The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife issued the following statements in its 2001 report, “Feasibility Statements for Eastern Coyote Goals and Objectives”:

“By continuing the coyote control program, the public may perceive the Department implicitly believes the control program has a strong biological basis, when in fact, the biological benefits of coyote control are unknown.”

“It is not known whether coyote control has any effect on increasing local or regional deer numbers.”

“The possibility exists that the removal of territorial coyotes may allow non-territorial coyotes into an area, and exacerbate the deer predation problem.”

This is the latest information available on Maine’s coyote control program, and according to the IF&W, it is still relevant today.

Coyotes are often blamed for killing too many deer, when there is no research to prove this. However, there is necropsy research to prove that the majority of the coyote diet consists of small mammals and vegetation.

Advertisement

Maine’s coyote control policy resembles not smart management, but rather a free-for-all killing spree. This past fall, there were four cases of domestic dogs being shot and killed near their homes throughout Maine, mistaken by hunters for coyotes.

Maine’s coyote control merely serves the purpose of providing financial stability to hunting organizations, rather than an environmentally responsible way to manage wildlife. The IF&W’s motto cannot say that it is a steward of Maine’s wildlife and represents the Maine people if it does not uphold the values of all of our state’s citizens, not just those who hunt! 

This is not a fair representation of the population, and this is not fair to wildlife. We need to make a concerted effort in Maine to conduct responsible and educated management of our coyote population or face the consequences of an irreversibly unbalanced natural ecosystem.

Heather Bolint

Damariscotta

On Feb. 6, The Press Herald ran a letter to the editor titled “State coyote control policy takes grave toll on pet dogs,” which noted, “It’s all due to hunters mistakenly shooting at what they believe is a coyote.” The writer places the blame for a string of recent pet shootings, by hunters, squarely upon “state officials.”

Advertisement

Apparently, the writer feels the state is at fault due to an open season on coyotes. It seems the state compounded its error by only allowing the carrying of a deer rifle during “big game seasons.” Ergo, for most of the open coyote season, “hunters will carry small-caliber rifles, which are more than likely to wound coyotes and dogs.”

The writer points to a recent pet shooting in York to bolster his point while wondering “How many more dogs have to die before something is done to address this problem?”

As a longtime gun owner, my answer is “No more dogs have to die.” An oft-repeated rule in my training was “always know what you’re shooting at.” The Press Herald article on the York shooting noted the dog was a husky, whose picture looked nothing like any coyote I have seen.

Despite the fact that some of these pets were killed with the use of smaller-caliber weapons, which presumably needed closer proximity to be used successfully, the hunters still did not positively identify their targets as coyotes and not the pets they were.

Blaming regulations for the actions of hazardous “hunters” who have failed to adequately identify their quarry, thereby causing injury and death to innocent parties, is a non-starter. This retrospection should begin with the owner of the finger on the trigger.

Mike Del Tergo

Advertisement

Falmouth

Religion coverage overlooks Maine, Portland activities

Every Saturday, The Portland Press Herald prints a page called Religion and Values. Until recently, it was printed on the back of the Sports section, which was, symbolically, somewhat like putting black people at the back of the bus. This custom did not reflect well on the “religion and values” of the newspaper itself.

Now that the positioning has been changed, I want to comment on the content of the Religion and Values page. There is always a commentary by a member of the local clergy or a spiritual counselor. There are notices for local church services to be held the next day, Sunday.

And there are articles on religion from the national wire services, such as one about Elvis’ miracle and another about a cowboy church. Truly local news is missing.

Portland and Maine now have a rich mix of people practicing Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahai and other religions, but you would not know this fact from reading The Press Herald’s religious news. The news there is mostly Christian and imported from “away.”

Advertisement

I want to urge the editor of The Press Herald to assign a reporter to do a story once a week on one of the many religious groups active in the Portland and Lewiston-Auburn areas.

He will find plenty of material. These groups are hosting speakers, sending their youth for service abroad, offering musical concerts, serving the hungry and homeless and more. Let us know “the good news.”

Isabel Denham

Yarmouth

Controversy highlights need for Tree Growth reform

The recent publicity about Bruce Poliquin’s use of the Tree Growth Tax program to reduce his property taxes at his residence in Georgetown has brought attention to the problem of abuse of this program.

Advertisement

I don’t think that Poliquin’s situation is unique. One professional forester told me that he is aware of a number of similar cases. I think that reform of the Tree Growth Tax program is vitally important.

One possible avenue of reform is to require that tax assessors monitor the activities of property owners with land in Tree Growth to ensure that:

The required forest management plans include provisions for harvesting at some future time. Granted, the age distribution of trees on some parcels might preclude harvesting within the 10-year horizon required of forest management plans. But in that case, the plan should specify target dates for future harvesting.

The commercial harvesting called for in the plan is not actually precluded under existing land use regulations or deed restrictions.

The commercial harvesting called for in the plan is in fact carried out.

A. Myrick Freeman III

Georgetown


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.