Post by: huntingfool7 on August 20, 2010, 12:48:10 PM
www.wabowhunters.org (http://www.wabowhunters.org)
Post by: carpsniperg2 on August 20, 2010, 01:03:18 PM
Post by: Ray on August 20, 2010, 01:47:17 PM
Why do people vote no? Well there may be many answers to that. I believe the modern hunter really would like to justify many little technological advancements to support their hunt. Leaving electronics OFF the bow an arrow is a simple place to draw the line in a legal and ethical sense. I believe that the modern day archer who promotes or condones electronics on their bow simply relies on too much technology. This really tells a lot about the person who believes it should be one way or another. One might have to take a look at what hunting is all about and how it is perceived and promoted for the public and for future generations with regards to behavior of archers, permitted equipment as well as law. For me hunting is a raw experience. Even when I rifle hunt. I am certain that many people hunt for differing reasons and have different points of view on all of this.
As a cheap alternative I know people can simply place reflective tape onto their arrows and utilize a cheap flashlight to see where the arrows went. I believe that this technology will promote the behavior of shooting when it is too dark. Potentially creating more unethical shots to take place in the field. Archers seek to stretch the distance of their equipment, the speed of the delivery and the preciseness of their shot. Why not the electronic nock to make the final deed so much easier? Right? Archers have lived without these sort of gagdets on the bow and arrow for decades. We should carefully consider this matter.
Overall it's an interesting situation that organization has placed the poll up on their front page. It's obvious that WSB is focused like a laser beam on the critical matters. Pun intended. What happend to opportunities for special permits and general seasons? Or even getting new members into their ranks. How about local and upcoming activities or events being promoted? A personal look at WSB - Four times I attempted in the past 4 years to join their organization by submitting the form on the site, but it goes into outer space and I have never heard a peep back. From what I can tell the most recent content on that site appears to date back to 2005. If this is the most important issue at hand for that organization then that's too bad. Looking at the content on their site one could conclude they are not far from an extinct organization. After this move I know some people will see that organization in a dimmer view. I concurr and no longer feel compelled to join the ranks there. I can imagine what the game commission will think about the archery community when this is proposed. Mostly I believe what might run through their mind is some of what I have mentioned. - Is this really the most critical matter for achers in WA state?
Some things to ponder... What really happened to the hunter who went into the forest and challenged the game with raw weaponry and without ATVs (for the well abled), trail cameras, GPS devices, rangefinders, Google Maps, satellite imagery, etc? It's like an extinct species. There is a wealth of information and existing technological or equipment at the hunter's disposal. Making a nock into the critical issue for bowhunters this year or any other seems... a little odd. I'd prefer to believe that archers are viewed as the type of people who harvest their game in the woods without needing or wanting these sort of devices. Why? Because I think that they are better than that. To me this idea of electronics on the bow and arrow is a departure from primitive weaponry in whole.
Fair Chase... By definition of Pope and Young Club we should consider what is "Fair Chase" and if this is an important and the right step for our state. Now these Fair Chase ethics and standards which have been acknowledged and accepted for a reason. To preserve image, promote ethics, and foster the frame of mind so bowhunters do not forget or lose contact with what is clearly a consensus of hunting in an ethically sound manner. Which has been a standard set by several generations of archers on a national scale. There is enough wisdom among their membership ranks to take note of..
http://www.pope-young.org/bowhunting_fairchase.asp (http://www.pope-young.org/bowhunting_fairchase.asp)
Quote
The term “Fair Chase” shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:
Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
From any power vehicle or power boat.
By “jacklighting” or shining at night.
By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures.
By the use of any power vehicle or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached.
Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.
The fair chase concept does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent’s natural resources.
Post by: Machias on August 20, 2010, 02:19:55 PM
Post by: Snapshot on August 20, 2010, 07:29:29 PM
i don't understand why so many people say no.
It is because they are not necessary!
Ray said it very well in his reply. I will emphasize that they are an aid to taking risky shots; too dark or too far.
And I agree that there are more important things that should be addressed. And I concur that if bowhunters become a 'pebble in the shoe' of the WDFW with this sort of issue then the department won't take us seriously on the jugular issues.
Y'all should pick up the Oct/Nov issue of Traditional Bowhunter and read Fred Asbell's article entitled "Avoiding Easier..." It will shed more light on why there is a large segment of archery hunters that shun the tendency to try to make things easier.
Post by: Whitenuckles on August 20, 2010, 08:40:45 PM
Post by: boneaddict on August 20, 2010, 09:00:24 PM
Post by: ribka on August 20, 2010, 09:05:48 PM
If we keep allowing advancements in technology will end up with a 5 day archery season :twocents:
Post by: huntingfool7 on August 20, 2010, 09:08:26 PM
This is the biggest advantage and the best reason that I can see for using them while hunting. It is important to see where your arrow impacts the animal. Knowing where your shot went directly relates to how long to wait before following up.
My eyes are getting older and I am have difficulty seeing the arrow impact while hunting in heavy timber.
As previously stated, if you use them you can not enter your animal into Pope and Young. Personally, I'm not someone that is concerned with getting my name in a book. Seems like I should be able to make that choice for myself. These nocks are legal in 44 of the 50 states.
As far as shooting at night goes, you still need to see your sights and you still need to see the target. This is not about jacklighting or putting lights on your bow sights.
It's about calling your shots accurately and as a side benefit, finding your shot arrows.
Post by: boneaddict on August 20, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote
This is the biggest advantage and the best reason that I can see for using them while hunting. It is important to see where your arrow impacts the animal. Knowing where your shot went directly relates to how long to wait before following
Honestly I think if you can't see where your arrow is impacting with colored fletchings or a white nock, then it is probably inappropriate lighting to take the shot. I think folks will try shots they shouldn't with these items.
This has been debated in the ground and most likely being pushed by the WSBs new Vice President as he really wants them. :chuckle: I don't think we need presidence for electronical devices on a primitive weapon. I wonder if Fred Bear needed lighted nocks.
Post by: DBZona on August 20, 2010, 09:21:20 PM
i don't understand why so many people say no.
It is because they are not necessary!
Ray said it very well in his reply. I will emphasize that they are an aid to taking risky shots; too dark or too far.
And I agree that there are more important things that should be addressed. And I concur that if bowhunters become a 'pebble in the shoe' of the WDFW with this sort of issue then the department won't take us seriously on the jugular issues.
Y'all should pick up the Oct/Nov issue of Traditional Bowhunter and read Fred Asbell's article entitled "Avoiding Easier..." It will shed more light on why there is a large segment of archery hunters that shun the tendency to try to make things easier.
What about in my case? I am colorblind and have a difficult enough time finding my arrow and fletchings, no matter what color they are or the time of day it is. It sucks. It really really sucks to try to follow a blood trail and that is why I now own a blood hunter (have not used it yet) to hopefully help. I really do support the use of them. In regard to taking shots that are "too dark or too far", unethical hunters are now doing this without lighted nocks, so that as an argument, in my opinion, has no foundation in the issue of legalizing their use. So my stance is that lighted nocks will, most importantly, aid in the retrievel of arrows after a shot
Post by: huntingfool7 on August 20, 2010, 09:28:06 PM
Post by: DBZona on August 20, 2010, 09:31:16 PM
@DBzone- Green and Yellow light ups are most highly visible to color blind persons. If you would like to see them, my shop/range is in Tacoma. I think that you would find these really stand out.
Can you move your shop to Spokane? :chuckle: Does anyone know, in my case,if there is a way I can use them within the law?
Post by: Ray on August 20, 2010, 09:35:52 PM
Quote
unethical hunters are now doing this without lighted nocks
Should archers be not concerned when they permit situations which might promote more unethical behavior. I think not.
There was a suggestion above to use reflective tape on the tip of the arrow.
The number of technological advantages hunters possess these days is huge. I'm sure the game commission will be happy to turn over more hunting opportunities to other user groups while they listen to the reasoning for electronics on the bow and arrow; which has been cited by several well respected organizations as unethical. Archers forfeited 20% of their early season permanently in 2009. Then this turns up as the critical matter of the season. The priorities seem a little off to me.
Post by: hughjorgan on August 20, 2010, 09:37:48 PM
Post by: yajsab on August 20, 2010, 09:50:30 PM
Post by: highside74 on August 20, 2010, 10:11:09 PM
You tradition guy's on your high horse kill me. I am actually suprised it's 50/50 right now seeing how that club leans heavily traditional. You guy's are the same guy's that faught for keeping 65% letoff until Pope and Young said there was no more advantage between 80% and 65% proven.
It doesn't give any advantage to the hunter before or during the exacution of the shot. Only after the arrow is on it's way does it come into play. Therefore I don't see a problem with it.
Post by: Ray on August 21, 2010, 04:36:23 AM
First you lament someone who has explained in good detail why they do not approve of this equipment you cannot use and then you propose restrictions on them for a reason which has little to no basis other than angst. I have and still do hunt with a longbow and am not using cedar but this year have lodgepole pine arrows.
The basis in proposal for lighted nocks reads to me as if "We are archers and we plan on taking shots when it is too dark to see the arrow." I believe that sends a message to the public and to the Game Commission that we plan on being unethical in the field and taking shots using poor judgement but will rely on this technology to fill the gaps and hopefully all will turn out well.
Post by: rasbo on August 21, 2010, 05:46:43 AM
Post by: JBar on August 21, 2010, 06:22:43 AM
I think Highsides point with the cedar arrow comment was appropriate and accurate that traditional bowhunters on committees are setting limits on most archers. But when someone makes a comment on limits for traditionalist they get snapped at! If you don't think there is technological advancements in your traditional equipment think again! Laminated risers, synthetic strings, clickers, lathed cedar or pine arrows and glass inlays in the limbs are all examples. Remember that all archery equipment has evolved from the simple stick and sinew string with a simple rock tipped cedar stick for an arrow.
Ray though it's not quite the same thing I find it funny that you use traditional equipment, shoot down technology advancements in archery then give up on signing up for WSB because their electronic membership form hasn't worked for you. You could just walk into the sportsmans show and sign up there like in the old days. Not an attack on you Ray I'm Just sayin! :chuckle:
I voted yes in approval for lighted nocks because like others have said they help in the aid of recovery. A non ethical hunter is going to still be a non ethical hunter with or without these nocks.
Post by: Machias on August 21, 2010, 08:24:33 AM
If you voted no for lighted nocks then I dont want to see you hunting with anything more than a long bow and cedar arrows tipped with rocks.
You tradition guy's on your high horse kill me. I am actually suprised it's 50/50 right now seeing how that club leans heavily traditional. You guy's are the same guy's that faught for keeping 65% letoff until Pope and Young said there was no more advantage between 80% and 65% proven.
It doesn't give any advantage to the hunter before or during the exacution of the shot. Only after the arrow is on it's way does it come into play. Therefore I don't see a problem with it.
You know I have been bowhunting since 1979, hunted compounds the entire time. This will be my first year with a longbow. Amazingly in ALL those years I never lost an arrow or an animal...probably because I have always maintained my discipline to shoot within a respectable (close) distance. It doesn't have ANY thing to do with traditional archers. At archery appropriate ranges, I have no trouble seeing where my arrow impacts.
Post by: huntingfool7 on August 21, 2010, 08:39:27 AM
Post by: Snapshot on August 21, 2010, 10:26:28 AM
A non ethical hunter is going to still be a non ethical hunter with or without these nocks.
But WITH those nocks an otherwise ethical hunter may be tempted to take the risky shot! That is the point!
I was just this morning trying to remember the last time I lost an arrow that I'd loosed at an animal and I can't think of a single one in the past 18 years.
Post by: danceswitharrows on August 21, 2010, 11:33:09 AM
I like the current rules and hope they stay in place:
No lighted nocks
No expandables
No Crossbows
No bow mounted range finder
I always know where my arrow hit...right where my pin was on him ;)
Post by: Ray on August 21, 2010, 12:07:18 PM
People live and breathe by their ethics and the idea of Fair Chase is not a dead one. It is very much alive.
So do yourself a favor and think before you sling elitist arguments. It's a losing argument.
What this proposal is is telling the game commission and public that archers intend to make poor judgments in the field shooting animals when it is too dark to see their arrow; and that they want and expect the game commission and WDFW to back them up when they make these poor decisions. It's in my view one of the poorest justifications I can imagine for electronics on the bow and arrow.
Post by: huntingfool7 on August 21, 2010, 12:21:01 PM
Guess I should resign to the fact that I'm too old and my eyes are too tired to be in the woods. Or maybe I should use one of my old bows @ 180 fps and no sights. It would make for a nice cane ;)
Post by: chim-chim on August 21, 2010, 12:22:10 PM
Post by: alanger on August 21, 2010, 12:22:36 PM
Post by: Atroxus on August 21, 2010, 12:50:47 PM
Ray said it very well in his reply. I will emphasize that they are an aid to taking risky shots; too dark or too far.
This doesn't make any sense to me....unless I misunderstood how illuminated nocks work. My understanding is that you can't see the light until AFTER the arrow has been fired and that it essentially turns your arrow into a tracer allowing you to see it's flight path, and helps to find it afterward. If that is how they work I don't see how that could possible make someone more likely to take a shot beyond their normal range or in poor lighting. Personally I can't see anything about this that would give any advantage to the bow hunter other than the ability to tell if the arrow they fired was a clean hit or not, and possibly allow them to recover arrows that might otherwise be lost in the brush after exiting the animal. Am I missing something here? :dunno:
Honestly I think if you can't see where your arrow is impacting with colored fletchings or a white nock, then it is probably inappropriate lighting to take the shot. I think folks will try shots they shouldn't with these items.
I tested a bow at cabellas in a well lit store. I was shooting in a target that had a couple arrows in it already and after releasing I couldn't tell where the arrow I fired had hit. Not everyone is blessed with perfect eyesight. Honestly I think that people that take bad shats will do so regardless of what gadgets they have, and those that don't won't. Allowing or denying certain pieces equipment does not magically make someone an ethical hunter. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on August 21, 2010, 12:57:41 PM
I think that the WSB would be better served lobbying for better or longer seasons or more units to hunt than wasting their time over lighted nocks. and......since I am on a high horse, it appears to me that if you are incapable of harvesting a deer cleanly without the use of a lighted apparatus stuck on the end of your arrow, then maybe you should take up rifle hunting, and yes, I have some of those too. :)
Post by: boneaddict on August 21, 2010, 01:01:17 PM
Post by: Atroxus on August 21, 2010, 01:08:18 PM
If you are shooting in normal hunting light Atroxus, there shouldn't be a need to light up your arrow to see where it goes. A white or bright colored nock works quite well. I believe people will take shots even later than they should resulting in even more unrecovered deer. This is still not the reason I am against them, but I do believe it will happen. Same as taking a bow that is capable of flinging an arrow 100 yards. People take longer shots than they should. Its what people do. Many folks seem to lack the restraint needed to make good decisions.
This is one of the reasons I will probably never try bow hunting. I couldn't see where my arrows went in a well lit archery range so I doubt I would be able to see where an arrow hits on a deer.
Post by: scoyoc5 on August 21, 2010, 01:24:39 PM
Post by: Machias on August 21, 2010, 03:20:02 PM
Post by: Atroxus on August 21, 2010, 03:50:02 PM
First off, you don't need to SEE where your arrow impacts, in fact you probably shouldn't SEE where it impacts. It's like a golf shot, raising your head to see where the ball goes messes with your form. You should be concentrating on the spot your trying to hit. Then once the animal departs you can walk on over and see where the animal was standing, what hair is left at the scene, what does the blood trail look like, does the blood have bubbles in it, food matter, is it dark red, etc. Then you start tracking your animal. THIS is what is important, NOT whether your able to see the exact impact site or not. Even on shots that I was unable to see exactly where the arrow impacted I had a good idea about where it hit and that coupled with what was left at the scene for me helps me recover animals. I think most guys who are clamoring for lighted sight pins are the same guys who are flinging arrows at distances that are way too long. :twocents:
Hmm I thought this thread was about lighted nocks not sight pins. I would agree that lighted sight pins could be used to take shots in poor light conditions. I still don't see how lighted nocks could be though. While I respect the skill it takes to hunt using more traditional means I think everyone should be allowed to choose what level of technology they want or don't want to use. You guys may not like being called elitists, but when you start trying to tell people that only your way of doing things is the "right" way thats how it comes across. Personally I could care less what method someone uses to hunt as long as it is legal, and and the kill is humane. Ethical hunters will be ethical regardless of what gear they use, and unethical hunters will be unethical regardless. Trying to say that the gear is what makes them unethical makes about as much sense as saying guns cause crime.
Post by: scoyoc5 on August 21, 2010, 04:01:09 PM
Post by: DBZona on August 21, 2010, 05:13:14 PM
A non ethical hunter is going to still be a non ethical hunter with or without these nocks.
But WITH those nocks an otherwise ethical hunter may be tempted to take the risky shot! That is the point!
I was just this morning trying to remember the last time I lost an arrow that I'd loosed at an animal and I can't think of a single one in the past 18 years.
I agree with your point, the key being the temptation. An ethical hunter then has the choice of tarnishing his/her reputation and classifying his/herself as an unethical hunter. What I was trying to point out is that no matter what is legalized or not, unethical hunters are here to stay and yes they are among us. Here is an example: A 180" deer is stoping broadside at 60 yards and will not come closer. You have told yourself that you will not shoot beyond 40 yards. Are you tempted to take the shot on the biggest deer you have ever seen just outside your range? I think all of us would be tempted, but this is a defining moment in any hunters career, will you classify yourself as unethical by taking a shot well beyond your range and risk wounding an animal, or do you stand your ground and practice what you preach? The temptation is always there, it is what we do with that temptation that defines us. When all is said and done the unethical ones are here to stay. As a last note, in no way do I see how lighted nocks aid in the shot. They do not help you aim, they do not keep your bow steady, they simply let you see where your shot is going and aid in finding your arrow.
Post by: boneaddict on August 21, 2010, 05:27:54 PM
Quote
I think everyone should be allowed to choose what level of technology they want or don't want to use.
Here is the problem with this statement.......the more technology increases, generally the higher your harvest rates go, and how do you manage a herd with increased harvest rates....you decrease the seasons. A lighted nock is just one step in this evolutionary step in the chain. No, it by itself will not decrease your season from 4 weeks in September down to two. However, where do YOU draw the line at where this technology stops. Is i tthe lighted nock, the lighted site pins, the laser finder on your bow. EVERY item of technology can use the excuse .....cleaner, faster kill, better recovery, etc. At what point are you all going to stand in front of your Wii at home with your bow and fake hunting, then run down to the store and buy a hunk of angus. There is a point where this "Elitist" enjoys hunting, the skill it takes to harvest that deer, and I revel in the challenge to do so. Honestly if every hunter on this site had the success that I do, our season would be MUCH shorter.......so yes, in a matter of speaking how I hunt and how everyone else hunts, and what technology they use, does effect everyone else.
In a way, each user group is in competetion for the animals out there to harvest. Your seasons will reflect it. I would rather the WSB be lobbying for that versus a piece of technology that obviously isn't needed. Yes thats my opinion and all its worth.
Post by: Old Dog on August 21, 2010, 05:33:40 PM
Well, except for this part, "Honestly if every hunter on this site had the success that I do, our season would be MUCH shorter......." I'm not as much of a threat. :chuckle:
Post by: Atroxus on August 21, 2010, 05:54:30 PM
QuoteI think everyone should be allowed to choose what level of technology they want or don't want to use.
Here is the problem with this statement.......the more technology increases, generally the higher your harvest rates go, and how do you manage a herd with increased harvest rates....you decrease the seasons. A lighted nock is just one step in this evolutionary step in the chain. No, it by itself will not decrease your season from 4 weeks in September down to two. However, where do YOU draw the line at where this technology stops. Is i the lighted nock, the lighted site pins, the laser finder on your bow. EVERY item of technology can use the excuse .....cleaner, faster kill, better recovery, etc. At what point are you all going to stand in front of your Wii at home with your bow and fake hunting, then run down to the store and buy a hunk of angus. There is a point where this "Elitist" enjoys hunting, the skill it takes to harvest that deer, and I revel in the challenge to do so. Honestly if every hunter on this site had the success that I do, our season would be MUCH shorter.......so yes, in a matter of speaking how I hunt and how everyone else hunts, and what technology they use, does effect everyone else.
In a way, each user group is in competetion for the animals out there to harvest. Your seasons will reflect it. I would rather the WSB be lobbying for that versus a piece of technology that obviously isn't needed. Yes thats my opinion and all its worth.
I can see your points, and I agree that there are bigger fish to fry than lighted nocks on arrows. I don't think that because some people *choose* to handicap themselves on their hunts though that others should be required to limit themselves in the same ways though. Then again I also don't think game should be managed by the changing length of the seasons but directly by the amounts that are harvested. If it were up to me there would be X number of permits available in each unit each year based on how many animals in a given area could be harvested and still maintain a healthy population and healthy ratio of male:female animals. I would then have the seasons run until that limit had been reached or the end of that hunting year. Tags unfilled at the end of the year would roll over to the following season(and be subtracted form the pool of available tags), and hunters with a tag for a given animal/GMU would not be eligible to draw for another until they filled or returned the first one. This way hunters who wish to use traditional methods of hunting could spend as long as it takes to harvest an animal, or until they give up and turn their tag back in, while hunters that just want to get in get some meat for the freezer and get out could use whatever equipment they wanted.(within reason) I am just a newby hunter though, so I could just be talking out my ass. ;)
Post by: boneaddict on August 21, 2010, 05:55:40 PM
Is it for the challenge......
Is it for the tradition.....
Is it for the longer seasons....
Is it for the "better" seasons.....
Is it because there are less people....
The forefathers of the sport argued for a seperate hunt for a "primitive weapon". At what point does a weapon become less primitive.
Since that time, we have gone from being able to hunt with ALL THREE weapon types down to choosing ONE. Now, we as hunters are pitted against each other for the mere fact we are in competetion for a piece of the pie.
Why do you think our seasons keep getting shorter.........
Ask the muzzeloaders why they don't get a split season like we do and they used to do, at least for antlered game. Why do we not get to harvest cows in certain areas any longer as bowhunters like we ALL USED to. Why did we just lose a couple of really good late hunts in the last two years?
yes there are several factors, but I bet technology and harvest have a great deal to do with it.
Post by: boneaddict on August 21, 2010, 06:03:56 PM
You will also now be faced with other Apex predators eating that slice of pie, (wolves)
Technology like this website, the informational hi-way, GPS, etc. are already taking their toll. Those are harder to manage. Its easy to say no electronic devices on your weapons. SOON, modern, muzzzel and Archery can all enjoy one week in the field together.
Post by: Atroxus on August 21, 2010, 06:08:35 PM
The only thing I see flawed is that is there are an x amount of hunters and only an x-1 amount of game. Not everyone kills a deer because if they did, there wouldn't be a herd for much longer. That is why the pie slice gets slimer every year. As technology increases, or hunters get better, the harvest goes up. Thats why the seasons get shorter as its the easiest way to manage a general hunt. In a way, your logic will pan right into a draw only. Then instead of hunting with "primitive gear", you are sitting at home watching football because you didn't draw a tag. THAT is the next step in this evolutionary change. No matter to me really as I've killed enough deer, I just assume photograph them, but I'd sure like some of the future generations to get a crack at it, and I do like the taste of venison.
You will also now be faced with other Apex predators eating that slice of pie, (wolves)
True I think that initially it would mean draw only permits. But if managed responsibly so that the herds could get back up in numbers I think that eventually it could get back to a point where number of animals would allow for hunters to get multiple permits in a year to keep numbers from getting out of control. I could be wrong, but then again maybe what WDFW really needs right now is an outside the box solution from someone who is not set in the ways of business as usual. :dunno:
Post by: boneaddict on August 21, 2010, 06:20:13 PM
Quote
WDFW really needs right now is an outside the box solution from someone who is not set in the ways of business as usual
Can't argue with that
Honestly you are probably witnessing the end days of hunting. I feel very fortunate to have gotten to do what I have.
Post by: Machias on August 21, 2010, 07:18:15 PM
First off, you don't need to SEE where your arrow impacts, in fact you probably shouldn't SEE where it impacts. It's like a golf shot, raising your head to see where the ball goes messes with your form. You should be concentrating on the spot your trying to hit. Then once the animal departs you can walk on over and see where the animal was standing, what hair is left at the scene, what does the blood trail look like, does the blood have bubbles in it, food matter, is it dark red, etc. Then you start tracking your animal. THIS is what is important, NOT whether your able to see the exact impact site or not. Even on shots that I was unable to see exactly where the arrow impacted I had a good idea about where it hit and that coupled with what was left at the scene for me helps me recover animals. I think most guys who are clamoring for lighted sight pins are the same guys who are flinging arrows at distances that are way too long. :twocents:
Hmm I thought this thread was about lighted nocks not sight pins. I would agree that lighted sight pins could be used to take shots in poor light conditions. I still don't see how lighted nocks could be though. While I respect the skill it takes to hunt using more traditional means I think everyone should be allowed to choose what level of technology they want or don't want to use. You guys may not like being called elitists, but when you start trying to tell people that only your way of doing things is the "right" way thats how it comes across. Personally I could care less what method someone uses to hunt as long as it is legal, and and the kill is humane. Ethical hunters will be ethical regardless of what gear they use, and unethical hunters will be unethical regardless. Trying to say that the gear is what makes them unethical makes about as much sense as saying guns cause crime.
I wasn't talking about lighted sight pins, just inadvertently typed that. That is the reason everyone gives on wanting lighted nocks, to see where they hit the animal. My mistake typing sights instead of nocks. The rest of what I said applies.
Post by: JBar on August 21, 2010, 07:48:16 PM
So do yourself a favor and think before you sling elitist arguments. It's a losing argument.
What this proposal is is telling the game commission and public that archers intend to make poor judgments in the field shooting animals when it is too dark to see their arrow; and that they want and expect the game commission and WDFW to back them up when they make these poor decisions. It's in my view one of the poorest justifications I can imagine for electronics on the bow and arrow.
[/quote]
Not the intention to sling anything or try and convince you away from your beliefs so settle down. I believe debate is a healthy thing as it gets issues out in the open. I in no way said that your view is wrong. As a matter of fact I agree with you, that this an issue that perception by the public and commission is huge. If this came to a vote by bowhunters and they were told you can have these nocks but you will lose one day of season nobody would hesitate to dump the nock issue.
I personally would probably use them if they were legal but I have better things to do than to waste my energy on this issue with the state. If the state says "No" I move on and hunt the same way I have been for the last 23 years.
Ray and Bone I know both of you "have been there done that" (no sarcasm intended)so you should both know the Westside and even Eastside dark timber and thick brush is not conducive to finding an arrow that has missed or passed through an animal. Low light does not just happen and dawn and dusk!
Machias I shoot both eyes open and have no problem staying in form and still seeing my arrow but maybe I'm a little weird. :chuckle:
Also all should already know if a hunter is teetering on ethics it's not the equipments fault.
Post by: Machias on August 21, 2010, 08:05:15 PM
Post by: JBar on August 22, 2010, 02:10:01 PM
Post by: MIKEXRAY on August 22, 2010, 02:40:04 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on August 22, 2010, 10:36:21 PM