Down goes illuminated nocks!

[Snapshot]

Look, if this whole monkey-f@*# had occurred at any time other than during a budget crisis the outcome may have been different. But there were concise gubernatorial directives as to what could and could not be done during the moratorium on spending and at least one person in the department and one person on the commission were complicit in efforts that strayed beyond those directives.

[Machias]

The presidence has been set, whitetail antler restrictions despite overwhelming oppostion, shortened field time, wolf proposal and now luminoks. I'm not the only one that sees the pattern here. We are completely ignored, why should we think we will get anything changed as a group when they have shown complete disregard to our opinions?

The presidence was set years ago, starting (and it may even be earlier than this) with the shortening of the fall bear season in the NE corner of the state way back in the mid to late 90s.  I went to a three year meeting years ago and they said they were going to shorten the fall bear season in the very NE part of the state due to conflicts with hikers.  This caused an uproar in the meeting and then they said well the real reason is too many sows are being killed.  They shortened the season in the NE.  Three years later I returned to the meeting and asked what impact on the sow harvest had resulted in the shortening of the season.  The Bio had no idea what the heck I was talking about.  They have always done and will always do whatever the heck they want.  Our input has meant nothing to them for a long time.  One of the few times I have ever seen an impact was with the night hunting proposals this year, but I wonder if they hadn't been written so poorly and actually incorrectly if they would have not been adopted anyways.

[Fullabull]

So who puts the commission in place...? Are they hunters, conservationists, biologists? What are they and their qualifications to be in these possessions? Are they appointed by the Gov? If so, maybe we can look forward to a change when our current Gov. finally leaves 

By the way, there would be nothing wrong with having archery season into late September...then we would be like all the other states!!!!

[pianoman9701]

Wildlife commissioners are appointed by the Governor and apparently, with little opposition from the opposing party. I spoke with Sen Benton's aid who told me that out of courtesy, gubernatorial appointments are rarely contested. After having written to him about the wolf plan and getting no response, and then getting this response when I asked about the Jay Kehne confirmation, I was flabbergasted. Why is there even a two-party system if they're all in bed with each other on these appointments?

Hopefully we can get Rob elected in November after the queen has done enough damage to our state to convince a few of the I-5 democrats to vote the other way. I'm hopeful, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Special T]

The presidence has been set, whitetail antler restrictions despite overwhelming oppostion, shortened field time, wolf proposal and now luminoks. I'm not the only one that sees the pattern here. We are completely ignored, why should we think we will get anything changed as a group when they have shown complete disregard to our opinions?

The presidence was set years ago, starting (and it may even be earlier than this) with the shortening of the fall bear season in the NE corner of the state way back in the mid to late 90s.  I went to a three year meeting years ago and they said they were going to shorten the fall bear season in the very NE part of the state due to conflicts with hikers.  This caused an uproar in the meeting and then they said well the real reason is too many sows are being killed.  They shortened the season in the NE.  Three years later I returned to the meeting and asked what impact on the sow harvest had resulted in the shortening of the season.  The Bio had no idea what the heck I was talking about.  They have always done and will always do whatever the heck they want.  Our input has meant nothing to them for a long time.  One of the few times I have ever seen an impact was with the night hunting proposals this year, but I wonder if they hadn't been written so poorly and actually incorrectly if they would have not been adopted anyways.

Machias this is the exact kind of example that we need to force the issue on with the WDFW. They give us some cock and bull about changing $hit  and then play the "I don't know game"... We really need to find a good candidate or 3, for the commission  NOW so that when we get a new Gov we can raise holy hell and get some hunters in instead of a bunch of anti hunters. 
The WDFW has not had a organized watch dog on its heals for a long time. I think this is one of the key roles that WFW can play. God knows no one else is...

[DoubleJ]

If seeing your nock light up is so damned important then use these, they are completely legal and are just as effective.

http://glowproducts.com/products/GSMINAS

Way cheaper.  Just get some clear nocks

[Snapshot]

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.

Because there isn't a conservation-based reason to have done so, the department had no business putting this issue in front of the Commission in the first place. I suspect that in the end the Commission did what it ought to do and made no change precisely because there is no correlation whatsoever between nocks and the consummation of success (finding a dead animal). Try as he might Commissioner Douvia, even with the help he had, didn't get this pet project rammed through...

What is most important is that the Commission upheld valued principles of hunting, (the kind that are seldom if ever taught on TV shows) by saying that allowing new technologies would raise questions about fair-chase, equal opportunity and the tradition of hunting. Kudos to the Commission for upholding those standards. How this can be considered a "problem" is worrisome to me.

Imagine, if the children were left in charge of the schoolhouse where would it lead them in the future? 85% of them would love to have recess all day long, but at what cost? They would not foresee any consequences because they'd be too caught up in the freedom of getting to do anything they pleased. Kids don't run schoolhouses for the exact same reason that the general public doesn't set the hunting regulations; to save them from themselves.

[Matt]

Were any of you at the final public hearing in Moses lake?  They infact had the luminok proposal already written as though it was aproved.  They had all the verbage there so that they could just cut and paste it into the regs.  So to say that they are against the public Is not very accurate.  They had guidance to not make any changes to the regs unless it was vital to game management.

  Now as far as an argument that luminoks will promote poor light shots and unethical shots.  Those bowhunters that would take those shots do not need a lighted nock to make those shots they will do them no matter what.  The main argument to this is to keep ALL electronics off of archery equipment so that no one can argue the primativeness of our equipment any more than it currently is.

  This also isn't a Trad thing.  Trust me them trad guys need all the help they can get.  Just kidding.    Lets be honest here.  The only real arguement here that hold any water in favor of a lighted nock is that we can find our arrow or part of it anyway.  All the others are fluff.  We have all made great shots and the animal quit bleeding within a few yards and we lose the blood trail or even a bad shot.  A glowing nock isn't going to help anyone in these cases.  Good shot or bad, wait awhile then start tracking.

[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.

And could you repeat the question?

Okay Snapshot, earlier I was willing to let lying dogs lay but it seems you are intent on beating the drum so........

but what they really will be allowing is more shots that can be taken in less-than-favorable conditions (too far or too dark to see) and so more wounding loss would likely be the result.

 The question was

How are these chemically lighted sticks any different with these concerns held by so many "anti's"?

 You hypocrites can't seem get this simple question answered. First you say lighted nocks will be the doom of all archery hunting and then out the other sides of your mouths you say glow sticks or lighted fletching is ok. So which is it? How are glow in the dark fletching or chemically lighted nocks any different? Wont shots be taken in "less than favorible conditions" with these too? How are these acceptable? Is it just batteries you have issues with?

[Miles]

Are lighted nocks really that big of a deal?    You guys sure are making a big deal out of nothing.

If they aren't giving you any advantage, then why cry about it not being allowed?

If you're worried about your shot placement (and couldn't see your arrow's flight path), then wait a while and give the animal some time.  It's pretty simple really.

[huntnphool]

Are lighted nocks really that big of a deal?

 Not really, its just the principle of the whole thing for me.

[steeleywhopper]

Its legal in other states so it ought to be legal here. What makes our deer or elk any different from other states. Are they too good for lighted nocks or expandable broadheads?

Just my opinion...

[huntnphool]

Its legal in other states so it ought to be legal here.

44 to be exact.

[Chase 1]

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.

Because there isn't a conservation-based reason to have done so, the department had no business putting this issue in front of the Commission in the first place. I suspect that in the end the Commission did what it ought to do and made no change precisely because there is no correlation whatsoever between nocks and the consummation of success (finding a dead animal). Try as he might Commissioner Douvia, even with the help he had, didn't get this pet project rammed through...

What is most important is that the Commission upheld valued principles of hunting, (the kind that are seldom if ever taught on TV shows) by saying that allowing new technologies would raise questions about fair-chase, equal opportunity and the tradition of hunting. Kudos to the Commission for upholding those standards. How this can be considered a "problem" is worrisome to me.

Imagine, if the children were left in charge of the schoolhouse where would it lead them in the future? 85% of them would love to have recess all day long, but at what cost? They would not foresee any consequences because they'd be too caught up in the freedom of getting to do anything they pleased. Kids don't run schoolhouses for the exact same reason that the general public doesn't set the hunting regulations; to save them from themselves.

Not sure how you can even see the issue from way up there on your soapbox? All the school boys down here are looking at the issue and you just seem to want to find ways to drive a wedge in the archery community. Your opinion is no luminock... got it. But your argument fails to look at the big picture of how this process went.

This change was not in the original rules package when it was presented.
Archers requested the change to WDFW and it was added to the package of possible rule changes. This was in line with the rule moratorium as it was requested by the user group (public).

After all the letters, public comment, and the poll, the overwhelming opinion (nearly 85%) was in favor of the rule change.

The rule change came before the GMAC committee and was voted 14-4 for approval.

The WDFW, considering all the public input, recommended that the Commission approve the rule change.

The Commission voted against the change and tabled the issue til next year. What?

So let me get this straight... the user group, the representatives of all the user groups, the hunting majority, and the WDFW Directors, all had it wrong? I have too think these are all the "schoolhouse children" you are referring too? I can't help but wonder why you are so eager to fetch the ruler for the nuns to help keep us all in line? Your unforeseen consequences prophecies are a weak justification for your narrow view of the issue. I have yet to see anyone say the public should make policy. Don't see you finding any sportsman that would support that. Consider that a Snapshot in the mirror may expose part of the problem.

This issue was approved by the user groups and dfw managers. The approval was by a landslide at every step in the process. The Commission's decision on this is difficult to understand and I'm looking forward to hearing their reasoning.

I am very concerned when a open process and vote of sportsman, filed with checks and balances, essentially passes 85-15, and is approved by the governing body of oversight, can be nullified by so few. I'm not nearly as concerned with luminocks as I am the rule making process. The process is on the pendulum of broken and this is just another example! Wake up, we are losing control over OUR resources! This is a trivial issue but imagine if it wasn't.


 

 

[winshooter88]

Chase 1 in his last post said that we are losing control of our (wildlife resources). I believe he is mistaken, we lost control over our resources a long time ago.

The most likely reason the commission ruled against lighted nocks is to keep all electronics out of what is supposedly a primitive weapons season. We know what the surveys showed about archers wanting lighted nocks, but does anyone know what kind of positive or negative emails or letters or calls they received on the subject? Popeshawnpaul is correct in saying that this isn't the first time that the commission has gone against GMAC and WDFW recommendations.

As far as other states allowing the use of lighted nocks, there are allot of things that Washington does different than other states and in most cases that is a good thing, because our human population and wildlife population are different than other states.