Ballot box biology is bad science

By V. Paul Reynolds

In a number of states, including recently in Vermont, wildlife governance is either being trifled with or simply summarily removed from the hands of the professional wildlife managers by the courts, ballot initiatives, or by fish and wildlife policy commissions being infiltrated by anti-hunting activists.

Some examples:

1. A ballot initiative in Oregon would outlaw hunting.

2. In Washington state, the Fish and Wildlife Commission closed down a bear hunt.

3. A ballot initiative in Montana, would fundamentally alter the authority of the state to manage wildlife on private lands.

4. A Colorado ballot initiative would ban the hunting of lions and bobcats.

Charlie Booher, a wildlife biologist who specializes in natural resource conflict resolution, writes in Bugle magazine: “Across the country we are seeing increasing pressure from well-funded animal rights groups and others seeking to sway wildlife policy.” Booher points out that, in some cases, the danger comes from within the ranks of state wildlife commissions or state legislators  that comprise members who don’t have a clue, or don’t care, about the critical role of recreational hunting in managing wildlife populations.

In our own state last year an ill-fated attempt by a few naive state legislators to ban coyote hunting served as a case in point. During a public hearing the lack of understanding of basic scientific wildlife management by one or two legislative members of the Joint Standing Committee on Fisheries and Wildlife was stunning!

What about wildlife governance in Maine? Is there a peril? Maine is one of  seven states whose fish and wildlife commissions or advisory councils serve an advisory role to agency rulemaking. Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Advisory Council is made up of 10 members, from 16 counties who serve a three-year term. Each member is appointed by the governor after recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Commissioner. Membership nominations are subject to review by the legislative joint standing committee on fish and wildlife. Each member must be confirmed by the legislature. Over the years, the Maine advisory council has fulfilled its role quite well.

According to statute, the advisory council’s duties are as follows;

A. The advisory council shall render to the commissioner information and advice concerning the administration of the department and carry out other duties specifically delegated by this Part. [2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (new); c. 614, §9 (aff).]

B. The advisory council shall hold regular meetings with the commissioner or the commissioner’s deputy in December and May of each year and may hold special meetings at such other times and places as are advisable. [2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (new); c. 614, §9 (aff).]

[2003, c. 414]

In Mississippi, state law requires that any advisory council nominee  “shall be an active outdoorsman holding a resident hunting or fishing license in at least five of the ten years preceding appointment. Maine has no such litmus test for its advisory council nominees. Their qualifications for the post are left to the discretion of the governor.

The author is editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal. He is also a Maine Guide and host of a weekly radio program “Maine Outdoors” heard Sundays at 7 p.m. on The Voice of Maine News-Talk Network. He has authored three books. Online purchase information is available at www.sportingjournal.com.