As a non-hunter, I will be voting No on Question 1.

Early this year, I leaned toward the yes vote. As I read, asked questions, and listened to people who actually work in the field, I realized that any type of hunting and fishing includes some sort of lure, species specific; whether it be the time of year when the animal’s only interest is procreating, a hunter using estrus scent, rattling antlers, or using turkey/duck calls or decoys, and of course baiting. Yet still to leave the woods empty handed, not an easy kill as the Yes camp will have you believe.

When I enjoy steak, prime rib or a burger, I realize this animal was raised captive, fed grain, shot in its head, then slaughtered before it has gotten to my plate. Is that any better than feeding bear at a site and taking a nice clean shot? At least I know the bear had a better life than the cow, chicken or pig I am eating. And don’t we bait lobster? I feel anyone who enjoys meat and votes yes is a hypocrite.

Secondly, Maine has the lowest nuisance rates, which debunks the theory that baiting causes nuisance bears. If that were true, we would have a real problem at the present time which we do not. Seems other states that have abolished their bear hunting practices have a problem with bear nuisance. If the Yes camp thinks we should “Go back to hunting tradition,” then maybe we can just hunt bears 12 months out of the year any time of day like it use to be in the old days when there were no IF&W who now regulate hunting seasons in conjunction to the wildlife population.

But that is the goal of the Yes camp, to abolish hunting, and don’t think they aren’t trying. The state’s biologists and IF&W are doing a great job with conservation and we need to let them do their job.

Please Vote No on 1 — it’s the responsible thing to do!

Valerie Ouellette
Lisbon Falls