Yes. We recognize this is a contentious one, but we don’t buy that such a referendum will initiate an explosion in bear populations. Our opposition is on moral grounds, that bear baiting is unsportsmanlike, and that moral opposition outweighs any potential slight dip in tertiary money the state might see from potential tourist-hunters. Furthermore, those hunters still have plenty of options beyond baiting. Worst case scenario? That the No folks and the wildlife biologists they cite will be right, the bear population will increase—and then we’ll initiate counter-legislation based on facts, not on fear and speculation.
Should the state borrow $8 million to create an animal and plant disease and insect control facility administered by the university of maine cooperative extension?
Yes. This is a strong opportunity, and climate change has initiated new problems particular to our environment (new tick diseases, anyone?) that we should study.
Should the state borrow $4 million to support loans to small businesses?
Yes. We agree that this is a stepping stone to establishing new industries and markets, and reducing dependencies on big business in the state.
Should the state borrow $10 million (matched by $11 million) to create a scientific research center?
Yes. Initiatives like these bring high-paying, well-educated jobs into the state.
Should the state borrow $3 million (matched by $5.7 million) to modernize and expand infrastructure in a biological laboratory specializing in tissue repair and regeneration?
Should the state borrow $10 million to protect drinking water sources, restore wetlands, and create vital public infrastructure related to water resources and wildlife protection?
Yes. This would help bring needed funds into water resources and environmental protections across the state.
Should the state borrow $7 million (matched by $7 million) to use toward capital improvements that will support the growth of marine businesses and commercial enterprises?
Yes. Maine’s marine industries employ tens of thousands of workers facing numerous important questions regarding the impact of changing environments on their livelihood.
Responses can be mailed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The printed version of this report erroneously referred to Congressman Michaud as having worked in the steel industry, and has been corrected to reflect his having worked in the paper mill industry.