nockes?

[Lowedog]

I may and apoligize for it. 

[ribka]

For those of you who do not "get it": Shoot a deer( even a doe)  with a long bow or better yet with a self bow. Nothing in the experience of hunting compares. I started off with a recurve in the 1970's when no one bow hunted, switched to a compound in the 1980's for few years. The last deer I shot was at 50 yds with a compound, became bored and switched back to trad gear.  I am not better  person or elitist but am a "better hunter"   because I have to get much closer to game. Guess that is why do not understand guys bragging about 700 yds shots at deer  with a rifle:dunno:  

I have nothing against compounds and own one but you have to limit the technology at some point don't you? It's about honoring and cherishing the primitive hunting season of archery and its history. If not all hunting will  end up in the future like that hunting company in that was located in Texas ( I think) a few years ago that offered hunting via the internet. Click a mouse and you can take your animal. Pay $10,000 for trophy deer/ elk  and your pic is in a hunting magazine and web site.

 I applaud Washington that they limit the use of electronic equipment and limit use of crossbows  electronics during archery. And  kudos to the state for keeping muzzle loaders primitive weapons with no scopes and 209 primers too. Have been bow hunting over 30 years in many states and you can really tell that the states that allow any equipment ( cross bows , atv's, lighted nocks, scoped ml's)  and unlimited baiting offer a different hunting experience  and has resulted in a  much more limited  seasons and lazier and less skilled hunters.

I think most of us here archery hunt because we really enjoy the experience of using our practiced skills as "hunters" to get  close to game with primitive gear.

Take "primitive gear" and "getting close" out of the equation and what do we have?

[huntnphool]

I applaud Washington that they limit the use of electronic equipment and limit use of crossbows  electronics during archery.

 Back on topic just for a second then you guys can go back to your threadjacking, how does a luminock give a hunter an unfair advantage? And ribka, isnt a rangefinder a electronic device?

[Ray]

The illuminated nocks are just a crutch on people's mind psyche for the most part. They are not needed. The fact is that we can justify any sort of technology creep as human beings. These technologies will all make faster, more humane kills (whatever that really means) and easier to recover animals.

Why not crossbows? Why not scopes? The question isn't "will it work?" The question is why let any electronics on the bow? People are and will continue to be successful without the electronics. It's a great line to draw in the sand for terms of legality. Why? Because that is a lot less primitive and limits the harvest. Mankind is a very creative being and can craft up some amazing things. Why not lights on the animals at night? Why not hunt them in the wintering ranges?

Archers use their rangefinders as a crutch. I have seen countless archers who will not go without them in the field. To me - judging range is part of the hunt. A rangefinder is something I choose to do without. I accept that others need them. I feel that modern day hunters basically rely on technology too often. Not all but very many cannot feel confident without technology. So they must justify one gimmick or another to be legal or to use in order to fulfill their selfish motives. To better their personal chances at success in a shorter period of time. Anything sacrificed in order to ward off the all too mind shattering "tag soup".

[huntnphool]

True but I would argue that a luminock is nothing compared to a rangefinder when it comes to helping out a hunter.

[Ray]

I didn't compare a lighted nock to a rangefinder. A rangefinder is not permitted attached to the bow. It does not come from the bow as a projectile (yet).

[ribka]

I know in other states guys were  poaching deer  after legal shooting hours and hunting bear from stands in Canada after hours with archery gear using luminocks and lighted sights.  I was on a bear hunt 10 years ago in Manitoba with a group of guys and witnessed this. The bears would only come in after legal shooting hours. That is why I am against

The range finder is not part of the bow or arrow so I am guessing that is why it is legal. Within a few years there will be some company developing  range fingers on arrows the way things are going. Why not use it more effective means of archery hunting?

My point is where does technology end?
Maybe we should have heat seeking/sonic  electronic laser guided arrows too that are programmed to strike the beating heart of an animal ?
The technology exists why not use it?

Have to have some limits during a primitive hunting  season like archery. If guys want all of the new technology  they can use their new technology and hunt with their super bows, lighted arrows  during modern firearms season If we keep going down this path of more advanced and improved technology archery will be limited to one week a year. I like our longer archery seasons in the U.S.

[Ray]

Maybe we should have heat seeking/sonic  electronic laser guided arrows too that are programmed to strike the beating heart of an animal ?

I love it. LOL

[huntnphool]

I am for restricting technology that helps harvest the animals, I just don't see how a nock that lights up after it is shot achieves this.

[rasbo]

At the price of an arrow and a broadhead now,I would want a collar on it..One could argue forever on the modern verses traditional..Fly verses bait.My uncle is a hardcore traditional muzzle loader,he builds them for people all over the world..He looks the part and plays the part well ,his guns are in many movies.His best friend was over one day and he showed him a new bullet he was going to use instead of the ball and patch..My Uncle went off on him.After a long rant on they didn't have this and that and so on,his friend said well,if they woulda had it,they woulda used it.It was the first time my uncle was speechless for a moment.I laughed so hard...It all boils down to individual preference..why the arguing and name calling.....The illuminated nock is a good idea,for some.I used a white nock it worked fine for me.

[boneaddict]

IF anything Phool, I see people taking shots later in the day because they can see where their arrow goes, thus not taking the personal choice of letting the animal walk and get him tomorrow.     I've shot alot of game, and didn't need a lumilock to find my arrow.  I think I've lost one arrow, and it was this year and I don't think the illuminated lock would have helped me.  As for rangefinders, I DON'T use them.   Sure, folks can argue it will make for a more humane kill, or something like that, well, thats what practice is for.  I can see their usefulness, and don't judge folks that watn to spend their money on them and pack them around.  I have drawn my line in the sand in regards to technology for me personally.  I enjoyed reading your post Ribka, because you do understand what I was trying to say.  
Basically its much more satisfying to me to kill an unsuspecting deer at 30 yards than it is at 500.  Yes, I have nightmares of the big ones I didn't anchor because I chose a more "inferior" weapon, bu tthen again I have a pile of bone that shows I didn't need any more technology to kill my deer for the 27th year in a row.
As Ribka said, I do applaud Washington for being supportive of traditional methods.  

Again....their is a fine line of interpretation of whether we or someone is pushing thir agenda onto other people, or we are being stewards of our sport.  I support the limiting of technology in regards to any primitive weapon season.   

[Lowedog]

Where do you draw the line on technology?  A person could go on and on.  Rasbo, I like the analogy your uncle's friend used.  That is probably one of the best statements I have read in the debate of traditional hunting.  Traditional or primitive hunters would have and did use all technology available to improve their odds.  When it comes right down to it the point of hunting is to kill an animal for sustenance.  The hunter killed at the first opportunity for the meat and not the trophy.  Those primitive or traditional hunters embraced the technology that improved their odds.

Hunting has become something else to most of us.  We hunt for the achievement and gratification of taking an animal with what ever method we all chose.  If it is traditional or modern we have a choice and can each do what gives us the gratification we are after.  No need to suggest those that don't see it our way are selfish, greedy or whatever. 

I understand that we have to have limitations when it comes to technology in regards to what is allowed during seasons for the differant weapons.  Whether or not that is drawing the line at light up nocks for archery, I don't know.  Again, where do you draw the line?  There is modern technology used in all forms of hunting.  A lot of todays traditional bow makers use modern tech to make bows.  Carbon and kevlar laminations to make a bow faster.  Computer generated cad models for creating the ultimate geometry for speed.  CNC cut forms to build the bows.  Traditional archers are using carbon arrows with glue in points and precision ground broad heads.  Many use the latest materials for bow strings like Astro Flight for optimum arrow speed.  So where do you draw the line on what is traditional or not? 


In my opinion the technology advancement that has had the biggest impact on all forms of hunting hands down has been and will continue to be the internet.   

[Ray]

So where do you draw the line on what is traditional or not? 

Good Question and nobody is completely correct. It is again a subjective opinion of differences.

I would personally draw the line at some specific definitions which I will outline. The arrow how it might be a big part of the kill is not the major defining factor. Only half. To me - The arrow should not have any mechanical piece to it or the broadhead beyond simplistic attachments for joining the broadhead to the arrow itself. It should have no electronics. It should essentially be made of nuts bolts, wood , carbon and simplistic composition. No moving parts on the broadhead. As far as my views on the bows. They should have wood in the working majority of the limbs and the risers. The strings should be attached within 2 inches of the tips of the limbs and there should be no devices such as pulleys, cables or other such things. I also would not consider sights as part of traditional archery. The act of using a release is debatable and I personally know people use them because they have physical limitations. However I believe they are yet another departure from traditional archery. I believe traditional archery requires using the force of your arms and such to draw the string and retain all that energy without any letoff. What does that leave you with? A mostly wood stick, and a string. Then an arrow which is not very well advanced. I do believe that some wood compositions are actually better than carbon. In fact there are several discussions which support this idea floating around.

Traditional archery is much more than the equipment as well. It will take considerable practice, patience, and determination in order to committ to it on a regular basis. The final experience of success is an exuberance which is known to those who partake in the activity.

Now all these definitions and boundaries are solely my own. I have developed these ideas based upon many experiences, considerations and thought to what is important for me. Each man will have his own view on what is traditional archery.

[rasbo]

 what it boils down to personal choice.I'm a close freak..it costs me game many times,but its so intense being within feet of a bear or bob.I get busted more times than not I would imagine.What ever satisfies me is really what its about for me...

[Ray]

Did you say bob or boob? All right I hope nobody's offended that I said that. LOL