Quick question for you bow pro's

[grizzlyadams]

I was thinking about making the switch to archery from now on due to crowds and better seasons. So I was going through the reg's and found that you cannot use retractable broadheads here in Wa. State. Someone please enlighten me on why this would be. I am confused   

[buglebuster]

 Us bowhunters here in washingtom are to *censored* to need them

[KillBilly]

  Here we go again....

This has been discussed a multitude of times. Go to the Archery section and search, you will find literally 100s of answers

[wildmanoutdoors]

 
Thousands even....

[trophyhunt]

I'm no expert by anymeans but I am certain that retractable broadheads are Illegal in our state. Don't know the real reason but it's probably the same reason we can't use scopes on our muzzy's, or have electronics on our bows. They are trying to keep the technology down to a minimum, which makes sense to me.

[grizzlyadams]

Here we go again....

This has been discussed a multitude of times. Go to the Archery section and search, you will find literally 100s of answers

Sorry.to  I have never seen the thread. But thanks anyway for making me feel like  for asking. Appreciate it.   

[carpsniperg2]

No worries, it has been discussed but oh well. It's Washington lol some of the stuff does not make sense. It has to do with the broadhead working 100% of the time. They feel that with a fixed blade this is the only way to make sure the broadhead works every time. They also can not be barbed, there is some fixed blade heads that are barbed and are not legal Here. They want the arrow to be able to work back out on a bad shot so the animal might have a chance to heal.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Here we go again....

This has been discussed a multitude of times. Go to the Archery section and search, you will find literally 100s of answers

Sorry.to  I have never seen the thread. But thanks anyway for making me feel like  for asking. Appreciate it.   

Don't take it too personal, this subject just gets some peoples panties tied in a bunch.
..................................
Back when Archers were lobbying for special seasons, they put some restrictions on the equipment.
One of those restrictions was for it to be unlawful to hunt big game animals with a broadhead blade unless the broadhead is unbarbed and completely closed at the back end of the blade or blades by a smooth, unbroken surface starting at maximum blade width and forming a smooth line toward the feather end of the shaft and such line does not angle toward the point.
This affected SEVERAL FIXED-BLADE BROADHEADS in production at the time.
The feeling was that a poorly placed arrow would work itself out of the animal, and hopefully allow the wound to heal, reducing mortality.
When retractable broadheads became popular (in other states), they were illegal due to the barbed aspect.
to avoid confusion, retractable was added to the language of the restriction, (h). It is unlawful to hunt big game animals
with a retractable broadhead.
This mostly due to the pressure from ARCHERS that were involved in the process of establishing the regulations.
They (those actually involved) were concerned about the poor performance of retractable in production at the time.
And felt that, although they are proven performers on whitetail, Elk sized animals were too tough to achieve proper penetration from an expandable.
The regulation will probably be lifted, as the WDFW is cash driven, and as we all know, the squeaky nut gets the grease.
Retractable Broadheads are more advanced, and reliable, now than they were, but unless the barbed aspect is addressed in the design, this will probably be a few more years.
Also, the common fear from those (again, the ones actually involved in the decision making process) is that expandables are just a small step towards the modernisation of Archery tackle.
 

[grizzlyadams]

STIK...thanks for the answer. I thought it might have something to do with that but wasn't sure.

[NWWABOWHNTR]

Great post Stik...

One disagreement though.  I don't think it is "against modernization" when it comes to expandables, I think it is the unreliabilty factor on BIG game animals, such as bear and elk.  Now I know there has been many advances over the years in the design and the engineering to make them better than the first ones, which failed to open and or broke very easily.  However, until they all are proven to be effective and not flimsy,  then I don't think you will see them legalized here.  My feelings in that are,  how do you select the good ones and say only these are legal?  If the powers that be were against modernizing our sport, then we would all still be just hunting with a longbow or recurve..... hmmmm what a great idea?     Just kidding there!

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

Great post Stik...

One disagreement though.  I don't think it is "against modernization" when it comes to expandables, I think it is the unreliabilty factor on BIG game animals, such as bear and elk.  Now I know there has been many advances over the years in the design and the engineering to make them better than the first ones, which failed to open and or broke very easily.  However, until they all are proven to be effective and not flimsy,  then I don't think you will see them legalized here.  My feelings in that are,  how do you select the good ones and say only these are legal?  If the powers that be were against modernizing our sport, then we would all still be just hunting with a longbow or recurve..... hmmmm what a great idea?     Just kidding there!

Maybe, but when the seasons were introduced, they were all hunting with a longbow or recurve.
I agree that ANOTHER reason was their reputation, however the main obstacle was that standing between Archers and their own season was that a bow and arrow was considered by the majority a toy, or ineffective and flimsy.
After some significant Archers proved that they could harvest every big game animal with their equipment, then acceptance was the inevitable result.
You could apply this to the expandable debate, some very significant archers have proved that they can harvest every large game animal with expandables, should not their acceptance also be inevitable ??
How would they be able to control which broadheads are acceptable ?
I would hope that the majority of archers would know enough about broadhead selection to make wise decisions, I see no reason myself to use them, but if you feel that it is necessary, then by all means, you are welcome to your own choice.
I do believe it is inevitable, as well as lighted nocks and crossbows in general archery season.
I myself will stick to using my late '60s 75# Damon Howatt Recurve, Bill Sweetland compressed cedar shaft and a 160gr Grizzly Broadhead. White nock, White cresting, and white feather fletching.

[RadSav]

Up until recently expandable broadheads had an extremely high failure rate.  They also had a habit of very poor penetration which this state viewed as a high and unnecessary risk.  A decision that at the time was a very good one in my opinion.  At the same time this rule was established even women had a 400 grain arrow minimum which was unfair.  Traditionalists had a pretty strong control over policy and many of the rules reflected it.  But things are changing even if it is in baby steps.

I am still not a huge fan of expandables, but they have come a long way in a short time.  Some are still barbed and some still take a huge cut out of an arrows energy as they swing open.  Their only real advantage is easier tuning and improved flight in various weather conditions.  Like any broadhead there are some really poor designs and some that I would not even shoot at a rabbit while others perform with great consistency and effectiveness.  Having them legal or not shouldn't change anything we do as hunters other than restrict the size of fletching we can effectively use.

I know I am in the minority on this point, but I am very grateful we have a new director that seems to be listening.  That crooked SOB we had for so many years would never have brought us the positive changes we have seen the past few years.  How often did he ask questions or our opinions before he had actually made an insane decision?  I remember being at a Town Hall style meeting where he sat there laughing at us.  Later we found out the reason was he had already made the rule change and our voice was only to allow us to feel as though we had gotten our say.  Us sportmen were nothing more than a joke to him.  My recent emails to the WDFW have given me hope that internal concerns are much more balanced and respectful of our voice.

Muzzy and archery hunters are far better off than we were just a few short years ago.  It's still not perfect, but for those of us who have been at it here for a long time it is definitely better.  I have to believe it is going to continue to improve as long as we have leadership that is concerned for state revenues, wildlife and us sportsmen.  Rather than the corrupt political hacks we have had here in the past who only represented themselves and the revenue stream they could misuse.  I'm counting on the additional improvements in archery and muzzy rules to continue.  We just need to make sure we respectfully voice our wants and concerns while open minds are still listening.

Just my opinion.  But go ahead - let the hate mail/moron notifications fly.

[Swannytheswan]

your right on RADSAV the disrespectfulness just purpetuates the redneck poacher stereotype and helps the antis take our opportunites

[Matt]

Remember that the goal is not 100% success rate.  We can't kill every animal out there.  Having a broadhead that has field point accuracy isn't going to solve the lack of skill or performance issue.  If you have well tuned equipment and you practice it doesn't matter if you use expandables or fixed blades.  And for those that shoot Montec type BH's they need to be sharp.  Now lets argue something real important like lighted nocks......sorry couldn't help myself.

Griz, until they make an expandable that can, with a high %, work it's way out of the rump roast and give the wounded animal a better chance of survival don't hold your breath waiting for them to be legalized in the west.

[dreamingbig]

RadSav - I must be living under a rock.  How have things gotten better for archers in the last 5 years?  We have lost days in both the early elk and deer seasons, we have lost bull permits (both nominal and percentage) at a faster clip than the other user groups, and they introduced multiple season permits which has brought even more competition.  I have other examples as well but I will stop here.

Please let me know what I have been missing.  And I am asking respectfully; I really don't know.

Thanks!

[RadSav]

Archers have lost some days and permits yet archery is the user group that has seen the largest increased in size (participation) and success rate over the past 10 years.  As popularity and success increases something has got to give.  It could have been a lot worse.

As far as equipment - archers used to be limited to 65% let-off and 400 grain arrow minimums.  Both hurt many youth and lady hunters as well as aging bowhunters.  Now we have no let-off restriction and minimum arrow weight is 300 with a 6 grain per pound minimum.  Not ideal, but definitely getting better.

Muzzy hunters just a few short years ago could not use jacketed bullets and/or sabots.  Both should greatly improve the efficiency (external and terminal) of most muzzy hunters now that they are legal.  Again it's still not perfect for all of us (I myself would like to see 209 primer usage) but it's getting better.

The WDFW director has to balance revenue, stewardship and all three of our sport hunting groups.  And everyone involved demands everything to be fair.  To see the challenges and positive changes we have to look at the numbers...

Between 2000 and 2010 this state lost 12.5% of our deer hunters and 17% of our elk hunters.  That is a loss of about 19,000 deer and 15,000 elk hunters that paid lots of tag, permit and license fees.  This drop in hunters is consistent with the overall national averages so you really can not blame the state for that one.  Blame entitlements and the progressive movement as history proves when one rises the other falls.

In 2000 archery deer hunters saw a 19% success rate and in 2010 the success rate improved 32% to 25.1%.  During that same period archery deer hunting participation increased by about 2,250 bowhunters or 12.5%.  Archery elk hunters in 2000 saw a success rate of 9.3% and in 2010 that improved 17% to 10.9%.  During that same time bowhunters participation in elk hunting increased by 16% or 2,300 bowhunters.  Archers may have lost some opportunities, but their success ratios increased at a greater rate than participation.

Similarly muzzy deer hunters in 2000 saw an 18.5% success rate and in 2010 the success rate improved 37% to 25.4%.  Participation in muzzy deer hunting increased by 11% in that same time period.  Between 2000 and 2010 muzzy elk hunting saw a decrease in participation of 9% while the success rate improved by 7%.  In looking into year by year numbers it was clear that the additional modern rifle cow tag opportunities led to the decrease in muzzy elk participation.

Modern rifle deer hunters lost 22,000 or 18% participants between 2000 and 2010.  They also lost 2% in success rate during that time falling to 25.5%.  Modern rifle elk hunters lost 16,000 or 26% of participants in that time period.  Success rate for these elk hunters improved by 29% in that 10 year span.

So I would say that fairness, if graded by success rate, has improved greatly in the past ten years.  Especially for deer hunters where variation in success rate is less than 0.5% between all user groups.  Elk hunters are not quite as close, but if one user group had a reason to complain it would be the modern rifle group as they experience a 5% lesser success rate under the more successful muzzy hunters.  Though the state has made it clear they want to encourage more participation in muzzy seasons.  That may be what we see reflected in those two success ratios.

If we narrow our view to just the past 5 years those numbers don't look quite as good.  Success rates have been hit hard in all user groups since 2005 when there was a spike in success and the balances between groups was not nearly as even.  There has been a lot of changes since then.  Some worked and some did not.  Though I do think it shows a definite attempt toward balance and fairness while keeping a conscious eye on stewardship and revenue.

I share the skepticism and negativity at times.  Especially if I take a narrow view of certain trends.  But working with a long term graph shows definite positive trending.  I'd most certainly like to see a faster result and many changes for the better.  However I have the luxury of worrying only about the archery user group and my personal enjoyment.  The last thing I would want is the responsibility and political nightmare the WDFW director must endure.

As far as equipment changes - they definitely have been for the better for archers and muzzy hunters. 

I do believe that pointed discussion and negative feedback are the essential tools needed to change course in a positive direction.  I encourage everyone, whether you agree with me or not, to respectfully voice those to the state.  It's far more productive than crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. 

Of course I could be completely wrong.  And, I am sure many if not most will be certain I am. But what can I do?  That is my personal opinion.

[dreamingbig]

As far as equipment - archers used to be limited to 65% let-off and 400 grain arrow minimums.  Both hurt many youth and lady hunters as well as aging bowhunters.  Now we have no let-off restriction and minimum arrow weight is 300 with a 6 grain per pound minimum.  Not ideal, but definitely getting better.

Good points.  Some equipment changes for the better but I hope they don't approve mechanicals and electronics on bows as well.  As an user group we need to draw the line somewhere.

If we narrow our view to just the past 5 years those numbers don't look quite as good.  Success rates have been hit hard in all user groups since 2005 when there was a spike in success and the balances between groups was not nearly as even.  There has been a lot of changes since then.  Some worked and some did not.  Though I do think it shows a definite attempt toward balance and fairness while keeping a conscious eye on stewardship and revenue.

I share the skepticism and negativity at times.  Especially if I take a narrow view of certain trends.

The past 5 years is what I am worried about!  Give it another 3 years with the same trend and archery success rates are going to be horrible.  Currently in some GMUs we have 13 days afield for early archery elk with spike only seasons and no cow permits.  This is versus 9 (muzzy) and 7 (modern) days afield for spike only seasons + 25 cow permits for each of those user groups.  That is not equitable in my opinion and just one example of the conpitulation that we as an user group is enduring.  If we aren't careful they are going to steal more and more and more... well you get the point.

[Matt]

Dreamin you are talking about the loss of cows for the peaches ridge area in the early season.  Yeah so we lost them in early season but still have them in late season.  Not to mention that they opened up the Little Nachese which archers had wanted for a long time.  That was a fair swap.

If they aprove the praposal to allow you to apply for any quality elk hunt regardless of west or east side tag holder then you will have something to bitch about.  Your chances of drawing a quality elk tag on the east side will go down to slim to none.  West siders will have nothing to lose, 3 point min on the west side or draw a quality on the east.  They are hunting bulls no matter what.

Constructive criticism and well thought out responses are what is needed.

[dreamingbig]

Matt,

I agree with you on the east/side west side argument and have let them know as much.  I filled out the survey and I sent my constructive criticism.  I have never got a response from Phil or Dave Ware but I will keep trying.  I have sent them loads of information on the reduction in bull permits by user group over the past 5 season.  Archery has taken the biggest hit by a percentage.  I will see if I can dig up my research.  My guess is it will fall on deaf ears again.

[RadSav]

That's a tough area to get a grip on trending.  One of the few areas that have been loosing all user groups including archers.  It is also an area that has lost percentages on harvest rates by all user groups since 2005.  But the numbers seem to be relatively equal by harvest percentage.  Will be very interesting to see where the 2011 numbers fall.  Rifle hunters still seem to be getting the short end on success ratios though.

I know that region 3 as a whole has been the most difficult for the state to manage.  Colockum being the worst.  I can't remember when it was they sent out the letter explaining the challenges - maybe 2009.  It was very interesting and showed they were really in need of feedback from sportsmen in that area.  However, it did show a desire to get success rates balanced while maintaining the health of that herd. 

I think it was mismanaged for way too many years.  And still not convinced it isn't today. Would think it is going to take some time to clean up that mess.  Not sure that Bernatowicz and Livingston are the guys to do this though.  In my opinion they have produced the weakest reports for the WDFW.  That may not represent their competence, but it's not overly comforting.  I'd really like to get Russell Link's view of that region.  Seems to be a biologist that looks at things objectively and can give detailed reports without lists of excuses.