Down goes illuminated nocks!

[huntnphool]

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!)

 First of all with regards to electronics, range finders are not necessary to bowhunting either, I don't see you beating the drum to get rid of their use. Some may even argue that they are more a issue than luminoks since they are used pre shot as opposed to post shot.

 Secondly, the word "anti" was used in the context of the thread title, I'm quite sure everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to understand its intended meaning, despite another of your many twists.

 I'm a very patient person Snapshot, the end of this whole debate will be here soon enough and then we will see who is laughing and toasting the commission.

[Snapshot]

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!)

 First of all with regards to electronics, range finders are not necessary to bowhunting either, I don't see you beating the drum to get rid of their use. Some may even argue that they are more a issue than luminoks since they are used pre shot as opposed to post shot.

...electronic devices attached to the bow or arrow is the issue.

If an exception is made for an electric nock, people who use/sell rangefinders will step right into line asking for an exception for the bow-mounted rangefinder. At least one person on this thread already asked, 'why not?' There is blood in the water and the sharks are beginning to circle.

I've never beaten my drum to "try to get rid" of anything; I am defending the line.

[pianoman9701]

I would add that if you're buying broadheads instead of fashioning them out of obsidian, you're not being true to the primitive nature of the sport. The line you draw at luminoks and electronics is arbitrary, especially in a device that has no effect on the shot. If you use a radio, GPS, or any other battery or electric device at any time during your hunt and while camping, you're being untrue to someone's perception of what bowhunting should be. Who gets to decide where the line is drawn, Huntphool?

[Matt]

Chase I have not made any false comments.  Infact I have even said that it is not a certainty that allowing luminoks will decrease hunting days nor am I even against them.  What I have said is that there needs to be a line drawn and it should be at electronics on archery equipment.  I also would hope that true archers would be accepting of this and not necessarily jump on the band wagon of electronics.  My biggest "fear" would be that if luminoks are accepted that in fact it would open the flood gates to the other electronic accessory manufacturers to lobby their products and if that does happen there is no going backwards, the only recourse for WDFW would be to limit our seasons if they felt the need.  If electronics are allowed on the arrow then there is no arguement to not allow any other electronics on any other equipment.

This isn't doomsday thinking.  It's scenerio analysis.  Are you willing to take that chance on something that really has no effect on your bowhunting??  Think about it.

As for the majority thing.  It isn't up to us to demand that our equipment rules be changed.  It is up to the department to manage the resource.  Sure we can ask for things but just because the "majority" want it doesn't mean that it should be granted.  That's how Sh.. gets ruined.  People will always vote their own prosperity even if it comes with consequence.  There must be checks and balances.

[dscubame]

I would argue that the arrow is not "attached" to the bow therefore illuminated nocks would not be opening the door for attached electronics.

[Machias]

 

This thread is like a soap opera, you can leave it for days on end and come back and pick right up where you left off and already know what the characters have been up to. 

[Matt]

I would argue that the arrow is not "attached" to the bow therefore illuminated nocks would not be opening the door for attached electronics.

You should read the regulations closer.  Page 74 under Archery Regulations, paragraph 1.b.

b.   It is unlawful to have any electrical
equipment or electric device(s) attached
to the bow or arrow while hunting.

[Lowedog]

  I also would hope that true archers would be accepting of this and not necessarily jump on the band wagon of electronics. 

Please define "true archers"...

If you are implying that "true archers" would never use a nock that lights up after the shot then I would have to guess that there may be thousands if not tens of thousands of archery hunters across the US that may take offense to that. 

[UptheCreek]

So, are expandible broadheads considered electronic?

[Snapshot]

This thread is like a soap opera, you can leave it for days on end and come back and pick right up where you left off and already know what the characters have been up to. 

Like sands through the hourglass...

 

[Snapshot]

The line you draw at ... electronics is arbitrary....

The status quo is that no electronics may be attached to a bow or arrow. It is cut and dry and easy for law enforcement to enforce.

I think the rule was born out of the premonition that bowhunting could be completely reinvented if technological advances were allowed to run amok. As evidenced by what is allowed in many states the premonition was largely correct. In states like ours where there isn't a deer hiding behind every bush reinvention isn't needed to control game populations.

The "no attached electronics" rule that exists in just a handful of western states is perhaps the only thing that has kept compound manufacturers from fully integrating electronic gadgets into the compounds themselves. Thus far the accouterments (rangefinders, sights, etc) are add-ons that each person can choose to do with or without (except in the case of axle-to-axle lengths which have been shortened to the point that archers who want to feel the string under their fingers have an ever-shrinking number of models to choose from). But if the day ever comes that "anything goes" everywhere, then the door would be open for manufacturers to build all that stuff right into the compound; at which point these various accouterments would no longer be 'choices'. The price of the product would be raised accordingly and everyone would have to "buy the whole package." Imagine that...

[Snapshot]

So, are expandible broadheads considered electronic?

I don't know of any that are battery operated but I don't read magazines that advertise such stuff. They may exist...

The reason expandables are illegal for big game in this state, (aside from the barbed shape of most of them) is that they have not proven to be 100% dependable. And so long as there is a chance of failure to open properly, the Commission has maintained that it will not allow them. They wouldn't allow people to shoot field points at big game; when a mechanical broadhead fails to open it is no better than a field point.

[Chase 1]

Chase I have not made any false comments.  Infact I have even said that it is not a certainty that allowing luminoks will decrease hunting days nor am I even against them.  What I have said is that there needs to be a line drawn and it should be at electronics on archery equipment.  I also would hope that true archers would be accepting of this and not necessarily jump on the band wagon of electronics.  My biggest "fear" would be that if luminoks are accepted that in fact it would open the flood gates to the other electronic accessory manufacturers to lobby their products and if that does happen there is no going backwards, the only recourse for WDFW would be to limit our seasons if they felt the need.  If electronics are allowed on the arrow then there is no arguement to not allow any other electronics on any other equipment.

This isn't doomsday thinking.  It's scenerio analysis.  Are you willing to take that chance on something that really has no effect on your bowhunting??  Think about it.

As for the majority thing.  It isn't up to us to demand that our equipment rules be changed.  It is up to the department to manage the resource.  Sure we can ask for things but just because the "majority" want it doesn't mean that it should be granted.  That's how Sh.. gets ruined.  People will always vote their own prosperity even if it comes with consequence.  There must be checks and balances.

...it's not a certainty that lumenoks will decrease hunting days..?

Some of the issue is that you see no issue with this type of statement. How about, ...it's a certainty that lumenoks will not affect hunting days because lumenoks and hunting days are completely unrelated..? Lite nocks have zero impact on harvest rate...how many ways can that be said?

 ...I also would hope that true archers would be accepting of this..?

Really? Are you the guy who decides the criteria for being a "true archers"?

...open the floodgates..?

Isn't that the old Pandora's box argument again?

...the only recourse for WDFW would be to limit our seasons if they felt the need..?

You have to see how this sounds?

...there is no argument to not allow any other electronics on any other equipment.?

How about, ummm...they increase harvest rate and will negatively effect archery seasons?

... It's scenario analysis..?

What are we trading penny stocks or weather forecasting? Scenerio analysis doesn't produce reliable results if you have a preconceived bias or allow fiction to infiltrate the equations.

...up to the department to manage the resource..?

This isn't a resource issue.

People will always vote their own prosperity even if it comes with consequence.

Don't find to many sentences that start...People will always...that hold much water. Just another example.

There must be checks and balances.

How many more do you want? We don't really need to go back over all of them do we?

I'm not sure why you fellas insist on going on and on? Don't you realize that this issue would have gone quiet for a while if you had just let it? Talk about cutting off your nose to spit your face. I'm more than happy to see this thread disappear for 6 months... You?

[popeshawnpaul]

Wow, I just had a chance to read through and catch up on this thread.  You make some really good points Chase1, well debated.  I've been through all these arguments but what I always come back to that bothers me is this issue seems a lot like religion.  Nobody ever has issue with the guy that prays his own way in his own church and house.  When they go door to door, set up missionaries, and try and convert you telling you their way is the best it grains on people.

Reality is until Pope and Young changes the fair chase rules this issue will continue.  It seems a lot of people with time and energy might focus their attention on that.  I know quite a few "true bow hunters" as some like to call them that are asking P&Y to make this change.  Perhaps focusing attention to that issue might help some achieve their goal in WA.  The base premise of the "antis" (that was funny) is that P&Y fair chase rules prohibit use.  The whole deck of cards would crumble if P&Y updated their fair chase rules as they did with the let-off issue a few years ago. 

Beyond this issue, I think most bow hunters are united in what they want.  Nobody wants other gadgets or stuff attached to the bow.  In the end, things change over time.  We can all reminisce of the "good old days" but we need to find a way to balance some modernization with sufficient safeguards to ensure seasons aren't compromised.  Ignoring modernization won't keep it "out of sight, out of mind"...

[pianoman9701]

The line you draw at ... electronics is arbitrary....

The status quo is that no electronics may be attached to a bow or arrow. It is cut and dry and easy for law enforcement to enforce.

That's what the whole debate is about, changing the law (status quo? maybe) to add luminoks. I'm talking about the line that YOU draw, not the law. I'm saying that when you allow things like peep sights, light gathering fiber optics, modern broadheads, compound bows, 80% let-off, string silencers, stabilizers, releases, quivers which attach to the bow, etc., drawing the line at electronics is, in this perspective, quite arbitrary and almost laughable. So to speak, you've got the stuff you want, so screw everyone else? They're certainly not any more of a departure from tradition than these other items I've listed.