I do not hunt. Most people don’t. That traditional way of putting food on the table is dying off as surely as virtual existence is on the rise. Maybe the computerized charms of “Farmarama” and “the- Hunter” will encourage a new generation to return to actual farming and bloodsport. Maybe. Likely not.

Our tolerance for “social,” slang for constant online interaction, seems endless, but our tolerance for actual interaction with wildlife, what is called “social carrying capacity” by those charged with managing our wilder cohabitants, only goes so far. We will live wherever we want, and wildlife should, naturally, respect that.

How dare those non-domesticated interlopers, eating our bird feed and rummaging through the food we throw away.

When hearing such complaints, I would always think: “That’s what you get for living in the boonies. If you don’t like black flies and deer eating your ornamentals, move into town or stop complaining.” Now, however, my urban gardens are being foraged and my lawn piled with scat. So far, no bear scat. So far. Domestic cats have always taken our songbirds. Now, foxes are taking neighborhood cats. This invasion of wildness is still tolerable, but if bears follow suit I will want their removal. Pronto.

Those that would perform that removal say that a referendum to ban bear baiting, trapping and hounding will make their “management” of these seldom seen animals much more difficult in bringing down population numbers. They say that actual biological carrying capacity is unknown, but that the social carrying capacity of these large predators demands such control. Nearly all deaths of adult Maine bears is of human-related causes, principally hunting for recreation, profit or to mitigate human conflict.

Those in favor of the referendum say they aren’t opposed to such population control, but only to the means of that management. It should be done “sportingly,” and baiting, trapping and hounding lacks sportsmanship. They also argue that baiting increases the bear population and habituates bears to human ways, increasing conflict. The cruelty of traps and dogs is, well, unquestionable, unless it is actually questioned.

The crux of the referendum isn’t about killing — or not killing — 4,500 Maine bears per year, the targeted “harvest.” The issue is whether to facilitate and actualize that harvest by what are traditional methods of success, or to abandon these techniques and rely on the purism of “still-hunting” that only provides 7 percent of the current bear harvest.

Those that hunt bear obviously prefer to bait, trap or tree their prey before dispatching them, and state wildlife management specialists, expert in gathering vital data in understanding best practices towards desired kill statistics, encourage these methods. Opponents apparently trust the state agency’s judgment in regard to harvest, but not its present forms of implementation.

A bear guide once told me of an out-of-state hunter who was placed directly beneath a bear baited and hounded up a tree, only to display complete ineptitude in achieving the animal’s demise. It was all the guide could do not to force the less worthy animal to hike out on his own skillset. The idea of increasing the number of still-hunters as an obvious means towards more humane kills is a curious premise. Increasing the difficulty of hunting may be more “sporting,” but it hardly assures the likelihood of a humane death. Ask any deer hunter who has finally given up following a blood trail.

News to some, sportsmen and naturalists are often the same individual. The majority of those that hunt, by whatever means, have great respect for the lives they take, and well realize how imperiled wildlife has become. Maine bears, however, apart from hunting, aren’t imperiled. Eating a McSandwich as if it grew on a tree, clueless of any cruel animal husbandry, while bear hugging rationalizations for unending habitat encroachment is something many all too easily multi-task.

Why not think outside the box and use a bear’s natural diet as bait instead of human junk food ? Why not use “have-a-heart” traps? Why not use a single dog?

The scientists counter that a bear doesn’t connect the dots between type of bait and that you have groceries at home. Permitted traps are the same used by biologists for catch and release studies. A solitary dog is ineffectual, and packs are limited to a sufficient six.

Opponents insist that these are specious bureaucratic arguments defending barbaric practices that have been successfully abandoned elsewhere while still reaching the goals of a balanced bear population.

Like most political solutions, this contentious referendum vote will be made largely on visceral judgments overriding the assault of confusing information from both sides.

This issue isn’t, supposedly, about bear hunting itself, or hunting in general. But, the vote will be. This issue is, primarily, about whether we trust our Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s stewardship.

If the referendum passes, we will have opportunity to see if such a ban, purportedly working elsewhere, will indeed work, and more humanely, here. If it doesn’t pass, we will be left none the wiser.

———

Gary Anderson is a resident of Bath.