Earlier this month, yet another chapter in the annals of beardom was written by the Joint Standing Committee of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife as it decided the fate this legislative year of a number of bills in Augusta. The result was that bears, and animals in general, didn’t do very well.

On May 3, the committee in work session unanimously decided that bear bills on the separate subjects of baiting, trapping and hounding – heard the week before in a setting that limited testimony and lumped all the bills together – should be defeated. That is, by a unanimous decision of 13-0, L.D.s 48, 137, 314, 516, 628, 1319, 1460 and 1093 (eight individual bills in all) were quickly killed, though a single dissenting vote on any of them would have allowed further discussion and debate by the entire Legislature – a situation, one suspects, the committee was eager to avoid, hoping somehow that the issue was settled, which it isn’t, or will go permanently away, which it won’t.

L.D. 1093 was of particular interest because it offered a novel solution to the problem of bear baiting. Rather than dump piles of human food, especially stale doughnuts and cooking grease, every year into the woods, why not replace them with the use of scent baits in a bear-proof container? This suggestion would not only remove tons of junk food from the wilderness, it would induce bears to resume natural behavior and reduce the tendency to approach populated areas for a human handout which, in turn, would reduce nuisance bear complaints. It would also have brought the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife into compliance with its own guidelines, as stated on page 11 of its most recent (2004) annual report: “Never feed bears under any circumstances.”

L.D. 1093 sank like a stone, but for the supporters of this bill and the others, the outcome was no surprise. The monolithic nature of the IF&W committee has been apparent to many for some time, and their uniform opposition to all these measures simply confirms that there is no representation for the 89 percent of Mainers who neither hunt nor trap, even though the animals in question are part of a shared, natural resource.

The committee’s vote also reflects its insensitivity to the opinions of more than 344,000 of their fellow Mainers who hold a decidedly different view of wildlife management and expressed it in last November’s referendum. However, the committee did request that the department set up a stakeholders group to look at all of its bear management activities and to report back. No deadline for the report was set, but it appears that it would be in about a year. This could be a delaying tactic, but even if it isn’t, a discussion like this should have been held long ago, and would have been if the committee and the department it oversees reflected the views of all the people and not just the hunting minority.

On the same day as the work sessions – May 3 – the committee also heard public testimony on L.D. 1531, a bill that would have outlawed snaring. The word “snaring” in itself is misleading, in that it seems to suggest a harmless activity. The reality is gruesomely different.

This insidious device with its aptly named “kill pole” strangles or hangs any animal unfortunate enough to become trapped, and like all traps, it does not discriminate. There is no appeal to judgment, and there is no mercy. All the animals that fall into it will be injured or killed, and most will suffer horribly. Few, if any, will escape.

Of course, there are circumstances in which an animal may have to be prevented from harming others, but it should be done individually and for cause, not by an impersonal machine that destroys by chance not reason, and in such an appalling, inhumane way.

In 1939, snaring was made illegal along with set guns and poison. It was resumed by IF&W to snare coyotes, though no evidence exists that this approach to protect deer herds is effective.

Recently, snaring came to a temporary end on the advice of Maine’s attorney general because endangered species such as eagles and lynx were falling victim, not to mention other animals including pets and occasionally the deer themselves.

Since that time, IF&W has sought an Incidental Take Permit from the federal government. There is, however, no guarantee that the permit will ever be granted since several attempts already have been rejected. Yet our wildlife agency, which had spent from $15,000 to $67,000 a year on snaring, continues to allocate many thousands of dollars better used elsewhere to reinstate a cruel and scientifically indefensible program, which will most likely result in a lawsuit, in defense of which will cost even more taxpayer money.

Nonetheless, the committee took just 45 seconds to defeat this bill by the usual and by now predictable vote of 13-0, effectively removing the subject of snaring from the arena of legislative debate and public consideration.

Snaring remains in abeyance but is still technically legal. In the meanwhile, when this fall approaches, what could be described as the dark side of Maine life will override the efforts of many to treat animals in more humane ways and with less cruelty. Bears will continue to be shot over doughnut piles, hounded by dogs and trapped by steel jaws, all in the name of sport and to the detriment of the state’s great reputation for fair play.

Don Loprieno is the legislative liaison for the Wildlife Alliance of Maine. He lives in Bristol.

Copy the Story Link