using illumanock in Wa

[Lowedog]

Archery hunters taking shots at long ranges is nothing new.  It has been common place since the days of Pope & Young, Fred Bear and Howard Hill.  My first archery season was 20 years ago and I ran into and talked to plenty of people back then that talked about shooting way further than I felt was effective and a lot of those guys had been archery hunting for 10-20 years at that time.  Archery hunters of today are no different than ever.  There are just more of them and they have better equipment. 

  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. 

Please explain how a nock that lights up after the shot and gives no aid in aiming or arrow flight will increase success rates. 

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information.

A lighted nock will not make them hit the animal any better.
Ask Gringo about "sick" and see if a lighted nock would have made any difference.

[Machias]

Archery hunters taking shots at long ranges is nothing new.  It has been common place since the days of Pope & Young, Fred Bear and Howard Hill.  My first archery season was 20 years ago and I ran into and talked to plenty of people back then that talked about shooting way further than I felt was effective and a lot of those guys had been archery hunting for 10-20 years at that time.  Archery hunters of today are no different than ever.  There are just more of them and they have better equipment. 

  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. 

Please explain how a nock that lights up after the shot and gives no aid in aiming or arrow flight will increase success rates. 

Well this has been a fun and great debate.  You guys will get your lighted nocks that I'm fairly certain.  Someday when they finally do come to the point where YOU feel enough is enough, I hope your able to convey it better than I have.  The whole argument FOR lighted nocks is that it allows hunters to find their arrow and see where they are hitting the animal.  There by increasing your chances of finding your arrow and finding your animal.  If that is true, that will increase success rates, how can it not?  That's what guys here are aruging for, loosing less animals.  Loosing less animals means increase harvest rates. My contention is not so much about lighted nocks as it is if you stop shooting so late in the evening and stop shooting so damn far you don't need a light saber strapped the end of your arrow to accomplish both of those goals.  I wonder how rifle hunters and muzzleloaders handle the part about seeing where their shot hit and the follow up since they have nothing to look at after the shot?  Oh they have to rely on their sign reading ability and tracking skills, just like bowhunters used to have to do.  I'm finished with this merry go round, thanks for the good debate.

[MDGrand]

I have read the last 7-8 strings between Machias, Lowedog and stikinstringbow and I have to say I am impressed with each persons's position. Because of what my own philisophy of what should be allowed in WA, I am in Lowedog's camp on this one..

But on an outside note.. I will offer the following..

Within these hunting chat forums, its a place where we all can be Hunting Snobs and give our verision of what is right and wrong and better and worse when it comes to gear, methods, etc.

But I would caution that sometimes it can go to far.. I think the more we imput regulations and criticize the way others like to hunt, the less likely it is that someone will become an avid hunter.. and we need them to keep this thing alive. It also puts us against one another.

Now I know there is obvious things to criticize, i.e. illegal methods and poaching etc.. but I have noticed more and more that the super avid hunters are turning into snobs.. putting down everybody elses way but there that is not their own. I recently just cut a friend loose on the pro team I am on because he goes on and on about having the fastest bow and the fastest rifle and continually shows the same trophy pics to everybody.. most importantly he criticizes any other persons method, gear, etc.

I know I am on a soap box here.. but I hope at the end of the day, we can all agree its just semantics and not lose sight of the bigger picture.

[Lowedog]

C'mon Machias, don't quit now we only need 5 more pages to make 30!

  The whole argument FOR lighted nocks is that it allows hunters to find their arrow and see where they are hitting the animal.  There by increasing your chances of finding your arrow and finding your animal.  If that is true, that will increase success rates, how can it not?  That's what guys here are aruging for, loosing less animals.  Loosing less animals means increase harvest rates.

If there is even a slight chance that a lighted nock helps someone find an arrow and that helps them find the animal they just shot over the opposite you see that as increasing harvest?  What if that person who didn't find their animal continued hunting and harvested another animal?  Do we just not count the animals lost?  I know they don't count for harvest reports but they do count. 

If this device and only this device was allowed and it even slightly decreases the number of lost or wounded animals then I don't see how anyone could be against it.  But that is just my opinion. 

[Machias]

C'mon Machias, don't quit now we only need 5 more pages to make 30!

  The whole argument FOR lighted nocks is that it allows hunters to find their arrow and see where they are hitting the animal.  There by increasing your chances of finding your arrow and finding your animal.  If that is true, that will increase success rates, how can it not?  That's what guys here are aruging for, loosing less animals.  Loosing less animals means increase harvest rates.

If there is even a slight chance that a lighted nock helps someone find an arrow and that helps them find the animal they just shot over the opposite you see that as increasing harvest?  What if that person who didn't find their animal continued hunting and harvested another animal?  Do we just not count the animals lost?  I know they don't count for harvest reports but they do count. 

If this device and only this device was allowed and it even slightly decreases the number of lost or wounded animals then I don't see how anyone could be against it.  But that is just my opinion. 

    Come on 30 pages!! 
 
THAT is my point all along, if guys stop taking risky shots, those numbers of lost and/or wounded animals would come down without allowing electronics on our arrows, that's all I'm saying.  We both want the same thing less wounding, less lost arrows, we just disagree on how to acheive it, that's all.   

[bullcanyon]

I can see both sides of this. Harvest numbers will probably go up, but so will deer counts by biologists.  So in the real world. We will see more animals. Which should increase the number of animals the wdfw wants us to harvest. Most likely putting us right back where we are now with the exception of less animals left not found.

As for not taking bad shots in the first place. Well....I'm still working on the formula for common sense in a can.......

[Machias]

As for not taking bad shots in the first place. Well....I'm still working on the formula for common sense in a can.......

  I hope your successful!

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I just don't see how it will have ANY effect upon wounding loss, it has NO effect upon the flight of arrow (except for weight, but hopefully they practice with it)
A bad hit will still be a bad hit.
Poor shot selection will still be poor shot selection.
When in doubt of where you hit an animal, give it more time, too quick a follow up can affect recovery more than waiting longer.
It is true that you get clues as to where you hit an animal from the arrow, but if you spend a little more time looking for it (arrow), you still give a poorly hit animal a chance to expire, even if you do not find the arrow...
I have said before, I am not against your choice to use them, I just don't see the NEED.
I know it is only a matter of time before they are allowed, and I do feel that a lighted nock will encourage SOME archers to take some questionable shots because of the advantage of the "tracer" effect in low light situations, and the ability to recover their arrow ($$$) but I cannot say a majority will.
To each their own, if you feel you really NEED to use a lighted nock, then I guess that is your prerogative, eventually you will have your way.
But do not try to convince me that it will have a major effect on animal recovery, only arrow recovery,
if you are in doubt, give it more time, if the situation forces you to immediately follow up, nothing on an arrow that has already been released is going to change that.
Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.

[3Under]

Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.

Could not have said it better myself.  What happened to woodsmanship?

[NWWABOWHNTR]

Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.

Could not have said it better myself.  What happened to woodsmanship?

Exactly... and poor shot placement will not improve with a lighted nock either.  The only thing it will change is the profits of a company that is lobbying very hard on many sites to get them approved in our State.  Take that for what it is worth.

[huntnphool]

 Bottom line is there is zero documented facts, or studies, that a person using lumenoks will take a shot that they would not have taken if they weren't using them.

 Its funny how those against them continue to beat the "risky shot" drum when its simply conjecture on their part. I believe a person that will take a risky shot will do so with or without a lighted nok, its a matter of ethics not gear.

 I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all archery groups, after all it means less waist and less black eyes for everyone. To argue against it just because it doesn't meet your ideals is egotistic or as some have mentioned elitist.

 We all have vehicles that will drive faster than the posted limit, that doesn't mean it should be or will be done by everyone. Its a matter of choice and its not for any one person or group to say that the other can't use them. If you don't want to use them then don't but don't piss in my Cheerios just because they don't live up to your standard or ideals about hunting.

[Lowedog]

Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.

Could not have said it better myself.  What happened to woodsmanship?

Exactly... and poor shot placement will not improve with a lighted nock either.  The only thing it will change is the profits of a company that is lobbying very hard on many sites to get them approved in our State.  Take that for what it is worth.

No one is saying that a lighted nock will improve anything besides increasing someones chance of finding an arrow.     I can't figure out how equating someones personal choice of what type of equipment they use or would like to use as to what type of woodsman or hunter they are. 

If you don't want a lighted nock to be allowed in WA because you feel electronic devices shouldn't be allowed for archery only seasons then I can understand that line of thinking but making accusations about the abilities, character or ethics of those who would use them or are not against them is just ridiculous.   

And just who is this company that is campaigning so hard for them on many sites?  You evidently know something I don't.   

[ICEMAN]

Wow, bowhunters sure get pissy after their season shuts down. Remember this come mid-november when I do...

[UptheCreek]

I know I likely will not be using lighted noks on my arrows because they cost too much for me, I just don't like the fact that you don't have the option to use them.  They will not in any way make you a better hunter or tracker and will not somehow shorten the archery season or lead to small nuclear warheads powered with rocket fuel for those hard to reach animals.  Common sense should be your guide with this one.