Maine's upcoming Bear Referendum .

I asked MikeinO to come over here to look at this post.  I am working on it right now.  Should have it posted in a few minutes.  thanks

Here it is: 


Currently, Maine allows hounding, baiting, trapping and the sale of bear gall bladders.  It is all appalling.  But Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife's biologists support all of it.  You can see them commenting on youtube.  I am also a wildlife biologist, but not a bear biologist.  I specialized largely in habitat management techniques and sometimes in endangered species.  I oppose these current bear hunting techniques in Maine.  I am working on completing a letter/article for Maine's newspaper. 

I need information.  I have interviewed biologists in favor and biologists against the referendum.     


I am told that Colorado, Washington and Oregon have removed their bear hunting laws that formerly allowed baiting and hounding.  Maine is the only one that allows bear trapping.  I am told that Colorado, Washington and Oregon are dealing with the changes quite easily; i.e. they have lost a few management tools but they are managing through the use of other tools.  Not room here to comment on this.    


Talked with Washington State and Maine  bear biologists day before yesterday, as well as a bear hunter who successfully hunts black bears here in Maine with none of these three methods.  Joel is a very successful bear hunter who hunts them on foot.  He knows where to look, how to scout them and how to approach them.  I am not at liberty to talk about it.  But I am encouraging him to begin writing about it and to possibly do clinics on how black bear hunters can hunt on foot...and kill a bear.  I strongly support hunting.  But....

I strongly favor a YES vote in November....to repeal the barbaric practices of hounding, trapping and the non-hunting practice of baiting bears..  My mind is not changeable at this point. 

 BTW........I know what is at the root of the problem......largely unregulated clear cutting laws.  The bears are tending to move from the deep forest areas to the areas that are more populated with people.  they never did this in the past.   Baiting is exacerbating the problem.

Comments welcome.....no...comments please   And I know Mike lives in Oregon, so maybe Mike, you have some opinions on this.

thanks so much
Robert 

The Maine government agency that enforces hunting law (DIF&W) publicly supports the defeat of the referendum that would stop the questionable bear hunting practices. Tooling around central Maine last week I noticed many people had signs planted in their front yards that say "Trust the State Biologists"...these signs support the defeat of the referendum. Maine is the only state that permits all 3 methods to hunt bear (traps, dogs, baiting). Of the 80 or so hunters I know in the area, all of them will take a deer in November for meat, none of them have any interest in hunting bear. My impression is that killing bears is for the dead things on the wall collectors. In Maine, bear and dear hunting is big business for out of state hunters who show up every fall. Passing the referendum will hurt people who make money from the killing of bears. My preference would be for the bear hunters to hunt each other, why not increase the level of realism and  boost the adrenalin levels that hunters seem to crave?

I hunt upland bird in Maine with my dog.  Please tell me how my pursuing and killing birds with a dog differs from pursuing and killing a bear with a dog?  I doubt the bear or the grouse can tell the difference.

Maine actually has quite stringent clearcutting laws and very little true clear cutting occurs in the state as a result. What evidence do you have that bears are moving out of the woods and into populated areas? 

RI

STEVENMAJOR wrote:The Maine government agency that enforces hunting law (DIF&W) publicly supports the defeat of the referendum that would stop the questionable bear hunting practices. Tooling around central Maine last week I noticed many people had signs planted in their front yards that say "Trust the State Biologists"...these signs support the defeat of the referendum. Maine is the only state that permits all 3 methods to hunt bear (traps, dogs, baiting). Of the 80 or so hunters I know in the area, all of them will take a deer in November for meat, none of them have any interest in hunting bear. My impression is that killing bears is for the dead things on the wall collectors. In Maine, bear and dear hunting is big business for out of state hunters who show up every fall. Passing the referendum will hurt people who make money from the killing of bears. My preference would be for the bear hunters to hunt each other, why not increase the level of realism and  boost the adrenalin levels that hunters seem to crave?

As always, very creative.  You are right too.  Yes, that would be my preference too.  Thanks.

Rhode Island wrote:I hunt upland bird in Maine with my dog.  Please tell me how my pursuing and killing birds with a dog differs from pursuing and killing a bear with a dog?  I doubt the bear or the grouse can tell the difference.

Maine actually has quite stringent clearcutting laws and very little true clear cutting occurs in the state as a result. What evidence do you have that bears are moving out of the woods and into populated areas? 

RI

Mr. Rhode Island, I was born here and back in 1973 I began cruising the north Maine woods to assess deer yards and their proximity to clearcuts, for Maine Fish and Game, the same agency that creates the bear hunting laws and wants to defeat the referendum.  I have traversed most of the North Maine woods on foot.   Up to six miles back into the most remote areas and six miles back out.   That is about the distance you can cover comfortably in those woods in the Summer months.   I have been through many slash fields over the years.  And they are much deeper now, than they were then.  I suppose that will change with the wood pellet industry.  I have encountered scores of black bear in the north Maine woods (and killed one…regrettably).  

And whenever I went on a long trip, miles back into the woods,  I navigated with my Ranger compass and a topo map, whereas you are dependent on your GPS when you enter the woods.  

Rhode Island, you can go to my website where I have a complete article on how to navigate big woods with a compass and topo.  It is becoming a lost art.    

I began hunting ruffed grouse at the family camp in Salem, Maine back in 1961.  And I did not need a dog to be successful at it.  Sorry, but for the most part, it is the folks who want to "look the part" of a bird hunter (oh excuse me….. "upland" bird hunter)…….. who use dogs.  Bottom line:  You do not need a dog to hunt grouse or woodcock in Maine.  I have never hunted over a dog and I have never lost a wounded bird.  BTW, in Maine, grouse are called "partridge".  Here, we don't try to play the part.   Last time you commented on my post you made a point to "correct me" with some phrase about "standard ecological criteria".  I let you go on that one Rhode Island.  But if you want to pursue that, just let me know and we will.  

Now, regarding your clearcutting comment:
What defines a clearcut?  It is different to you than it is to me.  It is different to a wildlife biologist than it is to a forester.

Open up Google Earth and take a look at all non-park Maine woodlands north of Bangor.  Use the slider along the top bar (left end) and take a look at the degradation over the last several years.  Do not navigate the northern gravel roads and waterways and tell me there is no clear cutting.  The industry is careful to leave buffers along these areas.  You need to fly it, google it or better….walk it for a few years.   Now, after you google it…..tell me that Maine is enforcing the "quite stringent clearcutting laws" as you say they have.   You said….."Very little true clearcutting occurs in the state as a result".   Your comment is outrageous.  The truth is that much of "non-parked" northern Maine is blanketed with clearcutting!  Clearcutting is ubiquitous.  They call it second growth.  Second growth?  Try 15 to 20th or 30th growth…. and up!  The average tree size is getting smaller.  There is a forestry variable called Annual Growth Increment.  It is the amount that a tree species grows on a specific site.  Responsible foresters do not cut beyond the AGI; they do not cut the forest faster than it is growing.  But most do  

Though they would not admit it, much of Maine's forest industry…..is cutting the forestlands faster than they are growing.   It is a desecration of nature!  Now, it really does not matter if anybody on this forum wants to claim that northern Maine's non-parked woodlands are not clear cut.   Clear cutting in northern Maine has been occurring for decades and it is getting more intense.  And the slash fields are so deep that they simply cannot be traversed anymore.  But that may change because of the wood pellet industry.  This will mean that everything will be taken.        

Bears moving into populated areas:
MDIFW claims that there are 30K bears in Maine.  It insists that if the referendum passes, there will be a large increase in nuisance bear complaints.  But baiting creates potential nuisance bears.  Though this is common sense Rhode Island, it is something that MDIFW denies; i.e. that the legalization of bait piles, consisting of donuts, pizza, molasses, meat waste, animal fat, etc……does not create bears that are habituated to closer contact with humans.  
This is preposterous…..outrageous.   Baiting is creating generations of bears that now have perverted feeding habits and that support a perverted hunting program.  Shooting bears over bait is not hunting at all.    But it sure is providing bears for non-residents from places such as Rhode Island, to pay a guide to put them over a bait pile to shoot a bear, so that they can feed their egos by driving around back home with a black bear on the hood.  It is sick.  This is not hunting.  It is a desecration of our native wildlife.   And…..it is a money game.  Literally, those permits, non-resident licenses and guiding fees bring in millions in income each year.  And that is what it is really about.   

This is bear hunting: 
Today, I spent about 3 hours talking to Joel Gibbs, one of the few remaining successful bear hunters who hunt exclusively by stalking the black bear.  It is largely believed by the so-called hunters that it is virtually impossible to kill a bear by stalking it.  But these are the same people who pay to be put over a pile of donuts to kill their bear. They are not bear hunters at all.   Joel is very upset that Maine's forest industry has now destroyed the majority of Maine's old growth beech trees.  They have taken everything Rhode Island.  He estimates that they have now cleared off up to about 70% of the ridges of old beech trees across northern Maine.   Beechnuts are the number one bear mast food.  Sapling beeches do not produce beech mast.  Sapling beeches (or peckerpoles, as Joel calls them ) do not feed bears.  The old beech trees that were once full of beechnuts……are going.  Can you understand that?  Again, this is a desecration of nature.  I do not think you believe this.  I also do not think the guides and non-resident hunters who shoot a black bear really care one bit what it happening to Maine's woodlands and Maine's black bears, just as long as the bears keep coming to the bait piles and the money keeps rolling in.


For 30 days, the "guides" are allowed to keep feeding the bears and replenishing the bait piles.  But on the 31 day…..the bears begin to be executed.  Execution is just what it is; hunting is not what it is.    

And again, it is all about ego and money.  

Running bears with dogs…an example 
A black bear becomes sexually mature at 3+ years and the female does not breed but every other year.  Fully, 50% of the bears that are run by a pack of hounds are females.  It is safe to say that many of these mature female bears are dragging along cubs while being pursued by a pack of hounds.  In fact, many of them are still nursing their cubs.  Oh yes they are!   Now, to a black bear, a tree is security.  The bear goes up the tree from exhaustion.  The bear is shot from the tree.  

Now, is that different than bird hunting with a dog ? 



Robert King
www.itsaboutnature.net   

 
  

Speaking from a Oregon perspective...because of bears eating trees in the spring (timber has a strong lobby), there are spring and fall seasons for bear. With an estimated 25,000 in the state, they have been able to withstand the hunting pressure so far. The greatest influence has been getting rid of hounds (for cougar also). For management purposes, Oregon divides its mega fauna into a category known as game. The dead animal is for personal use and can not be sold for market. This takes away the incentive for the killing of bears for the Chinese superstition market. As a side note, Steelhead are game and are regulated as such, but Salmon are not and can be used for market. Seeing a bear hanging from a snare, dead with flies all around to me was the most gruesome example of barbarism I have ever witnessed.

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote: I began hunting ruffed grouse at the family camp in Salem, Maine back in 1961.  And I did not need a dog to be successful at it.  Sorry, but for the most part, it is the folks who want to "look the part" of a bird hunter (oh excuse me….. "upland" bird hunter)…….. who use dogs.  Bottom line:  You do not need a dog to hunt grouse or woodcock in Maine.  I have never hunted over a dog and I have never lost a wounded bird.  BTW, in Maine, grouse are called "partridge".  Here, we don't try to play the part.  

I seem to have ruffled your feathers.  This whole referendum boils down to one group trying to dictate their morals on another group.  Of course one doesn't "need" a dog to hunt grouse in Maine.  What one needs or does not need is besides the point. People don't "need" $10,000 worth of camera equipment to photograph wildlife.  People don't "need" cars capable of driving 140 mph.  We approach outdoor recreation with a particular set of values and our experiences and the degree to which we enjoy those experiences are shaped by things that are unique to each of us as individuals.  I could spend my days cruising around in my truck and shooting partridge on the road edge or from trees like the typical Maine grouse (sorry, partridge) hunter, but I enjoy being out and active and following my dog and watching him do his job.  That is an important part of the experience for me, and I could frankly care less if someone chooses to judge me for it.  Why should I suspect, if I support this referendum, the same players will not be back in 5 or 10 years with an axe to grind against the form of outdoor recreation that I love because they have deemed it immoral or unnessecary?  No thanks.


RI

"Seeing a bear hanging from a snare, dead with flies all around to me was the most gruesome example of barbarism I have ever witnessed." Seeing that would break my heart and motivate me to ban it......at once.

I think we will lose this referendum Mike, but I have joined the fight and will work to win. I am fed up with the direction Maine has gone. It all goes back to unregulated cutting practices and money for MDIFW.

As I believe I said, MDIFW is telling the people to vote NO. Hard to beat that. They are using the fear factor again. As STEVENMAJOR said: Across the state, are signs on lawns (probably paid for by Maine Sportsman Alliance and surely also MDIFW), that say...."Trust our Wildlife Biologists....Vote No". Normally, the hunting folks would be tussling with MDIFW over one issue or another. Not now. They have become allies on this one. It is all about money.....lots of money. Non-residents are in contact with bear camps (guides) and will pay big money to feed their egos. Travel back to the big city with black bear on your hood; the photo shoot and all. They have the money and they pay it out for their ego. While the bears are simply trying to survive, but have lost so much of their native habitat to cutting practices. But there are always plenty of donuts and old pizza to habituate the cubs to.

With all the information that they are flooding the public with, MDIFW has not once said to the public that they approve the sale of Maine bear gall bladders. Here is a related Nat Geo article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ade_2.html


As a guide, you're allowed to fatten up the bait pile for 30 days. On the 31 day the killing begins. It is sick. And I am going to say so publicly with my article. I will reach a limited number. Joel (bear hunter who stalks and will vote YES)will be on television with this, as will MDIFW biologists (No vote). Joel has already been videoed.

It's all about money and the bears and us are up against this money. It is not right.

My favorite saying is..."It ain't over till it's over....and it ain't over." If we lose this referendum, and fail to release these bears to a fair hunt again, as it used to be, I am not going to stop hitting MDIFW with my articles. I have worked for 3 major wildlife agencies over the years. The closer one gets to the top, the more they are uncontrollably connected to the politics. And the more one is connected to the politics, the more that the money influence becomes a factor. One day, someone is going to secretly video and photograph things such as you saw Mike...graphically exposing the barbarism to the Maine people. That one video will turn the tide.

Robert King
www.itsaboutnature.net

Rhode Island wrote:

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote: I began hunting ruffed grouse at the family camp in Salem, Maine back in 1961.  And I did not need a dog to be successful at it.  Sorry, but for the most part, it is the folks who want to "look the part" of a bird hunter (oh excuse me….. "upland" bird hunter)…….. who use dogs.  Bottom line:  You do not need a dog to hunt grouse or woodcock in Maine.  I have never hunted over a dog and I have never lost a wounded bird.  BTW, in Maine, grouse are called "partridge".  Here, we don't try to play the part.  

I seem to have ruffled your feathers.  This whole referendum boils down to one group trying to dictate their morals on another group.  Of course one doesn't "need" a dog to hunt grouse in Maine.  What one needs or does not need is besides the point. People don't "need" $10,000 worth of camera equipment to photograph wildlife.  People don't "need" cars capable of driving 140 mph.  We approach outdoor recreation with a particular set of values and our experiences and the degree to which we enjoy those experiences are shaped by things that are unique to each of us as individuals.  I could spend my days cruising around in my truck and shooting partridge on the road edge or from trees like the typical Maine grouse (sorry, partridge) hunter, but I enjoy being out and active and following my dog and watching him do his job.  That is an important part of the experience for me, and I could frankly care less if someone chooses to judge me for it.  Why should I suspect, if I support this referendum, the same players will not be back in 5 or 10 years with an axe to grind against the form of outdoor recreation that I love because they have deemed it immoral or unnessecary?  No thanks.


RI

You stated that "it boils down to one group dictating their morals on another group".  

And clearly, American hunters are adamant that they should have exclusive rights (over the non-hunting) to have a say in the forming of wildlife policy within states.  Nope. 

And here is why:

In America, all the residents in each state, own the wildlife resources in each state.  If the species is migratory, the USFWS has jurisdiction, but almost always USFWS gives ALL fish/wildlife management rights to each state, as long as the state follows any federal (USFWS) migratory species laws.

Hunters within each state do not have exclusive right to dictate to the wildlife agency in that state…..wildlife policies.  Input is a right given to ALL the residents of the state.  But non-hunters have thus far not formed long-standing coalitions (like the hunter's Sportsman Alliance of Maine), so their input usually only happens during these referendums.

Remember, hunters do not have a good track record when it comes to "sportsmanlike" choices.  If you want, I can take the time to put together a convincing argument for this.  Because the record is full of examples of why we have a very active wildlife law enforcement branch in each state.   But you know this already.

BTW, I do agree with your attitude regarding the reason you use your dog.   I respect that.  What a shock….huh?   

I had forgotten that driving the roads (often with a beer in cup holders) has now become a common partridge hunting technique in northern Maine.    Several years ago I found myself in the passenger seat on such an excursion.  I was shocked by what they were doing, but went along with the outing that day.  It was that or walk for miles back to camp.

But as I look back,  I am pleased that through the years….I was most always alone and walking when hunting partridge.  

BTW, when non-hunters begin to express extreme ideas, that is when I take the side of the hunters.  Though I stopped hunting years ago, I strongly support sportsmanlike hunting.  But I do not consider most hunters sportsmanlike.  As a wildlife biologist in two different states and on federal land as well….and as a past hunter, I have seen too much of the crap that these idiots try to pull off.  They do not have my respect….and they earned that disrespect.  I know how they conduct themselves in the woods…..as "sportsmen".  

Inarguably, baiting bears is not hunting.  And running them with a pack of hounds and shooting exhausted bears from trees, is not sportsmanlike….especially when it is a mama and she his hauling cubs with her.  Trapping bears to hold them until the trapper comes by and executes the bear…..is nothing shy of barbarism.   And that can happen to mama too. 

That is my strongly held opinion and I will fight for the YES  vote to level the hunting field for the bears.   I have a right to question MDIFW and I have strong disrespect for their choices on this one.  Honestly, I feel we will lose this referendum, but I would be excited to find out I was wrong.  :)  

It is only a matter of time before Maine's current bear hunting practices are permanently rolled back.  

Look for my letter/article, probably in the statewide Maine Sunday Telegram….or maybe the Portland Press Herald.  And be watching on television for an ad with Joel Gibbs, the successful bear hunter who stalks his black bears.  I am trying to convince him to start doing clinics for bear hunters on how to stalk the black bear.  Nothing wrong with that.  .  But he complains that the problem really lies in the fact that the forest industry has taken down all of the old American Beech (bears are crazy for beechnuts).   You just do not replace these things in a couple of decades.  It has really gotten to be a terrible mess.  It is a desecration of nature.  It is all about money. 

Robert King
www.itsaboutnature.net
        

Like I said its a case of one group projecting their morality on another, and nothing you've said above changes that, it only provides your justification for it.  As a member of the later group though (although I have no interest in killing a bear, trapped, baited, hounded, or otherwise) having people pass judgement and dictate morality to me makes me quite nervous and just a little bit defensive.  I actually take no issue with the fact that this ballot measure exists, I just hope it is resoundingly defeated.  

RI

You just refuse to get it.  But I'll try again.

You wrote:  "Like I said its a case of one group projecting their morality on another...."

Maybe what you should have written is that the hunters have the right to project their morality onto the non-hunting population (i.e., the entire remaining population)....and that must be accepted by all.

That is not the law in America.  All along, I have been simply saying that this issue is up to all Maine's people...not just the hunters.    

Again Rhode Island, in America, the wildlife belongs to both hunters and non-hunters.  It goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers.  They insisted on getting away from the land owner owning the wildlife.  

So, when they started this country, the Founding Fathers made sure that all the people own the wildlife.  I am so thankful for that.  Aren't you?


You continued to say...."and nothing you've said above changes that, it only provides your justification for it."
But the justification for it is not mine....it is written in the wildlife laws across this land.  

I am beginning to arrive at a conclusion:  Attempting to establish a mutually beneficial constructive,  two-way communication with you......may well be impossible.  But I still hold hope Rhode Island. 

BTW, I want to thank you for providing me more of a theme for my letter to the people.  You got me to see something in a different way.  

Apparently, this may be a big issue with the people: The belief that some people are forcing their beliefs onto other people. Yes, I can see it now. 


Robert King
www.itsaboutnature.net

Tragically, Maine IFW allows the body parts of our Maine bears to be sold on World Markets.  Six states, Maine, Vermont, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas and New York allow trade in bear gall bladders, while 34 states ban the trade of bear gall bladders.  Also, Maine allows the sale of other parts of the Maine bears killed here.  In Asia, bear parts have been coveted for thousands of years,  for use in medicine and as a cure-all for a variety of ailments from sexual impotency to fevers.  

Some Asians believe consuming bear paws will increase strength while gallbladders will enhance virility.  Asian bears are endangered.  And those that survive are banished for life to tight cages where they are milked every day for the bile from the gall bladders.  

The Asian demand for bear parts knows no geographical boundaries,  is insatiable and will never cease growing!  

With the incredible economic growth in Asia, one would have to be very naive to believe that our black bear body parts are not being sold in the Asian markets.

There is no doubt whatsoever that some of the gall bladders of Maine black bears are being consumed by Asian men, in the age-old belief it will enhance their sexual virility.  

http://www.bigwildlife.org/trafficking.php

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090811-bear-parts-trade_2.html

Robert King
www.itsaboutnature.net

The bear referendum, that would have banned baiting, hounding and trapping was rejected.  I am sure it was because Maine DIFW opposed the ban.

I have worked for two states and the fed as a wildlife biologist.  Sadly, it is like everything else:  The higher one gets in any wildlife management, the more influence politics has on major decisions. 

1.  In the campaign Maine DIFW biologists publicly announced that the reason the bear pop was increasing was "improved habitat".  They declined to elaborate on what that meant.  The paradox is that the habitat of northern Maine is a terrible mess.  The forest industry owns over 90% of Maine forestlands.  The average age of stands is decreasing and has been for decades.  Clear cutting in Maine continues even though the current legal wording of Maine's cutting practices omits the phrase "clear cut".   The fact is that clear cutting is more aggressive than ever, and has been for several decades.  The scope of clear cutting has doubled over the last few decades from 250K acres per year to 500K per year.  The industry is after as much as it can take off the land....within the laws....with no regard for the health of the system.   Maine's northern forests are under terrible stress and it is getting worse. 

So why does MDIFW use the phrase "improved habitat".  It is a lie.  The industry is taking the canopy at a rate never seen before.  That is where the most profit is....the lumber wood...the saw logs!  MDIFW biologists know this, but management did not allow this to be even touched on during the entire campaign.  And the public did not have the sense to ask what "improved habitat" meant.  When you remove the canopy, the mid-story and floor are open to dramatically more sunlight.  This has caused an explosion of berry producing and nut producing plants.....among the black bear's favorite foods.  This is why the bear pop has increased and it is exacerbated by the tons of man-processed bait foods in the woods each late Summer.  This necessitates the use of baiting so MDIFW can reach its quota.  At the rate the forest is allowed to be exploited, MDIFW will never reach its quota of black bears each year.  Add bait, and more and more bait, and it is a hideous, self-perpetuating business.  And for what.......bear rugs!  This is the truth, whether anyone wants to admit it. 

2.  Maine is one of only 6 states that allows the commercial movement of bear parts.  This includes bear paws and bear gall bladders.

But, MDIFW also does not publicize this.  The gall bladder market was not mentioned once, by anybody during this campaign.  I had it in my editorial but there was so much material flooding this issue, that (to my knowledge) my editorial did not make it to press.


The gall bladder and bear paw black market is already well established.  And Maine hunters could not care any less.  I know; I interviewed several of them. 

Please click on the following link to see the first black market case.  Our black bear paws and gall bladders are going to Asia for old men to enhance their sexual pleasure and for Asians to supposedly cleanse their blood. 



  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fusao%2Fma%2Fnews%2F2014%2FJanuary%2FZengEricsentencingPR.html&ei=VflZVJioIrSKsQTNjIKgAQ&usg=AFQjCNHyGg7xMdSevGQVU9jKTBJSTn_rxQ&sig2=aaLFtGQ9ZKS52irGQVK-MA&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cWc         

Robert King
itsaboutnature.net

[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]The bear referendum, that would have banned baiting, hounding and trapping was rejected.  I am sure it was because Maine DIFW opposed the ban.[/font]


[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]I have worked for two states and the fed as a wildlife biologist.  Sadly, it is like everything else:  The higher one gets in any wildlife management, the more influence politics has on major decisions. [/font]


[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]1.  In the campaign Maine DIFW biologists publicly announced that the reason the bear pop was increasing was "improved habitat".  They declined to elaborate on what that meant.  The paradox is that the habitat of northern Maine is a terrible mess.  The forest industry owns over 90% of Maine forestlands.  The average age of stands is decreasing and has been for decades.  Clear cutting in Maine continues even though the current legal wording of Maine's cutting practices omits the phrase "clear cut".   The fact is that clear cutting is more aggressive than ever, and has been for several decades.  The scope of clear cutting has doubled over the last few decades from 250K acres per year to 500K per year.  The industry is after as much as it can take off the land....within the laws....with no regard for the health of the system.   Maine's northern forests are under terrible stress and it is getting worse. [/font]


[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]So why does MDIFW use the phrase "improved habitat".  It is a lie.  The industry is taking the canopy at a rate never seen before.  That is where the most profit is....the lumber wood...the saw logs!  MDIFW biologists know this, but management did not allow this to be even touched on during the entire campaign.  And the public did not have the sense to ask what "improved habitat" meant.  When you remove the canopy, the mid-story and floor are open to dramatically more sunlight.  This has caused an explosion of berry producing and nut producing plants.....among the black bear's favorite foods.  This is why the bear pop has increased and it is exacerbated by the tons of man-processed bait foods in the woods each late Summer.  This necessitates the use of baiting so MDIFW can reach its quota.  At the rate the forest is allowed to be exploited, MDIFW will never reach its quota of black bears each year.  Add bait, and more and more bait, and it is a hideous, self-perpetuating business.  And for what.......bear rugs!  This is the truth, whether anyone wants to admit it. [/font]


[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]2.  Maine is one of only 6 states that allows the commercial movement of bear parts.  This includes bear paws and bear gall bladders.[/font]


[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]But, MDIFW also does not publicize this.  The gall bladder market was not mentioned once, by anybody during this campaign.  I had it in my editorial but there was so much material flooding this issue, that (to my knowledge) my editorial did not make it to press.[/font]




[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]The gall bladder and bear paw black market is already well established.  And Maine hunters could not care any less.  I know; I interviewed several of them. [/font]


[font=ArialMT, sans-serif]Please click on the following link to see the first black market case.  Our black bear paws and gall bladders are going to Asia for old men to enhance their sexual pleasure and for Asians to supposedly cleanse their blood. [/font]






  [font=ArialMT, sans-serif]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fusao%2Fma%2Fnews%2F2014%2FJanuary%2FZengEricsentencingPR.html&ei=VflZVJioIrSKsQTNjIKgAQ&usg=AFQjCNHyGg7xMdSevGQVU9jKTBJSTn_rxQ&sig2=aaLFtGQ9ZKS52irGQVK-MA&bvm=bv.78677474,d.cWc[/font][font=ArialMT, sans-serif]         [/font]

Sorry, I have tried to delete the last two posts but am unable to see the edit button. I do not know how I messed this up. Can someone help?

Sorry, but I just noticed this thread. All this bear baiting stuff has to do with money! Millions of dollars are spent on hunting bears on bait each year. I know of one "guide" that has about 300 bait sites, and he charges about $3,000. for each site. Just think of the impact that has! Hard to fight that kind of revenue on a public level. "Trust our biologists" is a piece of crap in Maine! Last year Maine F&W claimed that we did NOT have any issues with the declining Moose population and the herd was strong, with no problems with Winter Tick, like every other New England state was claiming. Well, after collaring 60 moose last Fall and tracking them over the Winter, over half of the moose died due to Winter Tick! In response to that study, a month later, after saying the moose population was healthy and growing,  the F&W reduced the moose hunting permits by 1,000. I guess we shouldn't "Trust our wildlife biologists" after all!   

I totally agree with Bick shouldered Kite on all his posts, as I too live in Maine and am out there every day photographing our wildlife.. 

Thank you Mark.  That means a lot to me, coming from you.  Honestly, I was apprehensive on where you would stand on this whole issue.  I am very thankful to read how you feel.  I needed that support.  Our wildlife resources need that support.  You are a significant voice in the future of the north woods.  

We at NSN, had not heard from you in a very long time and at some point late Summer...it finally dawned on me why:  You were very busy "making the donuts"; i.e. out in the woods, and in the kayak during the best time of the year for moose photography.  What is that saying…something about…."one has to make the hay when the sun shines"?  Must have been a blast for you out there!  You must have gotten some great shots yet again!  


And, I would like anybody who reads this forum to know that:

My motivations regarding the bear ref and all of northern Maine …… are not about me.  I want the northern part of the state to somehow be brought into the public sector for all the people and for the wildlife.  But that is a whole new subject that is too long to be discussed here right now.  

After going through this bear referendum I have permanently changed.  A line has been drawn within me.  First, I am now fed up with the self-serving power that the hunting/trapping lobby has over MDIFW decisions/policies.  This would be primarily the Sportsman Alliance of Maine (SAM) and the Maine Trappers Association.  One of my wildlife mentors from back in the 70's, later became MDIFW Commissioner.  At one meeting,  a SAM rep held up a large white-tailed rack and exclaimed to that Commissioner that until the hunting lobby gets more of those big racks, the Commissioner is not going to get more of these (as he held up a butterfly).  


This attitude is ignorant and selfish.  

Formerly, and for decades, I had considered hunters my allies, because they need habitat, just as I do as a conservationist.  But they are so paranoid that they are going to lose their right to hunt, that they have formed blind alliances.  They cannot see (no, they refuse to see) that if we work together, we can get a lot more (habitat!…quality habitat!) for all people who love our wildlife resources and for the wildlife.  I have tried to get this message through to them.  I will keep trying.   They either change or they will eventually lose.  They need to question SAM.  They need to change SAM.  Hunters need to challenge this blind alliance.      

I am going to work to change that.  Our wildlife resources belong to ALL the people of Maine.  It is time for everyone to see this and act on it.   Of course, what can one person do?  But I am capable of making some inroads into educating the public to MDIFW's reasons behind their actions regarding the bear hunt.  During this referendum, they purposefully withheld "base" information from the public, in order to sway the vote.  That is not proper "management" by a wildlife management agency.  They withheld their knowledge from the public that the north Maine woods is being cut at an unprecedented rate:  500,000 acres/year today, from 250,000 acres say…twenty years ago. I discussed this with a Maine bear biologist and we agreed that this is fueling an expanding bear population.  As I said, this is a lengthy discussion for another place.  But that discussion will happen.  The truth will come out.   MDIFW should have made this information public and they should have been impartial.  They were not.  

The Maine bear hunt has exploded into a disgusting, self-perpetuating, multi-million dollar business that MDIFW is in the center of.   MDIFW knows why it is self-perpetuating, but MDIFW wants to avoid a broader discussion on how/why the bear population is expanding and why the hunt is self-perpetuating.   When the public learns, I believe that the tide will turn….permanently. 

And yes, for now anyway, it is about bear rugs and hunters paying huge money to get their bear rug.  

And Maine bear parts (such as gall bladders and paws) should not be sold to a world market, legally or otherwise!  

This is common sense.  But the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife condones this, though they do not proudly publicize it.  It was not even mentioned anywhere, throughout the entire referendum.  I tried to get the Press Herald to take an article from me, divulging all of what I found.  I wanted it to appear in the Maine Sunday Telegram.  Nope!  I was told that articles were only allowed by their writers.  I was told to reduce it to 700 words.  Ok.  In the end, as the deadline approached, I gave my 700 word letter to the YES people to get it out to the public.  I do not believe it ever made it.      

Co-incidentally, in my regular job, I work with the president of the Maine Trappers Association.  So, this issue was discussed every day.  I talked/listened to many hunters regarding the bear referendum.  For my article, I interviewed a MDIFW bear biologist and a Washington State bear biologist.  I interviewed Maine Forest Service's Forest Biometrician (whatever that is .   As you know, this bear referendum was the number one "issue" across the state.    

Yes, it is about money all right.  Lot's and lots of money.  I have lost a lot of respect for MDIFW.

It ain't over till it's over….and it ain't over  The truth will come out.  As in all of America's States, the wildlife in Maine "belongs" to  ALL Maine people.  

Robert King
itsaboutnature.net

Blck-shouldere wrote: I am going to work to change that.  Our wildlife resources belong to ALL the people of Maine.  It is time for everyone to see this and act on it.   Of course, what can one person do?  
Robert King
itsaboutnature.net

Hey Robert -  wonder if Einstein ever questioned himself like that? He probably did, but he just kept crankin'! Don't give up! Remember - "illegetimi non carborundum" (latin) translated is "Don't let the bastards get you down!"

My suggestion to you is to contact Cecil Gray (lives in Skowhegan and is a registered Maine guide) as he was heavily involved in the fight against the baiting. Actually, he's a member here on NSN too! He appeared on TV in the debates with fish & wildlife. You guys have lots in common and could definitely help each other's progress in halting those disgusting hunting techniques. 

Mark Picard wrote:

Blck-shouldere wrote: I am going to work to change that.  Our wildlife resources belong to ALL the people of Maine.  It is time for everyone to see this and act on it.   Of course, what can one person do?  
Robert King
itsaboutnature.net

Hey Robert -  wonder if Einstein ever questioned himself like that? He probably did, but he just kept crankin'! Don't give up! Remember - "illegetimi non carborundum" (latin) translated is "Don't let the bastards get you down!"

My suggestion to you is to contact Cecil Gray (lives in Skowhegan and is a registered Maine guide) as he was heavily involved in the fight against the baiting. Actually, he's a member here on NSN too! He appeared on TV in the debates with fish & wildlife. You guys have lots in common and could definitely help each other's progress in halting those disgusting hunting techniques. 

Then yes, in the future, I will be talking to Cecil Gray.  The name rings a bell.  Maybe I have seen his moose images in the NSN galleries.  Not sure.  
Thanks for the encouragement Mark.  

Yes, I like that proverb.  And here are a couple more:

[font=Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif][/font]
[font=georgia, serif]“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge[/font]

[font=georgia, serif]And I really love this one:[/font]

[font=georgia, serif]Nevah…..Nevah…..Nevah….give up![/font]
- Winston Churchill