 percent who voted yes in November.

Finally, Reynolds advocates a constitutional amendment so Maine’s wildlife management remains controlled by special interests, as if everyone were not citizens of the same state whose decisions represent us all.

Reynolds is right about one thing. The issue is not over. It will be back.

Don Loprieno, Bristol