using illumanock in Wa

[Annette]

I'm asking you guys that are for this to convince me, how they are THAT much better that animals won't be lost.  Lowedog think of whatever sport you enjoy, whatever it is, is there a line you will not cross or is everything on the table so to speak.  SO no matter what, if someone out there wants it, then it should be allowed, no lines in the sand so to speak.

:yeah:Again, I have no plans on using lighted nocks if they are legalized.  I don't care to add that much weight to the end of my arrow.  I hunt mostly with a compound bu[]t I also once in awhile will hunt with my recurve.  

My only response to your reply is if they offer even just a little bit of a better chance of recovering an arrow and especially one that has struck an animal and thus gives that hunter a better chance of recovering that animal then IMO there is no reason they should not be allowed.  Yes I feel there should be a line we don't cross but that line for me isn't at a nock that lights up after it leaves the string.  

Same here, won't be using them and for me the line in the sand is no electronics on the bow or the arrows.  P.S.  If our main concern is only recovery and nothing else, then instead of putting some high tech gadgetry on our arrows we should stress more and more to close the distance.  We have to go back to the motto, HOW CLOSE CAN I GET, not HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT.  That single thing will greatly reduce the amount of wounding and missing that is happening in today's archery seasons.  Great debate, thanks guys, Merry Christmas and Happy new year!!

color=red] You'll be looking for that "BEACON of light and loose the blood trail and still loose your animal"[/color

[Annette]

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.

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.

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.
 

Maybe...but they do have a short battery life especialy in freezing weather...Your wife may have hit the deer high as spooky as the whitetails are over there, they drop before the arrows get there. It was not her fault that she lost the deer if she did all the practicing and took careful aim.

[Annette]

Not everyone can see where their arrow hit at the moment of impact even with close shots. The last cougar I shot was broadside at 5 yards and she dropped and turned towards me before the arrow hit and I hit her right between the sholder blades. I didn't see any of that movement, only the arrow burried to the fletches as she fled away.  In our Bowhunter education classes we teach no shots byond 40 yarsd period. 

[Lowedog]

I'm asking you guys that are for this to convince me, how they are THAT much better that animals won't be lost.  Lowedog think of whatever sport you enjoy, whatever it is, is there a line you will not cross or is everything on the table so to speak.  SO no matter what, if someone out there wants it, then it should be allowed, no lines in the sand so to speak.

:yeah:Again, I have no plans on using lighted nocks if they are legalized.  I don't care to add that much weight to the end of my arrow.  I hunt mostly with a compound bu You'll be looking for that "BECON of light and loose the blood trail and still loose your animal"t I also once in awhile will hunt with my recurve.  

My only response to your reply is if they offer even just a little bit of a better chance of recovering an arrow and especially one that has struck an animal and thus gives that hunter a better chance of recovering that animal then IMO there is no reason they should not be allowed.  Yes I feel there should be a line we don't cross but that line for me isn't at a nock that lights up after it leaves the string.  

Same here, won't be using them and for me the line in the sand is no electronics on the bow or the arrows.  P.S.  If our main concern is only recovery and nothing else, then instead of putting some high tech gadgetry on our arrows we should stress more and more to close the distance.  We have to go back to the motto, HOW CLOSE CAN I GET, not HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT.  That single thing will greatly reduce the amount of wounding and missing that is happening in today's archery seasons.  Great debate, thanks guys, Merry Christmas and Happy new year!!

?  

[Buckmark]

So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...

[Lowedog]

So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...

I read an email response from them that they said they edited the effect into their videos. 

[Buckmark]

So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...

I read an email response from them that they said they edited the effect into their videos. 

Seriously?...

[Machias]

Decker, first off, I'm sorry your wife lost the deer and I have no doubt she was upset.  All conscientious hunters are.  What I am trying to get across on this silly computer screen is lots of new hunters do not see where their shots hit.  It's a common occurrence for new hunters to shoot at the whole animal.  That is why it is stressed to pick a spot, no matter your choice of weapons.  My point is even with a lumenok there is a good chance your wife would not have had any better idea on where she hit, it's common for new hunters to not have that mental picture.  Muzzleloaders and rifle hunters do not get to use tracer rounds, how do you suppose they know where they hit?  How do you suppose they know how soon to approach and follow up the blood trail?  They do it the same way we all have for years, they mentally replay the shot and look for clues on the ground at the impact sight.  We really have got to take a stand on where we stop technology in our sport.  Once lumenoks are allowed, why not expandable broadheads?  The same arguments will be used, we just want to make good shots for quick clean kills.  Why not lighted sight pins (even though todays fiber optic sights are already brighter then most lighted sight pins).  Why not laser range finder sights mounted to you bow.  How about a gps chip embedded in the arrow (someday I'm sure the technology will be available).  Where and when does it end?  I guess it will end when we get to hunt during the modern firearms season and only during modern firearms season.  No need for special seasons, no need for longer seasons.  No need for special considerations.

[Lowedog]

So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...

I read an email response from them that they said they edited the effect into their videos. 

Seriously?...

Yes, you can check it out on huntfishnw.

[Sumpnneedskillin]

On a side note, if you use illunocks and then bag a trophy whatever it's not eligible for P&Y entry.

[Buckrub]

The rain causes more animals to be lost than anything else on the wetside... lighted nocks or not.

Can we outlaw rain?
I have had several instances with younger hunters when I wish they had lighted nocks...I'm gettin old and hard to see arrow @300 fps
me myself? i don't care and probably wouldn't use them.

[Snapshot]

This was a good, respectful debate until D had to fly the "Stupid People" flag. How about keeping it civil, please?

I think Machias' arguement makes perfect sense. And StikNStringBow's way of thinking is spot on from my perspective, too.

Electronic nocks are an aid to taking risky shots; in low light and/or from too great of distance. They aren't necessary and to suddenly say that they are needed is the same as saying that bowhunting needs fixing; that we have a problem and that an electronic nock is the holy grail. Once the line of 'no electronics' is crossed there will be no going back; there is already a broadhead with a laser sight in its tip; soon there will be a gps in one, too.

Gadgetry has replaced woodsmanship and skill. It is a sad time for bowhunting when a lighted nock is needed so that the arrow shows up better on video. We have lost our way, ladies and gentlemen. I hope to goodness something will soon set us back on the right path.

[sisu]

Snapshot, I quit watching most hunting videos because the hunt has changed over the years. I remember and can still find American Sportsman with Curt Gowdy. The hunts on the show were different. The emphasis was different some how. I see the hunter on these new videos and there is just something that does not thrill me about their attitude and approach. Maybe it is my age but there just seems to be a difference with today's video producing sportsman.

Oh, and Annette, your very first reply to this thread was the best reply I've read regarding all these "extras" that some of today's archer seems to think he or she needs.

AS Tom Patey said: some folks need a lot to do very little and some need very little to do a lot.

[Snapshot]

Snapshot, I quit watching most hunting videos because the hunt has changed over the years. I remember and can still find American Sportsman with Curt Gowdy. The hunts on the show were different. The emphasis was different some how. I see the hunter on these new videos and there is just something that does not thrill me about their attitude and approach. Maybe it is my age but there just seems to be a difference with today's video producing sportsman.

The attitude and approach on most of today's hunting shows is appalling. It is snide, disrespectful and contemptuous. Advertising drives EVERYTHING that is shown in most of today's shows. I read an article in a recent Bugle magazine about the man who conceived of and does the "On Your Own Adventures" hunting programs. He said someone once handed him sixty pages of "this is how you should do it"; they had their canned formula and wanted him to compromise his message to push products, but he refused. Most producers don't care about conservation, history or where we are headed; they only care about advertising dollars. And every one of us who buys the junk being advertised is fueling the collapse of the outdoors image.

[popeshawnpaul]

It seems a few of the vocal people against lighted nocks are trying to control the topic.  Curious how some people are so passionate about ensuring that their view of bowhunting comports to what everyone elses should be.  If you don't want them, simply don't use them.  It's really simple.

In talking with bowhunters for the last few years, the majority want this device.  I've literally talked to hundreds of bowhunters at the sportsman shows and 8 or 9 out of 10 either want lighted nocks legal or don't care if they are made legal.  They don't want expandable heads, gps devices in the arrow, and lazer range finders on the bow.  Somehow equating legalization of these gadgets with a lighted nock is not rational.  A simple exception to the rule for this has worked in countless other states with no "slippery slope" type issues.  At last check 44 states have lighted nocks legal and there has been no major issues with its implementation.  Additionally, creating some sort link between a lighted nock and a long or late shot is also not reasonable.  If you can't see your animal you can't shoot.  Trying to link issues that aren't related only works to cloud the issue.  

Pope and Young is a scoring club for trophy animals.  99% of people will never even enter a trophy into that club and almost as many aren't even members of that club.  Why should we be worried about what they think is reasonable gear to use?  They don't allow baiting but Washington law does.  Should we change that law to be aligned with P&Y?  They allow expandable heads yet WA doesn't.  Should we make expandable heads legal because P&Y says they are fair chase?  P&Y doesn't create the rules in WA, us bowhunters do.  If you want a P&Y animal to be scored you must conform what equipment you use just like you have to right now in this state.  When the majority want something done it will get done and be legal in this state (e.g - 80% letoff a few years ago).

You won't lose time in the field if lighted nocks are legal.  Why?  Because lighted nocks won't increase the number of animals killed.  In practice it might decrease the number of animals killed as people may end up recovering an animal by the use of this device.  In turn, they won't go out and hunt and kill yet another animal.  Anything that helps one recover a wounded animal and doesn't increase the effectiveness of the equipment is ok with me.  Other equipment that works to raise the success rates could/would have an effect on the seasons as we would meet our quota faster.  For exampe, muzzleload hunters have decided as a user group they would rather not use scopes and, hence, want to be less effecive in the field with their equipment.  That lowers success rates and they get to hunt longer to fill their quota.  If that user group decided they wanted to use scopes, the season would have to be shortened because they would fill their quota quicker.

We can argue about effectiveness all day but the fact is it's more visible of an alternative than a bright nock or fletching.  True, these things might be enough to see an arrow in many circumstances but anyone who has bowhunted knows you can and do lose the flight of your arrow at times.  Due to the use of lighted nocks on many TV shows, many people are aware at just how good these devices do their job.  If it means an animal isn't lost it is worth it to me.  There are times in my bowhunting career it wouldn't have helped, it would have helped but I still recovered the animal anyway, and a couple of times it would have helped to recover the animal.  I am an ethical hunter that follows the rules/laws of this state.  I don't take long shots and I practice with my equipment.  Some of you aren't going to make me feel bad or less of a hunter because I want to use a device that will help me recover a wounded animal.