using illumanock in Wa

[Machias]

Sorry to disagree with you Snapshot, it's not a technicality or a loophole.  It's not illegal, period, to walk a dog on a leash being unarmed for the purpose of finding a wounded animal.  There is nothing sticky about it, the rules are clear, you cannot have pursuit without the dog being off leash.  Wouldn't even need a lawyer for this one.

[Machias]

Page 58 clearly states a dog on a leash is not pursuit. You CANNOT have pursuit without them being off leash and therefore you CANNOT be charged with "pursuing" if their is no "pursuit". Cannot have one without the other.

The phroibition on page 72: 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. • Hunting or pursuing any big game animal, bobcat, or coyote with dogs is prohibited, except cougar hunting as permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. The whole key is hunting and pursuit, neither of which can occur while the dog is on the leash.  No weapon and dog on a leash they cannot cite you according to their own regulations. Everyone gets hung up on the what are you doing while leading the dog when they should realize that until you unsnap the lead you are not pursuing, by their own definition on

Page 58: "Transporting a dog(s) in a motorized vehicle or walking a dog on a leash is not pursuit."

[Snapshot]

I am hung up on the line that says "or to accompany you". That is pretty cut and dried.

[Machias]

Finish that line though, accomany you WHILE HUNTING.....unarmed; not hunting.

[seth30]

Finish that line though, accomany you WHILE HUNTING.....unarmed; not hunting.

[BULLBLASTER]

I am hung up on the line that says "or to accompany you". That is pretty cut and dried.

Take Fido back to the truck before you ever touch the dead deer or elk that he may have run across... I still see no problem.

[Machias]

I think even the guys agreeing with me are missing the finer point.  Your saying things like hey no law against walking your dog or hey if your dog just happens to find this dead deer while you are walking him, eludes to the fact that you think you are in fact getting away with something by saying oh I'm only walking the dog.  I think you could in fact don a jacket with big white letters on the back "Blood Tracking dog on task" and you still could not be cited.  The way the rules are written I believe you could in fact say officer I am unarmed and I'm taking this dog in to try and find a "hopefully" dead deer or elk.   

[Machias]

Sorry  we really 

[BULLBLASTER]

Your right machias. I es just trying to explain different and didn't know the pursuit and other rules... now back to the topic? Lighted nocks and unethical bowhunters... right? Err was it just lighted nocks?

[Machias]

 

[Lowedog]

I thought that the topic was lighted nocks are unethical or was it anyone who uses them is a poor hunter and has no business even owning a bow?    

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I missed the point,
I thought it was about someone using illuminocks on a television show, then we got side tracked into whether or not they should be legal 
and then it just naturally drifted into whether or not they were necessary,
But even the original post STILL HAD THE ARROW IN THE DEER !!, so it really made no difference what nock was used.
Or do you need to have a light on your deer to find them too ? 
I never said the nock was unethical, I just think that it will allow unethical hunters to take more chances than they do already, as it is a $$$ saving device.
I do not judge based on equipment, only actions.

[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 misquote 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.

 The other 48 were not in the same room , nice implication. They were anonymous and asked at different archery locations around Spokane to be correct.


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." I did not use the term wasted, I used the term wounded..

Or here?
 
It's a conservation measure,” he said, noting that 45 states allow lighted nocks for bowhunting. It is a conservation measure if your not losing game.

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...

The study is real look it up and FYI Mr. Landers found that one not me.


You like apples?

How ya like those apples

[huntnphool]

I just think that it will allow unethical hunters to take more chances than they do already, as it is a $$$ saving device.
I do not judge based on equipment, only actions.

 Do the ethical hunters need to be penalized because a few unethical hunters make bad decisions? The liberal thinking in this country has gotten nauseous, focus should be aimed at the people making the poor decisions.

 This is exactly the same type of thinking that has the liberal think tank in DC trying to figure out a way to ban firearms, the ethical people are the ones that are effected the most.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I just think that it will allow unethical hunters to take more chances than they do already, as it is a $$$ saving device.
I do not judge based on equipment, only actions.

 Do the ethical hunters need to be penalized because a few unethical hunters make bad decisions? The liberal thinking in this country has gotten nauseous, focus should be aimed at the people making the poor decisions.

 This is exactly the same type of thinking that has the liberal think tank in DC trying to figure out a way to ban firearms, the ethical people are the ones that are effected the most.

The point you seem to be missing is, I am not against them being legalized, it makes no difference to me.
I also feel that it is an eventuality that they, and expandable broadheads, will be allowed.
I just get tired of the argument that they will assist in animal recovery.
In a very few situations, yes
but the only tangible benefit is that they look cool, and help recover your arrow.
And then I point out that a minority will be tempted to make poor decisions, and my feelings that wounding loss will be increased by those that do.
ETHICAL hunters will be penalised by our inability to keep the unethical hunters from making us look like we are all more concerned with the equipment we carry than the animals we pursue.
does the end, justify the means ?
Should we allow free choice in equipment, just because that is our right as Americans ?
Should we use the latest technology, simply because it improves our chances to be effective killing machines,
And technological advancements are necessary for our success afield.
Or should we strive to present an image where we limit ourselves because we feel that hunting with archery tackle connects us to a natural world, and the animals.
and we hunt with Archery tackle because we enjoy the increased challenge ?   
And on a side note...

The liberal thinking in this country has gotten nauseous, focus should be aimed at the people making the poor decisions.

I think this is more of a CONSERVATIVE thinking than liberal...