Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 02:48:16 PM
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?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 10, 2011, 02:50:37 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 10, 2011, 02:51:56 PM
I know a good spot for one site, would not need 3...
Post by: h20hunter on October 10, 2011, 02:52:53 PM
Post by: jager on October 10, 2011, 02:54:55 PM
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!
Post by: seth30 on October 10, 2011, 02:57:21 PM
Post by: whacker1 on October 10, 2011, 02:57:38 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 10, 2011, 03:05:12 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 03:10:34 PM
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.
Post by: Gringo31 on October 10, 2011, 03:15:09 PM
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 :chuckle: but as huntnphool hinted at, we are already SO far away from they way it should be......
Post by: Special T on October 10, 2011, 03:20:18 PM
Post by: bearbaito6 on October 10, 2011, 03:26:00 PM
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
Post by: sebek556 on October 10, 2011, 03:29:26 PM
Post by: Caseyd on October 10, 2011, 03:34:31 PM
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.
:yeah:
Post by: Button Nubbs on October 10, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
Post by: buckfvr on October 10, 2011, 04:05:49 PM
It certainly would not fly in urban areas.....even rural areas are full of people who dont hunt, and dont care for hunting. Only maybe Id give it is on National Forest Lands. It would have to be completely out of site, out of mind for any chance at all.
I would not do it....no mo money....over here, bear are common, would not be a problem to take a bear.
Post by: bowpredator on October 10, 2011, 04:15:38 PM
Post by: TheHunt on October 10, 2011, 05:02:12 PM
Seems to me there are plenty of guys baiting for free right now.
It would be interesting to see the actual true stastics of people baiting right now. You could not really find those numbers but I do think the number are higher then we all think.
Post by: boneaddict on October 10, 2011, 05:20:44 PM
Post by: runamuk on October 10, 2011, 05:29:20 PM
If I wanna bait bears I will pick a state or a country save my money and take it there, this state is really getting on my nerves...I was born and raised here always figured I would die here but I dont know its getting to where I cant afford to be alive, and dying is getting mighty spendy too...
Post by: FC on October 10, 2011, 05:37:50 PM
I think Huntphool nailed it, and quite surprised it ALREADY hasn't happened.
Agreed, I won't pay any money to hunt over bait but I might accidentally shoot a bear over someone else's :chuckle: :chuckle:
I'm sorry Bigtex but this is just another way for this state to grab money from hunters while giving them an ever worsening shafting, this kind of thing sets a bad precedent.
Post by: saylean on October 10, 2011, 05:41:29 PM
Wont pay to bait bear, berry patches do this for me already.
Post by: bigpaw 77 on October 10, 2011, 05:55:45 PM
Post by: MuleySniper on October 10, 2011, 06:08:36 PM
MS
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 06:15:48 PM
Post by: Centaur on October 10, 2011, 06:25:59 PM
Just as long as NONE of the money went to protect, manage or study the wolfs in this state.
Post by: Button Nubbs on October 10, 2011, 06:28:50 PM
Post by: MuleySniper on October 10, 2011, 06:29:05 PM
Post by: phishisgroovin on October 10, 2011, 06:36:21 PM
I wanted to fill my rig with silage corn and go dump it in the hills, then sit my happy fat behind 150 yards from the pile in a log blind.
Post by: ICEMAN on October 10, 2011, 06:47:21 PM
I say no.
I do not want to pay to do something that used to be legal to do for free.
The last thing I want to do is cave in to a "make it illegal", than make them pay to do it mentality.
The fee will start off as small.
The fee will grow and grow.
Hunting is not supposed to be a rich man's sport.
How much are you willing to pay to pick chantrelles? Huckelberries? Not talking about picking for sale, but for private consumption.
We pay to go fishing. Should they start charging extra to keep the fish? Less if you return them?
The last thing we want to do is to suggest another way for legislators to stick it to us.
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 06:52:40 PM
How much are you willing to pay to pick chantrelles? Huckelberries? Not talking about picking for sale, but for private consumption.
You already have to pay to pick certain berries/shrooms depending on where you are :chuckle:
Post by: ICEMAN on October 10, 2011, 06:57:29 PM
Just kidding! :IBCOOL: Dang bigtex you killed my arguement!
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 10, 2011, 06:59:57 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 10, 2011, 07:00:45 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on October 10, 2011, 07:08:38 PM
WDFW is turning into the states biggest prostatute, you pay to get f=<{ed :bash:yeah I like that saying :chuckle: :chuckle: :yeah:
Post by: dirty24d on October 10, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Post by: wadu1 on October 10, 2011, 07:16:24 PM
Post by: mulehunter on October 10, 2011, 07:19:09 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: FC on October 10, 2011, 07:21:01 PM
Gotta admit im pretty shocked at the results so far. Out of my group of friends I hunt with they all liked the idea, and there not what I would call "well off" financially. They all say they would continue to hunt no matter what license fees are because license fees are the cheapest part of the hunting year for them, and I agree as well. Most of us probably spend 10x the amount in gas for hunting season then I do for licenses. But this is just me :twocents:
I'm not sure how you figure up the cost but 10x $93.50 (deer+elk+bear+cougar) = $935 or 240.36 gallons of gas. If you figure I am driving the entire time in 4wd @ x21 mpg hwy / 16 mpg 4wd(from my driveway) that is 3840 miles, more likely split would be 4200 miles in 2wd (21 mpg) and 645.76 miles in 4wd (16mpg). Lets not forget the $35 for the "Discover" pass, am I supposed to spend 10x that on gas too? I would rather have a small game license but if you insist...of course it's not like there is much of a season anyway!
I'm going out on a limb here and gonna guess that the average guy doesn't drop a grand on gas for hunting even including some scouting...Adding more fees for less service is an insult to our intelligence, add to that the fact that sportsmen are obviously not a priority for wdfw and the offer just flat pisses me off. What will the extra $50 go to? More wolves? As long as we are rationalizing why don't we figure up everything else we buy in life and just figure a % of that for the cost of our combo fishing/hunting licenses? I'm not sure how we ended up with a staff in place that see's fit to break it off in our asses every chance they get and then hit us up for more money the next year but it has absolutely got to stop.
If you actually care about sportsmen in this state Bigtex, don't even hint at such offers, this state doesn't need any more bright ideas for stuff to try and bilk us out of our money.
Post by: FC on October 10, 2011, 07:23:27 PM
I might think about it if a politician tag came with it; well not really but they are part of the problem
I would pay an extra $1500 if a politician tag came with it!
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 07:28:22 PM
Gotta admit im pretty shocked at the results so far. Out of my group of friends I hunt with they all liked the idea, and there not what I would call "well off" financially. They all say they would continue to hunt no matter what license fees are because license fees are the cheapest part of the hunting year for them, and I agree as well. Most of us probably spend 10x the amount in gas for hunting season then I do for licenses. But this is just me :twocents:
I'm not sure how you figure up the cost but 10x $93.50 (deer+elk+bear+cougar) = $935 or 240.36 gallons of gas. If you figure I am driving the entire time in 4wd @ x21 mpg hwy / 16 mpg 4wd(from my driveway) that is 3840 miles, more likely split would be 4200 miles in 2wd (21 mpg) and 645.76 miles in 4wd (16mpg). Lets not forget the $35 for the "Discover" pass, am I supposed to spend 10x that on gas too? I would rather have a small game license but if you insist...of course it's not like there is much of a season anyway!
I'm going out on a limb here and gonna guess that the average guy doesn't drop a grand on gas for hunting even including some scouting
If you actually care about sportsmen in this state Bigtex, don't even hint at such offers, this state doesn't need any more bright ideas for stuff to try and bilk us out of our money.
I have spent close to or above $500 on gas this spring/summer alone on scouting, I drive a late 90's 4X4 suburban. Typically I do spend over $1,000 on gas every hunting season, not including scouting time. Most of my friends do the same as well.
Post by: sebek556 on October 10, 2011, 07:45:41 PM
Post by: deerslyr on October 10, 2011, 07:59:18 PM
Gotta admit im pretty shocked at the results so far. Out of my group of friends I hunt with they all liked the idea, and there not what I would call "well off" financially. They all say they would continue to hunt no matter what license fees are because license fees are the cheapest part of the hunting year for them, and I agree as well. Most of us probably spend 10x the amount in gas for hunting season then I do for licenses. But this is just me :twocents:
I'm not sure how you figure up the cost but 10x $93.50 (deer+elk+bear+cougar) = $935 or 240.36 gallons of gas. If you figure I am driving the entire time in 4wd @ x21 mpg hwy / 16 mpg 4wd(from my driveway) that is 3840 miles, more likely split would be 4200 miles in 2wd (21 mpg) and 645.76 miles in 4wd (16mpg). Lets not forget the $35 for the "Discover" pass, am I supposed to spend 10x that on gas too? I would rather have a small game license but if you insist...of course it's not like there is much of a season anyway!
I'm going out on a limb here and gonna guess that the average guy doesn't drop a grand on gas for hunting even including some scouting
If you actually care about sportsmen in this state Bigtex, don't even hint at such offers, this state doesn't need any more bright ideas for stuff to try and bilk us out of our money.
I have spent close to or above $500 on gas this spring/summer alone on scouting, I drive a late 90's 4X4 suburban. Typically I do spend over $1,000 on gas every hunting season, not including scouting time. Most of my friends do the same as well.
Lol and this is why washington has terrible hunting and will only go down hill from here. Just bend over and take it everyone, alot of people dont seem to be minding it so far :tup:
Post by: Pinetar on October 10, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 10, 2011, 08:11:17 PM
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.
This idea sounded good till I read this post! :bdid:
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.
Post by: Humptulips on October 10, 2011, 08:14:20 PM
In order for this to become legal it would require a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature because it would have to change a law that was as a result of an initiative. Other bills simply need a majority.
This is not correct. After two years the law can be amended by a majority vote. It has been 15 years now.
That being said I don't think it will happen either. Look what happened to the Cougar Hound hunting pilot project. Hans Dunshee managed to kill it and the same fate would await this unless the House goes Republican. I can hope can't I!
And please don't blame WDFW for this. I'm no fan of them but this was passed by a vote of the people of the Great State of Washington or at least the State of Greater Seattle.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 10, 2011, 08:16:53 PM
How much are you willing to pay to pick chantrelles? Huckelberries? Not talking about picking for sale, but for private consumption.
You already have to pay to pick certain berries/shrooms depending on where you are :chuckle:
if you pay to do this for personnel consumption you are a fool!
Post by: bigtex on October 10, 2011, 08:21:47 PM
In order for this to become legal it would require a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature because it would have to change a law that was as a result of an initiative. Other bills simply need a majority.
This is not correct. After two years the law can be amended by a majority vote. It has been 15 years now.
Thank you sir you are correct. Under 2 years and a 2/3 super majority is needeed. Over 2 years and a simple majority is needed.
Post by: FC on October 10, 2011, 09:23:37 PM
Typically I do spend over $1,000 on gas every hunting season, not including scouting time. Most of my friends do the same as well.
Good for you and them! I'm afraid I don't have that kind of cash to burn but then I don't work for the state either...
Post by: runamuk on October 10, 2011, 09:28:34 PM
let me phrase it like this,(for the sake of this arguement you have cable tv) if your cable company informed you that you would be losing 1/3 of your channels and will be paying more for the remaining channels, would you keep them or switch to direct tv?I wouldnt switch I'd just turn it all off....of course I am on the kill your tv bandwagon with Iceman :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 10, 2011, 09:31:01 PM
Post by: mulehunter on October 11, 2011, 02:29:01 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on October 20, 2011, 08:24:00 AM
Post by: colockumelk on December 09, 2011, 10:02:46 PM