Letters to the Editor

Water is life

To the Editor:
    As we watch the story unfold in Charleston, West Virginia, surrounding the contamination of the city’s water supply due to lack of oversight of the mining industry, I would like to remind Mainers of the current pursuit of open pit mining at Bald Mountain. Because of recent changes to our mining laws, the permitting process as well as site cleanup requirements, have been shortened or completely obliterated.

    Bald Mountain overlooks some of the best trout fishing waters in the Northeast, not to mention the humans and wildlife living downstream of these pristine waters. This is one of eight projected mining sites in our state.
    When or if these projects come up for review or public hearings, please engage your senators and representatives by being informed.
    Clean water has become the new oil. As it becomes scarce due to fracking, mining, industry and agriculture, Maine becomes a target for extraction of this precious resource. But I suppose, if pit-mining tailings contaminate our water, we won’t have to worry about that.

Lisa Laser
Dover-Foxcroft

Protecting citizens’ rights

To the Editor:
    The Maine House will soon vote on a citizens’ rights bill that received overwhelming, bi-partisan approval in 2013. The Democrat-controlled Senate chose not to vote on this bill, but carried it over into the 2014 Session for “further review.” The review has been completed. The bill received another “Ought to Pass.”
    A mailer recently sent out by the wind industry asks citizens to contact legislators and urge them to vote against LD616 – this same citizens’ rights bill?? The industry blatantly misrepresented the intent and language of LD616, saying:
    “Bills like LD616 … seek to squeeze out new wind projects with bad policies that threaten jobs, clean air and a future less dependent on foreign fossil fuels.” LD616 doesn’t seek to “squeeze out” anything. It has nothing to do with wind projects, jobs or clean air. LD616 will simply provide a means for a few disenfranchised Mainers to have equal rights restored to them. It provides a vehicle by which they can attempt to have their communities removed from the Expedited Permitting Area … an “area”/zone they were placed into without their knowledge or permission, and which denies them “due process” … something they had prior to 2008 — and which more than 99 percent of Mainers still have.
    This powerful corporate lobby mustn’t be allowed to muddy the waters. LD616 is straightforward and fair.
    LD616 will not disallow wind development in the communities affected.
    LD616 is about citizens’ rights – period.
    Don’t be misled. Voting to restore equal rights to all Mainers can only be a good thing.

Karen Bessey Pease
Lexington Twp.

HSUS questionable campaign tactics

To the Editor:
    On occasion, when Maine people feel the Legislature is moving too slowly on a policy, they will force a referendum vote through a citizen-initiated petition. This “power to the people” citizen petition process is enshrined in the Maine Constitution. The power to petition our elected officials is reserved solely for Maine residents.
    This important and constitutionally guaranteed right was recently hijacked by the Washington, D.C.-based organization, Humane Society of the United States, (HSUS).
    Several weeks ago, 78,000 signatures were submitted to the Maine Secretary of State for a citizen-initiated petition to ban bear baiting, hounding, and trapping. Before any voter makes a decision on this initiative, we think it is critical that the public know exactly who was circulating these petitions, and what their real agenda is.
    First, the group here in Maine that is proposing this initiative is called “Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting.” An interesting name considering that over 99 percent of its funding has come from one special interest group — HSUS.
    To compound our concern, the work of the Humane Society of the United States reveals a much different picture than most Maine voters might realize. In reality HSUS is a highly sophisticated political organization based in Washington, D.C. with an annual budget in excess of $150,000,000. They put this budget to work all over the country by creating shell organizations made up of a few locals, then propose legislative or referendum strategies to dismantle scientific wildlife managements strategies and hunting traditions. Instead of having a groundswell of local support, they use their significant cash resources to buy elections based on emotions, not science.
    Not surprisingly, that seems to be the direction they plan to take Maine in this year.
    Throughout the course of the fall, concerns regarding the proponent’s campaign tactics regularly came into question. Then, in mid-January, Bangor Daily News outdoor writer John Holyoke reported how HSUS signature gatherers were misleading potential signers with outrageous statements about the need to outlaw hunting and trapping methods that were already illegal.
    Holyoke’s article also revealed that HSUS was using paid signature gatherers, and had hired the California consultant and petition firm, PCI, to manage the paid petitioners. PCI and HSUS have worked together on referendum efforts for 16 years.
    This was confirmed later in January when proponents filed their most recent campaign finance report that revealed that they had spent in excess of $150,000 on professional signature gatherers from California. That works out to roughly $3 per signature. We expect this number to be reported much higher after the next campaign finance deadline.
    The Maine Constitution clearly states that those people circulating petitions must be registered Maine voters. Article IV, Part Third, Section 20 states: “circulator” means a person who solicits signatures for written petitions, and who must be a resident of this State and whose name must appear on the voting list of the city, town or plantation of the circulator’s residence as qualified to vote for Governor;”
    So, we must ask ourselves, why did HSUS spend in excess of $150,000 to a firm in California to collect signatures? And, why would they need to hire such a firm if they had enough support here in Maine? Answer: Because non-resident, paid petitioners will say or do anything to get people to sign their petition.
    This loophole in the Constitution, exploited by HSUS, has created a model whereby special interests from all over the country and world can use their money and power to manipulate our state government — a tactic that should send chills down the back of every Maine voter.
    The truth is, HSUS has little regard for any of Maine’s public processes whether they are wildlife management working groups or campaign law. They will exploit our referendum processes in order to advance an anti-hunting, anti-science political agenda, that, in this case, will destroy a nationally recognized bear management program at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
    We look forward to the debate on this issue, and are confident that Maine voters will reject the questionable campaign tactics of the HSUS in favor of sound scientific management of one of Maine’s most precious natural resources.

Joel Pitcher
organizer/business rep
IAMAW, District Lodge No. 4
David Trahan
executive director
Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine

Sponsoring betrayal

To the Editor:
    Strange things, strange reports coming out of Augusta. Yes, there are reports of unanimous bipartisan agreement on a bill; no, two bills in committee. Democrats and Republicans alike found common ground to kill two bills in committee that would have increased the financial burden upon the people of Maine; more specifically, the hunters and sportsmen of Maine.
    The first bill to discuss was LD 89. This bill was put forth to establish a penalty for Mainers if they did not register their snow machines by a certain date. The sole sponsor of the bill was Sen. Doug Thomas.
    If LD 89, An Act to Establish a Deadline for Snowmobile Registration, had been approved by the committee, it would have set a deadline for snow machine registration at Dec. 31st and, if any Mainer had been so disobedient to mother government as to miss the set deadline, they would be punished with an additional $20 fine added to the registration fee.
    This is just another blatant money grab by our government.
    Thankfully, Paul Davis, the rest of the Republicans, and amazingly, all the Democrats on the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee voted in unison to kill the bill. At least someone had the backs of rural Maine.
    But there’s more. Doug Thomas has co-sponsored a bill with Dennis Keschl , LD 153, that would create a comprehensive hunting and fishing license.
    Sounds like a great idea at first glance and some sportsmen’s blogs were in support, but, when one delves into the bones of the bill, the details reveal just another money grab.
    Further, research shows that hunters will lose more than they will gain.
    First of all, studies show that over 70 percent of hunters, a strong majority, only hunt deer, so for a majority of hunters, this is a $13 increase. Bow hunters would be excluded from further deer hunting if they harvested a deer during bow season.
    The long lists of items that are excluded from the “comprehensive” license belie the title. One thing is sure; deer hunters would be targeted for an increase. They are getting the proverbial … antler.
    Remember hunters; there was a comprehensive license at one time.
    Government kept cutting specific hunts out of that license bringing us to this point today. They would repeat that process again. It’s always about getting more of your money.
    Again, thankfully, the Republicans and Democrats voted with one voice, in the IF&W, to kill this bill. It is amazing that a Senator who is supposed to represent the voters in the foothills of the 100-mile wilderness would sponsor bills that could penalize businesses so integral to the 2nd District: hunting and snow machining.
    Sen. Thomas can find some solace in the fact that he had a unifying influence in Augusta.
    He sponsored and co-sponsored bills that were so egregious and punitive to the people of Maine that there was unanimous and bi-partisan consent to kill the bills in order to protect the people of Maine.

Andy Torbett
Atkinson