Letters to the Editor

‘A big misunderstanding’ on bunker request

To the Editor:
    Last week, The Piscataquis Observer published an article, “Piscataquis EMA and radio club at odds over use of bunker,” by Mike Lange.
    The report was a fair summary of the discussion, but I would like to clarify a few points.

    Contrary to Tom Capraro’s claim, I did make an e-mail request to him for permission to demonstrate an emergency communications system to the Co-Director of the Piscataquis County Economic Development Council (PCEDC). Mr. Capraro denied my request suggesting that I had a “political agenda” and then denied the radio club future access to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) without an escort.
    In April I made a proposal suggesting the use of EOC property on Sargent Hill Drive as an ideal location for access to the Three-Ring Binder and distribution point for high-speed Internet. This proposal was widely distributed, including copies to the commissioners and Tom Capraro and published in the Piscataquis Observer.
    Since then, I have had a number of meetings with PCEDC, written letters to officials, requested information from state agencies and organizations, and started a website specifically about broadband access.
    During a meeting at PCEDC, a demonstration of how wireless technology could be used to reach remote areas was discussed.
    It so happened that one of the radio club members had just completed a system which could be used to illustrate how this technology worked.
    As Mike Lange quoted, “the whole thing was a big misunderstanding.” The EMA director misunderstood my proposal, my motives and my objective. He confused my advocacy to bring the benefits of broadband to Piscataquis County with a “political agenda.”
    During the discussion at the commissioners’ meeting, I was puzzled that the commissioners seemed unclear about my proposal or efforts.
    One of the commissioners indicated that my approach to the issue may have been inappropriate or offensive. In response, I said that the county should embrace creative, innovative ideas and participation by citizens and that sometimes “an attitude” was required to kickstart action.
    As far as I know, there is no suggestion box or procedure for bringing an idea to the attention of the commissioners, so I did what I thought appropriate — sent them a proposal.

William N. Welsh
Sebec

Bear baiting proponent using apples to oranges logic

To the Editor:
    After reading David Trahan’s piece, I found myself alternately frustrated, offended and bemused. I was frustrated by his transparent manipulation of “facts,” offended by his obvious perception of the newspaper readership as naïve rubes who would blindly accept his nonsensical half-truths as gospel and bemused at his attempts to shock, alarm and frighten us with tales of rogue black bears picking the back door lock and rummaging through our kitchens in the wee hours to find where we stash the Oreos.
    Mr. Trahan conveniently omits information that would bring his pro-baiting conclusions into question.
    He states, for example, that in New Jersey there were 201 successful home entries and another estimated 144 attempted home entries by bears between 2006 and 2010. He fails to mention that these entries were proven to be made by human-habituated and food conditioned bears — the result of homeowners who had ignored the state’s published bear education advice on storage of garbage cans, cleaning greasy barbecue grills, placing food scraps in compost piles, and other preventative methods.
    Furthermore, it is pointless to compare Maine to New Jersey and Florida — the two states he relies on to back up his arguments. Florida does not allow any bear hunting, and during the years he supplies statistics for in New Jersey there was also no bear hunt. Comparing Maine to New Jersey and Florida is like comparing apples to oranges. The initiative in Maine would not ban bear hunting — it would simply prohibit the use of hounds, bait, and trapping of bears.
    When looking at the data from states that are actually comparable to Maine, the numbers certainly don’t help Mr. Trahan’s case. Oregon banned baiting and hounding via ballot measure back in 1994, and information from the state’s wildlife agency shows that the number of nuisance complaints remained the same after baiting and hounding were prohibited, and the bear population has also remained stable at around 25-30,000 bears. The same thing happened in Washington, where baiting and hounding were prohibited in 1996. This data certainly contradicts Mr. Trahan’s claims that the bear population and bear-human interactions will increase if this referendum passes.
    As we encroach farther and farther into their habitat, they lose their natural fear of us. Baiting bears exacerbates this by habituating bears to human food, and teaching them to associate human scent with a free and easy meal.
    Looking again to Oregon and Washington, despite growing human populations of roughly 1 million and 2 million, respectively, since they successfully banned baiting and hounding, the bear population has remained stable and the number of nuisance complaints did not increase.
    Finally, to his condescending charge that opponents to baiting, hounding and trapping have a “Pollyanna belief that bears can be managed without hunters,” I would suggest he think this through a bit more carefully. The referendum doesn’t call for a ban on bear hunting — and stating so just shows how desperate Mr. Trahan is to mislead the voters with scare tactics. In fact, its passage would require the state to review successful population control methods employed by other states, such as Washington. There are plenty of hunters out there that possess the knowledge and skills to successfully track a bear without the use hounds, bait, or trap. The thousands of bears killed every year in Washington, Oregon, and the other states that don’t allow these cruel methods prove that.
    Make no mistake — bear hunting will continue if this referendum passes and Mr. Trahan knows that. But he’d rather use cherry-picked “facts” and fear mongering to protect his buddies in the baiting, hounding, and trapping industry — and he doesn’t care if he has to mislead Mainers to do it. Don’t fall for it — vote “yes” on Question 1.

Eva Weitman
Bangor

Great cemetery care

To the Editor:
    For most of my adult life I have held much interest in cemeteries. It does not make a difference in its size or location. The older ones always seem more interesting. It is because of my interest in the Civil War era.
    Most cemeteries, especially the real old ones, are not so well kept. I am sure there are various reasons, but it does not matter, they are still attractive and interesting.
    Every once in a while I visit some really neat and well-kept cemeteries. There are many I am sure. One of my favorites is in my hometown of Milo. The Evergreen Cemetery is one of the attractions that we are proud of.
    The cemetery crew does an excellent job maintaining the property. It’s a low budget department that is managed by Bob Hussey. Aside from the cemetery, he and his crew are required to care for the Veterans’ Park and other property on Main Street. The maintenance of all of these locations and others, I am sure, really puts a burden on the crew.
    There seems to be, on a few occasions, vandalism at the cemetery. This is an added expense to the budget also and is very frustrating. A few of the incidents involved the damage done by youngsters (if you want to call them that) stealing items from gravesites, damaging turf at the tomb and $450 damage to the Veterans’ Memorial and tipping stones over. For some reason, it seems to continue.
    I want to thank the crew at the Evergreen Cemetery in Milo for doing a great job. Yes, it is a job they are paid to do, but they do it with pride and passion. On behalf of our community, thank you.

Ron Knowles
Milo

Heed concerns of older voters

To the Editor:
    If candidates are wondering which issues are of the greatest concern to Maine’s most active voting demographic, a new AARP survey can help. AARP recently surveyed 2,000 registered voters in Maine, age 50 and older to see what issues they find most important for candidates to focus on.
    The results of the survey revealed that older Mainers will likely vote for a candidate who will work on creating age-friendly communities, work to ensure financial stability for seniors, support caregivers, and fight against fraud in the state.
    Nearly 70 percent of those surveyed considered it a top or high priority for Maine elected officials to support age-friendly communities. One important message to the candidates from the survey: older adults in Maine want to stay in their homes as they age. They are looking for their legislative leaders to help make that possible!
    Voters age 50 and older make up the majority of people at the polls in Maine, so candidates might consider addressing the main issues identified in the survey. Working on these issues will make Maine a better place for everyone as we all continue aging.

Rich Livingston
AARP Maine
volunteer state president