Down goes illuminated nocks!

[Chase 1]

This was one of very few items on the agenda presented for public input to the Commission at the meeting.  So there for it was discussed by those who took the time to attend.  The Commission accepted public input on all other items via emails, phone calls and letters.  So if we wasted our 3 minutes and the 6 hour drive, to discuss what was on the agenda, I guess I don't understand???
[/quote]

I don't think I said wasted time, I said questionable priorities. Your fully within your right to express your views to the commission... as a member of the public. But when folks put themselves out there as representatives of archers and commit this kind of effort to such a narrow issue, especially when 85% of archers disagree with you, I have to take issue with the motives.

[Matt]

No they should not ask us to do their job which is to manage the game and to not give every group everything that they want.  They can come up with issues, regulations, seasons and whatnot and ask for our input and take it into serious consideration.  They are humane and they make mistakes and no one person or group can make everyone happy.  Does your boss come to you and ask if you would like a raise?

[Chase 1]

No they should not ask us to do their job which is to manage the game and to not give every group everything that they want.  They can come up with issues, regulations, seasons and whatnot and ask for our input and take it into serious consideration.  They are humane and they make mistakes and no one person or group can make everyone happy.  Does your boss come to you and ask if you would like a raise?

Can't follow you on this left turn, I'm gonna stick with the thread topic. 

[Matt]

What I am getting at is that there is no benefit to lighted nocks so why is anyone asking us if we want them.  It has nothing to do with game management.

[huntnphool]

why is anyone asking us if we want them.

 Because 85% of the hunters want them legal, seems like a no brainer to me.

 Isn't it funny that 85% are in favor, yet the 15% that are opposed think the 85% are the wedge dividing the group.

[NWWABOWHNTR]

80% of the survey, which was (I am going from memory here) approx 2000, yet over 10K signed against them .......   come on guys, lets get on to important things like getting our seasons back.

[Chase 1]

It was over 85%, 3000, and where are these 10,000 signatures? I am on to other things but I can do both. Your right about the need to move on, that's what <85% of us tried to do. Thanks to the tiny minority, this conversation will continue. I for one refuse to accept that so few would get to chose for so many.

[NWWABOWHNTR]

Only 3000 answered the survey... that is less than 10% of the licensed archers in this state. 10,000 signatures were provided to the Commission against the lighted nock.

[Chase 1]

Only 3000 answered the survey... that is less than 10% of the licensed archers in this state. 10,000 signatures were provided to the Commission against the lighted nock.

And who authored the petition, do you have copies for review, what organizations backed the petition, how many of the 10,000 you say? were archers? or are we now putting the question to joe public? Funny no mention of these signatures from the archery "reps" at the Commission hearing or from the DFW managers. If I had a petition with 10,000 archer signatures on it, I would have used it as my platform for the whole conversation and this would be a dead issue. When it comes to archer rules and regs, I'll take a poll of archers over a public opinion petition, 10 times out of 10. No matter how you twist it the facts are <85% of archers approval, GMAC approval, WSB approval, and WDFW approval. This should be a done deal. Not really willing to see any part of my hunting dictated by so few. We can go back and forth all year until this is approved or the 15% can quit manufacturing opposition and we can move on.

[danderson]

100% of the archers that I know dont want them, stop beating this dead horse. lets focus attention elswere, like will there be anything left to hunt in the future.

[huntnphool]

stop beating this dead horse. lets focus attention elswere

 Says the guy with "speak your mind" listed under his username, thats awesome.

[scoyoc5]

    thats some funny chit 

[Snapshot]

Only 3000 answered the survey... that is less than 10% of the licensed archers in this state. 10,000 signatures were provided to the Commission against the lighted nock.

I'll take a poll of archers over a public opinion petition, 10 times out of 10. No matter how you twist it the facts are <85% of archers approval, GMAC approval, WSB approval, and WDFW approval. This should be a done deal. Not really willing to see any part of my hunting dictated by so few. We can go back and forth all year until this is approved or the 15% can quit manufacturing opposition and we can move on.

Simply repeating over and over that "85% of archers approve" isn't going to make it a fact. [And for the record: The GMAC is hunter-group sounding-board for departmental ideas; nothing more and it carries no more weight than that. The archery organization you mention took the position of "Not opposed to the electric nock" (and there are other archery hunting organizations in the state that told the Commission how their membership felt about the status quo). And the WDFW only makes recommendations; they cannot approve anything.]

Might there be a more balanced source for opinions? Perhaps! One could look at this very website and the opinions of its' members. The posts on this website suggest that hunter opinion is notably different than that shown by the department's highly acclaimed "informal survey", and the GMAC vote.

Here is what I found seven weeks ago when I looked at the trends. On Hunting-washington.com, between around the first of September 2011 through the first ten days or so of April 2012, members shared their vastly educated opinions on electric nocks after a full sixteen months of it having been a topic of heated debate. [There were about 180 bowhunting-specific thread topics started in the six months from Sept '11 to April '12 making this the most active washington-specific-bowhunting site that I am aware of.]

Some people posted an answer on the thread entitled something like, "If they were legal, would you use a lighted nock for big game hunting?" Others made their opinion known by saying so on another of the threads. Documenting these comments provides a sampling of (presumably concerned...or else terribly bored) washington hunters who have had the privilege of reading each and every pro and con point known to mankind regarding the question of whether an exception to the "no electronics" rule should be made for this particular gadget.

There are 10,750 or so website members here. If averages hold true about 25% of those will have bowhunted; so about 2690 of the members on this site have a valuable opinion in the matter. As of about the first week of April only 77 people felt strongly enough about the issue to state exactly where they stood on it.

[Not long ago Al Rinaldi wrote an article entitled "Are you Apathetic?" that was published in The Washington Bowhunter magazine; does a 3% offering of opinion depict apathy? But I digress...]

The results (lighted nocks; yes or no) were: 44% yes, 48% no, 8% no opinion. And that, I believe, is more representative of hunter opinion on the matter. Of the very few who felt it was even worth saying anything at all about it, the opinions were pretty much split down the middle.

And so I have to think that the much acclaimed 85% is, in truth, a very vocal minority.

[Chase 1]

What??? Where do I even start with that? The 85% is the vocal minority? You do have a creative way of manufacturing data to support your position, I'll give you that. What about that 10,000 signature petition? Still waiting for the details on that. As far as your blinding stats and tread counts, like I said creative. These are the very tactics that have made this a contentious issue. Misrepresenting the information on the issue to bolster your position is destructive and disingenuous. I have never thought that anything I would say would sway Snapshot or NWWA but recognize that your antics on this issue have been noticed and not in a "pat on the back" way. I might want to thank you this time next year for igniting a much louder political voice from the majority.

I can leave it alone for now, I just wanted to get a firm grasp on the position of the opposition. Got it.

It's been a spirited debate that has stayed above board and I can appreciate that.

[Snapshot]

What??? Where do I even start with that? The 85% is the vocal minority? You do have a creative way of manufacturing data to support your position, I'll give you that. What about that 10,000 signature petition? Still waiting for the details on that. As far as your blinding stats and tread counts, like I said creative. These are the very tactics that have made this a contentious issue. Misrepresenting the information on the issue to bolster your position is destructive and disingenuous. I have never thought that anything I would say would sway Snapshot or NWWA but recognize that your antics on this issue have been noticed and not in a "pat on the back" way. I might want to thank you this time next year for igniting a much louder political voice from the majority.

I can leave it alone for now, I just wanted to get a firm grasp on the position of the opposition. Got it.

It's been a spirited debate that has stayed above board and I can appreciate that.

Yes it has been a very good discussion.

I'll boil down my "creative" data manufacturing process to the bare bones. That 85% amounts to 360 people. That is 1.4% of the all people who were sent the informal survey. [ALERT: B^#*S+@& MATH AT WORK; PLEASE SEE POST #247 FOR CORRECTION]

See you down the trail.