Hunting for change (continued) BY LANCE TAPLEY

In evidence, the referendum campaign has put on the table reams of seemingly incriminating government emails and other documents. The messages show Martin and Davies conversing on how to defeat the referendum; IF&W staff reviewing a "task list" from SAM; and George Smith chummily asking Commissioner Martin to have the department help update the SAM mailing list, which Smith claims SAM has "updated for the department" in the past.

The messages also show Smith forwarding anti-referendum literature for department review, and they show his group, the department, and the governor’s staff scheduling discussions with pollster Potholm and Baldacci himself. Merrill’s letter, too, cites an anti-referendum article intended to be an op-ed piece written by a department public-relations man.

It quotes Mark Stadler, a top IF&W official, telling a Portland Press Herald reporter: "The bear-baiting referendum, the coyote-snaring debate, and Canada lynx listings have kept department officials too busy to seek public input on a southern expansion of the [moose] hunt."

The anti-bear-baiting campaigners want state government to end coordination with referendum opponents, end anti-referendum public appearances including at fundraising events, and end the production of one-sided opinion pieces, though Merrill acknowledges the governor and other state employees have the right to express personal opinions. In addition, he wants officials to admit that public money has been spent trying to defeat the bear-baiting bill and to provide an accounting of the expense.

He also requests the department publicize the view, out of fairness, of one of its biologists (discovered in an email) that in the absence of baiting there will not be a bear population explosion — contradicting what others in the department have claimed.

"Litigation is not the first choice in this matter," the letter concludes, but "it is actively being considered as an alternative if we cannot arrive at a satisfactory resolution soon."

THE ADMINISTRATION POSITION

"We’re fulfilling the law in terms of state employees getting involved on their own time," responds Baldacci press aide Lee Umphrey to the charges that state employees are illegally working against the referendum. In the governor’s office, he says, "the only discussions have been on the proper role the department would play."

There has been no "strategizing how to defeat the referendum," he adds.

Commissioner Martin is coyer.

He says he is opposed to the referendum because it would take a bear-population management tool away from his department. His employees are just educating the public on the issue and not improperly using taxpayer-paid time, he insists.

But he admits that Paul Jacques, his deputy, meets with the anti-referendum people on a regular basis, and he seems at a loss when asked specific questions about the department’s activities:

What about all the apparent government coordination with the anti-referendum organization as revealed in the emails?

"I’m not sure who might have reached out to organization officials," he answers.

Did the department share mailing lists with SAM?

"I don’t know. I can’t confirm or deny that."

Beside himself, did any people in the department meet with Potholm, the pollster?

"I don’t remember."

Did the department review SAM’s anti-referendum literature?

"I don’t recall. I’m not saying we didn’t."

Was the department biologist, Jennifer Vashon, who signed the email saying there wouldn’t be a bear population explosion if baiting were banned, told to change her tune?

"I don’t recall."

In his defense, Martin refers to a July 2003 memo he distributed in the department — the result of guidance from the governor’s office — limiting its involvement in the referendum campaign to expressing "the science . . . and the facts of this issue." In the memo, Martin states IF&W staff should not be biased in presenting information, should not solicit funds for the campaign ("but will be allowed to attend and speak at fundraising events"), and should "comply with all federal and state laws."

The FOA-acquired messages, however, appear to indicate Martin later had concerns about his department’s role. In December, he emailed Jeff Pidot, chief of the attorney general’s natural resources division, asking him "if you believe we are doing [anything] that in your opinion is against any state or federal statute."

In his communication with the department, Pidot makes the key point that IF&W should keep in mind the spending of taxpayer money, "including for salaries." Although state departments may provide "fair and impartial" information to the public, and employees may express personal opinions, Pidot writes, they should not advocate a position on a referendum proposal "in a manner that expends public money." Pidot suggests the department might want to take its expressed opposition to the anti-bear-baiting bill off the IF&W Web site.

In an interview, when asked if the attorney general’s office would defend IF&W if it were sued for improper use of state resources to defeat the referendum, Pidot replied, in essence: not necessarily.

"We represent the people of the state," he said. "If the state has committed a legal error, we don’t just say ‘Oh, yes, we’ll defend you.’ We have a different role than a [lawyer] in private practice."

The anti-bear-baiting campaign feels Martin’s guidelines are a sham — that his department and others in state government have ignored them.

WHY NOT A DEPARTMENT SERVING EVERYBODY?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife was called the Inland Fisheries and Game Department until 1975, and its broad mandate to protect and manage all the wildlife of the state was not established by the legislature until 1982. But in many ways it is "Fish and Game," as many Maine people still call it.

Its perennially tight budget ($29 million this fiscal year) would make it difficult to perform more than its traditional role enforcing the fish-and-game laws, even if it were inclined to do more. Maine has 18 million forested acres, 32,000 miles of rivers and streams, and 6000 lakes and ponds for IF&W’s 317 employees (only 125 of them wardens) to watch over. And the department has other responsibilities — regulating white-water rafting and registering snowmobiles, ATVs, and boats, for example.

According to former Republican legislator Robert Fisk, spokesman for the anti-bear-baiting campaign, the predominantly rural legislators overseeing the department on the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee (all but one male) are nearly all SAM members.

"It’s an old-boys’ network," he says, describing the department and its supporters in the legislature and State House lobby.

He is adamant on the need for a new role for IF&W.

"If we win," he says, "we can begin to have substantive discussions on [wildlife] issues. Now, special-interest groups drive these issues."

Sandra Neily’s 1999 Audubon study recommends a bold new look at IF&W by a special commission as well as more general-fund money infused into it.

Now a self-employed consultant and writer in Falmouth, Neily says in an interview that the crux of the problem with IF&W is "how to bring all the wildlife sector into the politics" — politics that are "so emotional and cultural." The anglers and hunters "are a minority, but they have the backbone of the funding."

Left to itself and the network it is in, "IF&W has been unable to create a broader vision," she says. "The perception is that it’s a good-old-boys’ club for the benefit of a few people."

"A new paradigm is needed," she adds. But she does not believe new directions are possible under Commissioner Martin’s leadership: "He has no experience in this area."

Martin, who before Baldacci chose him was Aroostook County administrator, a restaurant and country-store owner, and a Democratic legislator, says he is trying to convince the legislature to give the department money from the general fund.

But, he is asked, is he doing anything right now for, say, the legions of bird watchers?

"I don’t know that," he replies, once again seemingly at a loss.

Lance Tapley can be reached at ltapley@prexar.com