Beyond the emotion and tradition of Maine’s bear-hunting debate, there’s the money at stake. Beyond the issue of fair hunting, there is the bottom line.

The Question 2 debate over hunting bear with bait, dogs and traps this summer has often focused on finances: How much money will Maine lose or gain if voters choose to limit bear-hunting?

State bear biologist Jennifer Vashon sees one potential loss in the money that comes from out-of-state hunters. The big factor for nonresidents is success. They’re here for a short period of time. Even with bait and dogs in the mix, Maine’s success rate per hunting permit – that means killing a bear – is less than one in three.

In Maine, nonresident hunters buy half of Maine’s bear permits. From 1999 to 2002, nonresidents harvested 72 percent of the bears killed in Maine.

Since regions to the west and north still use Maine’s methods for luring and treeing bear, Vashon wonders if hunters will go there instead.

“Nonresident bear hunters may consider New Hampshire, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Ontario for their future bear hunts, where the use of bait to hunt bears is legal,” she said.

In states where recent referendums have taken bait and dogs out of the hunting mix, the success rate has declined, she said.

“Between 3 and 6 percent of bear hunters in Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Massachusetts were successful,” she said.

More guides needed

Referendum supporters think a change of policy will be good for state revenues, increasing demand for guides as bears get harder to harvest.

If the referendum passes, “We believe that it will create the potential for revenues that will far exceed any projected losses,” said Robert Fisk Jr., director of Maine Citizens of Fair Bear Hunting.

Referendum supporters also tout the four states where bear referendums passed. Colorado lost its bait, hound and spring bear seasons after an initiative in 1992. Oregon lost bait and hounds in 94, Massachusetts and Washington in 96.

The group has stated that sales of bear hunting licenses have tripled in states that banned baiting and hunting with hounds. They contend that bear license revenue increased by $400,000 annually in Oregon.

Vashon explained that since the ban, Oregon increased the length of its fall bear-hunting season, allowed hunters to take from two to four bears each, depending on the area, and reduced license and tag fees by 18 percent.

Washington also lengthened its fall season, allowed deer and elk hunters to take bear, reduced the cost of a bear permit, and increased bag limits from one to two bears.

Nonresident hunters accounted for an insignificant portion of bear hunters in Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington.

“None of the states that lost bear hunting ballot initiatives faced the loss of half of their bear hunters,” Vashon said.

In last month’s The Bear Facts, a newspaper chock full of reasons to vote “yes” on 2, Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting claim that Washington, Oregon and Colorado have not seen an increase in black bear populations since passage of the referendum.

This, they say, proves that baiting and hunting with hounds are not needed to control populations.

Vashon of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in a June 21 report cites a telephone survey of bear biologists in the three states. Colorado’s bear population estimates have increased from between 10,000 to 11,000 to between 12,000 to 14,000.

Vashon noted that Colorado Division of Wildlife managers believe bear numbers increased along with the human population, creating a rise in nuisance complaints, bear-vehicle collisions and bear-related injuries to campers.

Bear biologists in Oregon and Washington also said that bear nuisance complaints increased with bear population after the referendum passed, according to the Vashon report.