Would you be willing to pay to bait bear?

[bigtex]

This is something that has always rattled around in my head, and no this is not a WDFW proposal.

Some states allow you to bait bear if you purchase a bear baiting permit/authorization. It often comes with stipulations such as when you can place bait, you are only allowed a certain number of bait sites, and your bait sites must be signed in a manner in which your name and contact info is on them (similar to crab traps).

We all know bear baiting is illegal in WA and that WA st is in the budget hole. In recent years we have seen some things that were illegal now become legal if you purchase a permit, such as the two fishing pole endorsement.

Here is my proposal:

Establish a bear baiting permit for hunting in WA with the following stipulations:
- You are only allowed a maximum of three bait sites at one time
- Upon the purchase of the permit/endorsement you will be given 3 placards which lists your name and contact info, these placards must be located at your bait sites
- The baiting permit will run per WDFW hunting seasons meaning you must purchase every year
- There will be a fee (this is the poll question I am asking)
- All funds from this permit go into the WDFW Wildlife Fund.


I have seen people that baited bear while it was legal go from harvesting a bear every year to shooting a bear every couple years. I've brought this up several times and all my friends have said they would be willing to pay $100 for this privilege.

What do you think?

[pianoman9701]

I think we don't have a chance of this becoming legal for a general season unless it comes to a vote and then, less of a chance.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

With the already rising costs of hunting, I could see spending $50 to bait a bear, how about a fee-per-site ?
I know a good spot for one site, would not need 3...

[h20hunter]

Yep. I think your proposal has merit and is well thought out.

[jager]

I said yes. BUT no more than $50. Simply because WDFW gets too much of my money as it is.
It's really a hard pill to swallow when I support (keep throwing money at) an entity that I feel doesn't have my back.

I miss the good ol' day of baiting!

[seth30]

With gas prices these days it would be impossible for most unless they lived close to there bait sight.

[whacker1]

In Idaho or Montana, you pay for the archery permit & Muzzleloader permint in (Idaho).  $18-20 (non-resident) typically from what I recall.  I would liken this to a similar situation.  I think it is a reasonable Idea. 

[huntnphool]

 LOL, this is pefect. Just as with the chance to hunt the best dates of the year, all this would do is show WDFW that they can create revenue by taking away something we are already doing as a general hunt, and giving it back by charging money to do it.

 Exactly what they did with the permit hunts, took the best time to hunt away and then charged us to do what we had been already doing for years.

 I'm surprised the state hasn't proposed an increase in drivers license fees, allowing those that pay an extra $100/year the ability to drive 75mph legally on the interstate.

[bigtex]

With the already rising costs of hunting, I could see spending $50 to bait a bear, how about a fee-per-site ?
I know a good spot for one site, would not need 3...

The reason I said three is that what other states have done. Simply copying other states and tweaking a little. I think if you also "control" the amount of sites it prevents the anti's from saying there will be as many sites out there as people can afford.

For example, Idaho allows for three bait sites per permit. You are allowed one permit a license year. They also put in limitations such as distance from streams, what you can use for bait and how much bait. The Idaho permit is about $13.

[Gringo31]

Interesting question which causes me to ask more questions...

If I had a bait site, could others hunt on it or could you hunt a buddies bait?  What happens if someone is hunting your bait without permission on public ground?  Could you only bait on private ground?

And the big one......at what point is WDFW going to focus on true conservation vs. just cold hard cash?  It seems that money is doing the talking (2 pole endorsement) for example.

Now...if I ignore everything I said and I was the WDFW (and private not public), I would open it up for bid and allow "X" number of bait sites per GMU.  Top bidders were allowed sites and could somehow charge for access to get their money back (assuming it was a fair amount of money).  I realize this brings up the issue of only the big $$$ get "public" access and that is a good point.  But as tight as a crunch as they are in, they need to be smarter in collecting money from public business (outfitters) to handle problem/nuisance bears.  I'm all for increasing predator hunts across the board from wolves, bears, cats, pelicans and cormorants  but as huntnphool hinted at, we are already SO far away from they way it should be......

[Special T]

I won't give them any more of my money, especially when they do not run the game dept to benifit hunters. Screw em..

[bearbaito6]

I won't give them any more of my money, especially when they do not run the game dept to benifit hunters. Screw em..

X2

[sebek556]

give them more money so they can pay for more fake wolf info? nope.. not even for a better shot at bear..

[Caseyd]

all this would do is show WDFW that they can create revenue by taking away something we are already doing as a general hunt, and giving it back by charging money to do it.

 

 

[Button Nubbs]

not a chance. wont give them another dime