Down goes illuminated nocks!

[Snapshot]

I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."

[huntnphool]

I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."

  Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal.

[Machias]

In general, I don't think hunter's opinions should have too much weight in the setting of hunting seasons and rules. If they did everything hunters wanted, we'd have general rifle seasons for elk from September 15 to September 30, and general rifle season for deer would be November 1 to November 30.

 Then why go through the time and trouble to create the poll of public opinion? at what point would the poll have even mattered, 85%, 90% 95%?

 In hind sight Bob it sure seems disingenuous to me.

I agree, all it does is create more distrust and anger at the WDFW.  Hey we'd like your opinions, oh you overwhelming want this, nope.  If you're going to take a poll and then completely disregard the poll, what was the point?  I was against them, but the poll makes no sense now.

[Machias]

I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."

I do agree with this, but I do think it was wrong for them to have the survey if they are not going to follow it.  Now if they did look at the results and realized the results were wrong or inaccurate then say so.  I can understand the anger from the folks who were wanting this.

[Snapshot]

I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."

  Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal.

Tell my wife I was behaving like a liberal, please! I might get lucky if she hears that.

[bobcat]

If you think about it, it was the department that did the survey, but the F & W Commission that voted down making illuminocks legal. So you're talking about two different entities here. The WDFW probably would go with public opinion and make illuminocks legal. But the Commission won't let them. So I see no reason to question why they bothered to do the public opinion survey.

[Snapshot]

I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."

  Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal.

And could you repeat the question?

[popeshawnpaul]

The commission ignoring the hunters on this one issue has occurred.  However, this is not new.  Look at the unit 100 whitetail antler point restriction of 4 points or better last year.  The majority supported status quo, and the GMAC supported to not adopt the restriction.  All the WDFW biologists except for one recommend they not approve antler point restrictions but an outfitter or two, and commissioner Gary Douvia get it rammed through and passed. 

Now we have public opinion in 80%+ favor of lighted nocks, GMAC 14-4 voted to approve them, and the commission ignores this and does what they want.  Now you may agree with the ultimate issue in this particular circumstance but need to wonder about how this is done.  The WDFW has a problem here.  Just wait until it is a decision where you are in the majority and this happens or an issue that is of concern to you.  While you may not want lighted nocks, this brings into question the WDFW and what/how they are doing things.  I'm more concerned about this process and how these decisions are made.

Bobcat stated that public opinion shouldn't dictate issues the WDFW made.  On seasons issues, I might tend to agree.  On general equipment issues where the equipment doesn't effect hunter success, I disagree.  There is no correlation between lighted nocks use and ultimate hunter success of a game species in any study.

[huntnphool]

I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."

  Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal.

Tell my wife I was behaving like a liberal, please! I might get lucky if she hears that.

LMAO

[NWWABOWHNTR]

Phool,  there seemed to be some issues with the survey and the accuracy.  The parameters for getting a survey was supposed to be elk and deer license for the previous ( I think?) 3 years, however hundreds if not thousands of bowhunters who met those parameters did not receive the survey, including some very influential people within our State government.  If you look, out of the 24,000 that met the surveys requirements only 10% answered, that raised many an eyebrow.  As Matt stated above there are alternatives on the market of legal lighted nocks, no batteries.

 As was brought up earlier, the main reason behind the opposition of legalizing luminoks was they promoted "risky shots", "unethical shots", "shots in the dark" etc. yet now it seems these these arguments are no longer valid or important as long as batteries are not involved. How are these chemically lighted sticks any different with these concerns held by so many "anti's"?

 I'm not picking on you in particular NW, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Phool,
I still have those concerns, however my main point against this is electronics, yes I argued about the others as I feel they are a valid concern!  Luv ya man..... :-)

[Snapshot]

If you think about it, it was the department that did the survey, but the F & W Commission that voted down making illuminocks legal. So you're talking about two different entities here. The WDFW probably would go with public opinion and make illuminocks legal. But the Commission won't let them. So I see no reason to question why they bothered to do the public opinion survey.

The whole purpose of the Commission is to monitor the department. The department can only make recommendations. Occasionally those recommendations are tainted with politics. Occasionally the commission is tainted with politics. But overall the checks and balances generally work, in my opinion.

[huntnphool]

If you think about it, it was the department that did the survey, but the F & W Commission that voted down making illuminocks legal. So you're talking about two different entities here. The WDFW probably would go with public opinion and make illuminocks legal. But the Commission won't let them. So I see no reason to question why they bothered to do the public opinion survey.

 Thats a cop out Bob, the commision holds the dept's opinion in very high regards. If the dept. presented the results of the poll and recommended it be pushed through then its my contention the results would have been different. 

[bobcat]

If you think about it, it was the department that did the survey, but the F & W Commission that voted down making illuminocks legal. So you're talking about two different entities here. The WDFW probably would go with public opinion and make illuminocks legal. But the Commission won't let them. So I see no reason to question why they bothered to do the public opinion survey.

 Thats a cop out Bob, the commision holds the dept's opinion in very high regards. If the dept. presented the results of the poll and recommended it be pushed through then its my contention the results would have been different. 

Why? What would be the purpose of the commission if all they did was to follow every single recommendation of the DFW?

[Special T]

I don't think the commision asks hard questions or demands answers that are tough. I don't like the fact that the issues are softballes tossed to the WDFW. They need some passionate hunters and anglers on the commission, not just 1or 2.

[BULLBLASTER]

Maybe we will get lucky next year with a new governor and they will appoint a new commission... though not likely we can hope!