using illumanock in Wa

[Machias]

I laugh at the reasoning some have that because others don't view archery hunting as some type of elitist activity and only as another hunting season in which they choose to use modern equipment it is to make up some sort of short coming in their ability.  Does it really feed your ego that much to think of the way you do it as superior to anothers choice? 

I used a compound bow for right at 30 years.  The problem is today archers think the 30 to 60 fps increase in bows has extended their effective hunting ranges when in reality it has not.  That is the problem I have, has nothing to do with thinking I'm more superior.  I want today's archers to realize they have a responsibuility to the SPORT of bowhunting and to the animals we pursue.  That is what I am trying to instill.  I don't care what anyone uses equipment wise, it's all a short range endeavor.  If guys would understand it's how close can you get, not how far you can shoot, I don't care if they strap a spotlight to the butt end of their arrow.  It's not a long range hobby.

[Snapshot]

No one is forced to choose a 350 fps compound, black carbon arrows, sights and stablizers...those things are personal choices. The alleged purpose for needing an electric nock is that some people say they are incapable of finding their $25 arrow that flew away so fast (and sometimes, so far) that they couldn’t see where it went. So technology has revealed some shortcomings in man (they can’t see well enough or they shoot too far a shot or they shoot in too poor of lighting conditions) and now more technology is supposedly needed to overcome the shortcoming. This line of reasoning would never stop unless bowhunting holds onto a few principles. And this state, thanks to a few individuals twenty years ago who were farsighted enough to insist that a line be drawn in the sand, has in place a simple regulation that will keep us from going further down the path that will lead to GPS arrows, laser broadheads, maybe heat-seeking broadheads (don’t laugh; thirty years ago most would have laughed at a the notion of a laser in a broadhead).
 
“...view archery hunting…only as another hunting season...” Evidently that is a notable difference between you and me, LD. Laugh all you want but to me and some others archery season is the only hunting season. It has nothing to do with ego or feelings of a method being superior; it is simply our method. I don’t understand you needing to put a label on that anymore than you understand why I hunt. I don’t hunt the archery season because it is the longest, or the best-timed; I archery hunt because it is what I love to do. If ever archery seasons were reduced to being shorter than another weapon season or the timing changed some people would say, “Oh well, that was fun while it lasted,” and go pick up another weapon. I won’t hunt if I can’t archery hunt; I am content that my deer rifle has collected dust for the past thirty-five years.
 
And I do not even consider another person’s equipment choices relative to my own, LD. I couldn't care less what they choose to do unless they choose to try to change the nature of archery hunting in Washington. Then I have to speak up and ask, "Why?"

[Lowedog]

The "nature of archery hunting in Washington" is something different to each individual.  20 years ago was in the past.  I live in the present. I haven't been able to find anything in the hunting regulations that states that archery seasons are based on ideals or were created for primitive weapons.   

Before we were forced to choose a weapon type we didn't have as much of this us and them stuff going on.   I enjoy hunting and that is it.  The tool that I have to carry in order to hunt doesn't mean much to me other than it is a tool to perform what is needed to accomplish my goal.  I apply for multi season every year and have been lucky enough to draw every year but one.  To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt. 

[Machias]

To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt. 

I would have to disagree with you there, but I understand what your saying.  So when you bowhunt you don't feel any persoanl responsibility to the "sport" of bowhunting?  Is that fair to say?  You don't feel that your actions, when bowhunting reflect positively or negatively on the sport of bowhunting?  It's just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting?  Is that a fair assesment?

[Snapshot]

I need to correct myself regarding my last post: It was thirty years ago that the "no electronics" line-in-the-sand was drawn.

When the first archery seasons were established here there was then no need to define the gear as primitive (or traditional) because at that time there were only bows that had to be bent and held by the archer.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

The "nature of archery hunting in Washington" is something different to each individual.  20 years ago was in the past.  I live in the present. I haven't been able to find anything in the hunting regulations that states that archery seasons are based on ideals or were created for primitive weapons.   

Before we were forced to choose a weapon type we didn't have as much of this us and them stuff going on.   I enjoy hunting and that is it.  The tool that I have to carry in order to hunt doesn't mean much to me other than it is a tool to perform what is needed to accomplish my goal.  I apply for multi season every year and have been lucky enough to draw every year but one.  To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.

Everyone has different attitudes, that is what defines who we are.
I live in the present, but when I got into Archery, I bought a Compound at NW Archery, a couple years later I even "upgraded" to the fastest, newest, most expensive compound they had on their rack at the time (Martin), but as I spent more time at their shop and museum, and met Glenn StCharles, I developed a new appreciation for the sport, and what the guys that first took Archery into the hunting woods had to go through.
It was not about using the latest, greatest, best equipment, it was about using a weapon they loved, and being able to accomplish something that was made more difficult by their choice in weapon.
It was also part of the satisfaction they received from making their own equipment, a sense of self reliance.
I am not as capable as they were, I use a Damon Howatt, or Bear Recurve.
I buy my arrows.
But I still feel a sense of accomplishment by hunting with the equipment I chose.
To me, it is not about the kill as much as the experience.
I believe that if I was still using a Compound, I would have harvested an animal (Elk) in the first hour of the season this year.
But I will continue to use a recurve because when I do harvest an animal, I will receive a greater satisfaction by accomplishing it in the manner that I feel is more fulfilling.
But that is my own personal view, you have yours, and I respect that 
As far as not "being able to find anything in the hunting regulations that states that archery seasons are based on ideals or were created for primitive weapons."
You understand that the reg's are printed as only a summary, and the WAC's and RCW's have nothing to do with WHY we have seasons ?
If not for those that first had to prove that a bow and arrow was not a toy for Boy Scouts, but actually a viable hunting weapon for large game, there would not have been a season in the first place, and ALL of these technical improvements to archery equipment would probably never have happened.
Unless it was for target, or Olympic competition.
Without the "Fathers" of our sport, like Fred Bear,  Earl Hoyt, Jr., etc. hunting bows would never had been introduced into production.
You are correct, before we were forced to chose a weapon, this kind of fighting did not exist.
There were Archery Hunters who chose to use a bow, for reasons of their own that had nothing to do with seasons, GMU's, or anything other than they loved Archery.
Those guys were "Bowhunters", simply because they did chose to use a bow to hunt with.
Times have changed, and some have chosen to take up the sport for various reasons other than a love of Archery, but I hope they have developed some respect for the limitations of their equipment.
This constant drive to push the limits, and improve performance, is inevitable.
It is a human trait, but for some of us, the ability to adhere to tradition, and use a more limiting weapon, is a part of the enjoyment of the hunt.
Even when (if) i get drawn for Multi-season, I will hunt with my weapon of choice, I just will have a longer season.
Because to me, it is about the type of weapon used that makes the hunt, the kill is just the way the hunt ends.
An arrow is just an arrow, I do not care what type of bow you use, or what accessories you put on it, as long as you understand the inherent nature of the sport, and respect the limitations of using archery equipment.
I do not feel that I am any better than anyone else, I feel that I am just different.
I hunt to commune with "my own true god" and my feeling of connectedness to the natural world due to the weapon I carry is my own.
 I support your decision to hunt the way you feel, I hope you support mine.
But when the regs get published, I hope that my way of hunting will continue as those 20+ (actually more like 40+) years ago desired.
With respect to the equipment being it is a "limiting weapon" and not a "killing device" used solely as a means to an end, but a way to enjoy hunting as a sport and recreation, not just a way to successfully harvest an animal.

[Lowedog]

The "fathers of our sport" had a product to sell.  They promoted archery only seasons not only because they loved the sport but because with archery only (longer seasons and better timing) seasons it meant their businesses would grow.  If I rememember correctly one of the hurdles they had to cross was proving that archery equipment was an effective tool to kill game with.  Fred Bear took it upon himself to prove that by filming his hunts and showing them where ever he could.

Another thing never mentioned by those that want to keep it "primitive" is that back in the day lots and lots of people used sights on recurves and long bows.  That would be frowned upon by todays "traditionalist". 

To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt. 

I would have to disagree with you there, but I understand what your saying.  So when you bowhunt you don't feel any persoanl responsibility to the "sport" of bowhunting?  Is that fair to say?  You don't feel that your actions, when bowhunting reflect positively or negatively on the sport of bowhunting?  It's just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting?  Is that a fair assesment?

I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting.  I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting.  It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with.  A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with.  So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting. 

[huntnphool]

The "nature of archery hunting in Washington" is something different to each individual.  20 years ago was in the past.  I live in the present. I haven't been able to find anything in the hunting regulations that states that archery seasons are based on ideals or were created for primitive weapons.   

Before we were forced to choose a weapon type we didn't have as much of this us and them stuff going on.   I enjoy hunting and that is it.  The tool that I have to carry in order to hunt doesn't mean much to me other than it is a tool to perform what is needed to accomplish my goal.  I apply for multi season every year and have been lucky enough to draw every year but one.  To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.

+1

[Machias]

I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting.  I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting.  It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with.  A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with.  So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting. 

Gotcha, just a personal opinion, but that is a big part of what is wrong with today's archers.  You don't feel any personal responsibility to the sport, so you don't consider the consequences of your choices in equipment or your hunting style.  Anything is game as long as you get to notch your tag.  When archery is negatively impacted it'll be no big deal to you because your not personally invested in the sport of bowhunting, just hunting in general.  You'll move on to the next thing, probably muzzleloading and since you have no personal connection with that sport you'll push for changes and "advancements" that folks who love that style of the sport don't want.  You'll push for changes until that sport is negatively impacted and you'll move back to rifle hunting.  No biggie to you, because it's all just hunting.   

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Another thing never mentioned by those that want to keep it "primitive" is that back in the day lots and lots of people used sights on recurves and long bows.  That would be frowned upon by todays "traditionalist". 

Most of those bows with sights were target bows used for hunting, but I hear what you say.
I had one guy say that I should not consider my 1970 Damon Howatt a "Trad" bow because of my stabilizer,
I then asked him what year his bow was made, and what kind of material it was made with.
Some "Traditionalists" (and others) get a little confused about the difference between "primitive" and "Traditional"
Traditional (to me) is not using a bow with Cams, or "wheels", where the force of drawing the bow is directly connected to the transfer of energy to the arrow.
"Primitive" is when you use a "self" bow, as in a non-laminated bow made out of wood such as vine maple, yew, Osage Orange, etc. and hand made tips, either stone or steel.
When "traditionalists" speak of keeping it "primitive" it is probably just misusing the word, and means to keep the "modern" advancements off to preserve the integrity of the sport, and prevent introducing things like lasers and built on rangefinders, lighted sights, etc.
But I can only speak for myself.. 

[Lowedog]

I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting.  I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting.  It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with.  A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with.  So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting. 

Gotcha, just a personal opinion, but that is a big part of what is wrong with today's archers.  You don't feel any personal responsibility to the sport, so you don't consider the consequences of your choices in equipment or your hunting style.  Anything is game as long as you get to notch your tag.  When archery is negatively impacted it'll be no big deal to you because your not personally invested in the sport of bowhunting, just hunting in general.  You'll move on to the next thing, probably muzzleloading and since you have no personal connection with that sport you'll push for changes and "advancements" that folks who love that style of the sport don't want.  You'll push for changes until that sport is negatively impacted and you'll move back to rifle hunting.  No biggie to you, because it's all just hunting.   

Just so you know, I am not pushing for anything.  I stated before I have never used a lighted nock and don't plan to.  I do however feel like there is no harm in allowing them.  Unlike you I can differentiate between something that is only an aid in finding an arrow after the shot and something that would actually aid in aiming and killing an animal. 

Pretty sweeping statement to say there is something wrong with archers of today as if no one stacks up to what you feel is a true archer such as the image you have created of yourself.  What does it take to meet the criteria to be a true archer of the past like yourself?  How many years must one bowhunt to be an elite archer and not be considered an archer of today?  Is it someones experience in archery hunting or is it the equipment they use or is it that they see archery hunting as some sort of higher calling that only the elite should be allowed to take part in?  Do you feel that those who chose to hunt with all weapon types as less of a hunter because you feel they have no dedication to one weapon? 

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I just want to say, I have been called an "Elitist" and really do not feel that my attitude makes me superior, or a member of an "Elite Class"I just feel that my beliefs about how and why I hunt are different from others.
Some guys drive Ford, some drive Chevy.
Some ride Honda's, some Harley's..
It makes little difference to me what weapon you use, as long as it has no effect on my weapon of choice.
I see nothing wrong with a guy using Lumenoks, or expandable Broadheads.
I just see that in order for them to be legal, the regs have to change, and in the process, more of you will complain about the "complexity" of the regs, complain that it is too confusing, and in general just complain.
A lot of money will be wasted by our WDFW and those involved in writing the regs. and in the end, once one rule is changed, something else will be there to complain about.
Sooner or later, in an effort to simplify the regs, it will re-written and now what will be legal ?
I use what I use, because I have made a choice.
I made this choice freely, and without coercion, I assume you did also...
I see no NEED to add these new advancements in technology, only others desire to use them.
I accept the changes imposed  to my seasons, and feel some are for the better, but with all the complaining going on about how the WDFW is screwing us over, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

[WildWind1]

If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information. True most all of us on this thread probably don't need them, but some will use them because at some point they will be allowed,there are those that won't and some already do by their own admission.

 New archers that get buck fever or the thought of shooting a live target and the adrenaline gets the better of them and we have a wounded animal that may or may not be recovered. Now you can say they don't belong in the field then, but where then are the new archers coming from? They just don't sprout up and those that do I am pretty sure don't get within 10-15yrds of a deer for their first shot or the first few go arounds.

If this "gadget" helps them find the arrow and then get their game so be it! But saying it will come at the cost of Reg's or season time loss doesn't make sense if you look at the bigger picture.

OK your turn, rip this apart.

[Machias]

I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting.  I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting.  It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with.  A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with.  So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting. 

Gotcha, just a personal opinion, but that is a big part of what is wrong with today's archers.  You don't feel any personal responsibility to the sport, so you don't consider the consequences of your choices in equipment or your hunting style.  Anything is game as long as you get to notch your tag.  When archery is negatively impacted it'll be no big deal to you because your not personally invested in the sport of bowhunting, just hunting in general.  You'll move on to the next thing, probably muzzleloading and since you have no personal connection with that sport you'll push for changes and "advancements" that folks who love that style of the sport don't want.  You'll push for changes until that sport is negatively impacted and you'll move back to rifle hunting.  No biggie to you, because it's all just hunting.   

Just so you know, I am not pushing for anything.  I stated before I have never used a lighted nock and don't plan to.  I do however feel like there is no harm in allowing them.  Unlike you I can differentiate between something that is only an aid in finding an arrow after the shot and something that would actually aid in aiming and killing an animal. 

Pretty sweeping statement to say there is something wrong with archers of today as if no one stacks up to what you feel is a true archer such as the image you have created of yourself.  What does it take to meet the criteria to be a true archer of the past like yourself?  How many years must one bowhunt to be an elite archer and not be considered an archer of today?  Is it someones experience in archery hunting or is it the equipment they use or is it that they see archery hunting as some sort of higher calling that only the elite should be allowed to take part in?  Do you feel that those who chose to hunt with all weapon types as less of a hunter because you feel they have no dedication to one weapon? 

No, I just the opposite of what you think.  I am dedicated to archery hunting, but unlike some guys who's rifles are collecting dust, I love to hunt with a rifle and a muzzleloader.  I just don't get near the satisfaction from pulling the trigger on a muzzy or a rifle as I do with zipping an arrow through a deer or bears chest.  It has nothing to do with equipment, I guess I really suck at conveying this.  It's the mindset that makes an archer for me.  If a guy shots ALL the bells and whistles including illuinocks and is dedicated to protecting what we have and is dedicated to trying to close the distance, he's the type of guy who I support.  When I say today's archers I'm talking about the mindset that seems to pervade the bowhunting community today, faster bows and guys constantly talking about how they smoke the bullseye out to 80 or 90 yards and somehow equate that to their effective hunting range.  Totally putting out of their minds that a animals vitals are not stationary.  Why in the heck do I care if you want to hunt with an illuinock?  Because I believe it will increase success rates to the point that THIS game department will see it as further evidence they need to decrease archers time in the field even more.  I see all the advances in archery as advances in success rates and todays archers mindset seems to push the envelope more and more.  At some point we as a group should hold the line.  That line for me is no electronics on the bow or arrow, fairly easy line to draw and IMHO to hold to.  I know guys who are just starting out who have been mentored that this is a close range sport and who have respect for the animals they pursue who IMHO are elite archers.  There is no time period, I know a few archers who are slobs, it's all a mindset.  Protect bowhunting and have respect for the animals.  I don't get that sense for alot of todays archers.  When a guy says I smoked a deer at 80 or 90 yards, made a perfect heart shot, IMO he has no respect for the game he pursues, it's all about notching a tag and his own ego.  He doesn't care about the consequences of wounding, to the animal or the sport of bowhunting.  Last year I took four deer, one with a bow, one with a muzzy and two with a rifle.  I have no dedication to one weapon, however I do feel like bowhunting needs protection because it's headed so far away from it's roots.

[huntnnw]

But who are you to say that a 80-90 yard shot is wrong, just to notch a tag and their ego? Sorry I know several archers who can be deadly at that range and todays equipment is deffinately lethal at that range