Biology from the ballot box is bad science – Piscataquis Observer

By V. Paul Reynolds In a number of states, including most recently Vermont, wildlife management is being cheated or simply taken out of the hands of professional wildlife managers through the courts, through citizen initiatives, or through the infiltration of fisheries and wildlife commissions by anti-hunting activists.

By V. Paul Reynolds

In a number of states, including Vermont recently, wildlife management is being cheated or simply taken out of the hands of professional wildlife managers through the courts, through referendums, or by anti-hunting activists infiltrating fisheries and wildlife policy boards.

A few examples:

1. A referendum in Oregon would ban hunting.

2. In Washington state, the Fish and Wildlife Commission has banned bear hunting.

3. A referendum in Montana would fundamentally change the state’s authority to manage wildlife on private land.

4. A referendum in Colorado would ban hunting of lions and bobcats.

Charlie Booher, a biologist specializing in resolving conflicts over natural resources, writes in Bugle magazine: “Across the country, we’re seeing increasing pressure from well-funded animal rights groups and others seeking to influence wildlife policy.” Booher points out that in some cases, the danger comes from within the ranks of state wildlife commissions or state legislatures, which are made up of members who are unaware of, or unconcerned about, the crucial role of recreational hunting in managing wildlife populations.

In our own state, a failed attempt by a few naive state legislators to ban coyote hunting served as an example last year. At a public hearing, the lack of understanding of basic scientific wildlife management by one or two legislators on the Joint Standing Committee on Fisheries and Wildlife was astonishing!

What about wildlife management in Maine? Is there a risk? Maine is one of seven states whose fish and wildlife advisory boards serve in an advisory role in the development of state regulations. Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council consists of 10 members from 16 counties who serve three-year terms. Each member is appointed by the governor upon recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife Commissioner. Nominations for members are reviewed by the Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Fish and Wildlife. Each member must be confirmed by the Legislature. Over the years, Maine’s advisory council has done a pretty good job of fulfilling its role.

According to the law, the advisory council has the following tasks:

A. The Advisory Board shall provide the Commissioner with information and advice concerning the administration of the Department and shall carry out other functions specifically delegated by this Part. (2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (new); c. 614, §9 (aff).)

B. The Advisory Board shall hold regular meetings with the Commissioner or his deputy in December and May of each year and may hold special meetings at such other times and places as may be desirable. (2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (new); c. 614, §9 (aff).)

(2003, chapter 414)

In Mississippi, state law requires that any candidate for an advisory board “must be an active outdoorsman who has held a resident hunting or fishing license for at least five of the 10 years preceding the appointment. Maine has no such litmus test for its candidate advisors. Their qualifications for the position are left to the discretion of the governor.

The author is editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal. He is also a Maine Guide and hosts a weekly radio program, “Maine Outdoors,” which is heard Sundays at 7 p.m. on The Voice of Maine News-Talk Network. He is the author of three books. Information about purchasing online is available at www.sportingjournal.com.