Bear Baiting Ban Has Enough Signatures For Fall Referendum
Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 3:16 pm

AUGUSTA — The stage is set for a likely November battle over the state’s bear hunting practices as Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap on Wednesday certified 63,626 signatures gathered by referendum supporters as valid.

By law, those seeking to put a question on the November ballot needed to gather 57,277 signatures.

The question that will likely show up before voters will ask whether they favor outlawing the hunting of bears over bait, with hounds or with traps. All three methods are currently used in Maine, with the vast majority of bears taken by hunters each year being shot over bait.

“We are excited to work with Maine hunters and nonhunters to ban the inhumane, unsporting and reckless practices of bear baiting, hounding and trapping,” Katie Hansberry, campaign director for Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, said in a Wednesday press release. “Dumping millions of pounds of pizza, jelly donuts and rotting food into the woods — to lure in bears for an easy kill — is wildlife management at its worst, providing heaps of supplemental food for bears and training them to raid garbage and other human food sources.”

Mainers rejected an identical ballot measure in 2004, 53 percent to 47 percent.

James Cote, campaign manager for the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council, called on Mainers to rally against the ballot measure.

“Maine people must now decide who they trust more to manage our public wildlife resources — our biologists at [the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife], who have performed decades of scientific management and research and are responsible for an extremely healthy bear population, or one interest group in Washington, D.C., [the Humane Society of the United States], [which] is bankrolling this initiative in order to advance an anti-hunting, anti-science political agenda at the expense of Maine people,” Cote said in a separate Wednesday news release. “We are proud to stand behind the work of Maine’s biologists and game wardens.”

According to the secretary of state’s office, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting initially submitted 76,841 signatures, of which 63,626, or 83 percent, were deemed valid.

Of the 13,215 signatures that were disqualified by local or state officials, 9,654 were determined to be invalid because they were not determined to have belonged to a registered voter in the municipality listed. Another 2,347 signatures were invalid because they were duplicates of signatures that had already been counted.

Dunlap said he was confident that the initiative had met the strict constitutional standards required in order to place it in front of the legislature or the state’s voters.

“[Our staff has] done a tremendous job,” Dunlap said. “The process for certifying an effort like this requires fine, detailed scrutiny, and our people have worked every weekend over the last month to make sure this was certified on time and that the work was completed deliberately and with integrity.”

According to the secretary of state’s office, the ballot measure is now in the Legislature’s court. If lawmakers choose to approve legislation, verbatim, as written by proponents of the measure, it will become law. If the Legislature disapproves of the measure as written, the question will be put before voters no later than November.

What's the best way for non-supporters of the ban(who live outside of Maine) to be heard? Any petitions, legislator's emails, etc? We need to stop this potential ban, NOW! Maine is a great state with a great hunting & trapping heritage!

Just an observation here, others mileage will vary, but I really believe that All states, should really look at or implement legislation restricting wildlife management to lie solely with the Game & Fish departments of the individual states.

With the changes taking place in our country concerning the publics attitude toward hunting, it is becoming increasingly easy for the public to bring about changes regarding subjects such as wildlife management that actually do more harm than good.

On the whole, the importance of hunting, both historically as a major aspect of how humans became the dominant species on the planet and the use of hunting as a realistic and effective tool for managing the wildlife in America, has been lost in the thought processes of many modern people, world wide.

Just an opinion, but in ways, from my observations over the past 20 years or so, it is an uninformed public that is having a more negative impact on hunting than almost anything the actual anti-hunting forces have brought forth. Maybe it is a case that hunters as a group have paid more attention to the grandstand antics of the antis and PETA, when in reality it has been the more subliminal content of the various nature programs that have done the greater harm.

If this legislation can be defeated that would be great.

CHC:

Totally agree. But what I am disappointed in is the fact that these referendums can even get on the ballot. Why the NRA has never sued to block them as a violation of our pursuit of happiness (part of the Bill of Rights) is beyond me.

We also need to pound home the message that if you take away the rights of bear hunters, who is next? We are all minorities in some way. I like to ride bikes; there are plenty of people who would vote to outlaw my right to ride on the shoulder of a road as it is nothing but a liability for them.

If I remember correctly, back in the mid 80's, the Texas legislature passed legislation that left management of the states wildlife solely within the control of TP&W. Public comment on various subjects would be taken or solicited, but all final decisions are strictly up to TP&W.

Some states, Colorado comes to mind, that has a public commission that is elected by the citizens of the state that has major say so over the DOW. Texas is not perfect by any means, but I just feel management of a states wildlife should be the sole province of professional biologists that work for the state, not the public and not USF&WS.

Just an opinion.

I can certainly agree with CHC on this one. However, it doesn't seem to matter what statutes are on the books as far as management of the resources by the game departments. Michigan is a good example in that we have had voter approved statutes that say that and yet these radical organizations still come into a state and are able to get enough signatures on paper to put stuff up for a general populace vote. That's exactly how we lost a dove hunting season here a while back by a 7-1 ratio when CA backed groups came in and had TV ads of how doves would be shot off telephone wires, from back yard bird feeders, and all sort of crap. We lost by a huge margin and there will never be a dove season in this state even though the statute says our DNR has the sole authority, control, and management of the issues. Don't ask me why they were still able to get an initiative like that signed and a ballot proposal on the November General Election ballot, but they did and it was 7-1 ratio defeat for us.

The bear population would just boom besides hounds there isn't much other way of shooting bears in large forested areas.

Anti's hate hunting no matter what type.

They tried to get hound hunting banned in Wis. tried playing the bait hunters against the hound guys.

Some bait guides were all for it short sited thinking on their part, so far we won those battles.

One is going hear all kinds of horror stories about orphaned cubs etc..

I suggest the people of Maine that want to continue to hunt bear be very, very involved in fighting this.

The same thing happened in my native CO in the early 1990s. The bunny huggers got enough votes to put a baiting ban on the ballot and then they tossed on a ban on hunting bear with dogs and a statewide ban on all use of leg hold traps and snares as well. Due to the influx of LIBERAL IDIOTS from CA, the bill passed and we not only lost the right to hunt bear using 2 methods but also the right to trap.

You have been warned!

As above....Co. & Wa.

Same libtard influx and emotionalism helped ban baiting AND all hound hunting for bear and cougar here in Oregon many years ago.
Me, I would personally not hunt bears on bait, but I WOULD fight for your right to choose to do so.
Be very, very worried!

I have been on a bear hunt in maine. Its super thick forest, without baiting or hounds there will certainly be population boo.

Ballot box biology never works.

As a resident a couple of points:

1. Maine politics have become very liberal

2. Maine's political center is now Portland

3. Most of Maine is rural and poor

4. Hunting is important to the rural economy

5. Rural people seem less inclined to be politically active than more urban dwelling people

6. Liberals are much better at conveying their message than we conservatives are

7. Liberals are much better at indoctrinating new recruits than we conservatives are

8. Never lose sight of the real prize: no more hunting

9. If no shooting bear over bait, what is next? Hint: no decoys. Hint: no dogs. Hint: no hunting within city limits. Hint: no hunting.

10. This happened a decade ago and we defeated it by a narrow margin. I am not so confident this time.

The major point in my opinion that was brought out was this.

quote:

2. Maine's political center is now Portland

Urban/metropolitan centers in many states, control the state and the rural areas are left to deal with the consequences of the actions of uninformed city dwellers.

I hope that this proposed legislation fails but after seeing what has happened in California/Colorado and the Yellowstone with the wolf program, I feel the hand writing is on the wall and it is only a matter of time and these folks will continue working to get it passed and they will win in the end.

I hope that the proposal is defeated but I have my doubts.

Sadly, you may be right Randall. In Freeport, home of LL Bean (a formerly excellent outfitter), there is a place called Wolfe's Neck Farm www.wolfesneckfarm.org which does some excellent work. They also sell meat.

What the beautiful people in Portland don't seem to get is those same animals suffer the same fate in the same way as animals raised on larger, commercial farms do; the beef get the pneumatic drill bit between the eyes, the chickens get their heads lopped off, etc. etc.

Yet, the bullet I drive through a deer or a moose or a bear is somehow unacceptable? The fact that the animals raised on their farm is done so with only one thing in mind: to be killed and sold for food. Yet, the animal I kill in the wild, in an environment where the odds are so stacked in the animal's favor as to be hardly fair is somehow abhorrent and I must truly be out there to inflict pain and death upon "innocent" animals to satisfy my savage bloodlust or else to solve my penis issues which I obviously cannot with the help of a qualified therapist. Yes, it's all clear now.

Their line of thinking mystifies me. And yet, they will win eventually I fear. My 4 year old understands many of these issues better than many of them.

The problem with hunting is that people use guns against those poor defenseless animals who are just prancing around the forest not hurting anyone or anything.

We all know guns are evil. We all know that hunters use guns. Therefore all hunters are evil. Now do you understand why we have to eliminate hunting?

Haven't you ever watched Bambi? Remember the crazed hunters? This has been going on for a very long time.

I think Maine F&W Dept. should come right out and say that if the anti-bear hunting vote wins then they will have no choice but to declare bears a pest and make it open season on them from April 15 through December 15th. Fight fire with fire.

That said, it's critical that everybody gets out to vote against this proposal. I remember in 1985 when they tried to end moose hunting with a ballot initiative. The antis got trounced 66% to 33%. The voting place officials from all over the state reported that people that had never voted in their lives came out to vote to keep moose hunting. Hopefully we'll see more of that, because we will need it.

and yet the moose hunt kills approx 10% of the population and predation/collisions/winter/other kill another 15% per annum and the herd continues to grow. Our last hunt was 2011 in Zone 3 and the folks at the New Sweden tagging station confirmed not as many big bulls. They also refused to participate in the November since 75% of the filled tags were on cows and 95% of those were pregnant. Thus, two for one. Lee Kantar should be ashamed of himself for such poor management practices.

Jeff, I know you have your reasons for staying in Maine, but just keep this in mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMhaehb5AnE

quote:

Originally posted by groundtender:
I think Maine F&W Dept. should come right out and say that if the anti-bear hunting vote wins then they will have no choice but to declare bears a pest and make it open season on them from April 15 through December 15th. Fight fire with fire.

While this sound good on paper, the game dept may not be able to publicly make such statements. I know when CO was undergoing the same thing, the CO Div of Wildlife was not allowed to make any statements either pro or con on the matter since they are not considered a political arm of the govt. One must understand that the Game Dept answers to the entire body of the people and not just outdoorsmen. So they will not risk alienating the urban population.

As mush as I hate to say it, this will be won or lost by the hunters. Either they band together and defeat it or the urban LIBs will carry the day. That is exactly what happened in CO and it is also how CA lost their MTN. Lion season.

To the best of my memory, the biologists that worked for Colorado DOW and most of the GMO's did come out against the ban on baiting/hunting with dogs. They joined forces with the Colo. Guides & Outfitters Association. I had just started hunting up there when the ban was passed and I saw the flyers in various stores listing the groups that were opposing the ban. One of their arguing points was in leaving wildlife management in the hands of professionals.

The problem there as in most states was that the major urban centers ha, Denver/Colo Sprgs./Ft. Collins corridor and the Ski towns, Vail/Aspen etc. have the population and the voting power.

When the states started setting up their game management depts., they should have done so in a manner so that while public concerns/input would/should be taken into consideration on various issues, actual management decisions would be up to the department alone.

States that allow the public to vote on such issues are going to continue to have such things as hunting regulations/practices restricted or banned simply due to an uninformed/emotional public with no actual knowledge about nature/wildlife.

Agreed but the state law allows for referendum measures assuming signatures requirements are met, which they were here.

More and more people.
Less and less hunting.

Tommy II you are correct that Colorado was unable to "come out" against the Bear baiting, spring hunt and hound issue. I was in their office many times discussing the matter with them and they informed me their hands are tied, they could not offer an opinion publicly.

quote:

Agreed but the state law allows for referendum measures assuming signatures requirements are met, which they were here.

I understand that, what I am getting at however is that about 30 years or so back, the Texas Legislature passed a law that prevents such things from happening here.

I know such legislation could never be enacted in any state with a large percentage of Public Land. Private Land Ownership does have its good points occasionally.

Maine F&W Dept. employees were the stars of TV ads supporting no change in bear hunting methods for the last anti-bear hunting referendum 7 or 8 years ago. They also were a big factor on TV ads that led to defeat of the anti-moose hunting referendum that I previously referenced. Our F&W Dept receives no general funding, their money all comes from sales of licenses, permits, and boat, snowmobile, and ATV registration.

Baiting any big game animal is hardly hunting. Running a lion or bear up a tree with dogs is hardly hunting. If you have too many of anything, put a bounty on it and open up the method of killing it to any means. Be honest about reasons, goals and methods.

Lets not get real hunting sullied by being linked with what is just animal control. What's next ? Legalizing jacklighting Whitetail deer ? There sure are too many of them in some areas.

quote:

Originally posted by bps10:
Baiting any big game animal is hardly hunting. Running a lion or bear up a tree with dogs is hardly hunting. If you have too many of anything, put a bounty on it and open up the method of killing it to any means. Be honest about reasons, goals and methods.

Lets not get real hunting sullied by being linked with what is just animal control. What's next ? Legalizing jacklighting Whitetail deer ? There sure are too many of them in some areas.

beat me to it, scojac. i suppose mr. new member is against most african hunting in that case since population game management is right outta their play book and those dollars help fund conservation efforts of the very game.

how boutcha new guy? perhaps you'll share your view on what constitutes "real hunting"? And by the by, sir, what is baiting? Do decoys not bait the ducks or the geese to come to the set? Your problem is the use of food as the attractant but I assume a make believe raft of other ducks is fine as an attractant?

You're treading water, you're getting tired and you're in the deep end, son.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Agreed but the state law allows for referendum measures assuming signatures requirements are met, which they were here.

I understand that, what I am getting at however is that about 30 years or so back, the Texas Legislature passed a law that prevents such things from happening here.

I know such legislation could never be enacted in any state with a large percentage of Public Land. Private Land Ownership does have its good points occasionally.

Not true, as back in the 80s or 90s MI voters passed a statute similar to what CH is talking about and we have lots of public land, especially in the northern 2/3rds of the state. However, I have no idea how they circumvented it, but a few years ago the CA antis came in with a high dollar campaign and got our first dove season cancelled with enough votes to get it on the November General Election ballot and we lost by a 7-1 margin and will never have a dove season here after that debacle!

PS: bps10 only hunts with a knife and spear, LOL!

quote:

Not true, as back in the 80s or 90s MI voters passed a statute similar to what CH is talking about and we have lots of public land, especially in the northern 2/3rds of the state. However, I have no idea how they circumvented it, but a few years ago the CA antis came in with a high dollar campaign and got our first dove season cancelled with enough votes to get it on the November General Election ballot and we lost by a 7-1 margin and will never have a dove season here after that debacle!

If what I stated was not true, then HOW was the dove season in MI stopped? If dove hunting was stopped by popular vote of the public, then MI did not enact legislation like that in place in Texas. Again that is the difference between states with a higher percentage of private land then public.

This discussion however concerns the possibility/probability that an uninformed public is going to vote on an issue that should lie solely in the hands of the professional biologists working for the state of Maine.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Not true, as back in the 80s or 90s MI voters passed a statute similar to what CH is talking about and we have lots of public land, especially in the northern 2/3rds of the state. However, I have no idea how they circumvented it, but a few years ago the CA antis came in with a high dollar campaign and got our first dove season cancelled with enough votes to get it on the November General Election ballot and we lost by a 7-1 margin and will never have a dove season here after that debacle!

If what I stated was not true, then HOW was the dove season in MI stopped? If dove hunting was stopped by popular vote of the public, then MI did not enact legislation like that in place in Texas. Again that is the difference between states with a higher percentage of private land then public.

This discussion however concerns the possibility/probability that an uninformed public is going to vote on an issue that should lie solely in the hands of the professional biologists working for the state of Maine.

Here we go again with CHC knowing every GD thing there is to know about every state in the Union, LOL! You have no idea what the hell has happened and is happening here in MI, so quit making your stupid ass posts on shit you know nothing about. Voters did pass exactly what I stated a number of years ago and I said it was SIMILAR to what you stated Texas had done, NOT the exact same thing, and it SUPPOSEDLY gave our DNR sole jusrisdiction of game management here. I said somehow that referendum was allowed on the ballot after enough citizen signatures were certified as valid and we lost by a 7-1 margin. The dove season that was lost is similar to what we're talking about here if the citizen bear vote goes against what is presently allowed. Now go crawl back in your hole and don't post shit that you know nothing about, but I guess that's asking way too much because you do it all the time!

PS: I see you took me off ignore just long enough to read and copy my post to start more crap here on the site like you're famous for, LOL! What's the matter? Has it been too quiet for you around here lately?!

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

LOL! What an asshole if all you can do is come back with a response of smilie characters after my factual post!!!

quote:

Originally posted by scojac:

quote:

Originally posted by bps10:
Baiting any big game animal is hardly hunting. Running a lion or bear up a tree with dogs is hardly hunting. If you have too many of anything, put a bounty on it and open up the method of killing it to any means. Be honest about reasons, goals and methods.

Lets not get real hunting sullied by being linked with what is just animal control. What's next ? Legalizing jacklighting Whitetail deer ? There sure are too many of them in some areas.

I think Larry Root is back.

Hopefully all sportsman will come to the assist and vote for these activities to continue. Look what has happened in California with the end of hound hunting for cats and bears. Lots of problems and attacks on people. However other states like Washington and Oregon are cashing in on non resident hunters coming in to hunt with there dogs. Whoever says that hound huntng for either critters is easy and not sport has never done it. We might as well make it illegal to hunt deer and birds with dogs too since it is not sporting !

Here are the regulations concerning the use of dogs when deer hunting in Texas. I can not remember exactly when these regs were implemented, but they were implemented at the request of both sportsmen and landowners at about the same time that deer hunting really started turning into a big business here. For many years however hunting deer with dogs in east/southeast Texas was quite popular.

Dogs

A person is prohibited from using a dog to hunt or pursue deer in this state. A person who violates this law is subject to a fine of $500-$4,000 and/or a year in jail. Additionally, a person's hunting and fishing licenses may be revoked or suspended. In addition, no person may possess a shotgun and buckshot or slugs while in the field with dogs on another person's land during an open deer season in Angelina, Hardin, Harris, Harrison, Houston, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Panola, Polk, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Trinity, Tyler, and Walker counties.

It is unlawful to use dogs to trail a wounded deer in the counties listed above.

Not more than two dogs may be used to trail a wounded deer in counties not listed above. A "wounded deer" is a deer leaving a blood trail.

quote:

We might as well make it illegal to hunt deer and birds with dogs too since it is not sporting !

Not to derail this subject any farther, but the above quote from Twilli's response is a real threat to hunters/hunting due to some fellow hunters elitist concepts as to what is and is not "Real" hunting practices/methods.

Baiting/trapping and using dogs to hunt bear has been a traditional hunting method in America for centuries and should remain viable and legal methods.

quote:

Originally posted by twilli:
Hopefully all sportsman will come to the assist and vote for these activities to continue. Look what has happened in California with the end of hound hunting for cats and bears. Lots of problems and attacks on people. However other states like Washington and Oregon are cashing in on non resident hunters coming in to hunt with there dogs. Whoever says that hound huntng for either critters is easy and not sport has never done it. We might as well make it illegal to hunt deer and birds with dogs too since it is not sporting !

Washington and Oregon lost hound and bait hunting years ago.
Our only hope is to stand together and support ALL legal hunting.

Hunting deer with dogs is still very popular and allowed in several southern states or parts of those states, while most like Texas don't allow it or even the trailing of a wounded animal like Texas allows. Baiting and running bears with dogs has been the two major methods of hunting them for many decades. These antis and huggers are not stupid and they go after individual methods of hunting that are in a minority. That's basically smart on their part because they figure that many who don't do that will be apathetic and not care since it doesn't involve them. They are right for the most part, but the real problem is when something gets put on the ballot the big city folks that outnumber rural hunters and voters end up being the deciding factor to the detriment of the sportsperson. Maine hunters will need to really get every rural person to vote to have a chance of outvoting people in big cities like Portland and Bangor.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Tommy II you are correct that Colorado was unable to "come out" against the Bear baiting, spring hunt and hound issue. I was in their office many times discussing the matter with them and they informed me their hands are tied, they could not offer an opinion publicly.

Yep. Individual wardens could and did speak out but the DOW itself was not allowed to comment either pro or con. I grew up in CO and distinctly remember when it happened. I had to sell my bait barrels and my traps due to that vote.