using illumanock in Wa

[Ray]

not really

Agreed

[Snapshot]

"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!

[Snapshot]

Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?

I thought so... this is good stuff. The kind of stuff that newbies to bowhunting need to read; especially, so that some of them (the ones, hopefully, who will be movers and shakers later) will gain an appreciation that bowhunting isn't a game that was invented for our amusement. But that it is a proud heritage built upon the love of archery, with a strong history that can, unless completely derailed, light the way into the future for our children's children to enjoy.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?

I thought so... this is good stuff. The kind of stuff that newbies to bowhunting need to read; especially, so that some of them (the ones, hopefully, who will be movers and shakers later) will gain an appreciation that bowhunting isn't a game that was invented for our amusement. But that it is a proud heritage built upon the love of archery, with a strong history that can, unless completely derailed, light the way into the future for our children's children to enjoy.

You put that perfectly.

[krout81]

Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?
I thought so... this is good stuff. The kind of stuff that newbies to bowhunting need to read; especially, so that some of them (the ones, hopefully, who will be movers and shakers later) will gain an appreciation that bowhunting isn't a game that was invented for our amusement. But that it is a proud heritage built upon the love of archery, with a strong history that can, unless completely derailed, light the way into the future for our children's children to enjoy.

I keep coming back to see the new comments.  How about anything that requires a battery is taken away period from all hunters?
LIMIT TECHNOLOGY IN THE FIELD AND OUR CHILDREN WILL BE ABLE TO HUNT THE SAME RIDGES WE DO......

[boneaddict]

I missed this one.  I also like it

HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!

and damn, you said the word HERITAGE.   Thankyou!

[MtnMuley]

Yep, that's a great quote, and I totally agree.  However, that would have no bearing on me still preferring to nock my first arrow with a Lumenock though.  The thought of using a Lumenock to be able to take a further shot is a pathetic way of thinking in my opinion, and I sure hope the general concensius in the archery community doesn't think that way.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Yep, that's a great quote, and I totally agree.  However, that would have no bearing on me still preferring to nock my first arrow with a Lumenock though.  The thought of using a Lumenock to be able to take a further shot is a pathetic way of thinking in my opinion, and I sure hope the general concensius in the archery community doesn't think that way.

I don't think people want lumenocks to make further shots. How will a lighted knock help anyones accuracy at a longer range?

[DBHAWTHORNE]

I missed this one.  I also like it

HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!

and damn, you said the word HERITAGE.   Thankyou!

I know very few compound hunters who take shots at deer past 40 yards. Those that do are usually excellent archers. My issue with this (no matter how good the archer) is that there comes a point. 30,40,50,60 yards (don't know that point) where a deer can easily move enough to lead to a poor hit (even if their not jumping the string).

I mentioned 100 yards or less as a way of saying we have to stay limited somehow for it still to be archery. If I had a bow capable of making a shot the distances of muzzleloaders or rifles then we might as well all be in one user group.

80-100 yards is the furthest I have heard of bowhunters taking/killing live game with a compound (I am sure their has been much further shots). I practice at that distance regularly but I limit my shots to 40 yards or less. I have seen guys that are very capable at making shots out to 90 yards with the same consistency that most decent archers shoots at 20-30 yards. Throw hunting conditions, the the things that can happen between the release and impact and a big buck in the mix and they probably shouldn't be making a shot at that distance.

[boneaddict]

I hadn't heard the term, but I like it.  "Shooting foam"    There is a big difference.   

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

I just want to re-state, I have nothing against Lumenoc's themselves it is technological advancements that worry me....
That said, I was telling a friend about this discussion, and he replied

"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "

Those are not my words, but reflect just one reaction to the debate on whether or not we should allow them.

[dscubame]

Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?

You bet.  Shows some true colors and character of many of the active members here.  (That is meant to be taken in a positive light for the most part)

[MtnMuley]

"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "

Threre are bad seeds in every aspect of our hunting community.  This kind of comment just reinstates that point.  There are traditional archers out there that have left more arrows in the guts of deer than any modern archery guys I know, and that doesn't change my opinion about the traditional guys.  Back to my "circular" style comments:   ALLOW the hunter to make the decision if he/she would like to use the Lumenock -- and don't assume they are a high-tech modern equipment-style hunter and lump them into that category.  Those of us who shoot stick and string are all archers, and preferences vary

[jackelope]

I just want to re-state, I have nothing against Lumenoc's themselves it is technological advancements that worry me....
That said, I was telling a friend about this discussion, and he replied

"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "

Those are not my words, but reflect just one reaction to the debate on whether or not we should allow them.

the last thing I would expect someone to be worried about when shooting at a big game animal would be whether or not they're going to lose an arrow I would suspect. I mean lets think about it. You've spent several hundred dollars on a bow and equipment to go with the bow, a couple hundred more on a dozen arrows and broadheads, clothing, license and tags, whatever else...I can't see anyone wishing they had a lumenok on their arrow so they could find their $20 arrow.  Most of the time they break anyway, don't they??

[MtnMuley]

Now days jackelope, most every arrow I find is perfect shape.  Maybe a burred broadhead now and then.  Also, I've never even had the thought of the Lumenock as being an asset in finding a lost arrow after a miss.