Black Bear Politics in Maine

In Maine, there’s more than one way to kill a black bear — for now. A November referendum would ban three hunting methods that supporters say are cruel, unsporting and ecologically unsound. Opponents say the measure would all but end Maine’s bear hunt, bankrupting outfitters and exploding the bear population.

Reporter Shannon Moss talks to Associate Editor Brian Kevin about black bear politics in Maine. Read the full story here!

Laura Serino is the Digital Editor of Down East Magazine.

Be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to remove impersonators or personal attacks, threats, profanity, or flat-out offensive comments. By posting here, you are permitting Down East Enterprise to edit and republish your comment in all media.


  • Scott Lee

    The true motivation of HSUS…

    While HSUS hides behind its “accreditation” from the Better Business Bureau, USA Today reports
    that the BBB’s charity rating arm is under fire for taking money from
    some of the charities it rates. Report states that HSUS had to pay the
    BBB $15,000 in order to use the BBB seal on their marketing materials.
    U.S Senator and former Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
    says this practice “unquestionably” has implications for the BBB’s
    “credibility and possible conflicts of interest.”

    CharityWatch (formerly the American Institute of Philanthropy) reissued HSUS’s “D”
    rating in December 2011, finding that HSUS spends as little as 49
    percent of its budget on its programs. Additionally, the 2011 Animal
    People News Watchdog Report discovered that HSUS spends about 43 percent
    of its budget on overhead costs. CharityWatch founder and president,
    Daniel Borochoff says someone who really wanted to help animals should
    contribute elsewhere. “If you like getting those mailings and want to
    pay for more of them, support the Humane Society,” says Borochoff. “If
    you want to give more for programs or services that benefit animals and
    advocate better rules and protections for animals, they are not a good
    target because the portion of their budget they give to these programs
    is too small.” Nathan Winograd, an author and prominent advocate of
    “no-kill” animal shelters, says the disagreement is emblematic of a
    larger problem with HSUS. “Only the leadership of HSUS could contrive
    fundraising letters as program expenses,” Winograd says. “If they
    actually spent as much time, energy, and money on saving animals as they
    now only pretend to, not only would they not have to cover up their
    failures to do so with these kinds of mental gymnastics, they could
    truly be the heroes they now only pretend to be.”