Bear hunting proponents defend methods
James Cote, director of Defeat the Bear Referendum Campaign, at left; David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman Alliance of Maine; and Rich Hoppe, wildlife biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, spoke at the Northeastland Hotel in Presque Isle on Feb. 7, explaining why voters should oppose a referendum question come November that would eliminate the use of baiting, hounding and trapping bear in Maine. The measure is being put forth by Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, backed by the Humane Society of the United States. If it passes, hunters would only be able to still-hunt bear, a method that averages only a 3 percent success rate each year.
Staff photos/Kathy McCarty
LOCAL OFFICIALS were on hand to answer questions during a meeting Feb. 7 in Presque Isle urging voters to defeat the bear referendum this fall. Pictured from left are Game Warden Alan Dudley and Rich Hoppe, a wildlife biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
By Kathy McCarty
Staff Writer
PRESQUE ISLE — Management of Maine’s bear population is best left to the experts — that’s according to officials who spoke at a meeting Friday night at the Northeastland Hotel in Presque Isle, including David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman Alliance of Maine; James Cote, director of Defeat the Bear Referendum Campaign; and Rich Hoppe, wildlife biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
Over 50 people attended the session, which was designed to raise awareness of the importance of the current methods of bear harvesting in the state, the need to save Maine’s bear hunt as it currently exists and what would likely happen, should a referendum looking to stop baiting, hounding and trapping, backed by the Humane Society of the United States, be approved by voters come November.
Cote said it’s important to understand the context of the issue from a wildlife perspective.
“These are the same issues and the same people who brought the idea forward in 2004. To ban three methods of bear hunting would be detrimental to the state on a number of levels,” said Cote, noting this won’t be a north vs. south, business vs. labor, or Republican vs. Democrat issue.
He said efforts are underway to get the message out but more needs to be done to ensure Maine’s hunting heritage lives on. He noted the opposition has backing from a national organization and is being run out of D.C.
“To reach a broader body of Maine voters, we need to raise a budget that allows us to get on television — reach folks who have zero interaction with us,” said Cote. “The other side has already raised nearly $3 million and we need to do likewise.”
Cote said “their proposition flies in the face of decades of hunting tradition in Maine.”
“We have scientists on the grid telling us we need to maintain these stats to maintain the population. Our current bear vs. people population is manageable. The current process in Maine allows the people of Maine to be involved in maintaining the bear population. Managing natural resources through the ballot box is not a wise way to manage,” said Cote.
Trahan called the HSUS a “political machine” whose president, Wayne Pacelle, has set a goal of “getting sport hunting in the same category as cock and dog fighting.”
“Pacelle’s trying to ban hunting, state by state. He’s made it clear they (HSUS and its supporters) don’t like hunting. Once they take bear hunting, what will be next? His goal is to end recreational hunting — specifically deer hunting,” said Trahan.
Trahan shared the bear hunting history of the state, noting that prior to the 1950s, there was a bounty on bear year-round.
“In the 1960s, the hunting license for bear was created, with money raised from that going to manage the animals. The current population is around 30,000 and healthy,” he said.
“If the HSUS wins, do you think they’ll stay in Maine to help with nuisance bears or help manage wildlife? No, they’ll go back to D.C.,” said Trahan.
Trahan said HSUS officials are “chief advocates for wolf restoration.”
“They think wolves, bears and coyotes will manage other wildlife without human intervention,” said Trahan.
Hoppe said banning three methods of bear hunting will “impact the department’s (DIFW) ability to manage bear.”
He said his department continues to oppose this initiative.
“If passed, it would eliminate the most effective tools we have to minimize contact with people. If this goes through, conflicts will go up,” including nuisance bears at homes and businesses, as well as increased vehicle accidents, said Hoppe.
Hoppe said bears can live up to 30 years and have few natural predators.
“Maine has the most comprehensive bear management in the U.S. We’re watching and working with other states. Officials from other states come and ask us for advice on managing their own bear populations,” he said. “Maine’s home to the largest bear population in the Eastern United States.”
He said the state currently has fewer bear complaints than the other states, averaging 500 a year, varying based on the abundance of natural food sources, such as berries.
Hoppe explained how the proposed initiative would allow officials like him to continue using certain methods of bear management like bear trapping, while preventing hunters from using them.
“Baiting is highly regulated in Maine. Baiting season lasts four weeks, bait must be labeled and can’t be placed without landowner’s permission,” explained Hoppe. “Bear baiting doesn’t increase the bear population, nor does it condition bears to people.”
Hoppe said current hunting goals, for the purpose of wildlife management, are difficult to meet, even with four hunting methods in use.
“Our management goals are to harvest 3,500-4,500 bear annually. Harvest has been below our objective. We’d like to improve that. The bear population, since 2000, has grown by 30 percent. We have about 10,000 hunters, including all methods,” said Hoppe.
Hoppe offered the following statistics on the success rate of the four methods of bear hunting: bait, 30 percent; hounds, 30 percent; traps, 19 percent; and still-hunting, 3 percent.
“They want to take three of those (methods) away from us. That leaves us with a 3 percent success rate. We need all methods,” said Hoppe.
Given the current statistics, Hoppe said to meet harvest objectives using only the still-hunting method, “we’d need 115,000 to 150,000 hunters.”
Hoppe said losing these three methods would be detrimental to the entire state, not just Aroostook County.
“Harvest will decline, the bear population will grow faster, bears will be more common in southern Maine as they travel in search of food, there will be more conflicts in southern Maine, and the number and severity of conflicts will rise,” said Hoppe.
In addition, Hoppe said the economic impact would be devastating as well.
“Maine’s bear management is sound. We have a large population with relatively few conflicts. We have great opportunities to hunt and view bears. Bears are maintained through sound science and long-term monitoring — more than anywhere else in the U.S.,” Hoppe said. “We’re asking for a ‘no’ vote to protect the hunt and allow biologists and game wardens to manage bears effectively.”
“Numbers don’t lie,” said Hoppe. He said he and other officials are available to speak on the matter before groups and organizations. Hoppe can be reached by calling 435-3231.
For more information, call the MWCC at 623-4505 or visit www.mefishwildlife.com.
