Contract killing problem

[duckmen1]

Every year I think about this more and more. How we are limited to a few spring bear draws and no hound or bait hunting, while at the same time the timber companies are telling me how many bears the contract killers are taking. I think the contracting needs to stop and we need to open more permits for more areas and permits for hounds and bait in spring or fall. This would help sportsman, timber companies, and the state make even more money.

What are your thoughts.

[Smossy]

Every year I think about this more and more. How we are limited to a few spring bear draws and no hound or bait hunting, while at the same time the timber companies are telling me how many bears the contract killers are taking. I think the contracting needs to stop and we need to open more permits for more areas and permits for hounds and bait in spring or fall. This would help sportsman, timber companies, and the state make even more money.

What are your thoughts.

[h20hunter]

I don't disagree at all. I would like the special permits to include baiting. Alaska has some very clear and easy rules to follow that could be duplicated. Your site would have to be posted to warn others, a permit posting on stand, and valid liscense in your pocket. I think this would dramatically increase harvest numbers as well as generate more funds for the state in applications.

[bobcat]

ALL GMU's that have bears, should have spring bear permits available. Even if it's only one permit. Capitol Forest at one time had 50 or 100 spring permits. Now zero. Why?

At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.

[bearpaw]

ALL GMU's that have bears, should have spring bear permits available. Even if it's only one permit. Capitol Forest at one time had 50 or 100 spring permits. Now zero. Why?

At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.

  Defintely if a GMU has problems there should be bear hunting opportunity via spring permits. On the average only 1 in 6 hun ters will kill a bear, so the state could issue 50 permits in any area and likely only about 8 or 9 bear would be taken.

But, there are complications with baiting and hounds. I am a houndhunter and I wished there was a sport hunting season for hounds and for baiters. But WDFW cannot do that. The voters outlawed that, yes WDFW sat on their hands and allowed it to happen, but now WDFW has no authority over sport hunting bear with bait or hounds. Only the voters or legislators can authorize bait or hound sport hunting seasons for bear.

The only way WDFW can do bait or hound hunting is with agents of the state. That is why you see the system you see with the timber companies to address specific private timberland bear damage issues.

[pianoman9701]

ALL GMU's that have bears, should have spring bear permits available. Even if it's only one permit. Capitol Forest at one time had 50 or 100 spring permits. Now zero. Why?

At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.

  Defintely if a GMU has problems there should be bear hunting opportunity via spring permits. On the average only 1 in 6 hun ters will kill a bear, so the state could issue 50 permits in any area and likely only about 8 or 9 bear would be taken.

But, there are complications with baiting and hounds. I am a houndhunter and I wished there was a sport hunting season for hounds and for baiters. But WDFW cannot do that. The voters outlawed that, yes WDFW sat on their hands and allowed it to happen, but now WDFW has no authority over sport hunting bear with bait or hounds. Only the voters or legislators can authorize bait or hound sport hunting seasons for bear.

The only way WDFW can do bait or hound hunting is with agents of the state. That is why you see the system you see with the timber companies to address specific private timberland bear damage issues.

The vote of the people, as uneducated as it was, prohibits the state from opening up a general season which includes baiting and/or hounding. The timber company-owned land which has problem animals represents conflict situations which must be dealt with as occasional harvest and on a case-by-case basis. It sucks, but that's the way it goes when we fail with hunting referendums.

[duckmen1]

thats the problem uneducated seattle people voting on something they know nothing about. Even if we cannot get baiting or hound permits I think we need to push as hunters to get rid of contract killing and make spring permits in those areas.

[snowpack]

I'd rather have more spring bear permits AND let the contractors continue.  I don't want to start dictating over their ways, they have a good deal and provide a valuable service.  On the wetside, we are allowed two bears anyways, so I don't see why we couldn't even have an early general season for bears.

[bigtex]

ALL GMU's that have bears, should have spring bear permits available. Even if it's only one permit. Capitol Forest at one time had 50 or 100 spring permits. Now zero. Why?

At least offer one permit in every unit. Surely it won't affect the bear population much, and the state will sell more applications, and generate more revenue.

The voters outlawed that, yes WDFW sat on their hands and allowed it to happen, but now WDFW has no authority over sport hunting bear with bait or hounds. Only the voters or legislators can authorize bait or hound sport hunting seasons for bear.

WDFW "sat on their hands" because they are required to under state law. State agencies CANNOT support/oppose voter initiatives, they can only provide facts. In comparison, they CAN support/oppose legislative bills.

[bigtex]

thats the problem uneducated seattle people voting on something they know nothing about. Even if we cannot get baiting or hound permits I think we need to push as hunters to get rid of contract killing and make spring permits in those areas.

It won't happen. There are so many bears taken by contract hunters using bait then an "average" bear hunter without bait. Timber companies would be against it, a lot easier to manage one or two hunters with bait that are killing many bears. Then a hundred hunters who cant bait that may kill a couple bears.

[bigtex]

I honestly don't think you will ever see bear baiting in WA like it was prior to the ban.

If it is legalized, it will be regulated like it is in other states (such as Idaho and Alaska) where you have to buy a permit, must mark/identify your bait sites, and are only allowed X amount of sites. 

[KFhunter]

thats the problem uneducated seattle people voting on something they know nothing about. Even if we cannot get baiting or hound permits I think we need to push as hunters to get rid of contract killing and make spring permits in those areas.

It won't happen. There are so many bears taken by contract hunters using bait then an "average" bear hunter without bait. Timber companies would be against it, a lot easier to manage one or two hunters with bait that are killing many bears. Then a hundred hunters who cant bait that may kill a couple bears.

Property owners ought to be able to do the same thing.  Lot of private lands owners getting their trees peeled too.

[bearpaw]

I'd rather have more spring bear permits AND let the contractors continue.  I don't want to start dictating over their ways, they have a good deal and provide a valuable service.  On the wetside, we are allowed two bears anyways, so I don't see why we couldn't even have an early general season for bears.

   i agree completely

[buckfvr]

Private land owners can get damage relief in most cases by contacting wdfw.....least wise Ive seen it happen about 4 times last few years near me....damage to fruit trees and pet killing....

Not that that is meant to substitute for all the above, but more of a side note.....I support far more liberal bear hunts, spring and fall, no draw.

[Boss .300 winmag]

I'd rather have more spring bear permits AND let the contractors continue.  I don't want to start dictating over their ways, they have a good deal and provide a valuable service.  On the wetside, we are allowed two bears anyways, so I don't see why we couldn't even have an early general season for bears.

   i agree completely

westside 2 bears, 1spring-1 fall, or 2fall-2 spring.

not rocket science, 2 bears is 2 bears no matter how you slice it. i don't see how spring verses fall bear hunting affects them negatively.