Down goes illuminated nocks!

[D-Rock425]

I understand giving both sides a chance to express their stance on the subject but 22 pages of it c'mon 

[Matt]

Unethical practices plague every user group, it's not unique to archers. This isn't a matter of keeping a new tool used for unethical practices out of the hands of those who would use it to further their questionable practices. Equipment, standards, advertising, even rules are not the source of this problem. I for one am not in favor of defining rules based on this extreme minority group. I don't think for one second that any of the unethical hunters you speak of were convinced by a company ad campaign that they are justified in their actions.

IMO unrecovered broadheads are much more threatening to animals than people. Of course there is no data to support this, but how could there be? My contention is that every broadhead not left in the field is a good thing and just one of the reasons for this to go through.

I also have a major issue when Commissioner Jennings (the most vocal opponent of this change) told his fellow commissioners that 90% of arrows shot in the field are not recoverable so lumenok will make no difference in recovery. What?? 9-10 unrecoverable? This kind of spoken like fact, misinformation really fires me up. Some of the Commissioners are absolutely clueless on the issues they vote on, this was no diffrent. The information that reaches the Commission is often all they use to vote with. When a Commissioner spreads misinformation or ignorants on an issue like it's fact, without any opportunity for rebuttal because it's during the voting process, I have an issue with that. Much like I have had an issue with that same tactics from you and others on the other side of this issue. Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.   

 Now that's just plain funny right there, you should have quit after the 3rd sentence.  You know, I would venture a wager that a good % of arrows that are lost while hunting are the ones that skip off a branch and launch themselves into oblivion.  Your telling me that a lighted nock is gonna make a guy try to recover an arrow from a thick berry patch or 200 yards down or up a mountain side?  That is a weak arguement at best.  Now it may allow the archer to find the broken off back end of the arrow that is buried in an animal and give the guy some sense of direction it traveled.  But that's it.  Still not a good enough arguement for electronics on archery equipment.  Get a chem nock.

[huntnphool]

Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.

+1

 As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commision is going to pass this the next time they vote on it.

 I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.

 He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important"

 

[Matt]

As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commision is going to pass this the next time they vote on it.

 I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.

 He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important"

Just remember that quotes stay on the internet and for some out of this world chance that it doesn't pass I wouldn't want those words to come back on ya.

[huntnphool]

As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commision is going to pass this the next time they vote on it.

 I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.

 He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important"

Just remember that quotes stay on the internet and for some out of this world chance that it doesn't pass I wouldn't want those words to come back on ya.

 

[Chase 1]

I understand giving both sides a chance to express their stance on the subject but 22 pages of it c'mon 

You just started the 23rd.  If your uninterested, it's pretty easy...stop opening the thread. It seems to me that over 5000 views means that guys are interested in both sides of this issue and want to be informed. My involvement on this thread has primarily been spent squashing misinformation and scare tactics put up by very few on the far extreme of the issue. I wish this was a dead horse but unfortunately it's alive and well.   

[dscubame]

It is not the issue that has attracted 5000 views.  It is your banter and the entertainment you bring.  keep it up your entertaining.  I nominate Chase1 as the best of "keeping a dead horse thread alive".

[Chase 1]

Entertainment wasn't my objective, but if you enjoy watching folks squirm as their "facts" are taken to task, so be it. I honestly tried to leave this thread alone after I felt I had dismantled all the misinformation being spread like it was the truth, but they just keep bringin it. I realized along the way that one of the best ways to cure the spread of misinformation was actually to just keep'em talking. With a little prompting, credibility has a funny way of exposing itself. 

[Matt]

So be it Chase.  Beings how you and only you know all the facts and everyone else is just spewing nonsense then I proclaim that every word that you type from this point on be taken as THE ONLY TRUTHS that anyone and everyone should believe.  You have proven to me, through just diligence, that electronics on archery equipment is not only a good thing but it is also necessary to it's survival as a sport.  Without electronics bowhunting will die and it is totally unfair that we are deprived of it.

Whew I feel better.  Please enlighten us on all other issues that we have lived in the dark about o'wise one.

[UptheCreek]

Common sense isn't really prevalent in areas such as this.  The opening of the floodgates arguement and shortened or no season arguements are rediculous.  I think the majority of bowhunters use common sense in their approach to hunting, let's try using it when it comes to nocks.  Lighted nocks are no big deal.  For those that want to use them, great.  For those that don't want to use them, fine.  Who cares? 

[Snapshot]

I also have a major issue when Commissioner Jennings (the most vocal opponent of this change) told his fellow commissioners that 90% of arrows shot in the field are not recoverable so lumenok will make no difference in recovery. What?? 9-10 unrecoverable? This kind of spoken like fact, misinformation really fires me up. Some of the Commissioners are absolutely clueless on the issues they vote on, this was no diffrent. The information that reaches the Commission is often all they use to vote with. When a Commissioner spreads misinformation or ignorants on an issue like it's fact, without any opportunity for rebuttal because it's during the voting process, I have an issue with that. Much like I have had an issue with that same tactics from you and others on the other side of this issue. Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.   

Anyone who cares to listen to the words that Commissioner Jennings actually spoke can listen to the audio transcripts. http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2012/04/audio_apr1412.html Agenda item 13. Over the past three years since the commission first heard testimony about electric nocks, they have asked many questions and held discussions about what happens to arrows after they leave a bow. Anyone who had been to commission meetings (other than the wolf-specific meetings) in 2009-2011 knows this to be the case.

[Chase 1]

I will admit when I've misspoke and after reviewing my notes and the transcript of the meeting, I modified my post concerning Commissioner Jennings testimony to correct the statement. He said, "the majority of arrows shot in the field are unrecoverable." and not 90%/ 9 out of 10 as I stated. I apologize for any misunderstanding this may have caused as I try diligently to report concise information. But like previously stated, if you want to hear the Commission debate, click the link. No really, click and listen, I think you may find the inner workings of the Commissioners intresting!

[Chase 1]

So be it Chase.  Beings how you and only you know all the facts and everyone else is just spewing nonsense then I proclaim that every word that you type from this point on be taken as THE ONLY TRUTHS that anyone and everyone should believe.  You have proven to me, through just diligence, that electronics on archery equipment is not only a good thing but it is also necessary to it's survival as a sport.  Without electronics bowhunting will die and it is totally unfair that we are deprived of it.

Whew I feel better.  Please enlighten us on all other issues that we have lived in the dark about o'wise one.

Can't help yourself can you. Funny how you can twist things around to say whatever you want them too. I am far from all knowing, never claimed it, never will. Since I know that you have followed this thread, I also know that you don't believe anything you just wrote. I am not an advocate for all electronics in archery and have stated it many times. If nocks increased success or effected others opportunity, then I would have had only one word to say on the issue...NO. As far as the truth vs misinformation/scare tactics... lets recap shall we?

10,000 signature petition from archers against lite nocks filled with the Commission- False
Lite nocks will result in less archer days in the field- False
Lite nocks will result in loss of archer opportunity- False
WDFW poll was somehow bias- False
All the archery organizations were against lite nocks- False
Chem-nocks are just as good as Lumenocks- False
The Commission voted against lite nocks- False
Lite nocks are the key to Pandora's box- False
First lite nocks, next laser guided exploding broadheads- False
Lumenock promotes 100yd shots on game- False
Lite nocks promote unethical practices- False
Just because you say it makes it true- False
Volume equals truth- False
The minority should decide for the majority- False

Should I go on? The bottom line is this... This issue comes down to one thing and one thing only...opinion. Trying to influence others opinion by spreading false information is intolerable. I recognize that a select few don't share my feeling on this so the only answer is to call them out on their "facts" and I have respectfully debated the issue while doing just that. I realize that this issue would be much easier for you to debate if you could put me in the far right extreme on the issue...but you can't, because I'm not. And really have you added anything to this conversation beyond twisting your wooden spoon?

[Snapshot]

Can't help yourself can you. Funny how you can twist things around to say whatever you want them too. I am far from all knowing, never claimed it, never will. Since I know that you have followed this thread, I also know that you don't believe anything you just wrote. I am not an advocate for all electronics in archery and have stated it many times. If nocks increased success or effected others opportunity, then I would have had only one word to say on the issue...NO. As far as the truth vs misinformation/scare tactics... lets recap shall we?

10,000 signature petition from archers against lite nocks filled with the Commission- False
Lite nocks will result in less archer days in the field- False
Lite nocks will result in loss of archer opportunity- False
WDFW poll was somehow bias- False
All the archery organizations were against lite nocks- False
Chem-nocks are just as good as Lumenocks- False
The Commission voted against lite nocks- False
Lite nocks are the key to Pandora's box- False
First lite nocks, next laser guided exploding broadheads- False
Lumenock promotes 100yd shots on game- False
Lite nocks promote unethical practices- False
Just because you say it makes it true- False
Volume equals truth- False
The minority should decide for the majority- False

Should I go on? The bottom line is this... This issue comes down to one thing and one thing only...opinion. Trying to influence others opinion by spreading false information is intolerable. I recognize that a select few don't share my feeling on this so the only answer is to call them out on their "facts" and I have respectfully debated the issue while doing just that. I realize that this issue would be much easier for you to debate if you could put me in the far right extreme on the issue...but you can't, because I'm not. And really have you added anything to this conversation beyond twisting your wooden spoon?

It appears that everything that doesn't align with your way of thinking earns the label, "FALSE". Very tidy, that.

[Snapshot]

Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.

+1

 As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commission is going to pass this the next time they vote on it.

 I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.

 He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important"

 

HnP, this is much bigger than individuals; dragging it down to personalities denigrates its importance. This is about bowhunting as it was originally conceived within the North American model of conservation surviving somewhat intact, completely without the aid of electronic devices. Electronics are just are not necessary to bowhunting; all that is are a bow and an arrow.

And if you are needing to label anyone an 'anti' (conjuring up the term "anti-hunter" for effect!) then look to those who went before the GMAC and the Commission with the unmitigated audacity to claim that bowhunters in Washington are wounding a deer or two or three before they finally tag one. How could anyone be more an anti-bowhunter than someone who would makes such outragious claims just for the purpose of trying to get an exception to the 'no electronics' rule for a battery-powered nock?! What was the carrot that led the donkey down that road? The answer to that question is one I'd like to see uncovered.