Voting In Wildlife Policy

Special interest groups are bringing wildlife management regulations, normally the realm of scientists and legislators, directly to the public in referendums this fall.

Some of the measures are being introduced by hunters, some by anti-hunting groups. Both sides are pouring thousands of dollars into the fights.

Most of the ballot questions involve hunting bears and trapping. The answers usually are provided by biologists who have done their research in the field, not voters who know little about wildlife management.

“It’s like having a public vote on how doctors should perform open-heart surgery,” said Lonnie Williamson, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute.

“It’s a very poor way to make scientific wildlife management policy,” said Richard DeChambeau, director of the National Rifle Association’s hunter services section.

But opponents of hunting see referendums as a way to make policy changes without having to mount protracted and expensive lobbying campaigns.

“It’s a much more effective forum for us because (hunting interests) can’t control the backroom politics,” said Wayne Pacelle, vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.

xxxx
AT THE BALLOT BOX Here is a list of states where wildlife management issues are expected on the ballot this fall: ALASKA - Outlaw aerial hunting of predators, including hunting as a form of control by state wildlife biologists. IDAHO - Eliminate spring bear season and bear hunting with dogs and over bait. MASSACHUSETTS - Ban trapping with leg-hold traps, ban bear hunting with dogs. MICHIGAN - End bear hunting with dogs and over bait. OREGON - A sportsmen-initiated vote to restore bear and cougar management, which was banned by referendum two years ago. WASHINGTON - End of bear hunting over bait and the end of hunting bear, cougar, bobcat and lynx with hounds.