Tag Archives: Bears

Optimizing Polar Bear Hunting and Fees in Nunavut

Posted on by
Reply

The Canadian territory of Nunavut occupies almost 1/5th of that country but is home to only about 30,000 people — and quite a few polar bears. The territory is occupied largely by Inuit who have long hunted polar bear, and is also home to a multi-million dollar industry in selling polar bear hunting permits to foreigners.

But how the annual polar bear quota is managed and how to best optimize the money earned from the hunt are topics that came to the fore this summer.

In July, the Polar Bear Specialist Group warned that as the Arctic appears to be shrinking from the increase in global temperatures, polar bear habitat is likely to decline as well which could put population pressures on the polar bear. It warned that by 2055, the polar bear population worldwide could decline by up to 30 percent.

Scott Schliebe, a researcher with the Polar Bear Specialist Group, told the CBC News,

We’re seeing some fairly significant reductions in the actual area that pack ice occupies in the Arctic, and we’re seeing some thinning in the thickness of the ice.

Schliebe and his fellow researchers issued their warning after Nunavut announced it was going to increase polar bear quotas for 2005. Again, Schliebe told the CBC News that his group believes Nunavut has overestimated the number of polar bears, adding that,

We would like those levels to be adjusted to the current population abundance estimate, 950 animals, and we would like the adjustment to be calculated as sustainable over time,

Nunavut announced in January that it was increasing the 2005 quote by 28 percent, saying that the population of polar bears is on the increase. But if the CBC is to be believed, its method of determining the polar bear population leaves a lot to be desired,

Nunavut’s environment minister, Olayuk Akesuk, says government officials decided to increase the quota after consulting with Inuit elders and hunters about how much the bear population has increased.

He said the government is open to making more decisions like this on the basis of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or traditional knowledge.

“We will respect more the say of the community and we want to see more of Inuit knowledge and western science included into one,” he said.

Especially given the potential profit from polar bears, such increases should be based on sound scientific estimates of the number of polar bears, not hunters opinion about the status of the bear population.

When it comes to profiting off of the bear hunt, however, an economic study of the bear hunt suggests that Nunavut is not maximizing the money it could make off the hunt. In a study funded by Nunavat and the Safari Club, Dr. George Wenzel of McGill University found that of the $2.9 million hunters spend on the polar bear hunt, only half of that ends up in the pockets of the Inuit.

One of Wenzel’s major findings was that the Inuit may be underpricing polar bear tags. Currently it only charges $30,000 to $35,000, depending on the specific locale, to hunt a polar bear. Wenzel noted that in contrast U.S. hunters pay up to $400,0000 to hunt bighorn sheep in Alberta. As Wenzel told Nunatsiaq News,

If you can sell a sheep for that much, I’m sure you could sell a polar bear for more money than is coming in.

Currently, only about 50 polar bear hunt tags are sold to outside hunters. The rest are used by traditional Inuit hunters. Wenzel estimated that if Nunavut sold all its polar bear tags to outsiders, it could increase its income from the hunt to $14 million annually even if it stuck with the current $30,000 to $35,000 price.

Sources:

Nunavut hunters can kill more polar bears this year. CBC News, January 10, 2005.


Rethink polar bear hunt quotas, scientists tell Nunavut hunters. CBC News, July 4, 2005.

Boost price for polar bear hunt, researcher says. John Thompson, Nunatsiaq News, August 26, 2005.

Animal Defenders International Calls for Boycott of Sony Ericsson Over Ad Featuring Bear

Posted on by
Reply

After Sony Ericsson launched a TV ad featuring a performing bear, Animal Defenders International has called for a boycott of Sony Ericsson.

In a press release announcing its boycott, ADI chief executive Jan Creamer said,

The training of performing animals is both unnatural and callous, as wild animals are deprived of their species for normal social interaction and their habitat where they roam free. A brutal regime of repetitive training and domination by their trainers frequently involves coercion and physical punishment. In addition, these animals suffer daily as they are caged and chained by suppliers of animals for the TV and movie industries.

. . .

Global brands such as Sony Ericsson should take on board the fact that public opinion has long since moved away from watching performing animals, as the cruelty of their daily lives has been exposed. If the company find it acceptable to continue to use performing animals in this way, we call on their customers to switch phones to other brands.

Source:

ADI Calls for Sony Ericsson boycott. Press Release, Animal Defenders International, August 12, 2005.

New Jersey's Fish and Game Council Proposes Bear Hunt

Posted on by
Reply

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council has again proposed a bear hunt this year, saying that it is the best way to deal with complaints about the state’s bear population which has grown to an estimated 3,400.

Of course the Fish and Game Council proposed a hunt last year, but that was ultimately halted by state environmental chief Bradley Campbell who blocked the hunt. That ultimately ended up in court, where the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Fish and Game Council could not proceed with a hunt without Campbell’s approval.

This year might be different, however, as the Council has been working with Campbell on plans for a hunt to be combined with a comprehensive bear management plan.

The current plan is to hold public hearings on the bear hunt proposal in September, and then Campbell has to decide whether or not to agree to the hunt which is currently planned to start December 5.

Sources:

New Jersey bear hunt likely. United Press International, August 10, 2005.

Game Panel Approves Hunt To Control N.J.’s Bear Population. Associated Press, August 10, 2005.

Vietnam Agrees to Phase Out Bear Farms

Posted on by
Reply

In March, the World Society for the Protection of Animals announced that it had reach an agreement with Vietnam to create a task force that would be responsible for managing the phasing out of bear farms in that Asian country.

Although bear farms are already illegal in Vietnam, laws against them have rarely been enforced and the World Society for the Protection of Animals estimates there are about 3,000 bears on such farms.

The bears are raised by farmers to extract their bile which then is used in folk remedies for a wide range of health complaints.

Vietnam has agreed to micro-chip all bears in captivity to monitor farms and gradually close the farms. It will work with the World Society for the Protection of Animals to develop a sanctuary for the bears in Cat Tien National Park.

Source:

Vietnamese government to phase out bear farming. Press release, World Society for the Protection of Animals, March 10, 2005.

Vietnam promises to get rid of bear farms. Agence-France Press, March 10, 2005.

New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Effectively Ends Bear Hunt, But Still Activists Unhappy

Posted on by
Reply

In February the New Jersey Supreme Court made a ruling about the powers of different wildlife agencies in that state that effectively ended any possibility of a bear hunt. But animal rights activists found little else to celebrate in the decision.

New Jersey’s Fish and Game Council had approved and schedule a bear hunt that was to take place the week of December 6, 2004. They scheduled the bear hunt despite the fact that the Commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection opposed the hunt, maintaining that the DEP Commissioner’s approval was not necessary to hold the hunt.

In February the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, in fact, that the DEP commissioner had final authority over a black bear hunt derived from his general statutory power to approve or disapprove comprehensive statewide policies that affect the black bear population, and statutory language that made it clear the Fish and Game Council’s policies were “subject to the approval of the [DEP] commissioner.”

Since the DEP commissioner has long been opposed to a black bear hunt, the hunt was canceled and is unlikely to return anytime soon.

But other than the black bear hunt, this ruling simply won’t change anything else. As longtime New Jersey anti-hunting activist Stuart Chaifetz noted in a letter sent out under the auspices of the Animal Protection PAC (emphasis added),

In order for the Commissioner to veto the Council, he or she needs to be in disagreement with the Council’s policy. This happened with the bear hunt because we made [former New Jersey Governor Jim] McGreevey’s life hell, and there was no way he wanted to go through that again (kudos to all of you who never relented in your activism, whether it was by calling, writing, or disrupting the former Gov’s events). The catch is that, save for the bear issue, [DEP Commissioner Bradley] Campbell isn’t in conflict with the Council over any other species. In fact, at the hearing for the Sunday bowhunting bill, Campbell sent a letter stating he was in favor of the damn thing.

. . .

While we rejoice that the Council has suffered another unprecedented blow (as they did when we set the first non-hunter on the Council 2000) there are still years of brutality ahead. Now, more than ever, we need to continue our growth as a political force so that we may one day be able to wield the power the Supreme Court has given us today.

The full text of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision can be read here(PDF file).

Source:

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance v. N.J. Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey Supreme Court, Decided February 28, 2005.

Supreme Court Ruling – Another Victory Against the Hunters. Stuart Chaifetz, E-mail, February 28, 2005.

After Failure of Bear Baiting Referendum, Maine Activists Focus on Narrower Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

In November, Maine voters handily ejected a referendum that would have banned bear baiting, trapping and hunting bears with hounds. Activists are now turning their attention to legislation to make changes to bear hunting in Maine that may have wider support.

Apparently the lesson activists took from the failure of the referendum is that it was overly broad. Exit polls showed that many people who supported a ban on trapping of bears, for example, voted against the referendum because they nonetheless support bear baiting.

A number of bills being proposed by Maine’s legislature will narrow that focus to banning the use of leg-hold traps to trap bears. According to the Environmental News Network, Maine is the only state in the country that still allows leg-hold trapping of bears.

One the other hand, these bills might not be quite what activists expect. Green Party Rep. John Seder, for example, is working on a compromise bill with Democrat Rep. Thomas Watson that would ban leg-hold traps, but expand night and Sunday hunting — something that hunting groups in Maine want.

The Humane Society of the United States generous support for the referendum is also drawing legislative reaction. At least one proposed bill would limit the amount of money groups in Maine could accept from out-of-state groups such as HSUS.

Another bill would make it harder to put referendums on the ballot by requiring groups to obtain a certain level of signatures from every county rather in addition to a certain number statewide. The referendum to ban bear baiting was put on the ballot by signatures that were disproportionately collected in urban rather than rural areas of Maine.

Source:

Bear hunting debate shifts to outlawing traps. Environmental News Network, January 28, 2005.

Some Activists Unhappy with HSUS' Use of Dead Pigs in Bear Experiments

Posted on by
Reply

The Humane Society of the United States is making some animal rights activist unhappy with an otherwise animal rights-style project.

The HSUS has reached agreements with Six Flags Wild Safari in New Jersey to carry out an experiment in using contraception rather than hunting to control bear populations. The HSUS will do two separate tests, one in which it will inject female bears with PZP and another where it will administer a chemical castration compound, Neutrosol, to male bears.

It is the PZP experiment that had New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance activist Joe Miele complaining in a post to AR-NEWS that “HSUS [is] exploiting pigs to save bears.” When injected into bears, PZP causes an immune system reaction that has a byproduct of preventing sperm from fertilizing a female’s eggs. PZP is obtained by taking tissue from dead pigs.

Vegan birth control it ain’t. Presumably it was undertaken on one of the days of the week when HSUS doesn’t oppose animal research.

Source:

Bear contraception to be tested at Six Flags. Brian Murray, New Jersey Star-Ledger, October 8, 2004.

Proponents of Alaska Bear Baiting Ban Complain about Official Election Pamphlet on Measure

Posted on by
Reply

Supporters of a ballot proposal that would ban bear baiting in Alaska were unhappy at wording from their opponents that appeared in the state’s official pamphlet on the measure.

Alaska’s Division of Elections printed up 300,000 copies of the pamphlet for Alaskan voters. The major groups supporting and opposing the initiative where asked to provide text describing why they supported or opposed the ballot measure.

Opponents of the measure included text claiming that the ballot measure was,

. . . proposed by out-of-state extremists like Greenpeace and PETA . . . [and] is being heavily funded by numerous national anti-hunting, anti-fishing and environmental obstructionist groups.

Citizens United Against Bear Baiting complained that the opponents’ text wrongly linked the measure with outside groups and overstated the effect of the law.

A spokeswoman for the Alaska Outdoor Council told the Anchorage Daily News that Citizens United Against Bear Baiting is part of a larger nationwide anti-hunting movement and that its characterization of the proposal was fair.

Laura Glasier, director of the Division of Elections, said that her agency simply would not get involved in fact-checking statements by either side, which would open her agency up to doing so for dozens of candidates and other issues also included in the pamphlet. Glasier told The Associated Press,

I understand their concern. All I can say is, how many people do I hire to check and recheck every candidate’s statement, every birth date, every address.

Source:

Bear baiting foes growl about election pamphlet. Associated Press, September 23, 2004.

Activists Upset Over Maine Bear Ad, But State Says Ad Is Legal

Posted on by
Reply

Supporters of a ballot proposal that would ban bear trapping, baiting and hunting with dogs were upset over an ad that began running in September featuring a state biologist opposing the initiative.

The ad features Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife bear biologist Jennifer Vashon. Although Vashon is not in uniform, she identifies herself as a state bear biologist with the IFW and goes on to voice her opposition to the bill. The ad goes like this,

“I’m Jennifer Vashon, the state’s bear biologist. Maine’s bear population is healthy and growing. Today we have over 23,000 black bears – one of the largest bear populations in the country. Our bear hunt is highly regulated and closely monitored by wildlife experts. But Question 2 would ban the most effective methods we use to control bears and minimize conflicts with people.” After Vashon finishes speaking, the announcer states, “That’s why Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Department strongly opposes Question 2. Vote NO on 2.”

Those supporting the ballot proposal immediately voiced their objections. Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting’s Bob Fisk complained that,

It’s a problem here in our minds. (The department) crossed the line a long time ago and because nobody is making notice of this, they continue to do it. They are not supposed to play that type of role in a referendum campaign.

The IFW responded, however, with a press release to the effect that there was nothing improper about Vashon’s appearance in the ad.

Martin stated that the department’s involvement in the bear referendum is based on science, wildlife management, and the relevant facts of the issue. Department personnel are allowed to provide scientific, historic and background information to the public, and respond to questions from the media or citizens about the issues raised in the referendum by any individual organization on any side of the referendum debate.

The advertisement features Department of Inland Fisheries Bear Biologist Jennifer Vashon providing scientific facts about Maine’s bear population. Vashon’s statements are substantiated by research that appears on the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website at www.mefishwildlife.com .

Vashon appeared on her own time in the advertisement. The advertisements were produced and paid for by Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, a coalition consisting of 11,000 individual donors and 600 organizations and businesses opposed to the November 2 referendum question. Vashon’s appearance is legal under state law that allows public employees to disseminate information on matters such as citizen initiatives.

The Department opposes question 2, due to the fact that passage of the referendum would severely impact the department’s ability to properly control Maine’s thriving bear population. Each year, 3,500 – 4,000 bears need to be removed from the population to keep it at 23,000, the largest bear population east of the Mississippi River and one of the largest in the country.

In a press release criticizing the ad, Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting said that Vashon had made contradictory claims earlier this year in an e-mail obtained through the state’s freedom of information act,

Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting pointed to statements made by Ms. Vashon early last year that entirely contradicts recent statements. In an email obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Vashon, in correspondence with the Safari Club International, wrote, “We will not get a population explosion, especially in the span of a few years, as bears do not have the capacity to reproduce that quickly. She continued, “Many have said that our nuisance complaints will go through the roof, but nuisance bear activity depends more on year-to-year variations in natural food crops and less on the total number of bears in an area, especially since most bears in Maine live in areas with low population densities.”

Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting charges that the DIF&W is working illegally with the opponents of Question 2 by spending state resources on a referendum campaign, a violation of state and federal law.

Source:

IFW Commissioner States Advertisements Featuring Department Expert Are Legal. Press Release, September 15, 2004.

State Employees Engaging In Blatant Political Activities Should Be Taken Off The Air Immediately. Press Release, Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting, September 15, 2004.

DIFW biologist urges ‘no’ vote. Bangor Daily News, September 15, 2004.

Text of Maine's Proposed Ban on Bear Baiting – 2004

Posted on by
Reply

LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE
FOR STATEWIDE CITIZEN INITIATIVE


Note: underlining indicates
language proposed to be added to statute.
Strikeouts
indicate language proposed to be deleted from statute.

TITLE: An Act
Prohibiting Certain Bear Hunting Practices
QUESTION: “Do
you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps or dogs,
except to protect property, public safety or for research?”

Be
it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

PART
A

          Sec.
A-1. 12 MRSA §7077, sub-§1-A, ¶F, as enacted by PL 1993, c. 136,
§1, is amended to read:

F.
Hunting or trapping bear after having killed one, exceeding the
bag limit on bear or buying or selling bear in violation of section
7452, subsection 3, 4 or 9;

          Sec.
A-2. 12 MRSA §7077-A, sub-§6 is enacted to read:

          6.
Unsportsmanlike practices regarding hunting or trapping bear.
A person convicted of a violation of section 7451, subsection 3-A; section
7452, subsection 1; or section 7452, subsection 2-A is not eligible
to obtain any license issued by the department for 5 years from the
date of conviction in the case of a first offense and permanently from
the date of conviction in the case of a 2nd or subsequent offense. Any
license in effect at the time of conviction is revoked upon conviction
and must be immediately surrendered to the commissioner.

          Sec.
A-3. 12 MRSA §7104-A, sub-§§1 and 2, as enacted by PL 1993, c. 216,
§1, are amended to read:

          1.
Gate fees. Gate fees or other access fees that are unrelated to
the taking of game; or

          2.
Guiding fees. Fees charged by licensed guides or other fees that
are unrelated to access to land; or.

          Sec.
A-4. 12 MRSA §7104-A, sub-§3, as enacted by PL 1993, c. 216, §1,
is repealed.

          Sec.
A-5. 12 MRSA §7110, sub-§1, as repealed and replaced by PL 1989,
c. 878, Pt. A, §34, is amended to read:

          1.
Permit required. A permit is required to hunt for bear from the
first Monday preceding September 1st to the day preceding the open firearm
season on deer November 30th. This section does not apply to
trapping for bear.

          Sec.
A-6. 12 MRSA §7451, sub-§1, ¶A, as amended by PL 1993, c. 167, §1,
is further amended to read:

A.
There is an open season on hunting bear from the first Monday preceding
September 1st to November 30th annually. The commissioner may, pursuant
to section 7035, subsection 1, adopt rules prohibiting the use of
bait to hunt black bear during any portion of the open bear hunting
season.

          Sec.
A-7. 12 MRSA §7451, sub-§1, ¶B, as repealed and replaced by PL 1981,
c. 224, §1, is repealed.

          Sec.
A-8. 12 MRSA §7451, sub-§1, ¶C, as amended by PL 1989, c. 493, §29,
is repealed.

          Sec.
A-9. 12 MRSA §7451, sub-§1, ¶D, as amended by PL 1989, c. 913, Pt.
A, §7, is further amended to read:

D.
The commissioner may shorten the open seasons season on bear
as established in paragraphs paragraph A, B and C in any
part of the State provided that:

(1)
The demarcation of the areas with a shortened season follows
recognizable physical boundaries such as rivers and railroad
rights-of-way; and

(2)
The decision is made and published prior to February 1st of any year.

          Sec.
A-10. 12 MRSA §7451, sub-§1, ¶E, as enacted by PL 1981, c. 224,
§1, is amended to read:

E.
The commissioner may terminate the open season on bear as established
in paragraph A, B and C at any time in any part of the State, if,
in his the commissionerÂ’s opinion, an immediate emergency
action is necessary due to adverse weather conditions or severe
hunting or trapping pressure.

          Sec.
A-11. 12 MRSA §7451, sub-§3, as amended by PL 2003, c. 333, §11,
is repealed.

          Sec.
A-12. 12 MRSA §7451, sub-§3-A is enacted to read:

          3-A.
Placing of bear bait prohibited. Bait, including, but not
limited to, doughnuts and other pastries, grease, meat, fruits, vegetables,
honey and any other food known to be attractive to bear, may not be
used to hunt or attract bear. Such use of bait is unlawful unless:

A.
The bait is used by state or federal employees, acting in their
official capacity, to attract a specific offending animal for purposes
of protecting livestock, domestic animals, threatened or endangered
wildlife, public or private property or public safety;

B.
The bait is used in conjunction with the operation of a feeding
station for bear in order to prevent damage to commercial timberland,
as long as the bait is used by owners or operators of that land,
or their employees, pursuant to a permit granted by the department,
but in no event for the purpose of killing bear; or

C.
The bait is used by the department or pursuant to a permit granted
by the department to an accredited university for scientific or
research purposes, but in no event for the purpose of killing bear.

          Sec.
A-13. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§1, as enacted by PL 1979, c. 420, §1,
is repealed and the following enacted in its place:

          1.
Unlawfully hunting or pursuing bear with dogs; hounding.
The following provisions govern hunting or pursuing bear with dogs,
also known as hounding.

A.
It is unlawful to use a dog or dogs to hunt or pursue bear, except
as provided in paragraph B.

B.
The use of a dog or dogs to hunt or pursue bear is lawful in the
following circumstances:

(1)
The dog or dogs are used by state or federal employees to pursue
a specific offending animal when the employees, or their designees,
are acting in their official capacity for purposes of protecting
livestock, domestic animals, threatened or endangered wildlife,
public or private property or public safety; or

(2)
The dog or dogs are used by the department or pursuant to a
permit granted by the department to an accredited university
for scientific or research purposes, but in no event for the
purpose of killing bear.

          Sec.
A-14. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§1-A, as amended by PL 1989, c. 493, §30,
is repealed.

          Sec.
A-15. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§1-B, as enacted by PL 1987, c. 696, §10,
is amended to read:

          1-B.
Illegal harvest of bear. A person is guilty of illegally
harvesting bear if may not, without the permission of
the person conducting the hunt, that person kills
kill or wounds wound a bear that is treed
or held at bay by another personÂ’s dog or dogs person.

          Sec.
A-16. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§1-C, as enacted by PL 1989, c. 493, §31,
is amended to read:

          1-C.
Illegal baiting of bear. A person is guilty of illegally baiting
bear if that person places bear bait in any manner which that
does not conform to section 7451, subsection 3 3-A.

          Sec.
A-17. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§1-D, as enacted by PL 1989, c. 913, Part
B, §7, is repealed.

          Sec.
A-18. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1979, c. 543, §38,
is repealed.

          Sec.
A-19. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§2-A is enacted to read:

          2-A.
Unlawful hunting of bear with trap. The following provisions
govern the hunting of bear with a trap.

A.
It is unlawful to use or set a trap to hunt or capture bear, except
as provided in paragraph B.

B.
The use of a trap to hunt or capture bear is lawful in the following
circumstances, provided any use of a trap pursuant to this paragraph
is undertaken in the most humane manner practicable:

(1)
The trap is used by state or federal employees, acting in their
official capacity, to hunt or capture a specific offending animal
for purposes of protecting livestock, domestic animals, threatened
or endangered wildlife, public or private property or public
safety; or

(2)
The trap is used by the department or pursuant to a permit granted
by the department to an accredited university for scientific
or research purposes, but in no event for the purpose of killing
bear.

          Sec.
A-20. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§3, as enacted by PL 1979, c. 420, §1,
is amended to read:

          3.
Hunting bear after having killed one. A person is guilty of hunting
or trapping bear after having killed one if he that person hunts
or traps bear after he has having killed or registered one during
any open season.

          Sec.
A-21. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§5, as amended by PL 2003, c. 333, §13,
is further amended to read:

          5.
Hunting bear near dumps. The commissioner, or the commissionerÂ’s
agent, shall establish a line of demarcation at least 500 yards from
sites permitted or licensed for the disposal of solid waste. A person
may not hunt, trap, molest or harass a bear or release dogs for the
purpose of hunting bear within this area. The commissioner, or the commissionerÂ’s
agent, is exempt from this prohibition for the purpose of live trapping
nuisance bears pursuant to section 7452, subsection 2-A.

          Sec.
A-22. 12 MRSA §7452, sub-§15, ¶A, as amended by PL 2003, c. 331,
§10, is repealed.

          Sec.
A-23. 12 MRSA §7458, sub-§15, ¶H, as enacted by PL 1993, c. 156,
§2, is amended to read:

H.
Subsection 9, paragraph B does not apply to hunting from an observation
stand or blind overlooking:

(1)
Standing crops;

(2)
Foods that have been left as a result of normal agricultural
operations or as a result of natural occurrence; or

(3)
Bear bait that has been placed at a bear hunting stand or blind
in accordance with section 7451, subsection 3 3-A.

          Sec.
A-24. 12 MRSA §7504, sub-§8, as amended by PL 1981, c. 563, §3,
is amended to read:

          8. Raccoons
and bears.

A.
The commissioner may suspend the game laws relating to raccoons
and bears in such restricted localities and for such periods of
time as he finds it advisable to relieve excessive damage being
done by them to sweet corn or other crops. Nothing in this paragraph
is intended to limit or create an exception to section 7451, subsection
3-A; section 7452, subsection 1; or section 7452, subsection 2-A.

B.
The commissioner may suspend subsection 6 for the purpose only of
allowing dogs to be used in hunting and killing raccoons and
bears, providing the dogs are under the personal supervision
of the owner at all times, for such periods of time as the commissioner
finds it advisable.

          Sec.
A-25. 12 MRSA §7861, sub-§1, ¶C, as enacted by PL 1989, c. 913,
Pt. A, §18, is repealed.

          Sec.
A-26. 12 MRSA §7901-A, sub-§6, ¶C, as repealed and replaced by PL
2003, c. 331, §36 and c. 333, §24, is amended by repealing and replacing
subparagraph (1) to read:

(1)
Hunting bear near a site permitted or licensed for the disposal
of solid waste as described in section 7452, subsection 5;

          Sec.
A-27. 12 MRSA §7901-A, sub-§7, ¶C, as enacted by PL 2001, c. 421,
Pt. B, §88 and affected by Pt. C, §1, is amended to read:

C.
The following crimes are Class D crimes for which the court shall
impose a sentencing alternative involving a term of imprisonment
not to exceed 180 days; the court also shall impose a fine of not
less than $1,000, none of which may be suspended:

(1)
Hunting a bear during the closed season or possessing a bear
taken during the closed season as described in section 7406,
subsection 1;

(2)
Hunting or trapping a bear after having killed one, as described
in section 7452, subsection 3; and

(3)
Exceeding the bag limit on bears as described in section 7452, subsection
4.

          Sec.
A-28. 12 MRSA §7901-A, sub-§7, ¶¶F and G are enacted to read:

F.
In the case of a first offense, the following are unsportsmanlike
practices that are Class D crimes:

(1)
Unlawfully hunting or attracting bear using bait as described
in section 7451, subsection 3-A;

(2)
Unlawfully hunting or pursuing bear with dogs, also known as
hounding, as described in section 7452, subsection 1; and

(3)
Unlawfully hunting or capturing bear with a trap as described
in section 7452, subsection 2-A.

G.
In the case of a 2nd or subsequent offense, the following are unsportsmanlike
practices that are Class C crimes:

(1)
Unlawfully hunting or attracting bear using bait as described
in section 7451, subsection 3-A;

(2)
Unlawfully hunting or pursuing bear with dogs, also known as
hounding, as described in section 7452, subsection 1; and

(3)
Unlawfully hunting or capturing bear with a trap as described
in section 7452, subsection 2-A.

PART
B

          Sec.
B-1. 12 MRSA §10902, sub-§6, ¶E, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414,
Pt. A, §2 and affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

E.
Buying or selling bear, or hunting or trapping bear after
having killed one or exceeding the bag limit on bear, in violation
of section 11217 or 11351;

          Sec.
B-2. 12 MRSA §10902, sub-§9 is enacted to read:

          9.
Mandatory hunting license revocation for unsportsmanlike practices regarding
bear. The commissioner shall suspend a personÂ’s hunting license
for at least 5 years if that person is convicted of:

A.
Bear baiting in violation of section 11301-A;

B.
Hounding in violation of section 11302-A; or

C.
Illegal bear trapping in violation of section 12260-A.

If
a person is convicted of any of the violations in paragraphs A to C
for a 2nd or subsequent time, the commissioner shall revoke such personÂ’s
hunting license permanently.

          Sec.
B-3. 12 MRSA §11151, sub-§1, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt.
A, §2 and affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

          1.
Permit required. Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this
Part, a person may not hunt for bear without a permit from the first
Monday preceding September 1st to the day preceding the open firearm
season on deer November 30th. This section does not apply to
trapping for bear.

Each
day a person violates this subsection that person commits a Class E
crime for which a minimum of $50 and an amount equal to twice the applicable
license fee must be imposed.

          Sec.
B-4. 12 MRSA §11218, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 and
affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

§11218.
Game fees

          A
person may not charge any fee for access to land if the fee is contingent
upon the taking of game on the land or directly related to the taking
of game on the land unless the land is an authorized commercial shooting
area licensed under section 12101. This section does not apply to:

          1.
Gate fees. Gate fees or other access fees that are unrelated to
the taking of game; or

          2.
Guiding fees. Fees charged by licensed guides or other fees that
are unrelated to access to land; or.

          3.
Fees for placing bear bait. Fees that are directly related to the
placing of bear bait on land.

          A
person who violates this section commits a Class E crime.

  

        Sec.
B-5. 12 MRSA §11251, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 and
affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

§11251.
Open and closed seasons

          1.
Open season on bear; commissionerÂ’s authority. This subsection governs
the open and closed seasons on bear.

A.
There is an open season on hunting bear from the first Monday preceding
September 1st to November 30th annually. The commissioner may, pursuant
to section 10104, subsection 1, adopt rules prohibiting the use
of bait to hunt black bear during any portion of the open bear hunting
season.

B.
There is an open season on using a dog or dogs in conjunction with
bear hunting from the first Monday preceding September 1st to the
day preceding the open firearm season on deer provided in sections
11401 and 11402.

C.
The commissioner may shorten the open seasons season on bear
as established in paragraphs paragraph A and B in any part
of the State as long as:

(1)
The demarcation of the areas with a shortened season follows
recognizable physical boundaries such as rivers and railroad
rights-of-way; and

(2)
The decision is made and published prior to February 1st of any year.

D.
The commissioner may terminate the open season on bear as established
in paragraphs paragraph A and B at any time in any part of
the State if, in the commissionerÂ’s opinion, an immediate emergency
action is necessary due to adverse weather conditions or severe
hunting or trapping pressure.

          Sec.
B-6. 12 MRSA §§11301 and 11302, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt.
A, §2 and affected by Pt. D, §7, are repealed.

          Sec.
B-7. 12 MRSA §§11301-A and 11302-A are enacted to read:

§11301-A.
Bear baiting

          1.
Prohibition. Bait, including, but not limited to, doughnuts
and other pastries, grease, meat, fruits, vegetables, honey and any
other food known to be attractive to bear, may not be used to hunt or
attract bear, except as provided in subsection 2.

          2.
Exceptions. The use of bait to hunt or attract bear is lawful
if:

A.
The bait is used by state or federal employees, acting in their
official capacity, to attract a specific offending animal for purposes
of protecting livestock, domestic animals, threatened or endangered
wildlife, public or private property or public safety;

B.
The bait is used in conjunction with the operation of a feeding
station for bear in order to prevent damage to commercial timberland,
as long as the bait is used by owners or operators of that land,
or their employees, pursuant to a permit granted by the department,
but in no event for the purpose of killing bear; or

C.
The bait is used by the department or pursuant to a permit granted
by the department to an accredited university for scientific or
research purposes, but in no event for the purpose of killing bear.

          3.
Penalty. A person who violates this section is guilty of
the unsportsmanlike practice of bear baiting, which is a Class D crime
for the first offense. A 2nd or subsequent offense is a Class C crime.

§11302-A.
Unlawfully hunting or pursuing bear with dogs; hounding

          1.
Prohibition. It is unlawful to use a dog or dogs to hunt
or pursue bear, also known as hounding, except as provided in subsection
2.

          2.
Exception. The use of a dog or dogs to hunt or pursue bear
is lawful in the following circumstances:

A.
The dog or dogs are used by state or federal employees to pursue
a specific offending animal when the employees, or their designees,
are acting in their official capacity for purposes of protecting
livestock, domestic animals, threatened or endangered wildlife,
public or private property or public safety; or

B.
The dog or dogs are used by the department or pursuant to a permit
granted by the department to an accredited university for scientific
or research purposes, but in no event for the purpose of killing
bear.

          3.
Penalty. A person who violates this section is guilty of
the unsportsmanlike practice of hounding, which is a Class D crime for
the first offense. A 2nd or subsequent offense is a Class C crime.

          Sec.
B-8. 12 MRSA §11303, sub-§2, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt.
A, §2 and affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

          2.
Prohibition. A person may not hunt, trap, molest or harass a bear
or release dogs for the purpose of hunting bear within the area described
in subsection 1. The commissioner, or the commissionerÂ’s agent, is exempt
from this prohibition for the purpose of live-trapping nuisance bears
pursuant to section 12260-A.

          Sec.
B-9. 12 MRSA §11304, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 and
affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

§11304.
Permission to harvest another personÂ’s bear

          A
person may not, without the permission of the person conducting the
hunt, kill or wound a bear that is treed or held at bay by another personÂ’s
dog or dogs person.

          Sec.
B-10. 12 MRSA §11351, sub-§1, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt.
A, §2 and affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

          1.
Hunting bear after having killed one. A person may not hunt or trap
bear after that person has killed or registered one during any open
season. A person who violates this subsection commits a Class D crime
for which the court shall impose a sentencing alternative involving
a term of imprisonment not to exceed 180 days; the court also shall
impose a fine of not less than $1,000, none of which may be suspended.

          Sec.
B-11. 12 MRSA §12260, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 and
affected by Pt. D, §7, is repealed.

          Sec.
B-12. 12 MRSA §12260-A is enacted to read:

§12260-A.
Illegal trapping of bear

          1.
Prohibition. It is unlawful to use or set a trap to hunt
or capture bear, except as provided in subsection 2.

          2.
Exception. The use of a trap to hunt or capture bear is lawful
in the following circumstances, provided any use of a trap pursuant
to this subsection is undertaken in the most humane manner practicable:

A.
The trap is used by state or federal employees, acting in their
official capacity, to hunt or capture a specific offending animal
for purposes of protecting livestock, domestic animals, threatened
or endangered wildlife, public or private property or public safety;
or

B.
The trap is used by the department or pursuant to a permit granted
by the department to an accredited university for scientific or
research purposes, but in no event for the purpose of killing bear.

          3.
Penalty. A person who violates this section is guilty of
the unsportsmanlike practice of illegal bear trapping, which is a Class
D crime for the first offense. A 2nd or subsequent offense is a Class
C crime.

          Sec.
B-13. 12 MRSA §12404, sub-§1, ¶C, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414,
Pt. A, §2 and affected by Pt. D, §7, is amended to read:

C.
The commissioner may suspend the game laws relating to bears in
such restricted localities and for such periods of time as the commissioner
finds it advisable to relieve excessive damage being done by bears
to sweet corn or other crops. Nothing in this paragraph is intended
to limit or create an exception to sections 11301-A, 11302-A and
12260-A.

          Sec.
B-14. 12 MRSA §12404, sub-§1, ¶D, as enacted by PL 2003, c. 414,
Pt. A, §2 and affected by Pt. D, §7, is repealed.

          Sec.
B-15. Contingent effective date. This Part takes effect only if
the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 12, Part 13, as enacted by Public
Law 2003, chapter 414, Part A, section 2, takes effect.

SUMMARY

          This
initiated bill prohibits the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, the
use of a dog to hunt or pursue bear and the use or setting of a trap
to hunt or capture bear except under certain circumstances. The use
of bait, a dog or a trap is permitted for certain scientific purposes
or if undertaken by state or federal employees to kill or capture a
specific animal that threatens livestock, domestic animals, threatened
or endangered wildlife, property or public safety. Baiting is also permitted
if used in conjunction with the operation of a feeding station for bear
by owners or operators of commercial timberland or their employees in
order to prevent damage to commercial timberland.