Re: “Our View: Bear-baiting case not made: We say ‘no’ on Question 1” (Oct. 19):

The principal flaw in the editors’ argument is to continue to conflate baiting with hunting, as the opponents of Question 1 have consistently done. Shooting a bear that is gorging on junk food deliberately placed in the woods by the shooter, or a guide, is not “hunting.” It is simply killing for killing’s sake. One might as well go “hunting” in a zoo.

You argue that the bans would “effectively end hunting of Maine black bears.” On the contrary: The bans would require hunting by anyone who wishes to kill a bear. And if the bear population indeed increases as a result of the bans, fair-chase hunting – real hunting – would be that much more effective.

You make the nonsensical analogy between shooting a bear while eating a cache of doughnuts and shooting a deer while eating browse. Really? And did a hunter plant that browse, hoping to someday, years down the road, attract a deer?

You say that hunters are more apt to get a clean shot at a bear eating doughnuts than a bear running through the woods. Well, duh! But that would also be true of deer hunting, yet the law doesn’t allow a “hunter” to bait deer with a basket of apples or a salt lick.

Let’s not ban real bear hunting, but let’s please ban baiting, snaring and dogs from the equation.


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.