Now that the bear baiting, hounding and trapping referendum is over, it might be useful to examine how the question at hand quickly became obscured by what could be called the “out-of-state” syndrome.
This first became clear in September of last year when Commissioner Chandler Woodcock of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife spoke at a press conference declaring that supporters of the referendum were “a group of well-funded, out-of-state activists who are more concerned about advancing their own agenda than they are the welfare of our own residents.”
Who did the commissioner have in mind? He didn’t mean the Virginia-based National Rifle Association or the out-of-state trophy hunters who kill most of our bears. Instead, he meant the Washington D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States, even though the society, like the Democratic and Republican parties (and the NRA), is a national and local organization with national and local constituencies — tens of thousands of whom live in our state.
In any case, more than 78,000 Mainers signed the petition that put the bear question on the ballot in the first place, and more than 276,000 ultimately voted for it. All of them were Maine residents. The vast majority were not lawyers, and none of them were based in Washington, D.C.
The implication of Woodcock’s statement was that a conspiracy was afoot, brought about by sinister forces whose ultimate goal was to end all hunting. No one mentioned — and certainly not the commissioner — that in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, where society-supported bear baiting referendums have passed, traditional bear hunting actually increased by nearly 300 percent, providing revenue to the states and businesses. Of course, Woodcock could have remained neutral, but by taking a partisan stand he threw the weight of government authority toward opponents of the referendum and set the tone for DIF&W to do likewise.
But why was the Humane Society a major donor to the referendum campaign? The reason is simple economics. Mainers who supported the referendum — individuals, small businesses, animal shelters, and so on — simply do not have the financial resources that are available to the state’s powerful hunting and trapping lobby, so they have to rely on outside funding to bear the expenses — well over $2 million — of a campaign. That doesn’t mean their convictions are less strong; it just means their pockets aren’t as deep.
By contrast, the opposition could (and did) call on a number of in-state organizations such as the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, the Maine Trappers Association and the Maine Professional Guides Association, which alone contributed $121,000. Donations were also received from numerous Maine outfitters and guiding businesses as well as trapping and hunting organizations that had a financial stake in the outcome.
But let’s not forget something that was seldom (if ever) written about by local journalists — the opposition advocating a “no” vote was heavily financed by out-of-state money. A small sample of reports filed with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices includes contributions from the NRA ($39,000), the Ohio-based U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance ($125,000), the Washington, D.C.-based Ballot Issues Coalition ($45,000), Safari Club International ($40,600), the Vermont Bear Hound Association ($10,000), the Vermont Trappers Association ($27,500), the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association ($10,000), the Dallas (Texas) Safari Club ($7,500), and the Trappers Associations of Ohio and Pennsylvania ($20,000).
Outside money on both sides of the referendum? No doubt about it. Was the impression given by the media and the opposition that the only out-of-state financial source was the Humane Society? Also, no doubt about it — but there’s an important difference. The opposition wanted to maintain the status quo of baiting, hounding and trapping, the licensing fees they generate and the revenue stream they produce. The Humane Society had no financial motive to support the referendum; its goal was to end cruelty, something it’s been doing nationwide ever since it was founded in 1954.
One thing’s for sure — even though the referendum failed, many of the state’s residents are not happy about baiting, trapping and hounding bears, and until those concerns are addressed, it will continue to be a vital issue. Hopefully, politics and special interests will be seen for what they are in future discussions, and voters will no longer be misled by the mantra of “out-of-state” money.
That’s because there’s little doubt there will be future discussions. So long as our legislators refuse to act on behalf of all residents instead of the hunting/trapping minority, so long as the hunting lobby continues to support cruel and unfair practices in place of Maine’s proud tradition of fair-chase hunting, the subject will not go away.
Don Loprieno of Bristol has served on the boards of the Boothbay Region Humane Society, the Maine Friends of Animals and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine.