using illumanock in Wa

[Lowedog]

Washington bowhunting seasons were established and then defended by bowhunting pioneers like Kore Duryee, Glenn St. Charles and others who used traditional archery equipment. Although those earlier pioneers were ultimately successful in establishing our bowhunting seasons, it is also true that they did so despite facing significant opposition. What I find ironic in this current discussion is that the advocates of allowing more technology in our archery seasons make the very same arguments as those long ago who opposed the establishment of our archery seasons. And I find that truly sad, to say nothing of divisive.

That is a reach to say the least.  No one is using any argument that a bow is an ineffective tool to kill an animal with. 

Also, in the days that you speak of those guys didn't use "traditional" equipment by choice. They used what was available at the time or built their own.  I don't believe it was considered "traditional" at the time, it was simply considered archery.  If they were trying to be "traditional" back in 1938 they would have been using sticks of wood with a sharp rock on it and a branch for a bow with a sinew string.  I believe that is where the opposition came from back in those days.  They had to show that archery equipment had advanced enough in technology to become an effective hunting weapon.   

[huntnphool]

From the trespassing thread;

See, this guy is out there flinging arrows all over the place and isn't using Lumenoks. Just as I pointed out earlier, those that take questionable or risky shots are going to, regardless whether or not they are using them, its a matter of ethics/sense and not a matter of gear.

[rooselk]

Lowedog, it's not at all a reach. One only needs to read what those who opposed establishing bowhunting seasons said 70 years ago to some of the stuff written in this thread to find that the arguments used are exactly the same.

But it is true, as you say, that those earlier bowhunters didn't call their equipment "traditional".That designation came much later, following the invention of the compound. That said, I am not arguing against compounds.   I'm merely pointing out that there comes a point when new technology crosses a line that goes against the very reason our archery seasons were established in the first place.

[dreamunelk]

I'm merely pointing out that there comes a point when new technology crosses a line that goes against the very reason our archery seasons were established in the first place.

rooselk, Well said. 

[Snapshot]

No one is using any argument that a bow is an ineffective tool to kill an animal with. 

But that is exactly the implication! In essence the pro argument for needing it suggests that bowhunting is broken, that it has a deficiency, and that the lighted nock is needed to somehow set things right. It undermines the whole history of legitimate archery hunting in Washington.

[huntnphool]

But that is exactly the implication! In essence the pro argument for needing it

 Easy there Snapshot, who said we "need" it, it wasn't me or Lowedog. I don't "need" it but would like to have the option to use it if I wanted. I don't like anyone or any group dictating what I can and can't do based on their own beliefs. A long as this country is still free I prefer to have the choice of whether or not I buy my kid a Big Mac and fries.

[Machias]

From the trespassing thread;

See, this guy is out there flinging arrows all over the place and isn't using Lumenoks. Just as I pointed out earlier, those that take questionable or risky shots are going to, regardless whether or not they are using them, its a matter of ethics/sense and not a matter of gear.

How do you know he's not using a lighted nock?  From the reviews I have been reading about a third of the time they don't even work...or have they gotten better the last few years?  Most of those reviews were from a few years ago.

[dreamunelk]

He appears to have an empty quiver  so..........................

[huntnphool]

How do you know he's not using a lighted nock?

 Well he is hunting in Washington, where currently they are not legal to use, so....

 Then again, he is also being accused of trespassing, showing no regard for rules or laws...

[Lowedog]

Lowedog, it's not at all a reach. One only needs to read what those who opposed establishing bowhunting seasons said 70 years ago to some of the stuff written in this thread to find that the arguments used are exactly the same.

But it is true, as you say, that those earlier bowhunters didn't call their equipment "traditional".That designation came much later, following the invention of the compound. That said, I am not arguing against compounds.   I'm merely pointing out that there comes a point when new technology crosses a line that goes against the very reason our archery seasons were established in the first place.

It is a reach because no one here is arguing against bow hunting.  I have been involved in this thread pretty much since the beginning.  Show me where anyone is saying that a lighted nock is needed and bowhunting is ineffective without it.  I have only read what some believe will be a benefit if it is allowed.  There are those who feel that we need to draw a line and not allow any type of electronics in archery only seasons and that is fine.  But show me where anyone has argued that it needs to be allowed and archery hunting is not effective without it.  That is a ridiculous jump to try and make comparing those who opposed archery only seasons back in 1938 to those who think a lighted nock should be allowed today. 

Again, archery only seasons were not established for the use of "traditional" or "primitive" weapons.  That was the archery equipment that was available at the time.  The archery equipment being developed back then was advancing technology and that has never stopped and never will.  Most of the men who fought for archery only seasons were bowyers and the bows they were building were cutting edge for their time.  Those men weren't saying give us archery only seasons because our weapons are primitive, it was more like look how advanced and effective our equipment is.  It is human nature to always improve a tool.  Take a look at the top so called "traditional" bows being built today.  Today's bowyers are constantly using more advanced materials to make bows faster, quieter and more lethal. 

[UptheCreek]

I agree with the last post.  No one is saying you need it.  It is just another option if you want to use it.  This thread wouldn't be half this long if hunting season would just get here!!

[Machias]

How do you know he's not using a lighted nock?

 Well he is hunting in Washington, where currently they are not legal to use, so....

 Then again, he is also being accused of trespassing, showing no regard for rules or laws...

 

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Well we made it over 30 pages and what started this  whole thing was a question about M2D using them in Washington.
What have we acheived ?
Some people want to use them, some dont. 
Will they be legalised ? most likely...
no matter what you cannot stop "progress" 
What is the next thing ?
Even one of my "heroes" had fears about the future of Archery, advocating the use of POD's, Fred Bear went to his grave convinced that the use of drug-tipped arrows would somehow be beneficial to bowhunting.
To quote

if we don’t do something to clean up our ranks the time will most surely come when we will be unmasked, the impotency of our weapons revealed, and we will stand there with bowed heads faintly mumbling, yes, you are right.

“… no archer, no matter how good he is, except under certain circumstances, can be sure of hitting an animal where he wants to hit him at bow shot distances.

Now, I guess a Lumenoc will allow you to see where you hit in a low light situation, if you have trouble seeing, but as clearly stated it has no effect upon arrow flight, so therefore should be allowed..
I really have no opposition to them, people will do what they do, my main reason for engaging in this debate was to attempt to figure out why those that want them feel so strongly about them.
I mean even expandables do not get this much controversy.
I have heard a lot of arguments, but the only one in my opinion is creditable is the ability to recover an arrow that otherwise would have been lost.
I understand that, I currently have one of my Bill Sweetland compressed cedar arrows out in my yard, I know where it went, but still cannot find it, it has white wrap, white fletching, but is buried in the dirt, grass and leaves of my yard. 
I released it at a target (grouse) and missed, it is an irreplaceable arrow (ever try to buy a 1/2 doz Sweetlands?) custom built for me by Larry StLarent , adapters from Joe StCharles, and tipped with an Asbell Broadhead, sure wish it had a lighted nock so I could find it (although they do not come in that size, or glue on)
I understand why some would want them.
I am not against them, what I am against is the fact that in order to change the regs, it would affect the laws written, without Lumenocs in mind, creating a reason for "exceptions" to be written, and then what is next ?
I fear that the constant desire to rewrite the regs, will only contribute to what an awful lot of you already complain about being "too confusing"
How would "does not aid in aiming, or accuracy" fit in ? there goes your sights, releases, etc.
If we strive for change in our regs,  "no mounted electronics", except for lighted nocks and cameras, seems simple, but would it stop at that   ?
I have been accused of being an "Elitist Snob" because I feel that because I use a recurve, and don't release an arrow unless I am 100% positive I have an unobstructed shot at an animal within my self imposed limited range, and feel that all Bowhunters, regardless of weapon, should understand that to hunt with Archery equipment is a close range sport, and taking shots where they are unsure of arrow flight, or impact locations should rely upon their instincts and not on some device that lights up their nock.
I also feel that when you decide to use Archery equipment, you do so knowing the limits, and restrictions, and to then complain about not being allowed to use something that is not legal, well I have no sympathy.
To claim that it is your right as an American to use whatever you feel is acceptable, to hell with what those that have been doing it for decades think, well... I think you know how I feel about the "righteous sense of entitlement" that seems to be how "modern thinking" next thing you know you will complain about illegal immigrants, welfare, Obama, etc.. When you are acting just like them... 
 I am for Also my estimation that SOME archers might take shots that they normally would pass on because it would not cost them a $$$ arrow, well unfounded as MY OPINION might be, I have witnessed a lot of so called "Bowhunters" engaged in what in my opinion is sheer idiocy, and do feel that an idiot with a lighted nock will take more chances when he has nothing to lose.

I now have to apologize for my comments, I meant no disrespect to anyone, I just had a few beers, and overreacted, but as a "Self Righteous Elitist Snob" who thinks he is somehow better because of the equipment he uses,  felt that my opinion actually meant something, but have come to realize that my opinion actually only counts as much as yours. See you at the meetings !

[rooselk]

Lowedog, your argument might hold water if it weren't for the fact that some of those bowhunting pioneers from 30's and 40's lived to see the rise and spread of modern archery equipment. One of those people was Glenn St Charles. And if you don't that he wasn't concerned about issues of modern archery technology then you clearly haven't read his writings.

[Lowedog]

Didn't St Charles have his signature on a compound made by Martin Archery? 

I haven't read much of his writings but I have read a bit about the history of archery hunting seasons.  What were the concerns about modern archery?  That the equipment would become too efficient and increase the distance one could shoot?  Those bowhunting pioneers are well documented with taking shots with recurves and long bows at distances that most compound shooters of today wouldn't take.  They also missed a lot and wounded a lot of game.  If those men were alive today and hunted like they did back in the day they would be ridiculed by the people on here who hold them at such high regards.