using illumanock in Wa

[Lowedog]

I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do.  For me just hunting is what it is all about.  I don't feel any different if I'm hunting with my rifle or with my muzzy, compound or recurve.  It's about the hunt itself.  Sometimes I long for a cold October morning with leaves turning colors and my rifle on my shoulder.  At other times it is dreaming of September in short sleeves and trying to close the distance on a big buck with my bow.  

As I said before, I can not find anywhere in the regs where it says archery seasons are primitive or traditional hunts.  There are limitations to what type of equipment can be used.  For the lighted nock to be legalized I in no way see how that is going to lead us down a slippery slope or lead to shortened seasons.  

[Ray]

I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do

Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store  simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I'm not picking on you, but this statement is not completely factual.

Expandable broadheads, lighted sight pins, built on rangefinders, lumenoks, let off etc... all of these things help the average hunter make ethical shots but will not increase their chances of taking a deer.

Rangefinders, lighted sight pins do increase some people's chances of taking deer. I think you would agree to that. Not sure why it was stated. I think it could easily be argued that placing the rangefinders and other electronics on the bow and arrow would also make the likelihood of harvest higher (increase chances).

I don't feel like you are picking on me at all. I think you make a very valid point.I agree it would increase the chances of making a good hit (taking a deer).... I personally am not against a good clean hit. I would bet my life savings the increased harvest would be very minimal...but the increased recovery would be significant...even it it's only one or two animals for the entire state... I will take that anyday.

[wf70gonehunting]

when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.

I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?

No

I'm just curious as to why you would then suggest in your comment that archery hunters, by siding with the use of luminocks, would have made a choice of one or the other, as seen by F&G.?

I think you are reading into something which is non existant.

 All I'm reading into it what you have stated, you said when F&G reads or hears these objections then they will see archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.

 My question is where has it been said or posted that we as archers have been given or had to make a choice of one or the other? If its non existant I was just curious as to why you said it is all.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do.  For me just hunting is what it is all about.  I don't feel any different if I'm hunting with my rifle or with my muzzy, compound or recurve.  It's about the hunt itself.  Sometimes I long for a cold October morning with leaves turning colors and my rifle on my shoulder.  At other times it is dreaming of September in short sleeves and trying to close the distance on a big buck with my bow.  

As I said before, I can not find anywhere in the regs where it says archery seasons are primitive or traditional hunts.  There are limitations to what type of equipment can be used.  For the lighted nock to be legalized I in no way see how that is going to lead us down a slippery slope or lead to shortened seasons.  

I agree...if anything...not modernizing hunting will lead to shorter seasons.

[Ray]

when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.

I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?

No

I'm just curious as to why you would then suggest in your comment that archery hunters, by siding with the use of luminocks, would have made a choice of one or the other, as seen by F&G.?

I think you are reading into something which is non existant.

 All I'm reading into it what you have stated, you said when F&G reads or hears these objections then they will see archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.

 My question is where has it been said or posted that we as archers have been given or had to make a choice of one or the other? If its non existant I was just curious as to why you said it is all.

Let me pick this apart for you in a crystal clear fashion.

This was never stated by me. It is your imagination as far as I can tell. Thus it is non existant. Please tell me where I made this quote below on this topic. You're asking me why I said something that I didn't say. I'm not sure where to start with that logic.

My question is where has it been said or posted that we as archers have been given or had to make a choice of one or the other?

At this point it is unclear where you would draw such a conclusion that there was an atomic choice for one thing over another from my remarks on this particular topic.

I have answered your questions bluntly, twice now.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Expandable broadheads, lighted sight pins, built on rangefinders, lumenoks, let off etc... all of these things help the average hunter make ethical shots but will not increase their chances of taking a deer. We are going to allow these hunters to hunt with archery equipment simply by purchasing a license. Are you against ethical shots? Would you rather remain the fractional minority as a Trad hunter so your own individual rights (like a decent length hunting season) is not protected from the majority... or would you rather stand on your own and defend your seasons as a hardcore Trad hunter. I personally want people in archery and I want them to make great shots. I want it to be as easy as possible for newcomer to enter archery. Anything to improve that and still keep a reasonable kill range of 100 yard or less I am good with. If that means lumenocks, baiting, built on rangefinder, lighted sight pints, crossbows etc...... I am good with it.. I dont' expect everyone to be as dedicated or self restrictive as you or I. The fact that someone hunts with a lumenock or lighted sight has zero effect on me or their overall success of making a kill (success with ethical shots for the average hunter... greatly increased). I want people (big numbers) on my side to fight against the anti-hunters or even fellow hunters with elitist attitude who think my method of hunting (compound bow with fiberoptic sight and bait/cameras whatever) does not constitute "real" hunting.

Ethics have little to do with equipment, I believe in ethical shots, and ethical hunting, but that has nothing to do with my statement.
I also feel that Archery rules and regulations, limits/restrictions, do not attract new hunters, only those who already hunt switching weapons, because their season is already too short or crowded.
I also believe, through 23 years of Archery hunting, that ANYONE who takes a 100 yard shot with an arrow, is an irresponsible bowhunter. When I used a compound, and (at the time) was the greatest-fastest etc.. I could afford ) I had several animals that moved at release, causing my arrow to (impact at point of aim) penetrate in different direction, making broadside and quartering away shots, frontal and quartering in, (unalerted animal looking for source of sound)
I also was not saying, nor intended to mean that ("(compound bow with fiberoptic sight and bait/cameras whatever) does not constitute "real" hunting), I was stating that the more we use that kind of stuff, the more effective we become, reducing the challenge and effort required to be successful, and negating the whole reason Archers have a separate and longer season.
You may want " it to be as easy as possible for newcomer to enter archery" and "people (big numbers) on my side to fight against the anti-hunters or even fellow hunters with elitist attitude who think my method of hunting (compound bow with fiberoptic sight and bait/cameras whatever) does not constitute "real" hunting", but then I am sure will be one of the first to complain about overcrowding, and lost opportunity.
I do not have an "Elitist attitude" We welcome C-pound users into our group, and treat them with respect, back when I was still using a C-pound myself, I harvested a Bull Elk, Joe StCharles was with me and posed in the pictures (That is a "hardcore Trad hunter" family) I commented about being in a pic with a C-pound user and he answered "an arrow is an arrow", I share that sentiment, just because I use Trad equipment, I see nothing wrong with someone using whatever type of bow they want, I am just against constantly "modernizing" the regulations until they are all "modern weapons", and it wont matter what I choose, or what you choose, we will all be hunting at the same time, in the same units, for the same animals, and these numbers of people will be so disillusioned that hunters as a whole will be even more of a minority than they are now.
I also do not believe that lumenocs have any real effect on "ethical shots", you make the decision to release before you see the arrow in flight.
If you want people to get into archery, introduce them to the sport, and make it fun, and challenging, don't make the sport easier...
Thats like saying, I love the long ball, and want more people to watch baseball, steroids should be legal.

[Machias]

"reasonable kill range of 100 yard or less I am good with."  That quote right there is what is wrong with today's bowhunting community.  Even with compound bows shooting 300 fps+, that is a ridiculous range to shoot at an animal in the field!  That right there is why someone feels they need lumenoks.   No wonder you need a strobe light strapped to the ass end of the arrow to see where it's hitting.    I have hunted with a compound bow my whole life, just switched last year to traditional gear, so it's not an elitist attitude it's a respect for the animals we hunt.  Somehow we have got to change the mindset back to HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do

Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store  simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.

Hunting in general is more meaningful Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue..... I think people who buy their meat at a grocery store should be a able to hunt. I think people who use archery equipment by any definition should be able to archery hunt. I think people who hunt wild game and use rifles capable of making shots at 400+ yard over bait are hunters and should have the right to hunt with those methods. It's not the people who choose their weapon with conviction who are elitist...it is those who choose their weapon and then think they deserve special treatment or have everyone else conform to their standards or narrow definition...and then they go to the voting blocks and vote against the only people who truly have their back...those are elitist.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I think that the lighted cams should be used to make 300 yard shots only.  If you use the stabilizer with the laser pointer that is built in you should be allowed to shoot out of the truck window without repercussions.  The shorter bows will make this easier.  Lighting your arrows on fire before drawing back could create a hazardous situation, and cause your string to catch fire.  If you cannot deal with this or you're scared, carry a pocket fire extinguisher. This could be an effective way to take shots during the night.

I love the sarcasm but it is so far out of reality and context that I can't even entertain giving a response.

[Ray]

I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do

Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store  simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.

Hunting in general is more meaningful Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue..... I think people who buy their meat at a grocery store should be a able to hunt. I think people who use archery equipment by any definition should be able to archery hunt. I think people who hunt wild game and use rifles capable of making shots at 400+ yard over bait are hunters and should have the right to hunt with those methods. It's not the people who choose their weapon with conviction who are elitist...it is those who choose their weapon and then think they deserve special treatment or have everyone else conform to their standards or narrow definition...and then they go to the voting blocks and vote against the only people who truly have their back...those are elitist.

Except the entire concept of bowhunting would be elitist according to those definitions. So it would be a bunch of elitists accusing others of being the elitists. Where does it start? Where does it end? The electronic bow users are the elitists who want everyone else to conform to their new equipment request? Or is it the loincloth wearing self bow stick slinger who abhors "advancement"?

The fact is, that mentality you have described above is more about throwing stones. Saying you don't want electronics on the bow and arrow is not a mark of an elitist. It may simply be what you believe is correct or fair.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

"reasonable kill range of 100 yard or less I am good with."  That quote right there is what is wrong with today's bowhunting community.  Even with compound bows shooting 300 fps+, that is a ridiculous range to shoot at an animal in the field!  That right there is why someone feels they need lumenoks.   No wonder you need a strobe light strapped to the ass end of the arrow to see where it's hitting.    I have hunted with a compound bow my whole life, just switched last year to traditional gear, so it's not an elitist attitude it's a respect for the animals we hunt.  Somehow we have got to change the mindset back to HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!

 I personally have never shot over 35 yards and would never shoot at a deer size animal over 40 yards (due to my own ability).

Aside from a bow no weapon today has an effective kill range of less than 100 yards (for the average hunter). My real point is I agree there is a point where it is no longer considered Archery. I could lower that to 40 yards or less if it appeals to your stringent standards of calling oneself a bowhunter. Then you and I could stand with a small minority and fight for our rights.... I bet we would lose.

[carpsniperg2]

 "Somehow we have got to change the mindset back to HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!"

Well said Machias! I am 50/50 on the subject. I don't care either way myself. Have i used them? sure i have shot a few into the targets. I am thinking about using them in NZ this year. It will be nice on video. I can understand the seeing in flight statement. I shoot a very fast compound bow. Huge white and orange wrap and orange and white vanes "4" i have a hard time seeing my arrow in flight. So that would be nice. Do i think it will encourage some "people" to take longer shots, yes. But most of them are already taking long shots, so what the difference. Like i said i am 50/50 on the subject.

[Machias]

I just don't see how the anything goes no matter what.  If someone wants it we have to include it so we build up our numbers.  I don't think I have stringent standards, maybe I do and don't realize it.  My standards are don't do things to hurt the sport as a whole and have respect for the animals we pursue.  Other then that I'm fairly open minded....on most issues.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do

Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store  simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.

Hunting in general is more meaningful Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue..... I think people who buy their meat at a grocery store should be a able to hunt. I think people who use archery equipment by any definition should be able to archery hunt. I think people who hunt wild game and use rifles capable of making shots at 400+ yard over bait are hunters and should have the right to hunt with those methods. It's not the people who choose their weapon with conviction who are elitist...it is those who choose their weapon and then think they deserve special treatment or have everyone else conform to their standards or narrow definition...and then they go to the voting blocks and vote against the only people who truly have their back...those are elitist.

Except the entire concept of bowhunting would be elitist according to those definitions. So it would be a bunch of elitists accusing others of being the elitists. Where does it start? Where does it end? The electronic bow users are the elitists who want everyone else to conform to their new equipment request? Or is it the loincloth wearing self bow stick slinger who abhors "advancement"?

The fact is, that mentality you have described above is more about throwing stones. Saying you don't want electronics on the bow and arrow is not a mark of an elitist. It may simply be what you believe is correct or fair.

Ray...dang it... why do you always have to challenge my arguments and make me explain myself.  .. In all seriousness I really respect and enjoy hearing your point of view.

I know what you mean about where does it start/end?  I do believe that is the difficult balance that we deal with and why conversations/debates like this are so important. Here is my thinking...WA does pit us against each other.. I see many advantages to choosing your weapon but it ultimately pits us against each other and I hate that. Aside from that..in a normal state (pretty much every other state in the US)...I as a bowhunter would not be an elitist because I will back up every other hunters right.. want to use dogs to hunt deer even though it may affect my hunt a little...ok... want to use a crossbow...ok...want to use a scope on a muzzleloader...ok.... I agree though..there does come a point..where does it end and begin... I just think we may be a little to conservative with that at times... My thinking is this...what will help me bring new hunters into the sport but not interfere with others rights or hurt the herd. I don't care of it appeals my own sense of hunting as much as I do those things.

I don't think saying you don't want electronics on your bow is an elitist... I think saying hunter Joe shouldn't have electronics on his bow because I don't think that's archery hunting is elitist... I also think it decreases the number of archery hunters (which is good and bad)... ultimately a decrease in our numbers is bad in this state or any other.