using illumanock in Wa

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I was not criticising their ethics, just pointing out the difference between then and now.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

comparing a person who shot 1000's of arrows at targets on a regular daily ACTIVITY, AND COMPETING AT RANGES OF +/- 100 yards, compared to a guy , Traditional, or Compound, that only shoots occasionally.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

My favorite bow was once owned by a guy named Russell Hoogerhyde, one of the great Archers in History, it is a 70# Nels Grumley Take Down Brush Bow,

Since the days of Will Thompson, Seattle has always been a capital of toxophily. Last year a 17-year-old Seattle high-school boy named Ralph Miller nosed out famed Russell Hoogerhyde, three times U. S. Champion, for the title. Last week, at Storrs, Miller jumped into the lead at the start. Shooting methodically, chin up, feet 12 in. apart, Hoogerhyde caught up with him the fourth day by breaking a record with 722 points for a single American round (90 arrows at distances of 60, 50, and 40 yd.). Day later. Hoogerhyde had: record scores for single and double American rounds, for single York round; a total score of 2,902; the title of National Champion for the fourth time. Miller had a record in the double York (144 arrows at 100 yd., 96 at 80 yd., 48 at 60 yd.) and a creditable second place with 2,767.

Favorite for the title was a onetime Michigan lifeguard, Russell Hoogerhyde, 31, who, after winning in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1934, retired to build up a profitable Chicago business in what true toxophilites call their "tackle." Hoogerhyde's proficiency with a bow & arrow really started in 1929 when he decided his form was bad. He shot 1,000 arrows a day for six months

[ribka]

You you have not read it try the Witchery of Archery by M Thompson or the Saxon and Pope books. Very interesting and entertaining.

Those guys shot a lot of arrows back then and amazing they built crafted all of their own equipment.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

They are in my library, along with Fred Bear, Glenn StCharles, Chester Stevenson, and a few others...

[Decker]

I guess I'm still waiting for someone from the lumenok camp to convince me why they should be allowed when there is NO advantage.  You get the EXACT same thing by using brightly colored fletching.  You recover no more or less animals with or without lumenoks, NONE what-so-ever.

This was my wife's first year hunting. She chose archery so we could hunt together. We practiced a great deal this summer, including 3D targets and shot placement. She has BRIGHT pink and white fletching AND WHITE NOCKS. She took a shot on spike at 20 yards that was NOT ALERT and was feeding and was broadside. This so happened the first time she sat in the blind alone.

I came to track it for her. After asking her all about it, I CONCLUDED it must have been a good hit. Clean pass through, tons of blood, even right at the spot of impact. Red snow everywhere. Gave it a solid hour and went down the trail. after 200 yards and dwindling blood I began to worry. I asked her about the shot again, where she hit the deer. "I don't know where I hit it. I was so excited I don't remember exactly where the arrow went in."

Blood dried up after 50 more yards. After watching her practice all summer, seeing all the blood, knowing the shot was a "high-percentage" shot, i.e. good range, not alerted, calm animal I pressed on with fresh track in snow. I should not have. We jumped the deer out of a bed around 75 yards later. I searched all day for that deer. Amidst hundreds of fresh tracks, raising temperatures, melting snow and TONS of rain, I had to throw it in.

Now I don't spout off about myself, but for the sake of this argument, I am a retired professional guide of 10 years. I have hunted almost all terrain types and consider myself pretty decent at tracking and recovering game. There was no blood in the bed we jumped that spike out of. He will most likely internally bleed to death somewhere.

If my wife had been able to use an illuminok she would have been able to tell me it was a bad hit and I would have given that deer 24 hours and found it dead in that bed. She wouldn't have been so heart-broken about wounding one and wouldn't have cried.

SO WHAT IF SOMEONE'S KILLED 40 DEER IN THEIR LIFE. She hasn't.

SO WHAT IF YOU'VE BEEN HUNTING FOR 40 YEARS AND NEVER KNOWN A MOMENT THAT AN ILLUMINOK WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE. You have now.
 

[Machias]

Sorry but  .  20 yards, relaxed deer, first time alone, bright fletching, bright nock.  I bet you money if that arrow had a flare going off out of the nock she wouldn't have been able to tell you where it hit.  It happens.  Glowing nocks are not the answer if someone does not have the experience to watch under high stress.  Comes with more time in the field and more shots on game.  A shortcut is not the answer.    

P.S.  Please tell me your not saying the lumenoks will elminate lost animals....are you?

I guess I've been misinformed all along.  I say we have an emergency rule meeting with WDFW and get these things approved as soon as possible.  I didn't realize that wounding and lost animals would be eliminated if we just used these things.

[Decker]

P.S.  Please tell me your not saying the lumenoks will elminate lost animals....are you?

This statement does not deserve an answer.

[Machias]

Neither does the "she's all broken hearted and cried" because she wasn't allowed to use lumenoks!   

[Decker]

Well like my dad always says, "An empty can rattles the loudest."

[Decker]

 

[billythekidrock]

Gentlemen, bowhunters, (I am neither  )...... Maybe you bowmen should consider lobbying for a split in the tradition/use....

We have modern rifle season and muzzle season..... How about modern bow and traditional bow season?

I guess this arguement can and does continue with even the muzzie guys....IE: scope on a muzzy...  Not sure what the best answer is....

I suggested the same thing awhile back.

Combine early archery and ML seasons but only in September. No Oct ml hunt.
Long bow & patch/round ball only.

Combine late archery and ML and allow inlines/crossbows etc.

The ML guys would benefit from a longer season and the archery guys can have their electronics in the late season.

[coachcw]

ok my two cents , I believe that if one practices enough you know where your arrow hit. That beening said for the most case a large percentage of bow hunters just arnt that good. In a situation where a hunter would push the limit of darkness because he can see his nock I'm against it . To  counter that I believe that the high quality fiber optic sights allready do that. The instance where I really am for the luminock is when it's pooring rain and washing blood off the trail in this case knowing that the shot was in the pocket would allow you to get right on the trail and possibly not loseing a animal. ADD THE FACT THAT THEY ARE REALLY COOL, I think they should be leagalized , I really don't see an advantage to the hunter and they make for cool video.

[Buckrub]

Hunters or so-called hunters have been taking high risks shots since the beginning of time with any and all weapons...
 It comes down to personal responsibility.   
The media doesn't help the cause showing rifles @1000yds and bow kills @100 yds.
I don't think our forefathers could ever imagine training wheels on a bow.... obviously progression will continue as it has with much debate.

[Annette]

I just had to chime in on this dead horse  
Every argument For/against lumenoc's uses the basis on the effect it has on recovering game/arrow, this has no real bearing on why the law, as stated...

It is unlawful to have any electrical
equipment or electric device(s) attached to
the bow or arrow while hunting.

The law was written because of hunters who fought to prove , first, that a bow was a weapon CAPABLE of harvesting big game.
Those persons responsible for just getting bows legal to hunt with, hunted during modern seasons.
AFTER proving that bows were capable of harvesting big game, they fought for special units, open to Archery only, because they wished to enjoy the solitude of hunting with a bow, w/o the competition of "modern" weapons.
Due to their efforts, Bows were recognised as legitimate "hunting" weapons, and due to increased interest in the sport, special seasons were adopted to allow more widespread use.
THIS WAS ALL DONE BEFORE COMPOUNDS WERE INVENTED.
After seeing advances in technology, they became fearful of losing these special seasons, and decided to lobby for restrictions, to preserve the "primitive" status of the weapon,
IT WAS THE ARCHERY COMMUNITTY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT THAT IMPOSED THESE LAWS/RULES.
Because there is no way to stop technological advancement, bows have gotten morphed into something that is no longer a bow, but an "Arrow Launching Device"

•a weapon for shooting arrows, composed of a curved piece of resilient wood with a taut cord to propel the arrow, : (b) •A bow is a weapon that projects arrows powered by the elasticity of the bow. Essentially, it is a form of spring. As the bow is drawn, energy is stored in the limbs of the bow and transformed into rapid motion when the string is released, with the string transferring this force to the arrow. ...

As I see the argument either for or against lumenocs, everybody ignores the fact, THAT THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, SPECIFICALLY, THEY ARE JUST "ELECTRONIC"
When (and I dont say if) they do become legal, it will be because of an "exception" written into the law, because there is too much money $$, being spent by hunters getting into the sport because they enjoy the season, and feel that they have to have the fastest, greatest, newest thing out there, not because they love to hunt with a bow, but because they love to hunt, and are motivated by the harvest, and not the experience.
I personally have nothing against Lumenocs, but do hope that when my kids are old enough to hunt, the whole family can go out into the woods with our Traditional Archery Tackle, and not have to wear 400 square, and dodge bullets.

WELL SAID