using illumanock in Wa

[Machias]

the trend over the years has been longer and longer shots (which in my "elitist snobish mind" equals risker).

 Confirming my original comment! These guys are taking these shots anyway, without the use of lumenoks. Its an ethics issue not a equipement issue, unless you want to debate the increased technology in the bows they are using, which enables them to take these shots. That, in no way, should be confused with a lighted nok but rather subject to an entirely new thread.

You are absolutely right, I just didn't see it before.  Your right the guys who want lighted nocks are the guys already taking the risker, longer shots, so you are correct the wounding rate won't increase......that is what your saying right?   

[Machias]

During the season setting meeting in Centralia, the WDFW elk guy told me that they decreased archery seasons because archery hunters were taking a larger percentage of bulls than rifle hunters.

Maybe % wise, but sheer numbers is not even close.  It's the same  , pitting each user group against the others.   

[pianoman9701]

During the season setting meeting in Centralia, the WDFW elk guy told me that they decreased archery seasons because archery hunters were taking a larger percentage of bulls than rifle hunters.

Maybe % wise, but sheer numbers is not even close.  It's the same  , pitting each user group against the others.   

I agree. I also asked if they had increased the rifle season without decreasing the archery season if that would've messed up the bull to cow ratio, or meant too many animals would be taken, and couldn't get a direct answer. Political BS.

[bullcanyon]

Its because of the addition of the multiseason permit. Hence more archers.

[huntnphool]

I think we are on the same page technically Fred, the guys taking risky shots will do so regardless whether or not lumenoks are legalized. The difference is I believe it should be an individuals choice to use them or not since it is reactive to the shot, not proactive, and poses no advantage to the hunter over the prey.

[Machias]

I think we are on the same page technically Fred, the guys taking risky shots will do so regardless whether or not lumenoks are legalized. The difference is I believe it should be an individuals choice to use them or not since it is reactive to the shot, not proactive, and poses no advantage to the hunter over the prey.

Understand. 

[huntnphool]

Quote from: Machias on Today at 02:02:23 PM
Understand. 
 
 Do you not feel bright fletching and nocks already accomplish the same thing though?  Certainly not as clear or as bright in some circumstances, but do you feel they give the same results?  I was watching a youtube video last night of about 90 shots with archery gear.  Quite a few times the white cresting and fletching showed up even better than the lighted nocks.  Granted in low light conditions they really shine, no pun intended.  But there were certainly times and lighting conditions where the white cresting and fletching was much easier to see.

Actually no I don't feel they provide the same thing. For example, you shoot a deer 30 minutes before the end of legal shooting light, perfect hit and the deer bounds off through the brush. You wait 30-45 minutes so as not to push the animal too hard, now it's dark. Those bright fletching are not going to do near the job a lighted nok will do.

[Snapshot]

Snapshot, I only had time right now to listen to the first clip where Jim Sutton gave a presentation for lighted nocks.  Maybe I missed something but I didn't hear anything where it is claimed to do anything but help a person find their arrow.  He did say something along the lines of they can help with finding an arrow therefor allowing the hunter to address how an animal was hit. 

Sounds like he made a pretty sound case and at least one of the commissioners was in agreement. 

Listen again; his claim is, in part, that it is a conservation measure (Maybe he jumped on that bandwagon when he learned that only conservation measures will be considered for scrutiny in these hard financial times). Commissioner Douvia asked him to come back with some proof from other states that they actually serve as a conversation tool and he came back empty-handed (they don't keep records of wounding, he told them). So he asked some of the guys he knows who hunt what they'd do if they wounded an animal and couldn't find it, and then reports to the Commission that almost all of them said they'd try to kill a different deer. And at one point he goes so far as to suggest that just one deer instead of as many as three will be taken from the herd if electric nocks are employed.
 
Oh, and that it is a safety issue; has anyone ever heard of someone suffering an injury by kicking someone else's lost arrow while hunting? I haven't.

I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…

http://www.unitedbloodtrackers.org/

Is this not currently legal?   

 
No it isn't. But if it were folks who like to work dogs in the woods would have a whole new recreational activity, wouldn’t they? They might provide the service for free or they might charge a fee. Either way when Joe-hunter finds himself in a pickle, unable to make out the bloodtrail, can phone a friend and use a tool that truly is a conservation measure.

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

Provide the sources and I’ll take a look; until then I suspect you are blowing smoke up my skirt.

Snapshot, I have read many of your posts and it surprises me to learn that you are a woman.  I guess it just goes to show how little we know about the person behind these posts.   

No need for an apology, LD, because it was a figure of speech. No woman parts here.
 

[Machias]

Snapshot, bloodtracking dogs are legal in WA....well at least they are not illegal if they remain on a leash and no one is armed.

[huntnphool]

I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…

Is this not currently legal?   

Snapshot, I have read many of your posts and it surprises me to learn that you are a woman.  I guess it just goes to show how little we know about the person behind these posts.   

 Snapshot, I never made either of these comments, would you mind please cleaning this up, thank you.

[WildWind1]

So he asked some of the guys he knows who hunt what they'd do if they wounded an animal and couldn't find it, and then reports to the Commission that almost all of them said they'd try to kill a different deer.



Snapshot, if you listen I said two of the guys that did the survey, I knew personally. The other 48  I did not. And please don't mis-quote me like the story in the spokesman.

"This information is at least supported by a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks study on elk wounding lost conducted in the late 1980s. Researchers found that of the bowhunters who hit an elk with an arrow, only about 50 percent were able to recover the animal."

Ok, there ya go, contact them youself.

[Snapshot]

Snapshot, bloodtracking dogs are legal in WA....well at least they are not illegal if they remain on a leash and no one is armed.

From the Game Regulations:
 

9. Using dogs:
• Hunting wild animals with dogs during any deer or elk modern firearm season is

prohibited.

• Allowing a dog, owned or controlled by

you, to pursue or injure deer or elk or to

accompany you while you are hunting

deer or elk is prohibited.

The verbiage implies that they aren't but, yes, a lawyer might get a guy off the hook. During the legal proceedings that would follow issuing a ticket for using dog to find a dead deer the definition of 'while you are hunting' will be picked apart.

Ask the chief of enforcement if it is legal and I think he'll say "No."

It would need to be stated concisely because your interpretation, Machias, is the exception not the rule; most people I've talked to about it feel that the verbiage prohibits them from taking Tuffy into the woods.

It would need to read along these lines: "The use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in the recovery of legally shot deer or elk is permitted. Before initiating tracking with a dog, the handler must first notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife."

 
From WAC 232-13:
 
Rules governing pets allow hunters to use
hunting dogs under their control, but not to letthem or other pets roam unattended.
 
Does this trump the verbiage in the game regulations that saying "Allowing a dog to accompany you while you are hunting deer or elk is prohibited"? I would doubt so, and besides this only applies to WDFW lands.

[Snapshot]

So he asked some of the guys he knows who hunt what they'd do if they wounded an animal and couldn't find it, and then reports to the Commission that almost all of them said they'd try to kill a different deer.



Snapshot, if you listen I said two of the guys that did the survey, I knew personally. The other 48  I did not. And please don't mis-quote me like the story in the spokesman.

"This information is at least supported by a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks study on elk wounding lost conducted in the late 1980s. Researchers found that of the bowhunters who hit an elk with an arrow, only about 50 percent were able to recover the animal."

Ok, there ya go, contact them youself.

I stand corrected. Two you knew personally; with the other forty-eight you were just in the same place at the same time and asked them some questions. I get the picture.
 
Mr Landers misquoted you? Really? I love to know, where? This part?
 
"A Spokane sportsman says the state should consider his bright idea for reducing the number of deer and elk wasted by archery hunters."
 
Or here?
 
“It’s a conservation measure,” he said, noting that 45 states allow lighted nocks for bowhunting.
 
Did Mr Landers throw in the bit about Montana and elk wounding on his own or did you talk with him about that? Thanks for the lead there; I will see if I can find out who did the study...

[BULLBLASTER]

Snapshot,
Machias was saying that it isn't illegal to take your dog for a walk on leash in the general area of a wounded deer. A person walking a dog on leash without a bow can't be bowhunting. Simply walking their dog. No law against dog walking.

[Snapshot]

Snapshot,
Machias was saying that it isn't illegal to take your dog for a walk on leash in the general area of a wounded deer. A person walking a dog on leash without a bow can't be bowhunting. Simply walking their dog. No law against dog walking.

So a person packing out an elk quarter or dragging out a deer who has a leashed dog along side him hasn't been hunting? Might you not agree that although there is a loophole (no law against walking the dog) the potential for a sticky situation with law enforcement would exist? Whereas a simple rule saying that it is okay to use a leashed bloodtraking dog would make it known to all hunters, no matter the weapon they choose to use, that it is all right to call cousin Bert and have him bring Fido out to help find the deer/elk.