This is the device for the folks who cannot track their game

[arees]

I don't even know where to start.  What happened to getting close enough to make a confident shot and showing restraint when high percentage shot doesn't exist?  What happened to basic woodmanship?  And who needs an electronic tracking device to trail wounded game IN SNOW?  This is exactly why I don't support lighted nocks - devices like these will be the next line in the sand that we'll be trying to cross in an effort to make bowhunting easier.  Where do we go next?

 

[kisfish]

I wouldn't use that. I think it would affect the flight and penetration

[Mudman]

Very cool!!!  But ya what has been said, it would lead to bad things and affect arrow performance so NO.  Not for hunting.  I do want lighted nocks.  I should invent an arrow dip with botox or some poison to stop game if wounded.  It would work better then this.

[huntnphool]

What the guy needs to do is incorporate his device inside the arrow shaft, he could add more batteries to it for longer transmitting that way as well, from a engineering point of view.

[Houndhunter]

What the guy needs to do is incorporate his device inside the arrow shaft, he could add more batteries to it for longer transmitting that way as well, from a engineering point of view.

Don't forget you could even use your arrow as a antenna to provide a better signal if you used aluminum shafts...

[3Under]

Funny that I joked about such a device in the slippery slope debate with illumanocks. 

The difference is I believe few that support lighted nocks would support this, I wouldn't.

I find your response to this very interesting when you have so vehemently argued in multiple debates in favor of electronic nocks stating that there is no benefit to the hunter before the shot, and that they will only aid in game/arrow recovery.  Wouldn't the argument for this type of tracking device be the same?  Aside from your theory that these devises could be "abused" (similarly to taking low light shots with the aid of an electronic nock I would suppose...), why do you draw the line here?  Care to explain?

[huntnphool]

Funny that I joked about such a device in the slippery slope debate with illumanocks. 

The difference is I believe few that support lighted nocks would support this, I wouldn't.

I find your response to this very interesting when you have so vehemently argued in multiple debates in favor of electronic nocks stating that there is no benefit to the hunter before the shot, and that they will only aid in game/arrow recovery.  Wouldn't the argument for this type of tracking device be the same?  Aside from your theory that these devises could be "abused" (similarly to taking low light shots with the aid of an electronic nock I would suppose...), why do you draw the line here?  Care to explain?

We all have our own line, I support lighted nocks but would not support this. I would support cameras that do not give the hunter a screen but would not support a bow mounted range finder, to each his own.

[turkeyfeather]

Funny that I joked about such a device in the slippery slope debate with illumanocks. 

The difference is I believe few that support lighted nocks would support this, I wouldn't.

I find your response to this very interesting when you have so vehemently argued in multiple debates in favor of electronic nocks stating that there is no benefit to the hunter before the shot, and that they will only aid in game/arrow recovery.  Wouldn't the argument for this type of tracking device be the same?  Aside from your theory that these devises could be "abused" (similarly to taking low light shots with the aid of an electronic nock I would suppose...), why do you draw the line here?  Care to explain?

We all have our own line, I support lighted nocks but would not support this. I would support cameras that do not give the hunter a screen but would not support a bow mounted range finder, to each his own.

Having thought about this some more. I don't think I would be in favor of this. Not because it's electronic or crosses a line, but tbecause I can see the potential for mis-use could be very high. And for the record 3under your comment about a lighted nock aiding a hunter in taking a low light shot is completely wrong. At no point could it help you see an animal thru your peep and sight any better than you could without it. I don't know a single archer that ligns up their shot by using the nock. In fact the nock is not even in your line of view at full draw. I agree with phool on the bow mounted range finder, and am up in the air about the camera. 

[snowpack]

Wouldn't want to use that in this state.  The archery units are so crowded, can you imagine if only 10% had something like that?  The machine would break not knowing which signal to track.

[3Under]

Funny that I joked about such a device in the slippery slope debate with illumanocks. 

The difference is I believe few that support lighted nocks would support this, I wouldn't.

I find your response to this very interesting when you have so vehemently argued in multiple debates in favor of electronic nocks stating that there is no benefit to the hunter before the shot, and that they will only aid in game/arrow recovery.  Wouldn't the argument for this type of tracking device be the same?  Aside from your theory that these devises could be "abused" (similarly to taking low light shots with the aid of an electronic nock I would suppose...), why do you draw the line here?  Care to explain?

We all have our own line, I support lighted nocks but would not support this. I would support cameras that do not give the hunter a screen but would not support a bow mounted range finder, to each his own.

Not sure why my comments didn't show up in this post, so I am reposting them...

Glad to hear that you don't support this, phool. Why do you believe that few in the lighted nock camp will support electronic tracking devices when the "pro"argument is so similar?

[3Under]

Funny that I joked about such a device in the slippery slope debate with illumanocks. 

The difference is I believe few that support lighted nocks would support this, I wouldn't.

I find your response to this very interesting when you have so vehemently argued in multiple debates in favor of electronic nocks stating that there is no benefit to the hunter before the shot, and that they will only aid in game/arrow recovery.  Wouldn't the argument for this type of tracking device be the same?  Aside from your theory that these devises could be "abused" (similarly to taking low light shots with the aid of an electronic nock I would suppose...), why do you draw the line here?  Care to explain?

We all have our own line, I support lighted nocks but would not support this. I would support cameras that do not give the hunter a screen but would not support a bow mounted range finder, to each his own.

Having thought about this some more. I don't think I would be in favor of this. Not because it's electronic or crosses a line, but tbecause I can see the potential for mis-use could be very high. And for the record 3under your comment about a lighted nock aiding a hunter in taking a low light shot is completely wrong. At no point could it help you see an animal thru your peep and sight any better than you could without it. I don't know a single archer that ligns up their shot by using the nock. In fact the nock is not even in your line of view at full draw. I agree with phool on the bow mounted range finder, and am up in the air about the camera. 

Wasn't saying that it would aid in the shot itself, more saying that one might be more inclined to take a shot after legal shooting hours with such a device. 

[turkeyfeather]

Funny that I joked about such a device in the slippery slope debate with illumanocks. 

The difference is I believe few that support lighted nocks would support this, I wouldn't.

I find your response to this very interesting when you have so vehemently argued in multiple debates in favor of electronic nocks stating that there is no benefit to the hunter before the shot, and that they will only aid in game/arrow recovery.  Wouldn't the argument for this type of tracking device be the same?  Aside from your theory that these devises could be "abused" (similarly to taking low light shots with the aid of an electronic nock I would suppose...), why do you draw the line here?  Care to explain?

We all have our own line, I support lighted nocks but would not support this. I would support cameras that do not give the hunter a screen but would not support a bow mounted range finder, to each his own.

Having thought about this some more. I don't think I would be in favor of this. Not because it's electronic or crosses a line, but tbecause I can see the potential for mis-use could be very high. And for the record 3under your comment about a lighted nock aiding a hunter in taking a low light shot is completely wrong. At no point could it help you see an animal thru your peep and sight any better than you could without it. I don't know a single archer that ligns up their shot by using the nock. In fact the nock is not even in your line of view at full draw. I agree with phool on the bow mounted range finder, and am up in the air about the camera. 

Wasn't saying that it would aid in the shot itself, more saying that one might be more inclined to take a shot after legal shooting hours with such a device. 

That's called an un-ethical shot. And those who take them will do so with or without them.

[huntnphool]

Wasn't saying that it would aid in the shot itself, more saying that one might be more inclined to take a shot after legal shooting hours with such a device. 

That's called an un-ethical shot. And those who take them will do so with or without them.

[3Under]

Wasn't saying that it would aid in the shot itself, more saying that one might be more inclined to take a shot after legal shooting hours with such a device. 

That's called an un-ethical shot. And those who take them will do so with or without them.

Agreed. And the same argument can be applied to those who would "abuse" electronic tracking devises.  So, again, why the different stance with this device?

[huntnphool]

Wasn't saying that it would aid in the shot itself, more saying that one might be more inclined to take a shot after legal shooting hours with such a device. 

That's called an un-ethical shot. And those who take them will do so with or without them.

Agreed. And the same argument can be applied to those who would "abuse" electronic tracking devises.  So, again, why the different stance with this device?

I answered that in post #22