http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ9G5ygWrC0
PORTLAND, Maine - The group that wants to end the use of bait, hounds and traps in Maine's annual bear hunt today filed suit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife over its role in a statewide referendum. Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting says the department's use of paid staff in what it calls "a far-reaching, partisan political campaign" to defeat Question 1 on the November ballot is an illegal use of taxpayer money.
Filed in Superior Court in Portland, the lawsuit challenges the legality of television ads, like this one featuring IFW wardens and biologists in their state uniforms explaining why they're voting No on Question 1.
Audio from Ad: "Question 1 would ban the most effective method we use to control bears and prevent attacks. That's why Maine's bear biologists and game wardens strongly oppose Question 1. It's a serious threat to public safety."
Katie Hansberry, a plaintiff in the suit and a spokesperson for Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, says IF&W and other state agencies can participate in political campaigns, including ballot initiatives such as Question 1, but she says agencies may not make use of public funds to advocate for one side.
"This suit is about a state agency's misuse of taxpayer money to interfere with a fair debate, and to tip the scales in favor of one side - you know, the opposition," Hansberry says. "We respect the agency's right to disseminate factual information about bear management, but they've repeatedly gone way over that line and it's time for them to stop."
Calls and emails to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife seeking comment for this story were not returned by airtime. A spokesman for the Maine Attorney General's Office released a written statement saying, "We will defend the right of members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and other public officials to speak out on issues of public interest within their regulatory authority and expertise, as permitted by recent case law."
James Cote, a spokesman for the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council, one of several groups opposed to Question 1, says he thinks the lawsuit is a distraction designed to muzzle the state's best experts on bear hunting: IF&W bear biologists.
"They are, by far, the most credible spokespeople and messengers on this campaign," Cote says. "They are, by far, the most credible professionals in this regard. Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting don't want the public to know that Question 1 removes their ability to control the bear population. And by doing so, that puts the public at risk."
Cote says state wildlife personnel have been clear that they themselves are not telling the public how to vote, but prefer explaining what they think are the negative effects of Question 1. Hansberry takes exception not only to the use of state employees in the ad, but to the idea that support of Question 1 is a threat to public safety. She says that's a distortion of the facts.
"They're using these scare tactics, despite the fact that Question 1 is very clear in that it contains exemptions for the protection of property, public safety and research," Hansberry says. "So all the tools remain so that nuisance bears can be addressed."
In addition to the television ads, the lawsuit claims IF&W used agency resources to put up a website opposing Question 1, and to distribute flyers that include the primary talking points of the Question 1 opposition campaign.
The lawsuit also highlights private fundraisers attended by IF&W employees, including one in which state bear biologists were advertised as "special guest speakers." At that same April fundraiser, the lawsuit says Commissioner Chandler Woodcock urged defeat of Question 1 and called its supporters "a group of well-funded, out-of-state activists who are more concerned about advancing their agenda than they are the welfare of our own residents, our traditions and the natural resources economy."
"My understanding is that the attorney general and the governor's office have both reviewed this and they're comfortable with the participation of the department," Cote says. Cote says he cannot speak for the department itself, but he says he welcomes IF&W's participation in the campaign. "And, we hope that they'll continue to participate in this campaign, because I think it's a disservice if they don't."
In their lawsuit, Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting are also challenging IF&W's withholding of government records around its own campaign activities. Katie Hansberry says she filed requests for information about the scope of the department's political campaign against Question 1 four months ago. She says she only recently received a partial response. The lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the state agency from using further resources to oppose Question 1.
Editor's Note: After this story aired, Maine IF&W Commissioner Chandler Woodcock issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit filed against the department:
“We are aware of the lawsuit that appears to be politically motivated and designed only to generate headlines. The department will be working closely with the Attorney General’s Office and the Attorney General will be defending the department against the allegations. The department is confident that the State will prevail in this matter. There will be no further comment concerning this suit, as this suit appears to be designed to generate publicity and it is not the standard policy of State agencies to comment on the merits of pending litigation.”
