In his op-ed column defending bear hunting practices in Maine, Gary Fogg sidesteps both the real issue and the facts.

The issue is not the the 80,000 Mainers and the local and national organizations that are working to bring cruel bear killing methods to a November referendum. The issue is the methods themselves: baiting bears with sugary food, luring them for a easy shot by hunters; bears agonizing in traps; and pursuit by hounds, wherein exhausted bears climb trees to escape and are shot point blank. All are unnecessary and an affront to the humane, traditional concept of fair-chase hunting.

The facts are not that ending these grotesque practices will explode Maine’s bear population, curb hunting and encourage conflicts with humans. States like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado — where baiting and hounding have been banned for a decade — have seen higher bear harvests and more bear hunters. In Oregon alone, since the baiting and hounding ban, bear tag sales have tripled, revenue from the sales has grown by 214 percent, and revenue from nonresident bear tag sales has doubled. Washington and Colorado have seen very similar results, with the number of bear hunters doubling or tripling. Human conflicts with bears which are encouraged by methods like baiting that cause bears to seek out human food, have remained relatively stable in those states in spite of a large growth in human population.

Clearly, none of the arguments used to justify inhumane bear hunting practices are valid upon investigation. As Mr. Fogg himself points out, “The bear hunting methods in Maine have a long history and it may be that we have simply grown accustomed to them.” In my opinion, there is much truth to that statement and it is a valid reason to let Mainers decide via the November ballot whether these methods are either necessary or appropriate.

Gary Aldridge
Brunswick