Post by: bigpaw 77 on December 24, 2010, 09:06:38 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 24, 2010, 09:12:28 PM
Post by: agchawk on December 24, 2010, 09:12:33 PM
Post by: BlackRidge on December 24, 2010, 09:30:16 PM
Just curious, I'd never seen anything specific in the archery regs, or at least nothing that stood out
Post by: Lowedog on December 24, 2010, 09:31:54 PM
Post by: dscubame on December 24, 2010, 11:05:46 PM
Post by: BlackRidge on December 25, 2010, 07:38:46 AM
Wish they would just legalize them. There is no advantage to the hunter and would help track the animal in an effort of being more humane. Wake up Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!!!Agree'd, traditional means aside, anything that will help you collect your harvest more quickly/humanely can't hurt to be considered
Post by: ribka on December 25, 2010, 08:24:49 AM
Wish they would just legalize them. There is no advantage to the hunter and would help track the animal in an effort of being more humane. Wake up Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!!!Agree'd, traditional means aside, anything that will help you collect your harvest more quickly/humanely can't hurt to be considered
Then allow laser-guided arrows, spot lights attached to bows for those low light situations, cross bows, expandable broadheads for those who don't want to take the time to tune their broadheads....
Merry Christmas :)
Post by: MtnMuley on December 25, 2010, 08:47:57 AM
Their purpose is far from a lazer-guided arrow. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on December 25, 2010, 08:52:51 AM
Post by: Machias on December 25, 2010, 08:58:07 AM
Post by: ribka on December 25, 2010, 09:31:02 AM
The folks who want to allow them, you can achieve the same results using white nocks, feathers and cresting. You can get the same thing without allowing electronics on a bow. I hope they continue not being allowed. No electronics on bow equipment.
I use florescent pink fletching on my arrows but am secure in my sexuality :chuckle:
Over 30 years of bow hunting and cannot think of a situation where a lighted nock would have aided me in making a good shot. Have always seen my arrow when it hit and waited the appropriate amount of time to begin tracking.
But I don't shoot before, after legal shooting hours or take 70 yd shots :twocents:
Post by: Machias on December 25, 2010, 09:52:20 AM
But I don't shoot before, after legal shooting hours or take 70 yd shots :twocents:
Amen brother!
Post by: Lowedog on December 25, 2010, 10:41:06 AM
The folks who want to allow them, you can achieve the same results using white nocks, feathers and cresting. You can get the same thing without allowing electronics on a bow. I hope they continue not being allowed. No electronics on bow equipment.
I use florescent pink fletching on my arrows but am secure in my sexuality :chuckle:
Over 30 years of bow hunting and cannot think of a situation where a lighted nock would have aided me in making a good shot. Have always seen my arrow when it hit and waited the appropriate amount of time to begin tracking.
But I don't shoot before, after legal shooting hours or take 70 yd shots :twocents:
Your statement in bold just made the point for everyone who wants to use them. They do not aid in making a good shot.
I am neutral on legalizing them. I don't plan on using them if they are legalized but have no problem with them being legal.
The more this subject comes up the more I realize that there is a big push to legalize them. I think the majority of people are either for them or are like me and will not have a problem with them being legalized. :twocents:
Merry Christmas!!!
Post by: Buckrub on December 25, 2010, 11:31:10 AM
Wish they would just legalize them. There is no advantage to the hunter and would help track the animal in an effort of being more humane. Wake up Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!!!Agree'd, traditional means aside, anything that will help you collect your harvest more quickly/humanely can't hurt to be considered
Then allow laser-guided arrows, spot lights attached to bows for those low light situations, cross bows, expandable broadheads for those who don't want to take the time to tune their broadheads....
Merry Christmas :)
And while we are at it we could outlaw gps's, handheld rangefinders, compound bows, manufactured arrows and broadheads... treestands and any other aid...might as well change the law to homemade bows and shafts/broadheads.
Maybe some hunters seeing the shot placement would help with lost animals... I don't care either way and will not judge.
And a merry Christmas to you
Post by: Tony 270 on December 25, 2010, 11:34:59 AM
Wish they would just legalize them. There is no advantage to the hunter and would help track the animal in an effort of being more humane. Wake up Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!!!Agree'd, traditional means aside, anything that will help you collect your harvest more quickly/humanely can't hurt to be considered
Then allow laser-guided arrows, spot lights attached to bows for those low light situations, cross bows, expandable broadheads for those who don't want to take the time to tune their broadheads....
Merry Christmas :)
Your argument compares taking game vs recovering game. I'm not for any electronics that aid in the shot and taking of the animal, but in this case they're talking about tools to help recover game you already shot/shot at/took. Illumanocks don't help before the shot, only after the arrow was released.
Post by: Machias on December 25, 2010, 11:39:27 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 25, 2010, 11:41:44 AM
Wish they would just legalize them. There is no advantage to the hunter and would help track the animal in an effort of being more humane. Wake up Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!!!Agree'd, traditional means aside, anything that will help you collect your harvest more quickly/humanely can't hurt to be considered
Then allow laser-guided arrows, spot lights attached to bows for those low light situations, cross bows, expandable broadheads for those who don't want to take the time to tune their broadheads....
Merry Christmas :)
One problem I have with this statement is with the inclusion here of crossbows. Since the crossbow thread/poll I've been looking up all kinds of information on crossbows....and modern compound bows (it's looking like) are capable of out performing a modern crossbow. Mostly in the area of range. The crossbow bolts are so much shorter that they have to use large vanes for their stability, therefore considerably slowing them down due to drag. Compounds use leverage which doesn't increase the drag....so overall, the compounds are becoming better and better for long range.
If you give a person a bow capable of shooting 100 yards, there are a few that will do just that. I don't see the problem with allowing illuminocks, they don't help make a shot. I pretty much think anything 'archery' should be allowed including all accessories. It's called archery season, not traditional archery season or primitive archery season.
But I know that not everyone will ever agree on what they think everybody else should use. I know the first time I used a synthetic stock on a rifle, people were criticizing me. Saying how I was ruining hunting, by bringing 'tactical' gear. Saying how I was shifting the image of a hunter. They said the same things to a buddy of mine that had an autoloader. Introducing 'black rifles' into 'their' sport. So even in the rifle community you get people trying to set limits based on their own interpretations.
Post by: army82abn on December 25, 2010, 06:19:20 PM
Modern hunting equipment aids in the humane harvesting of animals; modern muzzleloaders, modern archery equipment, modern rifles, etc. Why allow scopes on rifles? Why don't we only allow blackpowder instead of pryodex and other modern propellents? IMHO I don't see anything wrong with allowing the use of any and all modern equipment while hunting. We pay good, hard earned money for the opportunity to harvest an animal for our own consumption in the form of our license and fees. It's a shame that we allow an already intrusive government to impose itself any further in our lives and recreational opportunities. EMBRACE THE 21st CENTURY! :twocents:
Post by: Tman on December 25, 2010, 06:59:27 PM
Post by: BlackRidge on December 25, 2010, 07:04:43 PM
Since we're all still living in the dark ages, why don't we go back to segregation, not allowing women to vote, or the horse drawn carriage?
Modern hunting equipment aids in the humane harvesting of animals; modern muzzleloaders, modern archery equipment, modern rifles, etc. Why allow scopes on rifles? Why don't we only allow blackpowder instead of pryodex and other modern propellents? IMHO I don't see anything wrong with allowing the use of any and all modern equipment while hunting. We pay good, hard earned money for the opportunity to harvest an animal for our own consumption in the form of our license and fees. It's a shame that we allow an already intrusive government to impose itself any further in our lives and recreational opportunities. EMBRACE THE 21st CENTURY! :twocents:
True, we flip the majority of the bill, but they create the rules and feel they should be imposed, for whatever reason. Its nice they are trying to keep some forms as traditional as possible, but there are some things that with the changing of the times, should at least be considered (lumenocks being a great example)
Especially when recovering your game, why not allow for an easier means?
Post by: Machias on December 25, 2010, 07:31:53 PM
Since we're all still living in the dark ages, why don't we go back to segregation, not allowing women to vote, or the horse drawn carriage?
Modern hunting equipment aids in the humane harvesting of animals; modern muzzleloaders, modern archery equipment, modern rifles, etc. Why allow scopes on rifles? Why don't we only allow blackpowder instead of pryodex and other modern propellents? IMHO I don't see anything wrong with allowing the use of any and all modern equipment while hunting. We pay good, hard earned money for the opportunity to harvest an animal for our own consumption in the form of our license and fees. It's a shame that we allow an already intrusive government to impose itself any further in our lives and recreational opportunities. EMBRACE THE 21st CENTURY! :twocents:
It has NOTHING to do with an intrusive repressive Government. This rule is supported by the majority of bowhunters in this state. Now that may be changing but equipment restictions are supported by the very community it affects. I wonder how we ever harvested animals before lumenoks? I have taken close to 40 deer with a bow and 5 bears, I use bright colored fletching and nocks and can see my arrow path and impact site without any problem at all. The more effective we are the shorter and shorter our seasons get. The reason more and more guys are attracted to archery seasons is the length of the season. We get a whole bunch of new guys clamoring for the latest and greatest gadgets and the season gets shorter and shorter. What happens then? All these fly by night bowhunters will leave a sport their heart was never really into. You want to use electronics on a bow, go ahead, buy a modern tag and hunt with your bow gear, no restrictions, have fun!
Post by: ribka on December 26, 2010, 10:04:20 AM
Since we're all still living in the dark ages, why don't we go back to segregation, not allowing women to vote, or the horse drawn carriage?
Modern hunting equipment aids in the humane harvesting of animals; modern muzzleloaders, modern archery equipment, modern rifles, etc. Why allow scopes on rifles? Why don't we only allow blackpowder instead of pryodex and other modern propellents? IMHO I don't see anything wrong with allowing the use of any and all modern equipment while hunting. We pay good, hard earned money for the opportunity to harvest an animal for our own consumption in the form of our license and fees. It's a shame that we allow an already intrusive government to impose itself any further in our lives and recreational opportunities. EMBRACE THE 21st CENTURY! :twocents:
:beatdeadhorse: Going to beat the dead horse some more ;)
Funny women's voting rights and segregation was introduced into this conversation :chuckle:
If you want to embrace technology hunt with a rifle with a scope with a built-in ranger finder during modern firearms!!
Archery is a PRIMITIVE WEAPON season. We have longer archery seasons than modern weapon seasons because archery is still considered a PRIMITIVE WEAPON. If we embrace the 21st century and allow all gadgets on bows for guys not willing to take the time extra time and responsibility to practice their shooting, and woodsman's skills we will have a ONE WEEK archery season in Washington. I like the longer archery seasons!! I have seen a trend the past 15 years in bow hunting of guys just getting into archery after switching from modern firearms and they still carry the same modern firearm's mentality into a primitive weapon season. Am sure all of the silly hunting shows on tv have aided this mentality too with the marketing all the extra junk to help the bow hunter. But consumers have to purchase the "slap chops" "Chia pets", "snugees" scent lock clothing, butt out tools so why not lumenocks.
Every year I find a lot of dead elk and deer with arrows in the stomachs, asses, legs. This year found 3 dead elk in Little Naches shot in the stomach. Saw 2 more running around with arrows in the necks, asses. I do know a lighted nock wont help you find an animal after you take a 70 yd shot and hit in the stomach or ass. An animal hit in the stomach is possible to find with good tracking skills but the guys typically taking the hail mary shots lack good tracking and woodman's skills necessary to track it after a marginal hit. :twocents: If you are so concerned with the wounded/recovered animal argument get out in the woods in the off season and practice your woodsman's/ tracking skills needed in archery season so you can get close to animals ( less than 30 yds) and make the high percentage shot.
Personally based upon my observations, conversations, web postings of bow hunters I think a lot, not all technology in archery, has resulted in more wounded animals not less but this could just be more guys are bow hunting now. Bow hunters now, especially new to the sport, think it is common to take 60-100 yd shots at an alerted animal walking in the woods because they have all of the gadgets on their bows. I personally observed this behavior, like I do every year, up in the late season Nile elk hunt and late season deer hunts.
So I guess I am saying I like the challenge of archery and I'll admit I am selfish and I like the longer archery seasons because it is still classified as a primitive weapon in WA. Have had conversations with WDW Bio's and Gamies and many of them are beginning to view archery now as a modern , not a primitive weapon, because of all the advances in technology. WDFW takes this into consideration when drawing up hunting seasons every year. Start allowing all technology in archery and muzzle loader and we will have our seasons greatly reduced. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on December 26, 2010, 10:17:50 AM
Post by: dscubame on December 26, 2010, 10:21:17 AM
Post by: Lowedog on December 26, 2010, 10:40:16 AM
I have been following this same discussion on another site and I took this post from there. I have not read one argument against them that to me holds water. The argument that we have never had them in the past and have been fine is weak. The same argument could have been made against allowing sidearms to be carried during archery seasons. I also don't buy the slippery slope argument.
Again, I am neither for nor against them. I just don't see any arguments being made for why they shouldn't be allowed being strong enough to counter the arguments to allow them.
The people who are pushing for them have done their homework and they are going through the proper channels to do so...
Quote
As for now gentlemen it appears to be up to the commissioners and the public comment portion of the rule making agenda for the 2012-2015 seasons.
I was just at the commission meetings in Olympia and gave testimony for the Lighted nock again. I believe it was received rather well. The commission will be moving moiton forward to the rule making agenda this next summer. so comment on it when their ready if you want it to pass. Thanks Nate...
It cannot be stated any better than this.
1. Find your arrow and address the wounded animal correctly.
2. This tool will help stop the taking of more than one animal out of the equation.
3, This will also give the WDFW a better reporting of harvested animals.
4. Take your trash out of the woods and fields improving public and private land owner relations.
5.This does not improve your shot at all... It only improves recovery of your arrow.
6.This is not a fair chase question, refer to #5. there is no advantage given to the hunter to harvest they animal.
7. No our season should not be shortened at all, because if you look at the obvious and hunters stop wounding and loosing animals more will be left, meaning more opportunities for someone.
And last on a personal note,
We are all bowhunters no matter the method, it would be nice if we could be a little more open minded about the choices each one of us make for our own equipment.
Post by: ICEMAN on December 26, 2010, 10:46:39 AM
We have modern rifle season and muzzle season..... How about modern bow and traditional bow season?
I guess this arguement can and does continue with even the muzzie guys....IE: scope on a muzzy... Not sure what the best answer is....
Post by: Lowedog on December 26, 2010, 11:16:13 AM
Gentlemen, bowhunters, (I am neither :chuckle: )...... Maybe you bowmen should consider lobbying for a split in the tradition/use....
We have modern rifle season and muzzle season..... How about modern bow and traditional bow season?
I guess this arguement can and does continue with even the muzzie guys....IE: scope on a muzzy... Not sure what the best answer is....
Over the last 5 years with drawing the multi 4 times I have hunted all 3 types of seasons. I started archery hunting in 1992. I am happy with the restrictions the way they are for all weapon choices. I am very much against further separating user groups by going with additional seasons as I think that would diminish opportunity for everyone.
That said I can't see where the use of a lighted nock is any advantage in the taking of game and therefor would shorten seasons. If the department does see it as a reason to shorten seasons then I would be against legalizing them.
Post by: kibber on December 26, 2010, 11:43:35 AM
Post by: Machias on December 26, 2010, 11:46:20 AM
Post by: kibber on December 26, 2010, 11:49:36 AM
Post by: army82abn on December 26, 2010, 12:13:28 PM
Post by: Lowedog on December 26, 2010, 12:19:31 PM
I guess I'm still waiting for someone from the lumenok camp to convince me why they should be allowed when there is NO advantage. You get the EXACT same thing by using brightly colored fletching. You recover no more or less animals with or without lumenoks, NONE what-so-ever.
You have already made up your mind. You have your point of view and that is great. As far as recovering more or less animals what are you basing that on? If you have never used them then that is simply an opinion and you have nothing factual to base that statement on.
IMO there is a strong case for them and I think they will be approved. I posted what someone on another site in my opinion stated some strong points in favor of them and I have yet to read anything that leads me to believe they would be detrimental to archery seasons.
They have already shorted are season.
Not sure what seasons you are referring to but archery seasons are not alone in being shortened. All user groups have lost time afield for hunting. In my opinion equipment isn't even a blip on the radar for reasons as to why we have lost opportunities.
Post by: sakoshooter on December 26, 2010, 01:51:05 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 26, 2010, 01:56:04 PM
Every argument For/against lumenoc's uses the basis on the effect it has on recovering game/arrow, this has no real bearing on why the law, as stated...
Quote
It is unlawful to have any electricalThe law was written because of hunters who fought to prove , first, that a bow was a weapon CAPABLE of harvesting big game.
equipment or electric device(s) attached to
the bow or arrow while hunting.
Those persons responsible for just getting bows legal to hunt with, hunted during modern seasons.
AFTER proving that bows were capable of harvesting big game, they fought for special units, open to Archery only, because they wished to enjoy the solitude of hunting with a bow, w/o the competition of "modern" weapons.
Due to their efforts, Bows were recognised as legitimate "hunting" weapons, and due to increased interest in the sport, special seasons were adopted to allow more widespread use.
THIS WAS ALL DONE BEFORE COMPOUNDS WERE INVENTED.
After seeing advances in technology, they became fearful of losing these special seasons, and decided to lobby for restrictions, to preserve the "primitive" status of the weapon,
IT WAS THE ARCHERY COMMUNITTY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT THAT IMPOSED THESE LAWS/RULES.
Because there is no way to stop technological advancement, bows have gotten morphed into something that is no longer a bow, but an "Arrow Launching Device"
Quote
•a weapon for shooting arrows, composed of a curved piece of resilient wood with a taut cord to propel the arrow, : (b) •A bow is a weapon that projects arrows powered by the elasticity of the bow. Essentially, it is a form of spring. As the bow is drawn, energy is stored in the limbs of the bow and transformed into rapid motion when the string is released, with the string transferring this force to the arrow. ...As I see the argument either for or against lumenocs, everybody ignores the fact, THAT THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, SPECIFICALLY, THEY ARE JUST "ELECTRONIC"
When (and I dont say if) they do become legal, it will be because of an "exception" written into the law, because there is too much money $$, being spent by hunters getting into the sport because they enjoy the season, and feel that they have to have the fastest, greatest, newest thing out there, not because they love to hunt with a bow, but because they love to hunt, and are motivated by the harvest, and not the experience.
I personally have nothing against Lumenocs, but do hope that when my kids are old enough to hunt, the whole family can go out into the woods with our Traditional Archery Tackle, and not have to wear 400 square, and dodge bullets.
Post by: Machias on December 26, 2010, 02:05:33 PM
I guess I'm still waiting for someone from the lumenok camp to convince me why they should be allowed when there is NO advantage. You get the EXACT same thing by using brightly colored fletching. You recover no more or less animals with or without lumenoks, NONE what-so-ever.
You have already made up your mind. You have your point of view and that is great. As far as recovering more or less animals what are you basing that on? If you have never used them then that is simply an opinion and you have nothing factual to base that statement on.
IMO there is a strong case for them and I think they will be approved. I posted what someone on another site in my opinion stated some strong points in favor of them and I have yet to read anything that leads me to believe they would be detrimental to archery seasons.They have already shorted are season.
Not sure what seasons you are referring to but archery seasons are not alone in being shortened. All user groups have lost time afield for hunting. In my opinion equipment isn't even a blip on the radar for reasons as to why we have lost opportunities.
Lowedog, first off if they are allowed, so be it, I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm basing my so called "factual" thoughts on the fact that in 31 years of bowhunting I can see the path and impact of my arrow just fine already. And the fact the only time I have ever lost and animal wasn't because I had some star wars technology strapped to the ass end of my arrow, it was because as a kid I shot farther than I should have. Once I learned some discipline and cut the distance down, I've never lost an animal. I'm asking you guys that are for this to convince me, how they are THAT much better that animals won't be lost. Lowedog think of whatever sport you enjoy, whatever it is, is there a line you will not cross or is everything on the table so to speak. SO no matter what, if someone out there wants it, then it should be allowed, no lines in the sand so to speak.
Post by: Lowedog on December 26, 2010, 02:34:51 PM
I'm asking you guys that are for this to convince me, how they are THAT much better that animals won't be lost. Lowedog think of whatever sport you enjoy, whatever it is, is there a line you will not cross or is everything on the table so to speak. SO no matter what, if someone out there wants it, then it should be allowed, no lines in the sand so to speak.
Again, I have no plans on using lighted nocks if they are legalized. I don't care to add that much weight to the end of my arrow. I hunt mostly with a compound but I also once in awhile will hunt with my recurve.
My only response to your reply is if they offer even just a little bit of a better chance of recovering an arrow and especially one that has struck an animal and thus gives that hunter a better chance of recovering that animal then IMO there is no reason they should not be allowed. Yes I feel there should be a line we don't cross but that line for me isn't at a nock that lights up after it leaves the string.
Post by: rasbo on December 26, 2010, 02:38:28 PM
Post by: Machias on December 26, 2010, 03:02:05 PM
I'm asking you guys that are for this to convince me, how they are THAT much better that animals won't be lost. Lowedog think of whatever sport you enjoy, whatever it is, is there a line you will not cross or is everything on the table so to speak. SO no matter what, if someone out there wants it, then it should be allowed, no lines in the sand so to speak.
Again, I have no plans on using lighted nocks if they are legalized. I don't care to add that much weight to the end of my arrow. I hunt mostly with a compound but I also once in awhile will hunt with my recurve.
My only response to your reply is if they offer even just a little bit of a better chance of recovering an arrow and especially one that has struck an animal and thus gives that hunter a better chance of recovering that animal then IMO there is no reason they should not be allowed. Yes I feel there should be a line we don't cross but that line for me isn't at a nock that lights up after it leaves the string.
Same here, won't be using them and for me the line in the sand is no electronics on the bow or the arrows. P.S. If our main concern is only recovery and nothing else, then instead of putting some high tech gadgetry on our arrows we should stress more and more to close the distance. We have to go back to the motto, HOW CLOSE CAN I GET, not HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT. That single thing will greatly reduce the amount of wounding and missing that is happening in today's archery seasons. Great debate, thanks guys, Merry Christmas and Happy new year!!
Post by: Lowedog on December 26, 2010, 04:17:03 PM
Post by: Hyde on December 26, 2010, 04:22:08 PM
What advantage does a lighted nock provide? Who cares.... ? I say either draw a (technology) line across the entire weapon spectrum, or open it all the way up.
Post by: Lowedog on December 26, 2010, 04:49:14 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 26, 2010, 07:24:03 PM
There are always going to be those who push the limits. Some of the men who pioneered archery only seasons were documented at taking shots with just a stick and string that most compound bow hunters today still wouldn't try.A lot of that had to do with what was referred to as a "York" round, they commonly shot targets at incredible distances, and it was only after more hunters got into archery, and they learned that just because you could hit it, did not mean you killed it,
also you are talking about the days of lead paint, no seatbelts, no bicycle helmets, kids playing outside until dark, etc. the times have changed, used to be a few hundred archers occasionally killing an animal, now there are thousands.........
shooting a 60-70 pound recurve or longbow at an animal using 700-800gr. arrows, during the "hope and fling" days, by archers who shot 1000's of arrows on a regular basis, is different than today, when a large percentage of guys sight in, and shoot their bows a few weekends a year, maybe go to a 3D or two, and because with their 300fps bow, rangefinder, sights, release, etc.. can expect to hit a 3 inch target at 80+ yards, think nothing of releasing an arrow at an animal, then want to have a lighted nock, because they really have no Idea where there arrow went......
Post by: huntndad on December 26, 2010, 07:38:13 PM
Post by: Lowedog on December 26, 2010, 07:39:56 PM
There are always going to be those who push the limits. Some of the men who pioneered archery only seasons were documented at taking shots with just a stick and string that most compound bow hunters today still wouldn't try.A lot of that had to do with what was referred to as a "York" round, they commonly shot targets at incredible distances, and it was only after more hunters got into archery, and they learned that just because you could hit it, did not mean you killed it,
also you are talking about the days of lead paint, no seatbelts, no bicycle helmets, kids playing outside until dark, etc. the times have changed, used to be a few hundred archers occasionally killing an animal, now there are thousands.........
shooting a 60-70 pound recurve or longbow at an animal using 700-800gr. arrows, during the "hope and fling" days, by archers who shot 1000's of arrows on a regular basis, is different than today, when a large percentage of guys sight in, and shoot their bows a few weekends a year, maybe go to a 3D or two, and because with their 300fps bow, rangefinder, sights, release, etc.. can expect to hit a 3 inch target at 80+ yards, think nothing of releasing an arrow at an animal, then want to have a lighted nock, because they really have no Idea where there arrow went......
Being unethical as an archery hunter is not limited to just compound shooters. That is a pretty narrow way of thinking. There is no difference between taking an unethical shot with a "traditional" bow back in the "hope and fling" days than it is today. It was and still is a poor choice to "hope and fling".
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 26, 2010, 08:40:17 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 26, 2010, 08:43:28 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 26, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Quote
Since the days of Will Thompson, Seattle has always been a capital of toxophily. Last year a 17-year-old Seattle high-school boy named Ralph Miller nosed out famed Russell Hoogerhyde, three times U. S. Champion, for the title. Last week, at Storrs, Miller jumped into the lead at the start. Shooting methodically, chin up, feet 12 in. apart, Hoogerhyde caught up with him the fourth day by breaking a record with 722 points for a single American round (90 arrows at distances of 60, 50, and 40 yd.). Day later. Hoogerhyde had: record scores for single and double American rounds, for single York round; a total score of 2,902; the title of National Champion for the fourth time. Miller had a record in the double York (144 arrows at 100 yd., 96 at 80 yd., 48 at 60 yd.) and a creditable second place with 2,767.
Quote
Favorite for the title was a onetime Michigan lifeguard, Russell Hoogerhyde, 31, who, after winning in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1934, retired to build up a profitable Chicago business in what true toxophilites call their "tackle." Hoogerhyde's proficiency with a bow & arrow really started in 1929 when he decided his form was bad. He shot 1,000 arrows a day for six months
Post by: ribka on December 26, 2010, 09:07:47 PM
Those guys shot a lot of arrows back then and amazing they built crafted all of their own equipment.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 26, 2010, 09:19:12 PM
Post by: Decker on December 26, 2010, 09:30:12 PM
I guess I'm still waiting for someone from the lumenok camp to convince me why they should be allowed when there is NO advantage. You get the EXACT same thing by using brightly colored fletching. You recover no more or less animals with or without lumenoks, NONE what-so-ever.
This was my wife's first year hunting. She chose archery so we could hunt together. We practiced a great deal this summer, including 3D targets and shot placement. She has BRIGHT pink and white fletching AND WHITE NOCKS. She took a shot on spike at 20 yards that was NOT ALERT and was feeding and was broadside. This so happened the first time she sat in the blind alone.
I came to track it for her. After asking her all about it, I CONCLUDED it must have been a good hit. Clean pass through, tons of blood, even right at the spot of impact. Red snow everywhere. Gave it a solid hour and went down the trail. after 200 yards and dwindling blood I began to worry. I asked her about the shot again, where she hit the deer. "I don't know where I hit it. I was so excited I don't remember exactly where the arrow went in."
Blood dried up after 50 more yards. After watching her practice all summer, seeing all the blood, knowing the shot was a "high-percentage" shot, i.e. good range, not alerted, calm animal I pressed on with fresh track in snow. I should not have. We jumped the deer out of a bed around 75 yards later. I searched all day for that deer. Amidst hundreds of fresh tracks, raising temperatures, melting snow and TONS of rain, I had to throw it in.
Now I don't spout off about myself, but for the sake of this argument, I am a retired professional guide of 10 years. I have hunted almost all terrain types and consider myself pretty decent at tracking and recovering game. There was no blood in the bed we jumped that spike out of. He will most likely internally bleed to death somewhere.
If my wife had been able to use an illuminok she would have been able to tell me it was a bad hit and I would have given that deer 24 hours and found it dead in that bed. She wouldn't have been so heart-broken about wounding one and wouldn't have cried.
SO WHAT IF SOMEONE'S KILLED 40 DEER IN THEIR LIFE. She hasn't.
SO WHAT IF YOU'VE BEEN HUNTING FOR 40 YEARS AND NEVER KNOWN A MOMENT THAT AN ILLUMINOK WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE. You have now.
:twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
Post by: Machias on December 26, 2010, 11:09:48 PM
P.S. Please tell me your not saying the lumenoks will elminate lost animals....are you?
I guess I've been misinformed all along. I say we have an emergency rule meeting with WDFW and get these things approved as soon as possible. I didn't realize that wounding and lost animals would be eliminated if we just used these things.
Post by: Decker on December 26, 2010, 11:21:30 PM
P.S. Please tell me your not saying the lumenoks will elminate lost animals....are you?
This statement does not deserve an answer.
Post by: Machias on December 26, 2010, 11:23:20 PM
Post by: Decker on December 27, 2010, 05:47:56 AM
Post by: Decker on December 27, 2010, 05:52:07 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on December 27, 2010, 06:20:09 AM
Gentlemen, bowhunters, (I am neither :chuckle: )...... Maybe you bowmen should consider lobbying for a split in the tradition/use....
We have modern rifle season and muzzle season..... How about modern bow and traditional bow season?
I guess this arguement can and does continue with even the muzzie guys....IE: scope on a muzzy... Not sure what the best answer is....
I suggested the same thing awhile back.
Combine early archery and ML seasons but only in September. No Oct ml hunt.
Long bow & patch/round ball only.
Combine late archery and ML and allow inlines/crossbows etc.
The ML guys would benefit from a longer season and the archery guys can have their electronics in the late season.
Post by: coachcw on December 27, 2010, 06:30:42 AM
Post by: Buckrub on December 27, 2010, 07:22:25 AM
It comes down to personal responsibility. :bash:
The media doesn't help the cause showing rifles @1000yds and bow kills @100 yds.
I don't think our forefathers could ever imagine training wheels on a bow.... obviously progression will continue as it has with much debate.
Post by: Annette on December 27, 2010, 09:47:24 AM
I just had to chime in on this dead horse :beatdeadhorse:
Every argument For/against lumenoc's uses the basis on the effect it has on recovering game/arrow, this has no real bearing on why the law, as stated...QuoteIt is unlawful to have any electricalThe law was written because of hunters who fought to prove , first, that a bow was a weapon CAPABLE of harvesting big game.
equipment or electric device(s) attached to
the bow or arrow while hunting.
Those persons responsible for just getting bows legal to hunt with, hunted during modern seasons.
AFTER proving that bows were capable of harvesting big game, they fought for special units, open to Archery only, because they wished to enjoy the solitude of hunting with a bow, w/o the competition of "modern" weapons.
Due to their efforts, Bows were recognised as legitimate "hunting" weapons, and due to increased interest in the sport, special seasons were adopted to allow more widespread use.
THIS WAS ALL DONE BEFORE COMPOUNDS WERE INVENTED.
After seeing advances in technology, they became fearful of losing these special seasons, and decided to lobby for restrictions, to preserve the "primitive" status of the weapon,
IT WAS THE ARCHERY COMMUNITTY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT THAT IMPOSED THESE LAWS/RULES.
Because there is no way to stop technological advancement, bows have gotten morphed into something that is no longer a bow, but an "Arrow Launching Device"Quote•a weapon for shooting arrows, composed of a curved piece of resilient wood with a taut cord to propel the arrow, : (b) •A bow is a weapon that projects arrows powered by the elasticity of the bow. Essentially, it is a form of spring. As the bow is drawn, energy is stored in the limbs of the bow and transformed into rapid motion when the string is released, with the string transferring this force to the arrow. ...As I see the argument either for or against lumenocs, everybody ignores the fact, THAT THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, SPECIFICALLY, THEY ARE JUST "ELECTRONIC"
When (and I dont say if) they do become legal, it will be because of an "exception" written into the law, because there is too much money $$, being spent by hunters getting into the sport because they enjoy the season, and feel that they have to have the fastest, greatest, newest thing out there, not because they love to hunt with a bow, but because they love to hunt, and are motivated by the harvest, and not the experience.
I personally have nothing against Lumenocs, but do hope that when my kids are old enough to hunt, the whole family can go out into the woods with our Traditional Archery Tackle, and not have to wear 400 square, and dodge bullets.
WELL SAID :tup:
Post by: Annette on December 27, 2010, 09:54:07 AM
color=red] You'll be looking for that "BEACON of light and loose the blood trail and still loose your animal"[/colorI'm asking you guys that are for this to convince me, how they are THAT much better that animals won't be lost. Lowedog think of whatever sport you enjoy, whatever it is, is there a line you will not cross or is everything on the table so to speak. SO no matter what, if someone out there wants it, then it should be allowed, no lines in the sand so to speak.:yeah:Again, I have no plans on using lighted nocks if they are legalized. I don't care to add that much weight to the end of my arrow. I hunt mostly with a compound bu[]t I also once in awhile will hunt with my recurve.
My only response to your reply is if they offer even just a little bit of a better chance of recovering an arrow and especially one that has struck an animal and thus gives that hunter a better chance of recovering that animal then IMO there is no reason they should not be allowed. Yes I feel there should be a line we don't cross but that line for me isn't at a nock that lights up after it leaves the string.
Same here, won't be using them and for me the line in the sand is no electronics on the bow or the arrows. P.S. If our main concern is only recovery and nothing else, then instead of putting some high tech gadgetry on our arrows we should stress more and more to close the distance. We have to go back to the motto, HOW CLOSE CAN I GET, not HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT. That single thing will greatly reduce the amount of wounding and missing that is happening in today's archery seasons. Great debate, thanks guys, Merry Christmas and Happy new year!!
Post by: Annette on December 27, 2010, 10:10:45 AM
I guess I'm still waiting for someone from the lumenok camp to convince me why they should be allowed when there is NO advantage. You get the EXACT same thing by using brightly colored fletching. You recover no more or less animals with or without lumenoks, NONE what-so-ever.
Blood dried up after 50 more yards. After watching her practice all summer, seeing all the blood, knowing the shot was a "high-percentage" shot, i.e. good range, not alerted, calm animal I pressed on with fresh track in snow. I should not have. We jumped the deer out of a bed around 75 yards later. I searched all day for that deer. Amidst hundreds of fresh tracks, raising temperatures, melting snow and TONS of rain, I had to throw it in.
If my wife had been able to use an illuminok she would have been able to tell me it was a bad hit and I would have given that deer 24 hours and found it dead in that bed. She wouldn't have been so heart-broken about wounding one and wouldn't have cried.
:twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
Maybe...but they do have a short battery life especialy in freezing weather...Your wife may have hit the deer high as spooky as the whitetails are over there, they drop before the arrows get there. It was not her fault that she lost the deer if she did all the practicing and took careful aim.
Post by: Annette on December 27, 2010, 10:22:48 AM
Post by: Lowedog on December 27, 2010, 10:23:36 AM
I'm asking you guys that are for this to convince me, how they are THAT much better that animals won't be lost. Lowedog think of whatever sport you enjoy, whatever it is, is there a line you will not cross or is everything on the table so to speak. SO no matter what, if someone out there wants it, then it should be allowed, no lines in the sand so to speak.:yeah:Again, I have no plans on using lighted nocks if they are legalized. I don't care to add that much weight to the end of my arrow. I hunt mostly with a compound bu You'll be looking for that "BECON of light and loose the blood trail and still loose your animal"t I also once in awhile will hunt with my recurve.
My only response to your reply is if they offer even just a little bit of a better chance of recovering an arrow and especially one that has struck an animal and thus gives that hunter a better chance of recovering that animal then IMO there is no reason they should not be allowed. Yes I feel there should be a line we don't cross but that line for me isn't at a nock that lights up after it leaves the string.
Same here, won't be using them and for me the line in the sand is no electronics on the bow or the arrows. P.S. If our main concern is only recovery and nothing else, then instead of putting some high tech gadgetry on our arrows we should stress more and more to close the distance. We have to go back to the motto, HOW CLOSE CAN I GET, not HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT. That single thing will greatly reduce the amount of wounding and missing that is happening in today's archery seasons. Great debate, thanks guys, Merry Christmas and Happy new year!!
???? :dunno:
Post by: Buckmark on December 27, 2010, 10:44:57 AM
Post by: Lowedog on December 27, 2010, 10:55:25 AM
So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...
I read an email response from them that they said they edited the effect into their videos.
Post by: Buckmark on December 27, 2010, 10:58:36 AM
Seriously?...So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...
I read an email response from them that they said they edited the effect into their videos.
Post by: Machias on December 27, 2010, 11:10:22 AM
Post by: Lowedog on December 27, 2010, 11:37:07 AM
Seriously?...So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...
I read an email response from them that they said they edited the effect into their videos.
Yes, you can check it out on huntfishnw.
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on December 27, 2010, 12:11:14 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 27, 2010, 12:30:01 PM
Can we outlaw rain?
I have had several instances with younger hunters when I wish they had lighted nocks...I'm gettin old and hard to see arrow @300 fps
me myself? i don't care and probably wouldn't use them.
Post by: Snapshot on December 27, 2010, 04:09:49 PM
I think Machias' arguement makes perfect sense. And StikNStringBow's way of thinking is spot on from my perspective, too.
Electronic nocks are an aid to taking risky shots; in low light and/or from too great of distance. They aren't necessary and to suddenly say that they are needed is the same as saying that bowhunting needs fixing; that we have a problem and that an electronic nock is the holy grail. Once the line of 'no electronics' is crossed there will be no going back; there is already a broadhead with a laser sight in its tip; soon there will be a gps in one, too.
Gadgetry has replaced woodsmanship and skill. It is a sad time for bowhunting when a lighted nock is needed so that the arrow shows up better on video. We have lost our way, ladies and gentlemen. I hope to goodness something will soon set us back on the right path.
Post by: sisu on December 27, 2010, 04:38:19 PM
Oh, and Annette, your very first reply to this thread was the best reply I've read regarding all these "extras" that some of today's archer seems to think he or she needs.
AS Tom Patey said: some folks need a lot to do very little and some need very little to do a lot.
Post by: Snapshot on December 27, 2010, 05:55:33 PM
Snapshot, I quit watching most hunting videos because the hunt has changed over the years. I remember and can still find American Sportsman with Curt Gowdy. The hunts on the show were different. The emphasis was different some how. I see the hunter on these new videos and there is just something that does not thrill me about their attitude and approach. Maybe it is my age but there just seems to be a difference with today's video producing sportsman.
The attitude and approach on most of today's hunting shows is appalling. It is snide, disrespectful and contemptuous. Advertising drives EVERYTHING that is shown in most of today's shows. I read an article in a recent Bugle magazine about the man who conceived of and does the "On Your Own Adventures" hunting programs. He said someone once handed him sixty pages of "this is how you should do it"; they had their canned formula and wanted him to compromise his message to push products, but he refused. Most producers don't care about conservation, history or where we are headed; they only care about advertising dollars. And every one of us who buys the junk being advertised is fueling the collapse of the outdoors image.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on December 27, 2010, 06:07:07 PM
In talking with bowhunters for the last few years, the majority want this device. I've literally talked to hundreds of bowhunters at the sportsman shows and 8 or 9 out of 10 either want lighted nocks legal or don't care if they are made legal. They don't want expandable heads, gps devices in the arrow, and lazer range finders on the bow. Somehow equating legalization of these gadgets with a lighted nock is not rational. A simple exception to the rule for this has worked in countless other states with no "slippery slope" type issues. At last check 44 states have lighted nocks legal and there has been no major issues with its implementation. Additionally, creating some sort link between a lighted nock and a long or late shot is also not reasonable. If you can't see your animal you can't shoot. Trying to link issues that aren't related only works to cloud the issue.
Pope and Young is a scoring club for trophy animals. 99% of people will never even enter a trophy into that club and almost as many aren't even members of that club. Why should we be worried about what they think is reasonable gear to use? They don't allow baiting but Washington law does. Should we change that law to be aligned with P&Y? They allow expandable heads yet WA doesn't. Should we make expandable heads legal because P&Y says they are fair chase? P&Y doesn't create the rules in WA, us bowhunters do. If you want a P&Y animal to be scored you must conform what equipment you use just like you have to right now in this state. When the majority want something done it will get done and be legal in this state (e.g - 80% letoff a few years ago).
You won't lose time in the field if lighted nocks are legal. Why? Because lighted nocks won't increase the number of animals killed. In practice it might decrease the number of animals killed as people may end up recovering an animal by the use of this device. In turn, they won't go out and hunt and kill yet another animal. Anything that helps one recover a wounded animal and doesn't increase the effectiveness of the equipment is ok with me. Other equipment that works to raise the success rates could/would have an effect on the seasons as we would meet our quota faster. For exampe, muzzleload hunters have decided as a user group they would rather not use scopes and, hence, want to be less effecive in the field with their equipment. That lowers success rates and they get to hunt longer to fill their quota. If that user group decided they wanted to use scopes, the season would have to be shortened because they would fill their quota quicker.
We can argue about effectiveness all day but the fact is it's more visible of an alternative than a bright nock or fletching. True, these things might be enough to see an arrow in many circumstances but anyone who has bowhunted knows you can and do lose the flight of your arrow at times. Due to the use of lighted nocks on many TV shows, many people are aware at just how good these devices do their job. If it means an animal isn't lost it is worth it to me. There are times in my bowhunting career it wouldn't have helped, it would have helped but I still recovered the animal anyway, and a couple of times it would have helped to recover the animal. I am an ethical hunter that follows the rules/laws of this state. I don't take long shots and I practice with my equipment. Some of you aren't going to make me feel bad or less of a hunter because I want to use a device that will help me recover a wounded animal.
Post by: dscubame on December 27, 2010, 06:10:33 PM
Post by: sisu on December 27, 2010, 06:10:38 PM
AS Tom Patey said: some folks need a lot to do very little and some need very little to do a lot.
I do see though that the traditional archers of Washington State oppose you. Do you go there to spread your Gospel according to Shawn?
Post by: billythekidrock on December 27, 2010, 06:12:29 PM
Post by: ribka on December 27, 2010, 06:19:38 PM
Post by: rasbo on December 27, 2010, 06:24:33 PM
Post by: sisu on December 27, 2010, 06:25:56 PM
yep shawn,heck why have any restrictions,use cross bows what ever makes it easier,keep it up soon there will be heat seeking arrows...and 2 day seasons :bash:Hell Rasbo, lets not stop there lets just stuff an arrow into a muzzle loader and let 'er rip!
I'm looking at my muzzy now, put a reel on it so you can reel in your catch so there is no guess work on finding the critter..
Post by: rasbo on December 27, 2010, 06:39:48 PM
They have tracking string that mounts on the stabilizer and attaches to the arrow. That way you can find animals that run off. It isn't electric.ive seen those, dont know anyone that uses them,wonder how or if it affects the shot at all,seems like a good alternative
Post by: Lowedog on December 27, 2010, 06:43:10 PM
This debate sure took an ugly turn. I guess when you can't make a solid case for your side it is easier to make snide remarks.
Post by: sisu on December 27, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
If my comment about having a lot to do a little and having a little to do a lot is snide so be it, but I'll stand my it till I get the Big Chop. There were climbers I knew that bought every gadget in the world to climb a rock or piece of ice. Did it make them better? NO, it did not. What gets you better is practice. If you practice with a wheel bow, recurve bow or long bow you'll be better any day than the man or woman with the gadget equipped bow.
Post by: rasbo on December 27, 2010, 06:57:23 PM
I have still yet to read on argument that makes me believe a lighted nock should not be legal in WA. The old we never needed them before so why now argument is played out.?? how bout tracers for rifles so you can see where your hitting...I dont believe anyone will change anyone's mind..but where and when does it really stop as to what a person has to have on a bow to take an animal.. :dunno: seems to me if its that tuff, perhaps one should move to muzzy or rifle.......
This debate sure took an ugly turn. I guess when you can't make a solid case for your side it is easier to make snide remarks.
Post by: rasbo on December 27, 2010, 06:59:48 PM
thats what I would think,gotta be close and have some poop behind it..They have tracking string that mounts on the stabilizer and attaches to the arrow. That way you can find animals that run off. It isn't electric.ive seen those, dont know anyone that uses them,wonder how or if it affects the shot at all,seems like a good alternative
It slows down the arrow considerably, snags on branches, the wind will blow it onto the sight pins.......but I only tried it briefly in heavy brush with a bow that couldn't go much past 30 yards....not these 100 yards bows.
Post by: Lowedog on December 27, 2010, 07:17:29 PM
I'll tell what is a snide remark Lowedog. It is when a fella shows up at the Washington Bow Hunters meeting and wants to address this issue and it is never brought up for discussion. Apparently the board decided for the membership what it was going to support and no discussion was required. My membership is gone and out the door. I'll side with the trad hunters any time. I never felt this way before but I am inching more and more toward saying if states like Washington want to allow more and more technology into archery and muzzle loaders why not just have a trad season and send the rest of them into modern rifle season then they can use all the tricks in the book to get "their" critter.
If my comment about having a lot to do a little and having a little to do a lot is snide so be it, but I'll stand my it till I get the Big Chop. There were climbers I knew that bought every gadget in the world to climb a rock or piece of ice. Did it make them better? NO, it did not. What gets you better is practice. If you practice with a wheel bow, recurve bow or long bow you'll be better any day than the man or woman with the gadget equipped bow.
Well, I don't know anything about the Washington Bow Hunters or any of their meetings. I don't belong that or any group for that matter. I was just referring to the debate going on here.
I have still yet to read on argument that makes me believe a lighted nock should not be legal in WA. The old we never needed them before so why now argument is played out.?? how bout tracers for rifles so you can see where your hitting...I dont believe anyone will change anyone's mind..but where and when does it really stop as to what a person has to have on a bow to take an animal.. :dunno: seems to me if its that tuff, perhaps one should move to muzzy or rifle.......
This debate sure took an ugly turn. I guess when you can't make a solid case for your side it is easier to make snide remarks.
Where and when does it stop? Nowhere in the WDFW hunting regs does it say anything about archery or muzzy seasons being traditional or primitive hunting seasons. It describes what is required to fit into each category but nowhere that I can find does it say that these seasons are intended for traditional or primitive type hunts.
I have not talked to anyone or read one post by someone who wants lighted nocks legalized who is saying that a person "has" to have them. It is a personal choice.
Post by: Machias on December 27, 2010, 07:35:46 PM
Post by: Ray on December 27, 2010, 08:27:10 PM
This was a good, respectful debate until D had to fly the "Stupid People" flag. How about keeping it civil, please?
I think Machias' arguement makes perfect sense. And StikNStringBow's way of thinking is spot on from my perspective, too.
Electronic nocks are an aid to taking risky shots; in low light and/or from too great of distance. They aren't necessary and to suddenly say that they are needed is the same as saying that bowhunting needs fixing; that we have a problem and that an electronic nock is the holy grail. Once the line of 'no electronics' is crossed there will be no going back; there is already a broadhead with a laser sight in its tip; soon there will be a gps in one, too.
Gadgetry has replaced woodsmanship and skill. It is a sad time for bowhunting when a lighted nock is needed so that the arrow shows up better on video. We have lost our way, ladies and gentlemen. I hope to goodness something will soon set us back on the right path.
I agree. Re-emphasizing - An aid to taking risky shots.
If you need electronics on the bow and arrow maybe it's time to pick up an XBox or Playstation.
Post by: krout81 on December 27, 2010, 10:38:43 PM
It is hunting and being in the woods doing something you love. Technology has ruined everything quit trying to add more. Its bad enough already with sights and cams. Get in the woods and practice practice practice. If you want to show off then go to another state and hunt. :twocents:
Post by: Button Nubbs on December 27, 2010, 10:47:20 PM
Post by: Decker on December 27, 2010, 11:16:44 PM
Welcome back Popeshawnpaul. This will be my last post on this subject, I don't want to be accused of trying to control the topic. ;) I thought both sides were presenting their views and opinions and most are doing a good job. I think the reason alot of guys are passionate about this and other subjects is we see it as a threat to a sport we hold very near and dear to our hearts. I think alot of new bowhunters, and I'm not including everyone involved in this discussion, but alot of the new bowhunters in the sport today who have to have the latest and greatest toys, the super fast bows, shoot long distances, have no real passion for the sport of bowhunting. If things go away they will shrug their shoulders and go to the next sport and start demanding all the latest gadgets for that sport. They haven't lost something that is a life long passion. Since I moved to this state I have lost two things that were and are the most dearest to my heart, trapping and running dogs. I don't want to see bowhunting be the third thing, maybe it won't. This just seems another step in that direction. Welcome back, I hope you stick around.
:iamwithstupid: :P
I apologize for waving the dirty flag, but why else would they be there if we can't have a little fun with em, especially during a heated debate. I was merely calling Malachias stupid because he is... JUST KIDDING! Simmer down, simmer down now. I think both sides have a reasonable argument. I think valid reasons have been given WHY they would beneficial, to help recover game. Something to consider - the hunter who would consider the use of a Luminok during after hours light to aid their shooting will most likely be using some sort of pin lighting enhancer also. They are the types that are ALREADY using them illegally. To say that honest people shouldn't be able to use them because people could use them to shoot under dark conditions is the same argument for taking away our hand guns. The criminals will have them either way.
I am going to change my support of the Luminok in favor of a (hopefully some day) invented Lumibroadhead...no wait...LumiSHAFT. Heck, let's light the whole dang thing up!
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 27, 2010, 11:48:39 PM
Probably not to difficult if you use glowstick/fiber optic technology. Probably be able to design a chemical (non poisonous, of course) powered luminok to get past the electronic stipulation.glow sticks and clear florescent nocks...
Post by: Superhunter333 on December 28, 2010, 01:21:53 AM
Post by: rasbo on December 28, 2010, 03:48:26 AM
We are living in modern times new tech is being developed every day. Some people are set in there ways. I'm sure when the type writers came out there were people who were pro pencil. When the compound came out I'm sure this same discussion happend over and over. is anybody wrong? no. I don't see how a lighted nock helps a bow hunter in any way other then they can see the arrow placement better. Which is a good thing is it not? Maybe with that extra knowledge it can help hunters make better decision on weather to back out or pursue making recovery chances better. Will it encourage hunters to make longer and unethical shots? You still have to aim a lighted nock doesn't help you aim. I'm not saying we need to go totally tech any electronic that helps a hunter aim shoot or see in the dark should be outlawed. Those who say "this will lead to other stuff" or "were does the technology stop" you might as well bury your head in a hole cause you cant stop technology. its gonna happen it may take 10 years but its inevitable. And we already have heat seeking arrows their called bullets. :)well if its more technology ya want,drop the bow,and buy a gun
Post by: billythekidrock on December 28, 2010, 04:49:34 AM
Post by: DaveBTS on December 28, 2010, 04:59:23 AM
www.norwayindustries.com (http://www.norwayindustries.com)
Post by: Buckrub on December 28, 2010, 09:03:30 AM
When I started bowhunting in 1972 technology was quite limited.
Looking back I see bow technology today compared to 1972 and see mind staggering differences... does technology make the bow hunters of today less of hunters than the past? I think not, back in the day there were still bowhunters who would outshoot capabilities with or without technology. What have we gained?? 30 yds?
Regardless of technology, public image and game management will be the biggest hurdles for any hunting sport.
To embrace technology one must first look back at the transition of the past thirty years, illuminocks being least of worries in the overall scope.
Wolf introduction may be the damnation of hunting, while we squabble over lighted nocks the greeners are out to strip hunters of basic privileges....time to embrace hunters regardless of technology and differences for the greater good of hunting privileges.
Post by: dscubame on December 28, 2010, 09:09:45 AM
Post by: Lowedog on December 28, 2010, 09:10:49 AM
Wow... turned into quite a debate.
When I started bowhunting in 1972 technology was quite limited.
Looking back I see bow technology today compared to 1972 and see mind staggering differences... does technology make the bow hunters of today less of hunters than the past? I think not, back in the day there were still bowhunters who would outshoot capabilities with or without technology. What have we gained?? 30 yds?
Regardless of technology, public image and game management will be the biggest hurdles for any hunting sport.
To embrace technology one must first look back at the transition of the past thirty years, illuminocks being least of worries in the overall scope.
Wolf introduction may be the damnation of hunting, while we squabble over lighted nocks the greeners are out to strip hunters of basic privileges....time to embrace hunters regardless of technology and differences for the greater good of hunting privileges.
Very well said Buckrub!
Post by: Machias on December 28, 2010, 09:29:12 AM
Welcome back Popeshawnpaul. This will be my last post on this subject, I don't want to be accused of trying to control the topic. ;) I thought both sides were presenting their views and opinions and most are doing a good job. I think the reason alot of guys are passionate about this and other subjects is we see it as a threat to a sport we hold very near and dear to our hearts. I think alot of new bowhunters, and I'm not including everyone involved in this discussion, but alot of the new bowhunters in the sport today who have to have the latest and greatest toys, the super fast bows, shoot long distances, have no real passion for the sport of bowhunting. If things go away they will shrug their shoulders and go to the next sport and start demanding all the latest gadgets for that sport. They haven't lost something that is a life long passion. Since I moved to this state I have lost two things that were and are the most dearest to my heart, trapping and running dogs. I don't want to see bowhunting be the third thing, maybe it won't. This just seems another step in that direction. Welcome back, I hope you stick around.
:iamwithstupid: :P
I apologize for waving the dirty flag, but why else would they be there if we can't have a little fun with em, especially during a heated debate. I was merely calling Malachias stupid because he is... JUST KIDDING! Simmer down, simmer down now. I think both sides have a reasonable argument. I think valid reasons have been given WHY they would beneficial, to help recover game. Something to consider - the hunter who would consider the use of a Luminok during after hours light to aid their shooting will most likely be using some sort of pin lighting enhancer also. They are the types that are ALREADY using them illegally. To say that honest people shouldn't be able to use them because people could use them to shoot under dark conditions is the same argument for taking away our hand guns. The criminals will have them either way.
I am going to change my support of the Luminok in favor of a (hopefully some day) invented Lumibroadhead...no wait...LumiSHAFT. Heck, let's light the whole dang thing up!
;)
Post by: Snapshot on December 28, 2010, 09:30:54 AM
There are the new Zeon Fusion vanes that use fiber optic technology by absorbing light. Thus, negating the need for lighted nocks.
www.norwayindustries.com (http://www.norwayindustries.com)
There is a fine alternative. You can see it and it isn't electric. Everybody (except Lumenoc) is happy.
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2010, 09:34:04 AM
Quote
Wolf introduction may be the damnation of hunting, while we squabble over lighted nocks the greeners are out to strip hunters of basic privileges...
Someone has an agenda. Lobby lobby lobby. Why not lobby for something important. If you need a Tron like arrow in order to see where you shot it well then....... Its basic attrition. I don't like them, but could really careless I guess as there are more important things to fight for. Why not put some of this energy into overthrowing the treaties.
It amazes me how many deer I have killed without a lighted nock, and how many I haven't lsot because of basic woodsman skills. It also amazes me how I find my arrows as well. There must be some real flingers out there.
Post by: Snapshot on December 28, 2010, 09:36:10 AM
For you guys that are not in support I would be interested if you had the same take on the issue when it came to range finders being introduced to the sport?
I've never looked through one. (There's creole-tag, smoked-tag, tag-alfredo...)
Post by: Snapshot on December 28, 2010, 09:39:34 AM
What amazes me is how much energy is being put into this. Buckrub says it best...QuoteWolf introduction may be the damnation of hunting, while we squabble over lighted nocks the greeners are out to strip hunters of basic privileges...
Someone has an agenda. Lobby lobby lobby. Why not lobby for something important. If you need a Tron like arrow in order to see where you shot it well then....... Its basic attrition. I don't like them, but could really careless I guess as there are more important things to fight for. Why not put some of this energy into overthrowing the treaties.
It amazes me how many deer I have killed without a lighted nock, and how many I haven't lsot because of basic woodsman skills. It also amazes me how I find my arrows as well. There must be some real flingers out there.
:yeah:
We are losing time in the field and folks what to "modernize bowhunting" instead of getting into the trenches and gaining us more units and/or time. It is misplaced energy.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 09:43:11 AM
Post by: Machias on December 28, 2010, 09:43:37 AM
There are the new Zeon Fusion vanes that use fiber optic technology by absorbing light. Thus, negating the need for lighted nocks.
www.norwayindustries.com (http://www.norwayindustries.com)
Looks like this may END this whole debate. That's the cat meow! Everyone can be happy now!!!
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2010, 09:55:58 AM
Quote
For you guys that are not in support I would be interested if you had the same take on the issue when it came to range finders being introduced to the sport?
I've never carried one. I trained myself to get pretty good at determining range. Might have come in handy ranging that coyote yesterday, but then again, I would have been looking through a range finder instead of my scope as he was about to go over the hill. Coyotes unlucky day. LOL
Post by: Snapshot on December 28, 2010, 09:59:53 AM
Regardless of technology, public image and game management will be the biggest hurdles for any hunting sport.
And that is a GREAT point: In all of my experiences of talking to the non-hunting public (fanatic Anti's aside) about hunting they, right down to the ones who got all fidgety to have to say it, respect the difficulty that true archery hunting presents. They respect that hunting with a stick and string gives the animal the advantage. And they recognize that every gadget that has come along that makes it easier (from compounds to range finders to mechanical broadheads and everything in between) gives the hunter an advantage. They think that the person who tests his or her own abilities against the animal and finds success deserves it. And when it comes right down to it, they would support it. But with every short cut that is shown non-stop on outdoors TV we risk losing their respect. And if bowhunting ever ends up on the balllot like baiting bears and hunting with hounds did, we will need their support.
Post by: sisu on December 28, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Post by: Lowedog on December 28, 2010, 10:09:07 AM
There are the new Zeon Fusion vanes that use fiber optic technology by absorbing light. Thus, negating the need for lighted nocks.
www.norwayindustries.com (http://www.norwayindustries.com)
Looks like this may END this whole debate. That's the cat meow! Everyone can be happy now!!!
Highly doubtful that will end the debate. I think the wheels are already in motion and there has been enough interest in lighted nocks that we will see them legalized starting in 2012.
Regardless of technology, public image and game management will be the biggest hurdles for any hunting sport.
And that is a GREAT point: In all of my experiences of talking to the non-hunting public (fanatic Anti's aside) about hunting they, right down to the ones who got all fidgety to have to say it, respect the difficulty that true archery hunting presents. They respect that hunting with a stick and string gives the animal the advantage. And they recognize that every gadget that has come along that makes it easier (from compounds to range finders to mechanical broadheads and everything in between) gives the hunter an advantage. They think that the person who tests his or her own abilities against the animal and finds success deserves it. And when it comes right down to it, they would support it. But with every short cut that is shown non-stop on outdoors TV we risk losing their respect. And if bowhunting ever ends up on the balllot like baiting bears and hunting with hounds did, we will need their support.
I get a real elitist vibe from posts like that. True Archery? The equipment one uses does not make the man.
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2010, 10:17:42 AM
Post by: Snapshot on December 28, 2010, 10:18:36 AM
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 10:25:33 AM
QuoteFor you guys that are not in support I would be interested if you had the same take on the issue when it came to range finders being introduced to the sport?
I've never carried one. I trained myself to get pretty good at determining range. Might have come in handy ranging that coyote yesterday, but then again, I would have been looking through a range finder instead of my scope as he was about to go over the hill. Coyotes unlucky day. LOL
I learn to live with the mistakes I make in judgement of range. If it means tag soup, then so be it. Some people need every edge they can muster to hunt. I can understand that. I can also be critical of these decisions and it doesn't mean it's an insult or that it is elitist. To broaden the argument to rangefinders only offers insight to the person who responds. Usually to perpetuate or create an environment for attacks on individual character. Not always but often...
At any rate I believe that the WSB is misdirecting energy with this proposal. In short, there will be some objections to such a proposal and when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons. Which is how it also appears to a casual observer who is also an archer. So go and ask for the Game Commission for it and they will probably oblige. I suspect they will be less interested in hearing from archers in the future when they get the impression that one of the most important items on their agenda is a battery powered, lighted nock as opposed to obtaining real opportunities (AKA open GMUs and Special permits).
Right- equipment does not make the man. Decisions make the man.
If the proposal is complete.. then it reflects on the leadership who were the proponents.
Post by: Lowedog on December 28, 2010, 10:28:18 AM
Snapshot, I will stand up for archery also but I won't divide it.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 10:29:51 AM
Quote
Snapshot, I will stand up for archery also but I won't divide it.
I think the proponents standing up for this "advancement" have actually divided...
Post by: boneaddict on December 28, 2010, 10:39:33 AM
Post by: Buckrub on December 28, 2010, 10:42:41 AM
Hunters have been labled as beer drinking road hunting drunks, regardless of weapon choice and it is up to us the hunters to change that image.
The dept. on the other hand bears some responsibility with this image as they should be our spokesman...sorta like job security.
Start imposing stiffer penalties for image type infractions... littering, shooting from the road, drinking, camp etiquette...poaching... all image infractions should require suspension of privileges..notice I didn't say rights?
Hate to threadjack but the illimunock is so far down the list that it bears little consideration.
Post by: wf70gonehunting on December 28, 2010, 12:26:34 PM
Quote
In short, there will be some objections to such a proposal and when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 03:13:02 PM
QuoteIn short, there will be some objections to such a proposal and when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
No
Post by: WildWind1 on December 28, 2010, 03:54:00 PM
Lets talk nocks!
I invite anyone here or across the USA, including P&Y to tell me what about the light nock is not fair chase?
Anyone?
This tool is about arrow recovery only.
Post by: MtnMuley on December 28, 2010, 04:02:36 PM
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 04:11:33 PM
Quote
This tool is about arrow recovery only.
Except there are a lot of people saying it isn't about arrow recovery and there are those that tell stories and talk of linking the tool to shooting game and recovering the game.
Post by: WildWind1 on December 28, 2010, 04:22:57 PM
If you take out the phrase Let off and use the phrase lighted nock it really does make sence.
I have sent this to M.R. James @ P&Y along with another letter to see if they might consider changing their rule as well..
Why the Pope & Young dropped the let off rule….
By M.R. James, Founder/Editor Emeritus
”AS A SENIOR MEMBER of the Pope and Young Club since 1980 and editor of three of the five P&Y record books published since 1975, I have been involved in various club activities for more than 32 years. I served on the board of directors from 1986 to 2000, including a 10-year stint as first vice president. I've been an official measurer since 1978. .............
As I see it, we must admit we made a mistake. Why? For years now, about 80 percent of compound bows sold have greater than 65-percent letoff. That means most bowhunters heading afield this fall will be toting bows that are P&Y "illegal," and none of the trophy animals they harvest will be eligible for the P&Y record book. In my opinion, something is definitely wrong when our record system excludes a majority of legally licensed bowhunters.
Not only does this deprive the Club of valuable revenue needed for many worthwhile projects, but worse, it means our club no longer fulfills a fundamental P&Y goal of serving as repository for bowhunting records of North American big game. And as long as a majority of this continent's bowhunters use equipment deemed unacceptable by Pope and Young, we will never collect truly representative trophy data. Without change, we'll soon be accepting and documenting a mere fraction of the total annual trophy harvest.
Given that fact, the Club's credibility is at stake. We can stubbornly stick to our 65-percent rule and exclude an increasing number of worthy trophies year after year, or we can accept the reality of a changing bowhunting world and realize that this particular equipment issue is not really significant.”
Post by: WildWind1 on December 28, 2010, 04:27:31 PM
Well put.
I invite them to tell me how it improves your shot or lets you shoot later.
IF YOU AN UNETHICAL HUNTER, YOU WERE BEFORE THE SHOT... ;)
Post by: ridgefire on December 28, 2010, 05:18:28 PM
Post by: wf70gonehunting on December 28, 2010, 05:26:11 PM
NoQuotewhen the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
I'm just curious as to why you would then suggest in your comment that archery hunters, by siding with the use of luminocks, would have made a choice of one or the other, as seen by F&G.? :dunno:
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 06:40:30 PM
NoQuotewhen the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
I'm just curious as to why you would then suggest in your comment that archery hunters, by siding with the use of luminocks, would have made a choice of one or the other, as seen by F&G.? :dunno:
I think you are reading into something which is non existant. You quoted me and asked a specific question. I answered it as bluntly as possible. Perhaps you wanted to ask a different question since my answer was not sufficient.
Post by: dscubame on December 28, 2010, 06:49:18 PM
Post by: Machias on December 28, 2010, 07:31:01 PM
In my humble opinion and as an outsider looking into your archery world it is very apparent archers as a group are most definitely divided. Interesting debate you guys have here.
I would have to respectfully disagree. I could pick any number of topics related to each user group and end up with just as contentious and divided argument. Hopefully though as a group, we can have these discussions and disagreements, but once it's settled, however it goes, we all come together and fight for the hunting community as a whole. Trust me as a guy who loves to dabble in all sorts of different outdoor activities, archers are no more divided then other user groups. :twocents:
Post by: ribka on December 28, 2010, 07:44:11 PM
In my humble opinion and as an outsider looking into your archery world it is very apparent archers as a group are most definitely divided. Interesting debate you guys have here.
I would have to respectfully disagree. I could pick any number of topics related to each user group and end up with just as contentious and divided argument. Hopefully though as a group, we can have these discussions and disagreements, but once it's settled, however it goes, we all come together and fight for the hunting community as a whole. Trust me as a guy who loves to dabble in all sorts of different outdoor activities, archers are no more divided then other user groups. :twocents:
Would have to agree. With 30 plus year bow hunting have to say more there is just as much if not more camaraderie among bow hunters than among other user groups. Just very passionate about our sport and heritage, history. Shoot and animal 300 yds away and then shoot one 15-20 yds away with a bow and will understand. Nothing in the sporting world more exciting/challenging than that :twocents:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 08:39:14 PM
Since we're all still living in the dark ages, why don't we go back to segregation, not allowing women to vote, or the horse drawn carriage?
Modern hunting equipment aids in the humane harvesting of animals; modern muzzleloaders, modern archery equipment, modern rifles, etc. Why allow scopes on rifles? Why don't we only allow blackpowder instead of pryodex and other modern propellents? IMHO I don't see anything wrong with allowing the use of any and all modern equipment while hunting. We pay good, hard earned money for the opportunity to harvest an animal for our own consumption in the form of our license and fees. It's a shame that we allow an already intrusive government to impose itself any further in our lives and recreational opportunities. EMBRACE THE 21st CENTURY! :twocents:
It has NOTHING to do with an intrusive repressive Government. This rule is supported by the majority of bowhunters in this state. Now that may be changing but equipment restictions are supported by the very community it affects. I wonder how we ever harvested animals before lumenoks? I have taken close to 40 deer with a bow and 5 bears, I use bright colored fletching and nocks and can see my arrow path and impact site without any problem at all. The more effective we are the shorter and shorter our seasons get. The reason more and more guys are attracted to archery seasons is the length of the season. We get a whole bunch of new guys clamoring for the latest and greatest gadgets and the season gets shorter and shorter. What happens then? All these fly by night bowhunters will leave a sport their heart was never really into. You want to use electronics on a bow, go ahead, buy a modern tag and hunt with your bow gear, no restrictions, have fun!
He is partially right about the repressive government. The fact is we are supposed to protect the minority from the majority. This has nothing to do with race like the Dem's try to make it out. This has to do with mans nature to form factions or elitist groups that promote their own (majority) interest at the expense of the interest of others.... which is exactly the case here. This is only for the positive, has no impact on the actual kill itself and has no impact on the herd, your hunt or your individual rights. It simply just doesn't appeal to your (or my) senses. Of course this is a state issue and the state has spoken at this point so it is kosher with the law of the land.. however, despite the fact that it doesn't appeal to my senses I can come up with no reasonable reason to deny that right to anyone. It has no impact on me or the success of the bowhunter to actually kill.. possibly recover (which I personally wish all were recovered)....but not kill.
I don't know it for a fact but I bet this is not supported by the majority of bowhunters (denying the use of lumenocks that is)...but it is supported by the majority of voters. I personally would not vote against it but I have no plans or desires to use lumenock. Like you I have never had an issue seeing my shot.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 28, 2010, 09:31:32 PM
Quote
Would have to agree. With 30 plus year bow hunting have to say more there is just as much if not more camaraderie among bow hunters than among other user groups. Just very passionate about our sport and heritage, history. Shoot and animal 300 yds away and then shoot one 15-20 yds away with a bow and will understand. Nothing in the sporting world more exciting/challenging than thatI agree, when I firearm hunted, I would scout during the summer, pack into Alpine Lks Wilderness for the "High Country" hunt, get in position and when I saw my legal animal, shoot it...
I would get excited as I approached my downed animal.... :IBCOOL:
Then I heard some guys Bugling at the sportsman show,(early 80's) and checked it out, bought a diaphragm, and practiced. That year while up deer hunting, I called my first 6X6 Bull to within 15 yards, I had never felt the adrenalin like I did then, and I was not even Elk Hunting !
I bought a Compound the next week, at Northwest Archery, and met an interesting fellow by the name of Glenn StCharles, I took the NBEF course in the old Fred Bear/Glenn StCharles museum and met Joe and Jay St Charles, had arrows made by Suzanne, met a guy that goes by the name "Bowdoc" now, and his son (who later got a job at NW), Hunted with these guys, joined Washington State Bowhunters, and years later Traditional Bowhunters of Washington (when I dropped the "training wheels")
there is something special about groups that have weekends getting together to shoot stumps, or 3D's, and share stories that is nothing like what I ever felt while going shooting (firearms) with my friends, or at the range.
Muzzleloaders have similar weekends, but I never heard of modern weapon users having these rendezvous (not to say they don't, I just never heard of them.... :cmp1: :archery_smiley:
But this debate was about Lumenoc's, I personally have gone the other direction, antique bows and wooden arrows, my whole family uses Trad equipment, from my 5 year old daughter (12# longbow) to me with a 70# recurve,
I do not care what you use to hunt with, but I do feel that Lumenocs, lighted sight pins, etc, are not used by guys that hunt with a bow for the same reasons I do, they are entitled to their choices, and I see no reason why they should NOT be able to use them, but if you use a weapon with "self imposed limitations" such as Archery equipment, why do you want to add stuff to it to make things easier ?
It is all fine and dandy when competing with other archers at shoots, but if you use a bow to challenge yourself, those "tools" are nothing more (or less) than add-ons to make the bow more modern, and I feel that hunting with modern technology is just that "modern" and belong in "modern Weapon" seasons.
Lumenocs do not make you a better Archer, I see no real advantage to them myself, other than they are cool, and would help locate your arrow after the shot (lord knows I wish I had one after losing one of my Bill Sweetland Forgewoods), but as I keep stating in these discussions, THE LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO SPECIFICALLY WITH LUMENOCS, and I am sure that within a couple years the rule will be amended, but then what will be the next thing ?
First it was let-off, now lumenocs, then it will probably be expandables, then lighted sight-pins, built on rangefinders, etc....
As we all know, and complain about, the WDFW is "Dollar Driven", the seasons are getting shorter, you have to work harder to get away from other hunters, and on to animals, read all the complaining on this site, If we continue to allow "advances" in equipment, and those who feel that all the equipment money can buy should be used, where is our seasons and opportunity going to be in 10 years ?
If I were to go out and get a 300fps bow, use a carbon arrow, (whatever happened to over-draws?) expandable broadhead, lumenoc,and laser rangefinder, ride into my hunting area on an ORV, and watch over my "shot-plot" enhanced with "Deer-Cane" and "Apple-Molasses Block", maybe even a "Trophy Rock", would you call it hunting ?, or shopping ?
I can see it now..... 1 week for all user groups, and we will have no-one to blame but ourselves.
I know I sound like Chicken Little, and am overreacting to a small issue, and it is inevitable that there will be changes, I just worry that if we don't quit trying to use new technology, and attempt to hold on to what we have now, we will lose out in the end, and when my kids are old enough to go hunting with me, it will only be for one weekend a year,
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 10:04:09 PM
QuoteFirst it was let-off, now lumenocs, then it will probably be expandables, then lighted sight-pins, built on rangefinders, etc....
As we all know, and complain about, the WDFW is "Dollar Driven", the seasons are getting shorter, you have to work harder to get away from other hunters, and on to animals, read all the complaining on this site, If we continue to allow "advances" in equipment, and those who feel that all the equipment money can buy should be used, where is our seasons and opportunity going to be in 10 years ?
If I were to go out and get a 300fps bow, use a carbon arrow, (whatever happened to over-draws?) expandable broadhead, lumenoc,and laser rangefinder, ride into my hunting area on an ORV, and watch over my "shot-plot" enhanced with "Deer-Cane" and "Apple-Molasses Block", maybe even a "Trophy Rock", would you call it hunting ?, or shopping ?
I can see it now..... 1 week for all user groups, and we will have no-one to blame but ourselves.
I know I sound like Chicken Little, and am overreacting to a small issue, and it is inevitable that there will be changes, I just worry that if we don't quit trying to use new technology, and attempt to hold on to what we have now, we will lose out in the end, and when my kids are old enough to go hunting with me, it will only be for one weekend a year,
Expandable broadheads, lighted sight pins, built on rangefinders, lumenoks, let off etc... all of these things help the average hunter make ethical shots but will not increase their chances of taking a deer. We are going to allow these hunters to hunt with archery equipment simply by purchasing a license. Are you against ethical shots? Would you rather remain the fractional minority as a Trad hunter so your own individual rights (like a decent length hunting season) is not protected from the majority... or would you rather stand on your own and defend your seasons as a hardcore Trad hunter. I personally want people in archery and I want them to make great shots. I want it to be as easy as possible for newcomer to enter archery. Anything to improve that and still keep a reasonable kill range of 100 yard or less I am good with. If that means lumenocks, baiting, built on rangefinder, lighted sight pints, crossbows etc...... I am good with it.. I dont' expect everyone to be as dedicated or self restrictive as you or I. The fact that someone hunts with a lumenock or lighted sight has zero effect on me or their overall success of making a kill (success with ethical shots for the average hunter... greatly increased). I want people (big numbers) on my side to fight against the anti-hunters or even fellow hunters with elitist attitude who think my method of hunting (compound bow with fiberoptic sight and bait/cameras whatever) does not constitute "real" hunting.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Quote
Expandable broadheads, lighted sight pins, built on rangefinders, lumenoks, let off etc... all of these things help the average hunter make ethical shots but will not increase their chances of taking a deer.
Rangefinders, lighted sight pins do increase some people's chances of taking deer. I think you would agree to that. Not sure why it was stated. I think it could easily be argued that placing the rangefinders and other electronics on the bow and arrow would also make the likelihood of harvest higher (increase chances).
Post by: Lowedog on December 28, 2010, 10:27:17 PM
As I said before, I can not find anywhere in the regs where it says archery seasons are primitive or traditional hunts. There are limitations to what type of equipment can be used. For the lighted nock to be legalized I in no way see how that is going to lead us down a slippery slope or lead to shortened seasons.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 10:30:20 PM
Quote
I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do
Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 10:32:56 PM
I'm not picking on you, but this statement is not completely factual.QuoteExpandable broadheads, lighted sight pins, built on rangefinders, lumenoks, let off etc... all of these things help the average hunter make ethical shots but will not increase their chances of taking a deer.
Rangefinders, lighted sight pins do increase some people's chances of taking deer. I think you would agree to that. Not sure why it was stated. I think it could easily be argued that placing the rangefinders and other electronics on the bow and arrow would also make the likelihood of harvest higher (increase chances).
I don't feel like you are picking on me at all. I think you make a very valid point.I agree it would increase the chances of making a good hit (taking a deer).... I personally am not against a good clean hit. I would bet my life savings the increased harvest would be very minimal...but the increased recovery would be significant...even it it's only one or two animals for the entire state... I will take that anyday.
Post by: wf70gonehunting on December 28, 2010, 10:33:34 PM
NoQuotewhen the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
I'm just curious as to why you would then suggest in your comment that archery hunters, by siding with the use of luminocks, would have made a choice of one or the other, as seen by F&G.? :dunno:
I think you are reading into something which is non existant.
All I'm reading into it what you have stated, you said when F&G reads or hears these objections then they will see archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
My question is where has it been said or posted that we as archers have been given or had to make a choice of one or the other? If its non existant I was just curious as to why you said it is all. :dunno:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 10:34:49 PM
I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do. For me just hunting is what it is all about. I don't feel any different if I'm hunting with my rifle or with my muzzy, compound or recurve. It's about the hunt itself. Sometimes I long for a cold October morning with leaves turning colors and my rifle on my shoulder. At other times it is dreaming of September in short sleeves and trying to close the distance on a big buck with my bow.
As I said before, I can not find anywhere in the regs where it says archery seasons are primitive or traditional hunts. There are limitations to what type of equipment can be used. For the lighted nock to be legalized I in no way see how that is going to lead us down a slippery slope or lead to shortened seasons.
I agree...if anything...not modernizing hunting will lead to shorter seasons.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 10:36:38 PM
NoQuotewhen the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
I'm just curious as to why you would then suggest in your comment that archery hunters, by siding with the use of luminocks, would have made a choice of one or the other, as seen by F&G.? :dunno:
I think you are reading into something which is non existant.
All I'm reading into it what you have stated, you said when F&G reads or hears these objections then they will see archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
My question is where has it been said or posted that we as archers have been given or had to make a choice of one or the other? If its non existant I was just curious as to why you said it is all. :dunno:
Let me pick this apart for you in a crystal clear fashion.
This was never stated by me. It is your imagination as far as I can tell. Thus it is non existant. Please tell me where I made this quote below on this topic. You're asking me why I said something that I didn't say. I'm not sure where to start with that logic.
Quote
My question is where has it been said or posted that we as archers have been given or had to make a choice of one or the other?
At this point it is unclear where you would draw such a conclusion that there was an atomic choice for one thing over another from my remarks on this particular topic.
I have answered your questions bluntly, twice now.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 28, 2010, 10:40:24 PM
Quote
Expandable broadheads, lighted sight pins, built on rangefinders, lumenoks, let off etc... all of these things help the average hunter make ethical shots but will not increase their chances of taking a deer. We are going to allow these hunters to hunt with archery equipment simply by purchasing a license. Are you against ethical shots? Would you rather remain the fractional minority as a Trad hunter so your own individual rights (like a decent length hunting season) is not protected from the majority... or would you rather stand on your own and defend your seasons as a hardcore Trad hunter. I personally want people in archery and I want them to make great shots. I want it to be as easy as possible for newcomer to enter archery. Anything to improve that and still keep a reasonable kill range of 100 yard or less I am good with. If that means lumenocks, baiting, built on rangefinder, lighted sight pints, crossbows etc...... I am good with it.. I dont' expect everyone to be as dedicated or self restrictive as you or I. The fact that someone hunts with a lumenock or lighted sight has zero effect on me or their overall success of making a kill (success with ethical shots for the average hunter... greatly increased). I want people (big numbers) on my side to fight against the anti-hunters or even fellow hunters with elitist attitude who think my method of hunting (compound bow with fiberoptic sight and bait/cameras whatever) does not constitute "real" hunting.Ethics have little to do with equipment, I believe in ethical shots, and ethical hunting, but that has nothing to do with my statement.
I also feel that Archery rules and regulations, limits/restrictions, do not attract new hunters, only those who already hunt switching weapons, because their season is already too short or crowded.
I also believe, through 23 years of Archery hunting, that ANYONE who takes a 100 yard shot with an arrow, is an irresponsible bowhunter. When I used a compound, and (at the time) was the greatest-fastest etc.. I could afford ) I had several animals that moved at release, causing my arrow to (impact at point of aim) penetrate in different direction, making broadside and quartering away shots, frontal and quartering in, (unalerted animal looking for source of sound)
I also was not saying, nor intended to mean that ("(compound bow with fiberoptic sight and bait/cameras whatever) does not constitute "real" hunting), I was stating that the more we use that kind of stuff, the more effective we become, reducing the challenge and effort required to be successful, and negating the whole reason Archers have a separate and longer season.
You may want " it to be as easy as possible for newcomer to enter archery" and "people (big numbers) on my side to fight against the anti-hunters or even fellow hunters with elitist attitude who think my method of hunting (compound bow with fiberoptic sight and bait/cameras whatever) does not constitute "real" hunting", but then I am sure will be one of the first to complain about overcrowding, and lost opportunity.
I do not have an "Elitist attitude" We welcome C-pound users into our group, and treat them with respect, back when I was still using a C-pound myself, I harvested a Bull Elk, Joe StCharles was with me and posed in the pictures (That is a "hardcore Trad hunter" family) I commented about being in a pic with a C-pound user and he answered "an arrow is an arrow", I share that sentiment, just because I use Trad equipment, I see nothing wrong with someone using whatever type of bow they want, I am just against constantly "modernizing" the regulations until they are all "modern weapons", and it wont matter what I choose, or what you choose, we will all be hunting at the same time, in the same units, for the same animals, and these numbers of people will be so disillusioned that hunters as a whole will be even more of a minority than they are now.
I also do not believe that lumenocs have any real effect on "ethical shots", you make the decision to release before you see the arrow in flight.
If you want people to get into archery, introduce them to the sport, and make it fun, and challenging, don't make the sport easier...
Thats like saying, I love the long ball, and want more people to watch baseball, steroids should be legal.
Post by: Machias on December 28, 2010, 10:41:08 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 10:42:17 PM
QuoteI find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do
Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.
Hunting in general is more meaningful Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue..... I think people who buy their meat at a grocery store should be a able to hunt. I think people who use archery equipment by any definition should be able to archery hunt. I think people who hunt wild game and use rifles capable of making shots at 400+ yard over bait are hunters and should have the right to hunt with those methods. It's not the people who choose their weapon with conviction who are elitist...it is those who choose their weapon and then think they deserve special treatment or have everyone else conform to their standards or narrow definition...and then they go to the voting blocks and vote against the only people who truly have their back...those are elitist.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 10:45:02 PM
I think that the lighted cams should be used to make 300 yard shots only. If you use the stabilizer with the laser pointer that is built in you should be allowed to shoot out of the truck window without repercussions. The shorter bows will make this easier. Lighting your arrows on fire before drawing back could create a hazardous situation, and cause your string to catch fire. If you cannot deal with this or you're scared, carry a pocket fire extinguisher. This could be an effective way to take shots during the night.
I love the sarcasm but it is so far out of reality and context that I can't even entertain giving a response.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 10:48:49 PM
QuoteI find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do
Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.
Hunting in general is more meaningful Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue..... I think people who buy their meat at a grocery store should be a able to hunt. I think people who use archery equipment by any definition should be able to archery hunt. I think people who hunt wild game and use rifles capable of making shots at 400+ yard over bait are hunters and should have the right to hunt with those methods. It's not the people who choose their weapon with conviction who are elitist...it is those who choose their weapon and then think they deserve special treatment or have everyone else conform to their standards or narrow definition...and then they go to the voting blocks and vote against the only people who truly have their back...those are elitist.
Except the entire concept of bowhunting would be elitist according to those definitions. So it would be a bunch of elitists accusing others of being the elitists. Where does it start? Where does it end? The electronic bow users are the elitists who want everyone else to conform to their new equipment request? Or is it the loincloth wearing self bow stick slinger who abhors "advancement"?
The fact is, that mentality you have described above is more about throwing stones. Saying you don't want electronics on the bow and arrow is not a mark of an elitist. It may simply be what you believe is correct or fair.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 10:50:13 PM
"reasonable kill range of 100 yard or less I am good with." That quote right there is what is wrong with today's bowhunting community. Even with compound bows shooting 300 fps+, that is a ridiculous range to shoot at an animal in the field! That right there is why someone feels they need lumenoks. No wonder you need a strobe light strapped to the ass end of the arrow to see where it's hitting. :chuckle: I have hunted with a compound bow my whole life, just switched last year to traditional gear, so it's not an elitist attitude it's a respect for the animals we hunt. Somehow we have got to change the mindset back to HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!
I personally have never shot over 35 yards and would never shoot at a deer size animal over 40 yards (due to my own ability).
Aside from a bow no weapon today has an effective kill range of less than 100 yards (for the average hunter). My real point is I agree there is a point where it is no longer considered Archery. I could lower that to 40 yards or less if it appeals to your stringent standards of calling oneself a bowhunter. Then you and I could stand with a small minority and fight for our rights.... I bet we would lose.
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 28, 2010, 10:54:32 PM
Well said Machias! I am 50/50 on the subject. I don't care either way myself. Have i used them? sure i have shot a few into the targets. I am thinking about using them in NZ this year. It will be nice on video. I can understand the seeing in flight statement. I shoot a very fast compound bow. Huge white and orange wrap and orange and white vanes "4" i have a hard time seeing my arrow in flight. So that would be nice. Do i think it will encourage some "people" to take longer shots, yes. But most of them are already taking long shots, so what the difference. Like i said i am 50/50 on the subject.
Post by: Machias on December 28, 2010, 10:55:58 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 11:01:28 PM
QuoteI find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do
Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.
Hunting in general is more meaningful Elitist: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue..... I think people who buy their meat at a grocery store should be a able to hunt. I think people who use archery equipment by any definition should be able to archery hunt. I think people who hunt wild game and use rifles capable of making shots at 400+ yard over bait are hunters and should have the right to hunt with those methods. It's not the people who choose their weapon with conviction who are elitist...it is those who choose their weapon and then think they deserve special treatment or have everyone else conform to their standards or narrow definition...and then they go to the voting blocks and vote against the only people who truly have their back...those are elitist.
Except the entire concept of bowhunting would be elitist according to those definitions. So it would be a bunch of elitists accusing others of being the elitists. Where does it start? Where does it end? The electronic bow users are the elitists who want everyone else to conform to their new equipment request? Or is it the loincloth wearing self bow stick slinger who abhors "advancement"?
The fact is, that mentality you have described above is more about throwing stones. Saying you don't want electronics on the bow and arrow is not a mark of an elitist. It may simply be what you believe is correct or fair.
Ray...dang it... why do you always have to challenge my arguments and make me explain myself. :chuckle:.. In all seriousness I really respect and enjoy hearing your point of view.
I know what you mean about where does it start/end? I do believe that is the difficult balance that we deal with and why conversations/debates like this are so important. Here is my thinking...WA does pit us against each other.. I see many advantages to choosing your weapon but it ultimately pits us against each other and I hate that. Aside from that..in a normal state (pretty much every other state in the US)...I as a bowhunter would not be an elitist because I will back up every other hunters right.. want to use dogs to hunt deer even though it may affect my hunt a little...ok... want to use a crossbow...ok...want to use a scope on a muzzleloader...ok.... I agree though..there does come a point..where does it end and begin... I just think we may be a little to conservative with that at times... My thinking is this...what will help me bring new hunters into the sport but not interfere with others rights or hurt the herd. I don't care of it appeals my own sense of hunting as much as I do those things.
I don't think saying you don't want electronics on your bow is an elitist... I think saying hunter Joe shouldn't have electronics on his bow because I don't think that's archery hunting is elitist... I also think it decreases the number of archery hunters (which is good and bad)... ultimately a decrease in our numbers is bad in this state or any other.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 11:03:42 PM
I just don't see how the anything goes no matter what. If someone wants it we have to include it so we build up our numbers. I don't think I have stringent standards, maybe I do and don't realize it. My standards are don't do things to hurt the sport as a whole and have respect for the animals we pursue. Other then that I'm fairly open minded....on most issues.
Ok...Lumenocks... How do they hurt our sport as a whole and how they not respect the animals we pursue? I see them bettering the sport/respecting the animal we pursue despite the fact I have never/likely will never use them.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 11:05:09 PM
Quote
I don't think saying you don't want electronics on your bow is an elitist... I think saying hunter Joe should have electronics on his bow because I don't think that's archery hunting is elitist...
Why would it be elitist? I mean we have to agree on the terms of what is acceptable. If I used your proposed logic (being a pessimist that I am) I could say that tomorrow I want a rangefinder on my bow and also crossbows as well as scopes and laser dots. Then if ANYONE objects they are an elitist because they want to say what I can and cannot have on my bow. The fact is, even those people are not necessarily the ones to cast stones at.
Post by: M_ray on December 28, 2010, 11:15:48 PM
This was never stated by me. It is your imagination as far as I can tell. Thus it is non existant. Please tell me where I made this quote below on this topic. You're asking me why I said something that I didn't say. I'm not sure where to start with that logic.
I think he gets it here on post #117
At any rate I believe that the WSB is misdirecting energy with this proposal. In short, there will be some objections to such a proposal and when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I think he is just asking if you have some inside knowledge from a meeting or from WDFW that supports the statement you made in post #117 that just because a group is in favor of luminknocks means that they are also in favor of shortened seasons. It sounds like you are saying that this is the way fish and game would interpret luminknock support.
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 11:17:26 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 11:18:21 PM
QuoteI don't think saying you don't want electronics on your bow is an elitist... I think saying hunter Joe should have electronics on his bow because I don't think that's archery hunting is elitist...
Why would it be elitist? I mean we have to agree on the terms of what is acceptable. If I used your proposed logic (being a pessimist that I am) I could say that tomorrow I want a rangefinder on my bow and also crossbows as well as scopes. Then if ANYONE objects they are an elitist because they want to say what I can and cannot have on my bow. The fact is, even those people are not necessarily the ones to cast stones at.
I definitely see what you mean.. but when we base our terms of "acceptable" on what we find to be sacred and consider that only the true way to call yourself a hunter, bowhunter, or whatever then we are being an elitist. I am sure we all have some elitist in us but man..I wish we could just not have such discord amongst each other (on the voting blocks) about the things that truly have basically no negative impact... now if we are talking about real issues like methods to help our herds recover..etc.. now that is real important stuff.. but things that are going to make little impact on us or the herd and would recruit more hunters, lead to more recoveries and not violate individual hunters rights (who use methods that may not appeal to what I believe constitutes a hunting experience)... I am all for it. I don't necessarily like or want all of these either. I would be perfectly happy if firearms where never created and if we were all hunting with stickbows crafted by our own hand..but I certainly want firearm, muzzleloader, etc. hunters on my side and I am on their side 100%
Post by: Ray on December 28, 2010, 11:22:24 PM
Quote
I definitely see what you mean.. but when we base our terms of "acceptable" on what we find to be sacred and consider that only the true way to call yourself a hunter, bowhunter, or whatever then we are being an elitist.
That quote kind of mixes two mutually exclusive things in my mind.
1) There is a definition on a book of regulations. It doesn't care what someone feels. It is based upon a consensus of hunters and hopefully with the best intentions. Some people believe leaving electronics off the bow and arrow is a sound consensus reached about 20 years ago when bow hunters from the WSB agreed to the restriction. It is not elitist.
2) There are people who want to tell others or make others feel insecure, inadequate, inferior or otherwise less than another person based upon their beliefs.
They are not necessarily one in the same.
Post by: Lowedog on December 28, 2010, 11:33:44 PM
QuoteI find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do
Why would it be strange? The act of hunting is more meaningful than getting your meat at the grocery store simply because it is a tradition. To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.
Who said anything about getting your meat at a grocery store? Just thought I would repost my complete statement...
I find it kind of strange that some feel that what they carry in their hands while hunting defines what they are or that it somehow makes the hunt more meaningful than what others chose to do. For me just hunting is what it is all about. I don't feel any different if I'm hunting with my rifle or with my muzzy, compound or recurve. It's about the hunt itself. Sometimes I long for a cold October morning with leaves turning colors and my rifle on my shoulder. At other times it is dreaming of September in short sleeves and trying to close the distance on a big buck with my bow.
To me it seems like you are trying to paint those who choose their weapons with conviction as elitist but without openly stating it.
I openly stated earlier in this thread that some of these posts come across as elitist. I don't believe it is elitist to choose ones weapon with conviction. I think it is elitist to suggest that others don't feel as passionate about hunting or to imply that those who chose to use modern equipment are inferior hunters or woodsmen.
Post by: Lowedog on December 28, 2010, 11:35:17 PM
I think that the lighted cams should be used to make 300 yard shots only. If you use the stabilizer with the laser pointer that is built in you should be allowed to shoot out of the truck window without repercussions. The shorter bows will make this easier. Lighting your arrows on fire before drawing back could create a hazardous situation, and cause your string to catch fire. If you cannot deal with this or you're scared, carry a pocket fire extinguisher. This could be an effective way to take shots during the night.
Lighted cams???!! I gotta get me some of those! Especially if they can make me shoot 300 yards!
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 11:37:31 PM
QuoteI definitely see what you mean.. but when we base our terms of "acceptable" on what we find to be sacred and consider that only the true way to call yourself a hunter, bowhunter, or whatever then we are being an elitist.
That quote kind of mixes two mutually exclusive things in my mind.
1) There is a definition on a book of regulations. It doesn't care what someone feels. It is based upon a consensus of hunters and hopefully with the best intentions. Some people believe leaving electronics off the bow and arrow is a sound consensus reached about 20 years ago when bow hunters from the WSB agreed to the restriction. It is not elitist.
2) There are people who want to tell others or make others feel insecure, inadequate, inferior or otherwise less than another person based upon their beliefs.
They are not necessarily one in the same.
By your definition I agree with you 100%.
I think if we can agree that it is a sound consensus that benefits the future of hunting and our herds (I don't expect us to all agree on those things either..Antler restrictions, limited antlerless harvest whatever....I know we will make mistakes) then we are focusing on the right areas. If it is for other reasons (like the fact that I think x method or gadget is not really hunting so we should ban it just because the majority...who don't use that method for whatever reason..don't agree.) then we are likely way down the wrong track and not making very sound decisions to benefit what we really love and we are speaking from our elitist side (that we all have)
I just see way more positives for the animal and hunting in most of these issues. The primary negative I see is that it may not appeal to someone's sense of what constitutes a hunt/bowhunting/muzzleloader hunting...etc.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 11:40:09 PM
I think that the lighted cams should be used to make 300 yard shots only. If you use the stabilizer with the laser pointer that is built in you should be allowed to shoot out of the truck window without repercussions. The shorter bows will make this easier. Lighting your arrows on fire before drawing back could create a hazardous situation, and cause your string to catch fire. If you cannot deal with this or you're scared, carry a pocket fire extinguisher. This could be an effective way to take shots during the night.
I love the sarcasm but it is so far out of reality and context that I can't even entertain giving a response.
You just did. :chuckle:
Yes I did!!! You got me. :chuckle:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 28, 2010, 11:43:17 PM
I think that the lighted cams should be used to make 300 yard shots only. If you use the stabilizer with the laser pointer that is built in you should be allowed to shoot out of the truck window without repercussions. The shorter bows will make this easier. Lighting your arrows on fire before drawing back could create a hazardous situation, and cause your string to catch fire. If you cannot deal with this or you're scared, carry a pocket fire extinguisher. This could be an effective way to take shots during the night.
Lighted cams???!! I gotta get me some of those! Especially if they can make me shoot 300 yards!
Oh yes...these are the cats meow. The light waves when synchronized propel your arrow forward at a faster rate. Plus you can use them as a survival tool to get out of the woods after dark.
Man I need some of those. New shoes make me run faster and new bows make be shoot better so I am sure these lighted cams will be the heat. :chuckle:
Post by: Buckrub on December 29, 2010, 07:01:07 AM
I hunt archery because I love to talk to the elk and although I could shoot 70 yds I would never shoot over 40yds and prefer 10yds.
Same with any weapon...it comes down to personal choice and responsibility.
NUTHIN..better than a screaming bull at ten yards!
Post by: CallMeBigPapa on December 29, 2010, 07:43:37 PM
Post by: boneaddict on December 29, 2010, 07:47:34 PM
Post by: boneaddict on December 29, 2010, 07:52:14 PM
Quote
Wolf introduction may be the damnation of hunting, while we squabble over lighted nocks the greeners are out to strip hunters of basic privileges....
Post by: Ray on December 29, 2010, 07:52:39 PM
not really
Agreed
Post by: Snapshot on December 30, 2010, 12:11:11 AM
"reasonable kill range of 100 yard or less I am good with." That quote right there is what is wrong with today's bowhunting community. Even with compound bows shooting 300 fps+, that is a ridiculous range to shoot at an animal in the field! That right there is why someone feels they need lumenoks. No wonder you need a strobe light strapped to the ass end of the arrow to see where it's hitting. :chuckle: I have hunted with a compound bow my whole life, just switched last year to traditional gear, so it's not an elitist attitude it's a respect for the animals we hunt. Somehow we have got to change the mindset back to HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!:yeah:
Post by: Snapshot on December 30, 2010, 12:34:12 AM
Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?
I thought so... this is good stuff. The kind of stuff that newbies to bowhunting need to read; especially, so that some of them (the ones, hopefully, who will be movers and shakers later) will gain an appreciation that bowhunting isn't a game that was invented for our amusement. But that it is a proud heritage built upon the love of archery, with a strong history that can, unless completely derailed, light the way into the future for our children's children to enjoy.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 12:43:25 AM
Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?
I thought so... this is good stuff. The kind of stuff that newbies to bowhunting need to read; especially, so that some of them (the ones, hopefully, who will be movers and shakers later) will gain an appreciation that bowhunting isn't a game that was invented for our amusement. But that it is a proud heritage built upon the love of archery, with a strong history that can, unless completely derailed, light the way into the future for our children's children to enjoy.
You put that perfectly.
Post by: krout81 on December 30, 2010, 04:22:27 AM
Quote
Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?:yeah:
I thought so... this is good stuff. The kind of stuff that newbies to bowhunting need to read; especially, so that some of them (the ones, hopefully, who will be movers and shakers later) will gain an appreciation that bowhunting isn't a game that was invented for our amusement. But that it is a proud heritage built upon the love of archery, with a strong history that can, unless completely derailed, light the way into the future for our children's children to enjoy.
I keep coming back to see the new comments. How about anything that requires a battery is taken away period from all hunters?
LIMIT TECHNOLOGY IN THE FIELD AND OUR CHILDREN WILL BE ABLE TO HUNT THE SAME RIDGES WE DO...... :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on December 30, 2010, 05:26:20 AM
Quote
HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!
and damn, you said the word HERITAGE. Thankyou!
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 08:16:23 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 09:49:15 AM
Yep, that's a great quote, and I totally agree. However, that would have no bearing on me still preferring to nock my first arrow with a Lumenock though. The thought of using a Lumenock to be able to take a further shot is a pathetic way of thinking in my opinion, and I sure hope the general concensius in the archery community doesn't think that way.
I don't think people want lumenocks to make further shots. How will a lighted knock help anyones accuracy at a longer range?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 10:00:19 AM
I missed this one. I also like itQuoteHOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!
and damn, you said the word HERITAGE. Thankyou!
I know very few compound hunters who take shots at deer past 40 yards. Those that do are usually excellent archers. My issue with this (no matter how good the archer) is that there comes a point. 30,40,50,60 yards (don't know that point) where a deer can easily move enough to lead to a poor hit (even if their not jumping the string).
I mentioned 100 yards or less as a way of saying we have to stay limited somehow for it still to be archery. If I had a bow capable of making a shot the distances of muzzleloaders or rifles then we might as well all be in one user group.
80-100 yards is the furthest I have heard of bowhunters taking/killing live game with a compound (I am sure their has been much further shots). I practice at that distance regularly but I limit my shots to 40 yards or less. I have seen guys that are very capable at making shots out to 90 yards with the same consistency that most decent archers shoots at 20-30 yards. Throw hunting conditions, the the things that can happen between the release and impact and a big buck in the mix and they probably shouldn't be making a shot at that distance.
Post by: boneaddict on December 30, 2010, 10:04:26 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 30, 2010, 11:05:47 AM
That said, I was telling a friend about this discussion, and he replied
Quote
"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "Those are not my words, but reflect just one reaction to the debate on whether or not we should allow them.
Post by: dscubame on December 30, 2010, 11:13:40 AM
Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?
You bet. Shows some true colors and character of many of the active members here. (That is meant to be taken in a positive light for the most part)
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 11:28:40 AM
Quote"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "
Threre are bad seeds in every aspect of our hunting community. This kind of comment just reinstates that point. There are traditional archers out there that have left more arrows in the guts of deer than any modern archery guys I know, and that doesn't change my opinion about the traditional guys. Back to my "circular" style comments: ALLOW the hunter to make the decision if he/she would like to use the Lumenock -- and don't assume they are a high-tech modern equipment-style hunter and lump them into that category. Those of us who shoot stick and string are all archers, and preferences vary :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on December 30, 2010, 11:30:28 AM
I just want to re-state, I have nothing against Lumenoc's themselves it is technological advancements that worry me....
That said, I was telling a friend about this discussion, and he repliedQuote"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "Those are not my words, but reflect just one reaction to the debate on whether or not we should allow them.
the last thing I would expect someone to be worried about when shooting at a big game animal would be whether or not they're going to lose an arrow I would suspect. I mean lets think about it. You've spent several hundred dollars on a bow and equipment to go with the bow, a couple hundred more on a dozen arrows and broadheads, clothing, license and tags, whatever else...I can't see anyone wishing they had a lumenok on their arrow so they could find their $20 arrow. Most of the time they break anyway, don't they??
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 11:36:46 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 30, 2010, 11:46:28 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 12:06:18 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on December 30, 2010, 12:12:22 PM
I killed one elk and four deer with my last arrow before I lost it. Pretty sure a strobe wouldn't have helped me find it either. Funny thing is I saw where all 5 of those shots went.try finding one on the west side
i dont have a problem with them and might even use them should they be legal. as far as helping someone take longer shots....... i could see the argument where in low light conditions you could see if your shot was high or low so on the next you'd have a better idea where to aim. kinda like using it as a "range finder", but other than that i really see no reason why they shouldnt be legal. guys who would make un-ethical shots with them, are the same ones making un-ethical shots now
Post by: WildWind1 on December 30, 2010, 12:15:29 PM
Not everyone finds all the arrows they shoot at animals, and if You do congrats to you.
Where I live, we have pine needles up to 6in thick and grasses that are years old. When hunting from a blind and with the angle of the hills, the arrow could get caught under some of it and if you shoot during the "golden hour" and wait the appropriate time its very hard and sometimes impossible to find your arrow when its a clean pass through. Once you find it though you can then address the hit on the game and how to recover it, not bump it and loose it.This is not a justification just a point.
As for other electronic devises mentioned in this thread, even I draw the line when it comes to lighted sights and things that let you shoot later. There is no need for them, but a lighted noch come on.
Lets be reasonable to each others choices for equipment and responsible to the game WE hunt.
For you traditional guys, I'm throwing stones but if your bow is laminated and and your not using stone broadheads, get off your pedestals...
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 12:57:08 PM
Hey, guys:yeah:
Not everyone finds all the arrows they shoot at animals, and if You do congrats to you.
Where I live, we have pine needles up to 6in thick and grasses that are years old. When hunting from a blind and with the angle of the hills, the arrow could get caught under some of it and if you shoot during the "golden hour" and wait the appropriate time its very hard and sometimes impossible to find your arrow when its a clean pass through. Once you find it though you can then address the hit on the game and how to recover it, not bump it and loose it.This is not a justification just a point.
As for other electronic devises mentioned in this thread, even I draw the line when it comes to lighted sights and things that let you shoot later. There is no need for them, but a lighted noch come on.
Lets be reasonable to each others choices for equipment and responsible to the game WE hunt.
For you traditional guys, I'm throwing stones but if your bow is laminated and and your not using stone broadheads, get off your pedestals...
Well put. I personally don't see a need for a lighted sight pin but as long as their following game laws on shooting times and taking ethical shots I could careless if they have one. It doesn't affect me, anyone else or the herd. I personally think my fiberoptic pins are bright enough that they will outlive the time I think it is ethical to take a shot anyway. Lighted sight pins have been out for years and I don't see a big push for these in any state and I don't think that will change. I know I wouldn't use them...but not because I think it would give me some huge advantage or make me take unethical shots.... I just don't need them. However, if WA bowhunters wanted them.. I would support it. I shot a lighted sight pin at a target once (during lowlight) and it was way too bright to really see the target anyway. I wasn't impressed and if anything it hampered my ability to see my target.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 30, 2010, 01:03:24 PM
Why differentiate Trad/modern archer ?, as you said, "There are bad seeds in every aspect of our hunting community", I am not "an elitist", I know there are users of all weapons that dont act according to my own standards, I was just relating one persons response to our debate, I accept the fact that archery is going to progress (?) in a direction opposite of my own personal path, and feel regret that a , what I consider spiritual, aspect to the sport (in my own personal opinion) will be lost.Quote"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "
Threre are bad seeds in every aspect of our hunting community. This kind of comment just reinstates that point. There are traditional archers out there that have left more arrows in the guts of deer than any modern archery guys I know, and that doesn't change my opinion about the traditional guys. Back to my "circular" style comments: ALLOW the hunter to make the decision if he/she would like to use the Lumenock -- and don't assume they are a high-tech modern equipment-style hunter and lump them into that category. Those of us who shoot stick and string are all archers, and preferences vary :twocents:
when our lives are dominated with cell phones, video games, two way radios, ORVs, etc.. I enjoy leaving that all behind and taking a walk with one of my bows, a few arrows, and some simple basics, like a spare string, a bow stringer, file and knife, pack a lunch and a game bag, some rope, a few calls, and a couple odds and ends in my day pack.
I leave home/camp with a feeling I cannot get anywhere else, but that is why I Trad, you are welcome to use any weapon you wish, and put any attachment on/to your bow you see fit, as I have stated MANY times I have nothing against lumenocs, or "modern Bows" or their users, I just don't choose to use them myself, I take nothing away from you, and expect no less.
My inclusion into this debate has been (mostly) just to explain WHY they are illegal, and the reasoning behind it, the regulation was written due to pressure from the Archery community, not the bureaucrats, or government, but by HUNTERS who feel the way I do.
It was written long before Burt Coyote ever thought of them, and I expect some day that they will be written in as legal, the same as I expect Expadables to be legal, I get entertainment reading all the posts complaining about season length, over-crowding, the WDFW, permits, etc..., when all the reasons to complain is the direct effect of those who do the complaining, the seasons are getting shorter because the weapons are getting more effective, more hunters are getting into archery because the season is longer, and either sex privileges, soon that will be gone, and why ?? because of the ability to shoot further, more accurately, and with less effort, is increasing constantly, and when we complain about how the WDFW screwed us again, it will be because of our own actions, and who will want to admit that ?
When we finally get everything we want, I hope it is not time to use all this equipment hunting, instead of just at the range.
I see nothing wrong with ensuring that future generations have a similar opportunity to spend time in the woods hunting,
It is not the weapon that defines a sportsman, but how he uses it
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 30, 2010, 01:10:13 PM
Quote
For you traditional guys, I'm throwing stones but if your bow is laminated and and your not using stone broadheads, get off your pedestals...Traditional is in the eye of the beholder, when the first Archery seasons were established, laminated bows, steel broadheads, even stabilizers were in use....
I call it trad, because I am hunting in the tradition of my father, not "native"
P.S., it is not a pedestal, it is a pinnacle, it took years for me to accomplish the ability to shoot without sights and a release....
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 30, 2010, 01:11:14 PM
I agree, he is, but he is not the only one, read some of the previous posts.... :PI just want to re-state, I have nothing against Lumenoc's themselves it is technological advancements that worry me....
That said, I was telling a friend about this discussion, and he repliedQuote"Damn Strait it will make guys take longer, and less ethical shots !, I mean why not take the shot when you are not afraid of losing your arrow ?, I don't know about you, but I worry about throwing 20 dollars away almost as much as I do making a good hit ! "Those are not my words, but reflect just one reaction to the debate on whether or not we should allow them.
Your friend is an idiot.
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 01:16:33 PM
I call it trad, because I am hunting in the tradition of my father, not "native"
Never thought of it that way. Guess I am a traditional hunter also: Case of beer, tank of gass, and a few guns.......always came back with dinner........
Post by: WildWind1 on December 30, 2010, 01:42:52 PM
I however cannot hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with a traditional bow. I can go on and on about the reasons for putting down the gun and going to the bow "what a rush" but those of use who truly love the sport of archery already know.
So the compound bow is the way for me and once legalized so are the lighted nock. :archery_smiley:
Post by: Lowedog on December 30, 2010, 05:00:43 PM
Post by: Ray on December 30, 2010, 05:03:34 PM
Post by: Lowedog on December 30, 2010, 05:11:21 PM
The premise of the lumenock seems to be that archery is somehow broken without them. That the archer cannot completely fulfill his role in the field unless they are at his or her disposal....
Why would you say that? I don't recall reading one post that remotely implied that.
Post by: Ray on December 30, 2010, 05:12:25 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 05:19:53 PM
The premise of the lumenock seems to be that archery is somehow broken without them. That the archer cannot completely fulfill his role in the field unless they are at his or her disposal....
I don't see it that way. To me the premise of the lumenock is that it will help you find/see your arrow. I think that is a fact. It's not that the archer can't fulfill his role but I have found that finding my arrow provides valuable information to base decisions upon when it comes to tracking.
To me saying the premise of a lumenock is that archery is somehow broken without them is like saying the same thing about any other advancement in archery. Even Trad archery is full of advancements relatively speaking throughout it's history.
I have never had a problem seeing my arrow hit the animal but I have had problems finding my arrow on occasion. I am not sure if a lumenock would have helped but I am positive having it wouldn't hurt.
I am interested how many people who are against lumenocks have even shot an arrow with a lumenock on it.
Post by: WildWind1 on December 30, 2010, 05:31:02 PM
I am interested how many people who are against lumenocks have even shot an arrow with a lumenock on it.
Post by: Lowedog on December 30, 2010, 05:45:49 PM
Great point :tup:
I am interested how many people who are against lumenocks have even shot an arrow with a lumenock on it.
My guess is that most wouldn't just out of principle.
Post by: Antlerking on December 30, 2010, 05:50:11 PM
Post by: Ray on December 30, 2010, 05:50:32 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 06:02:45 PM
If archery isn't broken without them then I guess we don't need em. :chuckle:
:chuckle: I agree...we don't "need" them...but I can see the benefit they provide and see a near zero negative impact..that negative impact being that it doesn't appeal to some individuals senses of what constitutes archery hunting.
Post by: Buckrub on December 30, 2010, 06:48:39 PM
I need an electronic call to help get game closer..LOL
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 07:04:45 PM
I'm getting old and need all the help I can get.... :rolleyes:
I need an electronic call to help get game closer..LOL
Then our season would have to be shortened to two days for all user groups because we all know that electronic callers are far more effective than mouth calls. :chuckle:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 30, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
They ask me, why do you drink ?, why do you roll smoke ?, why must you live out the songs that you wrote ?......I call it trad, because I am hunting in the tradition of my father, not "native"
Never thought of it that way. Guess I am a traditional hunter also: Case of beer, tank of gass, and a few guns.......always came back with dinner........
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 30, 2010, 07:12:08 PM
maybe for predators.... but I am not sure about Elk and Deer......I'm getting old and need all the help I can get.... :rolleyes:
I need an electronic call to help get game closer..LOL
Then our season would have to be shortened to two days for all user groups because we all know that electronic callers are far more effective than mouth calls. :chuckle:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 07:15:33 PM
maybe for predators.... but I am not sure about Elk and Deer......I'm getting old and need all the help I can get.... :rolleyes:
I need an electronic call to help get game closer..LOL
Then our season would have to be shortened to two days for all user groups because we all know that electronic callers are far more effective than mouth calls. :chuckle:
I agree for predators they can be a big advantage... I can only see a slight advantage for Deer and maybe just a bit more for Elk. I think ecalls lead to a lot more dead predators but I don't think they would lead to many more deer or elk being killed.
Post by: Machias on December 30, 2010, 08:24:21 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 30, 2010, 08:37:46 PM
Post by: WildWind1 on December 30, 2010, 08:46:39 PM
With all do respect lets not put a spin on the subject :bdid:
Post by: Machias on December 30, 2010, 09:06:48 PM
You forgot, my friends are idiots... :chuckle:
Sorry
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 09:11:02 PM
Post by: d_wilson on December 30, 2010, 09:41:54 PM
Post by: Machias on December 30, 2010, 09:44:29 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 09:46:12 PM
Well unless you throw your scope at the animal pretty much completely different. ;):chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: d_wilson on December 30, 2010, 09:50:33 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on December 30, 2010, 09:58:27 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 30, 2010, 10:04:33 PM
Would anybody be concerned about illuminated anything on an arrow spooking a deer? I've seen deer drop to their knees in a split second to allow an arrow to pass above them as well as jump to allow it to pass under them. These weren't deer alarmed to a hunter, they saw/heard the arrow. The buck that jumped chased the arrow and jumped on it and literally attacked it with his hooves. I would think it would cause them to spook a bit sooner.......but I guess there a plenty of net videos that show otherwise.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 30, 2010, 10:17:19 PM
They are ILLEGAL, just as lighted sights for your bow, d wilson.
Clarify. Illuminated reticles on scopes are legal. Just can't use IR night viz or lasers (or anything that projects light onto an animal--except IR lasers) for big game.
Post by: Lowedog on December 30, 2010, 11:13:37 PM
If your against allowing electronics into archery your just an elitist. Does that pretty much sum it up?
No, being against allowing electronics into archery doesn't make someone an elitist. Comments such as "training wheels", "true archery", "those who chose to use modern equipment can't possibly be hunting for the same reasons I do", makes someone come across as an elitist. Those are just a few off the top my head and the last one may not be word for word but you get the idea.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 30, 2010, 11:45:47 PM
Post by: rasbo on December 31, 2010, 03:19:03 AM
Post by: Buckrub on December 31, 2010, 08:16:49 AM
SOME hunters have been taking questionable shots since the inception of archery hunting... If we regressed back to a longbow only there would STILL be some hunters who would take a risky shot.
Technology is here to stay ... we must embrace it and further educate hunters... I personally believe voluntary ethics classes would do more for our sport than debating lighted nocks.
Our sport will survive but will be judged by non hunters based on image....
Post by: Machias on December 31, 2010, 09:15:17 AM
Proponents for electronics in archery gear--we contend it doesn't help you harvest any more animals then you normally would. It has no bearing on my hunting skills so no it doesn't allow me to take "more" animals" We contend it won't make ethical hunters shoot farther or take chances. No, a light on a nock won't make an ethical hunter suddenly become unethical We contend unethical guys are already taking unethical shots so that won't actually increase either This is hard to prove either way but I doubt it would increase unethical shots. If the unethical guy gets an opportunity he is going to take the shot whether or not he has a lighted nock or not. We realize rifle hunters and muzzleloaders have no way to "see" where they're shots hit and they have to use old fashion woodsmanship to decide whether to follow up or not. I guess we should never look at our arrow for blood since rifle/muzzy guys don't have that advantage...and from what you write I assume that assessing the sign on your arrow requires zero woodsmanship They have to judge the animals reaction at the shot, look for hair, blood and tracks to determine the next course of action, whether to follow up or wait. We realize that what we are asking for actually is already available by using bright colored fletching, cresting and nocks If it is already available and no more effective than bright fletchings then why contest it?? If it is just effective to use bright fletchings/crestings/knocks then maybe we should outlaw those too (after all you say this illumenock is a danger to bowhunting) Obviously a lighted nock will be more visible. But it looks cool flying through the air, looks cool on video and we really want it. We don't see any danger to bowhunting if this is allowed, Explain the danger again please because I must have missed it? actually we already know it will be allowed, we've been told it's already approved. If your against allowing electronics into archery your just an elitist "If you are denying others a right or privilege simply because it doesn't constitute your own idea of what constitutes a spirtual experience/archery heritage or bowhunting then you are an elitist. It should be left to the "individual" to determine what makes them happy as long as it doesn't violate your rights or harm the herd" . Does that pretty much sum it up? Yep
Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I understood where you were coming from. :chuckle:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 31, 2010, 10:37:47 AM
nobody is gonna sway the other in this debate.Cant help but wonder if some of the opinions might be from an I'm gonna make some money selling them here view... :dunno: Maybe come up with some mini spot devices placed inside the arrow, to locate these arrows that are being lost all the time...I can see why arrows are harder to find with 50 to 100 yd shots and the speed of the arrows.It still boils down to me, in my little world that its just another,its to hard lets make it easier for me...Is the light so bright you can see it under 6 inches of pine needles?why not bring along a metal detector..
I don't know that anyone on here is going to make money selling them but is that such a bad thing???..that someone makes a little money in the outdoor industry? In a crappy economy?? :dunno:
I have never shot at an animal past 35 yards but I have on rare occasion had trouble finding my arrow. I am not sure if a lighted nock would have helped but as I said before it probably wouldn't hurt. I doubt I would use them but I am still pro lighted nock if that is what user groups want. I can't see the harm/danger in them and really only see a possible positive in them. I use bright knocks/fletchings also and I have had no issue seeing my arrow hit the animal.
As far as "it's hard, lets make it easier" I don't think that is what anyone "pro" lumenock is saying. However, if it's "easier" it will bring more people into archery. While there are some negatives to more archers (hunting pressure during archery season) I think overall the positives for making archery easier outweigh the negatives by far. If there was ever a point where the compound bow is no longer a short range weapon (don't think it will happen) then it would no longer need a special archery season (look at the bright side if it did happen..we could give Trad guys their own season that they want and lump the other guys in with general).
If pro-lighted nock arguments boil down to "it's hard lets make it easier" then self-limited guys are making it sound like "it's hard, lets make it easier" when they want things like special seasons....and I don't think that is the case at all.I really don't see the problem with making archery "easier" in the first place if it will bring people into archery. I really can't think of a current device in existence that would make archery "easy" enough to increase harvest numbers by any great amount.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 31, 2010, 12:36:05 PM
Well, you obviously are referring to me, and I will say, maybe I am an "elitist", if that is what you consider one, but referring to "Training Wheels" on a compound is a common joke, referring to the cams on the end of the limbs, they are put there for the sole purpose of making holding the bow back easier, and increasing speed, making accuracy easier.If your against allowing electronics into archery your just an elitist. Does that pretty much sum it up?
No, being against allowing electronics into archery doesn't make someone an elitist. Comments such as "training wheels", "true archery", "those who chose to use modern equipment can't possibly be hunting for the same reasons I do", makes someone come across as an elitist. Those are just a few off the top my head and the last one may not be word for word but you get the idea.
Calling Traditional Archery "True Archery" (although I don't think this was my statement), is or would be referring the difference of shooting an arrow using a bow that is simple in design and function, at least that is what I would mean if I said that.
Now to address my statement, "those who chose to use modern equipment can't possibly be hunting for the same reasons I do", I hunt with Traditional equipment because I like to, I enjoy walking around with a nice piece of wood in my hand, and shooting stumps, the occasional rabbit, grouse or whatever, I enjoy seeing how close I can get to Deer and Elk (still working on Bear), and a successful day is any day I can get out and enjoy the woods.
It is my opinion that when you spend money to buy a bow, that is in actuality a machine to launch arrows, has all the attachments to make that more efficient and easier, and hunt with that weapon, then you (probably) are more concerned with harvesting an animal, than just enjoying the day afield.
I have been in camps where I have listened to hunters talk about their day, and the majority of the conversation is about seeing game, but unless we are packing, or looking at the animal on the meat-pole, it is about missed opportunity, or shots they could have made, or if they did not see any Elk or Deer (legal) it is complaining about lack of game.
I tell them about the baby bobcats I saw, or the Badger, the fun I had messing around with a squirrel, some cool item I found, empty my pockets of cool rocks, mushrooms, whatever.....
As the season progresses, if there is no meat hanging yet, the talk turns to going home, where are you hunting late season, next year, duck season, fishing, work, everything but, what a good time we are all having.
I look forward to every sunrise, and when the sunsets, long for a few extra minutes, not because I hope for a shot, but because I hate to see my day end, I do not care what type of weapon you use, but in my opinion, if you are more concerned with the stuff you can put on your bow/arrows or carry in your pocket, then you are not hunting for the same reasons I am........
Post by: Lowedog on December 31, 2010, 01:00:08 PM
It is my opinion that when you spend money to buy a bow, that is in actuality a machine to launch arrows, has all the attachments to make that more efficient and easier, and hunt with that weapon, then you (probably) are more concerned with harvesting an animal, than just enjoying the day afield.
I do not care what type of weapon you use, but in my opinion, if you are more concerned with the stuff you can put on your bow/arrows or carry in your pocket, then you are not hunting for the same reasons I am........
Assuming that what type of "stuff" someone puts on their bow/arrows or carries in their pockets or what type of bow they spend their money on means that they are more concerned with the the harvest or the "stuff" than the hunt itself is what comes across to me as an elitist attitude.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 31, 2010, 01:05:28 PM
Well, you obviously are referring to me, and I will say, maybe I am an "elitist", if that is what you consider one, but referring to "Training Wheels" on a compound is a common joke, referring to the cams on the end of the limbs, they are put there for the sole purpose of making holding the bow back easier, and increasing speed, making accuracy easier.If your against allowing electronics into archery your just an elitist. Does that pretty much sum it up?
No, being against allowing electronics into archery doesn't make someone an elitist. Comments such as "training wheels", "true archery", "those who chose to use modern equipment can't possibly be hunting for the same reasons I do", makes someone come across as an elitist. Those are just a few off the top my head and the last one may not be word for word but you get the idea.
Calling Traditional Archery "True Archery" (although I don't think this was my statement), is or would be referring the difference of shooting an arrow using a bow that is simple in design and function, at least that is what I would mean if I said that.
Now to address my statement, "those who chose to use modern equipment can't possibly be hunting for the same reasons I do", I hunt with Traditional equipment because I like to, I enjoy walking around with a nice piece of wood in my hand, and shooting stumps, the occasional rabbit, grouse or whatever, I enjoy seeing how close I can get to Deer and Elk (still working on Bear), and a successful day is any day I can get out and enjoy the woods.
It is my opinion that when you spend money to buy a bow, that is in actuality a machine to launch arrows, has all the attachments to make that more efficient and easier, and hunt with that weapon, then you (probably) are more concerned with harvesting an animal, than just enjoying the day afield.
I have been in camps where I have listened to hunters talk about their day, and the majority of the conversation is about seeing game, but unless we are packing, or looking at the animal on the meat-pole, it is about missed opportunity, or shots they could have made, or if they did not see any Elk or Deer (legal) it is complaining about lack of game.
I tell them about the baby bobcats I saw, or the Badger, the fun I had messing around with a squirrel, some cool item I found, empty my pockets of cool rocks, mushrooms, whatever.....
As the season progresses, if there is no meat hanging yet, the talk turns to going home, where are you hunting late season, next year, duck season, fishing, work, everything but, what a good time we are all having.
I look forward to every sunrise, and when the sunsets, long for a few extra minutes, not because I hope for a shot, but because I hate to see my day end, I do not care what type of weapon you use, but in my opinion, if you are more concerned with the stuff you can put on your bow/arrows or carry in your pocket, then you are not hunting for the same reasons I am........
I think you put it perfectly when you stated "if you are more concerned with the stuff you can put on your bow/arrows or carry in your pocket, then you are not hunting for the same reasons I am........".
We all hunt for different reasons, have our own ideas of what constitutes success, true hunting, true achery, etc. I certainly don't want to take away anything from you that may diminish your hunting experience. Hunting is about the individual experience. Let's not deny someone something solely for the reason that it doesn't meet our individual definition of that "experience".
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 31, 2010, 01:29:52 PM
It is my opinion that when you spend money to buy a bow, that is in actuality a machine to launch arrows, has all the attachments to make that more efficient and easier, and hunt with that weapon, then you (probably) are more concerned with harvesting an animal, than just enjoying the day afield.
I do not care what type of weapon you use, but in my opinion, if you are more concerned with the stuff you can put on your bow/arrows or carry in your pocket, then you are not hunting for the same reasons I am........
Assuming that what type of "stuff" someone puts on their bow/arrows or carries in their pockets or what type of bow they spend their money on means that they are more concerned with the the harvest or the "stuff" than the hunt itself is what comes across to me as an elitist attitude.
I thought traditional hunting, true hunting, the origin of hunting was pursuing animals to "kill" and eat?? We are so fortunate that we can enjoy the experience (the hunt/pursuit). Of course I am concerned with killing the animal. It is ultimately why I hunt. I can have an equally rewarding and nourishing outdoors experience without a instrument of death in my hands. We can't shy away from the truth as hunters. We are there to "kill" an animal. Making the kill easier with a weapon that is easier to master doesn't mean one can't/doesn't enjoy the experience as much as a person who imposes self limitations.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 31, 2010, 01:48:51 PM
Quote
I thought traditional hunting, true hunting, the origin of hunting was pursuing animals to "kill" and eat?? We are so fortunate that we can enjoy the experience (the hunt/pursuit). Of course I am concerned with killing the animal. It is ultimately why I hunt. I can have an equally rewarding and nourishing outdoors experience without a instrument of death in my hands. We can't shy away from the truth as hunters. We are there to "kill" an animal. Making the kill easier with a weapon that is easier to master doesn't mean one can't/doesn't enjoy the experience as much as a person who imposes self limitationsThat is why I said "reasons", not "pupose"
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on December 31, 2010, 01:57:49 PM
QuoteI thought traditional hunting, true hunting, the origin of hunting was pursuing animals to "kill" and eat?? We are so fortunate that we can enjoy the experience (the hunt/pursuit). Of course I am concerned with killing the animal. It is ultimately why I hunt. I can have an equally rewarding and nourishing outdoors experience without a instrument of death in my hands. We can't shy away from the truth as hunters. We are there to "kill" an animal. Making the kill easier with a weapon that is easier to master doesn't mean one can't/doesn't enjoy the experience as much as a person who imposes self limitationsThat is why I said "reasons", not "pupose"
Copy all... thanks for the clarification.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 07:26:51 PM
They have tracking string that mounts on the stabilizer and attaches to the arrow. That way you can find animals that run off. It isn't electric.ive seen those, dont know anyone that uses them,wonder how or if it affects the shot at all,seems like a good alternative
It slows down the arrow considerably, snags on branches, the wind will blow it onto the sight pins.......but I only tried it briefly in heavy brush with a bow that couldn't go much past 30 yards....not these 100 yards bows.
String trackers are suitable for close treestand shots (i.e. on bears over bait in Ontario) in extremely thick foliage where the only way to follow where the animal ran is to crawl through the foliage following the string. [I hear it makes for a "heart in the throat" moment when it is impossible to follow the exact path so one has to go around a tangle and there suddenly is a large patch of black in the periphery five feet to one's right or left.]
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 07:43:13 PM
QuoteIn short, there will be some objections to such a proposal and when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
I have attended these meetings and once during my testimony I was asked by a Commissioner, "I just had one guy tell me a few minutes before this meeting that he killed a bull with his compound from 90 yards and that he had practiced out to distances of 100 yards: When are you guys going to draw a line on the technology that you will allow?"
[About a year or two later 1) we lost about 25% of our early deer season 2) our early elk season dates were changed, 3) they tried but failed to take away the Swakane late hunt and 4) they took a couple of days off the front of the late deer season. They said we were too effective at killing "mature" bucks and bulls.]
Post by: Special T on January 04, 2011, 07:48:26 PM
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 08:06:34 PM
QuoteIn short, there will be some objections to such a proposal and when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
I have attended these meetings and once during my testimony I was asked by a Commissioner, "I just had one guy tell me a few minutes before this meeting that he killed a bull with his compound from 90 yards and that he had practiced out to distances of 100 yards: When are you guys going to draw a line on the technology that you will allow?"
[About a year or two later 1) we lost about 25% of our early deer season 2) our early elk season dates were changed, 3) they tried but failed to take away the Swakane late hunt and 4) they took a couple of days off the front of the late deer season. They said we were too effective at killing "mature" bucks and bulls.]
And all this time I thought they set season lengths using harvest data and success rates not on how far away people are shooting animals.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 08:09:12 PM
I suppose you could launch arrows long distance during fading light and watch where they are going/hitting...?
Of course one could. And therein lies the concern.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 04, 2011, 08:12:25 PM
I suppose you could launch arrows long distance during fading light and watch where they are going/hitting...?
Of course one could. And therein lies the concern.
So the concern is ethical hunters would suddenly become unethical hunters because of an illumanock?
Post by: Special T on January 04, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 08:18:01 PM
And all this time I thought they set season lengths using harvest data and success rates not on how far away people are shooting animals.
Yes, the harvest data told them that we had become more successful at killing mature bucks and bulls. And the commissioner wondered how it had come to pass that a short range method of hunting had evolved into one that allowed a person (who only picked up a compound because he had drawn the multi-tag, by the way) to kill a big bull from a distance of 90 yards. And he asked if the bowhunting community wasn't concerned about this contradiction.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 08:22:07 PM
So the concern is ethical hunters would suddenly become unethical hunters because of an illumanock?
While it may be true that some may be tempted, no, the concern is that new and future hunters won't have the foundation under them that they may need to successfully guide bowhunting into the NEXT century. Those who fought for and gained the seasons we all enjoy didn't look for an easier way. The rifle was there for those who wanted/needed it to be easier.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 08:34:34 PM
Also, I've never even had the thought of the Lumenock as being an asset in finding a lost arrow after a miss.
'Finding the arrow' has been at the forefront of the 'pro' argument. OH, yeah..., but just to read the blood, I know... no one ever misses. ;)
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 08:41:29 PM
And all this time I thought they set season lengths using harvest data and success rates not on how far away people are shooting animals.
Yes, the harvest data told them that we had become more successful at killing mature bucks and bulls. And the commissioner wondered how it had come to pass that a short range method of hunting had evolved into one that allowed a person (who only picked up a compound because he had drawn the multi-tag, by the way) to kill a big bull from a distance of 90 yards. And he asked if the bowhunting community wasn't concerned about this contradiction.
So he didn't consider that the increase in harvest could have been in direct correlation with an increase in hunter numbers like what has happened since starting the multi season program? The shortened seasons were based off of one guy who said he shot an elk at 90 yards?
Someone killing or even taking shots at an elk or deer at those kind of ranges is nothing new to archery. There has always been those who push the limits and there will always be. I knew of guys who had 100 yard pins on their bows 20 years ago when I first got into archery. I would venture a guess and say that even with todays super fast bows that most archery hunters are killing game at short distances just like they always have.
Did you explain to the commissioner that those types of shots are not the typical shot for archery hunters and that the majority of hunters would think of that as an unethical shot?
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 08:45:57 PM
Since advancement of technology and how it is thought to be a big factor for lost opportunities is being used so much as an argument in this debate I was wondering what the perspective of those who feel that way are on this...why do you think those who had nothing but stick bows back in the day started using compounds when they became available?Some didn't. Some walked away from archery and archery hunting. I was out of it for nearly fifteen years, until the 'resurgence' of what then came to be known as "traditional" archery (like a frigging asterisk in the record book for a kill made with a compound with a let-off greater than 65%, don't you think? ;))
Some did and (sooner or) later abandoned it when they realized that simple archery (is that less elite? ;)) was better suited to the extremely up-close hunting that they were in interested in experiencing.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
Did you explain to the commissioner that those types of shots are not the typical shot for archery hunters and that the majority of hunters would think of that as an unethical shot?
I told him, "Commissioner, he isn't a bowhunter; he drew the multi-tag." ...Damage already done.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 08:51:12 PM
The shortened seasons were based off of one guy who said he shot an elk at 90 yards?
Questions like that is the type that Ray would pounce on... :rolleyes: ...of course not.
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 08:53:44 PM
So the concern is ethical hunters would suddenly become unethical hunters because of an illumanock?
While it may be true that some may be tempted, no, the concern is that new and future hunters won't have the foundation under them that they may need to successfully guide bowhunting into the NEXT century. Those who fought for and gained the seasons we all enjoy didn't look for an easier way. The rifle was there for those who wanted/needed it to be easier.
And what kind of foundation do future bowhunters need to have that a nock that lights up on the end of their arrow after the shot will prevent them from having?
You should consider that many hunters chose the seasons they hunt solely on what they feel offers them the best opportunity for success. There is nothing wrong with that. Not every one is looking for some kind of spiritual journey. Or not everyone needs to have stick and string in their hand to have that spiritual journey.
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 08:59:44 PM
Since advancement of technology and how it is thought to be a big factor for lost opportunities is being used so much as an argument in this debate I was wondering what the perspective of those who feel that way are on this...why do you think those who had nothing but stick bows back in the day started using compounds when they became available?Some didn't. Some walked away from archery and archery hunting. I was out of it for nearly fifteen years, until the 'resurgence' of what then came to be known as "traditional" archery (like a frigging asterisk in the record book for a kill made with a compound with a let-off greater than 65%, don't you think? ;))
Some did and (sooner or) later abandoned it when they realized that simple archery (is that less elite? ;)) was better suited to the extremely up-close hunting that they were in interested in experiencing.
But many, many, many switched to compounds and never looked back.
Quote
(like a frigging asterisk in the record book for a kill made with a compound with a let-off greater than 65%, don't you think? ;))
You lost me there. Not sure what you were getting at. :dunno:
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 09:00:33 PM
Making the kill easier with a weapon that is easier to master doesn't mean one can't/doesn't enjoy the experience as much as a person who imposes self limitations.Absolutely correct, but realize that making it easier means more meat on the ground for more people and therefore a greater strain on the resources and so shorter season lengths; whereas self-limitation means more animal survival and so longer seasons to hunt.
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
Did you explain to the commissioner that those types of shots are not the typical shot for archery hunters and that the majority of hunters would think of that as an unethical shot?
I told him, "Commissioner, he isn't a bowhunter; he drew the multi-tag." ...Damage already done.
If he killed a bull with a bow and was hunting during an archery only hunt then he was a bowhunter. You are not in an exclusive club just because you have bought more than one archery tag.
What I gather is you basically threw archery hunters who chose modern equipment under the bus.
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 09:05:29 PM
Making the kill easier with a weapon that is easier to master doesn't mean one can't/doesn't enjoy the experience as much as a person who imposes self limitations.Absolutely correct, but realize that making it easier means more meat on the ground for more people and therefore a greater strain on the resources and so shorter season lengths; whereas self-limitation means more animal survival and so longer seasons to hunt.
And no one has proposed making archery hunting any easier.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 09:08:59 PM
Quote(like a frigging asterisk in the record book for a kill made with a compound with a let-off greater than 65%, don't you think? ;))
You lost me there. Not sure what you were getting at. :dunno:
Ill attempt at humor gone sour... Needing to refer to archery as 'traditional' because what I do and have always done was displaced by the compound feels like I'd imagine a Pope & Young entry with an asterisk beside it might feel like. But I don't know about Pope & Young entries; my deer this year had about a whopping 30" of antler!
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 09:12:30 PM
The shortened seasons were based off of one guy who said he shot an elk at 90 yards?
Questions like that is the type that Ray would pounce on... :rolleyes: ...of course not.
QuoteIn short, there will be some objections to such a proposal and when the Game Commission reads or hears these objections then they will see that many archers are more interested in gadgets than seasons.
I have not attended any of the meetings, are you suggesting F&G's stance is that the acceptance of lumenocks would result in shorter archery seasons?
I have attended these meetings and once during my testimony I was asked by a Commissioner, "I just had one guy tell me a few minutes before this meeting that he killed a bull with his compound from 90 yards and that he had practiced out to distances of 100 yards: When are you guys going to draw a line on the technology that you will allow?"
[About a year or two later 1) we lost about 25% of our early deer season 2) our early elk season dates were changed, 3) they tried but failed to take away the Swakane late hunt and 4) they took a couple of days off the front of the late deer season. They said we were too effective at killing "mature" bucks and bulls.]
Reading your post made me believe that is what you were insinuating. Misunderstood.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 04, 2011, 09:31:38 PM
So the concern is ethical hunters would suddenly become unethical hunters because of an illumanock?
While it may be true that some may be tempted, no, the concern is that new and future hunters won't have the foundation under them that they may need to successfully guide bowhunting into the NEXT century. Those who fought for and gained the seasons we all enjoy didn't look for an easier way. The rifle was there for those who wanted/needed it to be easier.
Ok.. the comment I was replying to appeared to say the concern was that people would suddenly become unethical and take longer shots at lowlight due to a lighted nock.
I deeply appreciate the challenges of self-limitations and their part in the heritage of bowhunting.
I definitely understand the concern on protecting the seasons. I know increased success rates can/does/has lead to shortened seasons. I also know we were the first state to be faced with this becoming an issue back in the 80's. I do recall reading somewhere that Washington State Bowhunters Association and many other archers protected this status by placing restrictions and showing we wanted bowhunting to maintain it's primitive status. Idaho followed suit in the 90's for similar reasons.
However, in the case of illumanock's I don't see there being a case in point to prove that they will lead to higher success rates and result in a danger to bowhunting.
I have been contemplating about this thread and our discussions here for the last few days and some of my ideas have changed as a result. I do believe bowhunting has reached a near pinnacle for "ease of entry", which is a good thing for recruitment and a bad thing for hunting seasons. I am coming to an agreement with many of you that we shouldn't go much further and that it has to end somewhere. We definitely have a tricky road ahead. I think it is important to keep our numbers up or else we could become low hanging fruit for the anti's and unfortunately fellow hunters but it is equally as important that we don't go to much further with our advancements if we are going to have a decent length to our bow seasons. There comes a point where the season could become short enough that we truly would "need" to add a Trad season for our guys that choose certain self-limitations.
There are definitely a lot of challenges that face us going into the future.
Post by: Machias on January 04, 2011, 09:42:10 PM
There are definitely a lot of challenges that face us going into the future.
AMEN Brother!!!
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 04, 2011, 09:43:10 PM
Making the kill easier with a weapon that is easier to master doesn't mean one can't/doesn't enjoy the experience as much as a person who imposes self limitations.Absolutely correct, but realize that making it easier means more meat on the ground for more people and therefore a greater strain on the resources and so shorter season lengths; whereas self-limitation means more animal survival and so longer seasons to hunt.
See my message before this one.. I am definitely starting catching your drift. I do still think the lighted nock should not be a concern in this but I think it is something we should ask ourselves anytime something comes on the table. If a proposition is something that truly could lead to higher success rates then we could be in for trouble.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 09:52:13 PM
What I gather is you basically threw archery hunters who chose modern equipment under the bus.
He wasn't an archery hunter! While we walked side by side from the parking lot to the Natural Resources building and talked about how our seasons had gone, he asked what weapon I hunt with and he looked down his nose disparagingly at me when I told him I was an archery hunter. "Oh," was his reply, like he'd stepped in dog poop. Then he whips out photos of his bull and tells me, "Well, I drew the multi-tag," when I asked him the same question about his method of hunting and says "I shot him with a bow." Then he goes inside and before the meeting was called to order, shows the pictures to any commissioner who would look and brags about the 90 yard shot. He threw archery hunters under the bus, Lowedog.
Post by: WildWind1 on January 04, 2011, 09:55:30 PM
The initial success rate might go up up by a hair. but it the long run if more deer / arrows are found then less deer might will get wasted if you cannot find them. Putting more deer back in the woods and more in the breeding pool... :bash:
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 04, 2011, 09:56:33 PM
What I gather is you basically threw archery hunters who chose modern equipment under the bus.
He wasn't an archery hunter! While we walked side by side from the parking lot to the Natural Resources building and talked about how our seasons had gone, he asked what weapon I hunt with and he looked down his nose disparagingly at me when I told him I was an archery hunter. "Oh," was his reply, like he'd stepped in dog poop. Then he whips out photos of his bull and tells me, "Well, I drew the multi-tag," when I asked him the same question about his method of hunting and says "I shot him with a bow." Then he goes inside and before the meeting was called to order, shows the pictures to any commissioner who would look and brags about the 90 yard shot. He threw archery hunters under the bus, Lowedog.
Wow.. that really burns. I don't even know what to say about that guy.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 04, 2011, 09:59:00 PM
Lets face it.I think the only success rate increase would be a few extra animals found. I definitely do not see a reason for us not to allow these. I can see the concern with other advancements and the effect the could have on the seasons.. but no these.
The initial success rate might go up up by a hair. but it the long run if more deer / arrows are found then less deer might will get wasted if you cannot find them. Putting more deer back in the woods and more in the breeding pool... :bash:
Post by: Lowedog on January 04, 2011, 10:04:56 PM
Anyway, I retract my statement about throwing archery hunters under the bus. Sounds like you let the commissioner know that he doesn't represent the archery community.
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
I am definitely starting catching your drift. I do still think the lighted nock should not be a concern in this but I think it is something we should ask ourselves anytime something comes on the table. If a proposition is something that truly could lead to higher success rates then we could be in for trouble.What makes this so delicate is that the folks who are pushing for the change to the equipment rules say they want to keep the "no electronics" line in the sand, which is a very clear, concise and easy rule to enforce, but with this one "EXCEPTION" (Note: read that with a bit of a limp wrist and an inflection in your voice for full effect; ;)). And when one EXCEPTION (see note above) is allowed for an electronice device it could pave the way for manufacturers of other electronice devices to try and push their product onto the "EXCEPTION" (see note above) list.
Allow me, please, to be facetious for a moment: Take the new broadhead with a laser light in its' tip, for example (I never thought I'd live to see the day). Wouldn't that be great for recruitment and bringing new hunters into our ranks? Heck, would anyone EVER have to practice? No! What a great advancement! They'd still have to pull the bow all the way back and be able to hold it and finger the release; so its just a tool that takes away that uncertainty of knowing where the arrow is going to hit, and it would mean fewer wounded/wasted animals; so who could argue?
Post by: Snapshot on January 04, 2011, 10:23:54 PM
So what was this meeting about? This guy just went to brag about his elk or what? Sounds like someone you could take that 90 yard shot he bragged about and cut it in half.It was an open WDFW Commission meeting; the type they have several times a year, during which some things that make the agenda for discussion warrents that a guy take time off of work and drive down there to make sure the commissioners get educated about the 'other' side of a particular issue.
Anyway, I retract my statement about throwing archery hunters under the bus. Sounds like you let the commissioner know that he doesn't represent the archery community.
In your third sentence I think a word was left out (an effect of the bourbon, I hope at this hour) and I don't understand your meaning. [If it was to suggest I'd be able to half the distance and hit the spot you'd be wrong: quarter the distance and then under perfect conditions I might take the shot.] Which reminds me, I've a Copper Ale waiting for me and so I"m going to say good night to all.
Post by: WildWind1 on September 18, 2011, 03:22:42 PM
I guess I'm still waiting for someone from the lumenok camp to convince me why they should be allowed when there is NO advantage. You get the EXACT same thing by using brightly colored fletching. You recover no more or less animals with or without lumenoks, NONE what-so-ever.
FYI the support has shifted for the lighted nock, and with all due respect, YOU do not get the same thing!!!! :sry:
Post by: 3Under on September 18, 2011, 03:37:51 PM
Post by: Machias on September 18, 2011, 04:31:37 PM
Post by: RadSav on September 19, 2011, 11:58:54 PM
They are legal and superb to use as a tuning aide. I now tune all my bows using lighted nocks at night or in a dark range. Once they are flying perfect I replace with the lighter nock giving more FOC...sweat!
Post by: boneaddict on September 20, 2011, 06:10:05 AM
Post by: Machias Bowhunter on September 21, 2011, 07:36:06 PM
I don't know how flat your arrow shoots but you could point that laser at the vitals and still miss!!! There are more factors in where a arrow is going to hit then where a bullet is going to hit. I don't see anything wrong with illumanocks, if they help someone see where they hit, it allows them to decide on when they need to look for their animal, it doesn't help them aim, hold the bow back or make them a better shot!!!!. I also saw someone who is against mechanical broadheads, if they allow us to be more accurate in our shot, isn't that more ethical then not? You don't take your broadheads to 3D shoots, you shoot your field tips, why make a change in the way that your bow shoots right at the start of hunting season? I know we all do it BUT isn't that taking a chance that something goes wrong and we get the wounded animal and the anti hunters pointing that that is why we shouldn't be allowed to hunt
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on September 21, 2011, 08:03:34 PM
It wouldn't be the first time that a television show was busted for using illegal tactics. Just ask Ted Nugent!! :chuckle:
he was on the qinault indian rez for that show and was fully legal. :twocents:
Post by: Button Nubbs on September 21, 2011, 08:48:26 PM
It wouldn't be the first time that a television show was busted for using illegal tactics. Just ask Ted Nugent!! :chuckle:
he was on the qinault indian rez for that show and was fully legal. :twocents:
It wouldn't be the first time that a television show was busted for using illegal tactics. Just ask Ted Nugent!! :chuckle:
he was on the qinault indian rez for that show and was fully legal. :twocents:
It wouldn't be the first time that a television show was busted for using illegal tactics. Just ask Ted Nugent!! :chuckle:
he was on the qinault indian rez for that show and was fully legal. :twocents:
probably refering to the deer baiting situation in cali :twocents:
Post by: Atroxus on September 22, 2011, 12:02:16 AM
Post by: buck man on September 22, 2011, 12:17:19 AM
Quote from: Atroxus link=topic=64837.msg1043386#msg1043
386 date=1316674936
386 date=1316674936
:yeah: amen brother!
I am just baffled by the people who constantly complain about the availability of high tech products for hunters. I especially keep seeing this "slippery slope" argument used. Nobody is twisting your arm to use it. If you wanna hand-craft your bow and arrows nobody is stopping you from doing that either. I have a lot of respect for the skill it takes to hunt with a modern archery equipment, even more so for those people that are hard core enough to use traditional gear. It seems to me though, that a lot of "traditional" hunters want to force their hatred of technology on everyone else.
Post by: boneaddict on September 22, 2011, 05:07:29 AM
Quote
that a lot of "traditional" hunters want to force their hatred of technology on everyone else.
Being a fellow that uses the traditional methods, owns a compound and also rifle and muzzleloads, I think I can be sort of an ambassador on this. Its not necessarily the hatred of technology. Its keeping it a primitive season as designed by the time of year and length of season that it is. It is already encroaching "modern" already.
I wonder how many of the same folks that are angry with Natives about fishing with nylon nets, driving to the range and killing big bulls with their rifles, or using "modern methods" to overharvest are proponents of more technology for "primitive" seasons.
Post by: Lowedog on September 22, 2011, 05:50:19 AM
Post by: boneaddict on September 22, 2011, 06:00:43 AM
Post by: WildWind1 on September 22, 2011, 09:14:07 AM
I am just baffled by the people who constantly complain about the availability of high tech products for hunters. I especially keep seeing this "slippery slope" argument used. Nobody is twisting your arm to use it. If you wanna hand-craft your bow and arrows nobody is stopping you from doing that either. I have a lot of respect for the skill it takes to hunt with a modern archery equipment, even more so for those people that are hard core enough to use traditional gear. It seems to me though, that a lot of "traditional" hunters want to force their hatred of technology on everyone else.:yeah:
Why is it that everyone keeps dragging other issue's into this one.
This is about a nock that lights up AFTER being shot. Look at each item for its own merits. Then decide.
We are not telling Traditional guys, Take the new broadhead off and go back to a hand chipped stone!
Now that's primitive.....
Post by: MDGrand on September 22, 2011, 10:16:43 AM
It's really only a matter of time until Luminocks are allowed.
The WHOLE crux of the arguement is based on not having electronic equipement on bows.. that really means flashlights, rangefinders or the like. But a luminock is an AFTER THE EFFECT type of thing. It does not help you aim, but does help aid in confirming a good hit AND in finding your arrow.
There really is NOTHING wrong with them and they should allow them.
Post by: Machias on September 22, 2011, 02:58:28 PM
Post by: Machias on September 22, 2011, 02:59:43 PM
:beatdeadhorse:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 22, 2011, 03:00:25 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: This should be good for another 10 or 12 pages. :chuckle: :chuckle::chuckle:
:beatdeadhorse:
Post by: h20hunter on September 22, 2011, 03:10:31 PM
Post by: Machias on September 22, 2011, 03:15:59 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 22, 2011, 04:07:16 PM
You don't "NEED" them, period. You can do EVERYTHING a illumanock can do without using a light saber on the end of your arrow. You can use bright colored fletching, wraps and nocks and SEE exactly where your hitting your animal, IF, IF, you shoot within reasonable archery ranges. Never lost an arrow in 30 years of bowhunting, never had a problem seeing where I hit my animal and never had a problem LOOKING at the sign left from the shot and determining when I should follow up. I'm convinced some of you guys should just stay home and play the video games. WAY cooler graphics.
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :archery_smiley: :bs: :stirthepot:
I think we can get this thing to 30 pages!
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 22, 2011, 05:59:48 PM
You don't "NEED" them, period. You can do EVERYTHING a illumanock can do without using a light saber on the end of your arrow. You can use bright colored fletching, wraps and nocks and SEE exactly where your hitting your animal, IF, IF, you shoot within reasonable archery ranges. Never lost an arrow in 30 years of bowhunting, never had a problem seeing where I hit my animal and never had a problem LOOKING at the sign left from the shot and determining when I should follow up. I'm convinced some of you guys should just stay home and play the video games. WAY cooler graphics.
Can't say I have had as much luck finding all my arrows in 24 years of hunting.... (but I never used wraps so they may make all the difference).....the times I lost arrows (twice) the shots were 18 and 22 yards respectively. One of the deer I never found (not sure if an lighted nock would have helped find the deer but I would have liked to have found the arrow and a lighted of nock may have helped). The other instance the arrow probably would have given me a lot more confidence in the shot than what I was seeing in the blood trail and sign left behind...either way I found the deer. I definitely support legalizing lighted nocks. I can understand the resistance towards many technological advances in archery but this isn't one of them.
Post by: UptheCreek on September 22, 2011, 11:02:11 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 23, 2011, 05:26:29 AM
Quote
Expandable broadheadsOh man thats worth up to 40 pages
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 06:31:04 AM
If Washington allows lighted nocks what would they allow next? Expandable broadheads? This state is so messed up.....Both of these should be allowed if a person wants to use them while bowhunting.
How about draw locks? PODs? Explosive tips? Laser sights? Laser Rangefinders attached to the bow? Crazy huh, I'm just seeing if you guys have any line that you don't want to cross or is the standard, hey if a guy "wants" to use it then it's all good. Is there any limit for you guys? Just asking. I wonder how all the old timers ever killed any deer or elk at all.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 23, 2011, 07:51:10 AM
If Washington allows lighted nocks what would they allow next? Expandable broadheads? This state is so messed up.....Both of these should be allowed if a person wants to use them while bowhunting.
How about draw locks? PODs? Explosive tips? Laser sights? Laser Rangefinders attached to the bow? Crazy huh, I'm just seeing if you guys have any line that you don't want to cross or is the standard, hey if a guy "wants" to use it then it's all good. Is there any limit for you guys? Just asking. I wonder how all the old timers ever killed any deer or elk at all.
I want heat seeking arrows with exploding tips. That would be awesome for the new SWAT season.
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 07:58:48 AM
Hey guys check this thread out. According to the proponets for expandables and illuninock the reasons you want these items is so you have less wounding, better recovery rates which "should" translate into somewhat higher success rates. If that is the case here is a direct result:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83780.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83780.0.html)
Post by: Atroxus on September 23, 2011, 08:31:50 AM
If Washington allows lighted nocks what would they allow next? Expandable broadheads? This state is so messed up.....Both of these should be allowed if a person wants to use them while bowhunting.
How about draw locks? PODs? Explosive tips? Laser sights? Laser Rangefinders attached to the bow? Crazy huh, I'm just seeing if you guys have any line that you don't want to cross or is the standard, hey if a guy "wants" to use it then it's all good. Is there any limit for you guys? Just asking. I wonder how all the old timers ever killed any deer or elk at all.
I am not an archery hunter, but I don't see a problem with allowing any of that stuff. It seems pretty simple to me. If you don't like something, then don't use it. :twocents:
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 08:37:02 AM
I am not an archery hunter, but
Oops, sorry didn't read anything after that, did you say something? :chuckle:
Post by: UptheCreek on September 23, 2011, 09:09:04 AM
Post by: MDGrand on September 23, 2011, 09:34:03 AM
I hear ya... what you are saying is a legitimate point and it in essence is the "slippery slope" arguement:
if we allow one thing, then it will lead to other things, i.e. exploding broadheads (extreme exageration)..
BUT, this kind of arguement can also be turned.. lets make bows only recurve, no sights, no compounds, etc.
So...
I will offer that there IS a fair compromise between what regulations should be implemented WITHOUT going to extreme exagerations.. The WDFW should, every year, consider and change the rules based on what is ethical without limiting ones freedom. It should not be the beauracracy that is currently is.
No matter what you currently use (white wraps with pink or bright orange fletchings) a Luminock is brighter and truely an after the effect kind of thing. I think it is a fair consideration considering the cost of arrows is substantial and it since it would not (I believe) push a hunter into taking a shot in the dark, or do something unethical, the freedom to use it should be allowed.
But to get to the "slippery slope" arguement... and considering this thread will most likely go on for some time :)...
If a device or system could be implemented or used durring hunting that ensures a more humane kill without compromising ethics, shouldnt we use it?
For example.... Leupolds bow mounted range finder.. doesn't knowing the EXACT yardage help make a MUCH more ethical shot?
NOW...
I know the counter to this one... "this will increase success rates and limit seasons..."
Machias... I saw your post regarding another archery hunters experience vs. rifle seasons, etc.. from what I read, he was comparing those modern hunters that received special permits with OTC archery hunters.. not exactly a fair comparison.
In any account.. my comments here are made in a friendly debate way, so I look forward to a friendly reply. We are all entitled to our opinion..
But at the end of the day, I want to err on what is creates a more humane and quick kill as well as not limiting ones freedom.. there is a fair compromise to all of these similar types of issues.. and in the case of a Luminock they cause no harm, hence the freedom should not be limited.
:twocents:
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 09:55:13 AM
Post by: WildWind1 on September 23, 2011, 09:56:10 AM
:bdid:I am not an archery hunter, but
Oops, sorry didn't read anything after that, did you say something? :chuckle:
Please do not forget it is also the general public who has input, not just hunters. The animals and woods are for everyone to enjoy. :tup:
Post by: buckfvr on September 23, 2011, 10:01:03 AM
If you dont think this can/will be the results, you arent listening.....there are a couple very good knowledgable trad guys on here who know all too well about this issue.
You want to loose time in the woods with your bow??, keep asking for things you dont need. Effort to keep what we already have will be an on going issue year in and year out.
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 10:09:26 AM
:bdid:I am not an archery hunter, but
Oops, sorry didn't read anything after that, did you say something? :chuckle:
Please do not forget it is also the general public who has input, not just hunters. The animals and woods are for everyone to enjoy. :tup:
Agreed, but when it comes to the Bowhunting Community determining their parameters and equipment uses and restrictions, I don't really care to hear from a person who doesn't use that equipment or hunt in that season. :twocents:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 23, 2011, 10:19:39 AM
Those that want them, and those that market them have too much money to be denied for long.
I, myself, will probably never use them, but really have no opposition to them.
However, as an "elitist" I still feel that the more junk you put on your bow/arrow detracts from the sport of archery, and makes it more of an attempt to just kill an animal, no matter what.
To each their own...
We all hunt for different reasons, to me it is in how I accomplish something, not just that I did accomplish something.
This year I passed on 2 "easy" shots on Bulls, and one cow because of my own self imposed limitations, If I had been using a more "modern" bow, I would have had a dead Elk.
It would not have mattered what I had on either end of my arrow.
The satisfaction I receive from accomplishing something that I have purposely made more difficult for myself far outweighs the feeling I receive from "just doing it"
If that means I have to eat "tag soup", then so be it, but I have good memories, and personal fulfillment long after the meat is gone.
If you feel that you need to use these contrivances to make your season more enjoyable, power to ya !
But I know at the end of the season, the only thing that matters to me is, how I feel about myself, and do I blame (or credit) my equipment for success or lack thereof ?
Now if you just want to use them because you think they are cool, and not because you think they are neccessary, well fine and dandy !
I have some whistling tips I like to play with also, and blunts for stump shooting.
If you feel that you need to use a lighted nock (or expandable BH) to be effective as an archer, I empathise with you, because maybe Archery really is not your sport. :twocents:
Post by: MDGrand on September 23, 2011, 10:38:04 AM
I for one, do not believe that it will make me MORE effective as an archer, however, I have lost an arrow or two that I spent time fletching and if seeing that sucker light up, helps me find it in the bush towards the end of the day when the light is low to let me know for certain if I made a good hit, then I am for it. So goes with a rangefinder on your bow.. I consider the worst thing out there to be loosing an animal or making a poor shot.. and as opposed to a rifle which gives substantially more impact, there is no denying that these kinds of things can help in making a more humane kill.
Nothing should substitute practice and knowing one's limits.. but again, I think there are fair compromises here that does not limit ones freedom.
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 10:45:00 AM
Post by: buckfvr on September 23, 2011, 10:47:44 AM
:bdid:I am not an archery hunter, but
Oops, sorry didn't read anything after that, did you say something? :chuckle:
Please do not forget it is also the general public who has input, not just hunters. The animals and woods are for everyone to enjoy. :tup:
Agreed, but when it comes to the Bowhunting Community determining their parameters and equipment uses and restrictions, I don't really care to hear from a person who doesn't use that equipment or hunt in that season. :twocents:
Count me with Fred on this one.....dont walk the walk???? IMHO you dont deserve a voice.
I dont see these items having a "humane " impact....there will be more guys who use these to push the envelope same as those who push the envelope with speed......go look at ethical ranges post to see what I mean.....ethics vary like opinions.....now if we could give everyone the same set of ethics..........
Post by: boneaddict on September 23, 2011, 10:49:40 AM
Post by: buckfvr on September 23, 2011, 10:51:34 AM
I've pondered this thought/argument for sometime. The one where its too dark to find my arrow to know if I made a good hit. The conclusion that I have come to is that if its too dark to see where my arrow went, or too dark to find it with a know trajectory etc, THEN IT MIGHT BE TOO DARK TO BE SHOOTING AT AN ANIMAL. Just my thoughts of course.
:yeah:
Post by: bobcat on September 23, 2011, 10:51:48 AM
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 10:59:00 AM
I've pondered this thought/argument for sometime. The one where its too dark to find my arrow to know if I made a good hit. The conclusion that I have come to is that if its too dark to see where my arrow went, or too dark to find it with a know trajectory etc, THEN IT MIGHT BE TOO DARK TO BE SHOOTING AT AN ANIMAL. Just my thoughts of course.
:chuckle: :yeah:
Post by: MDGrand on September 23, 2011, 11:19:15 AM
So just to be clear, you're are saying you'd be good with shorter season if you could use equipment that increased the overall success rates. Right? Because that is the net effect. That is the main reason they used for shortening the season this last time. Success rates.
IMHO, higher success rates are only PART of the reason the seasons have been shorter. And I think a small part.. I know that is what perhaps the WDFW have stated.. but in my experience with other states, it is really the OTC tags here in WA that are the culprit I think for everyone's issues.
But that is a whole other thread..
Post by: MDGrand on September 23, 2011, 11:32:27 AM
I've pondered this thought/argument for sometime. The one where its too dark to find my arrow to know if I made a good hit. The conclusion that I have come to is that if its too dark to see where my arrow went, or too dark to find it with a know trajectory etc, THEN IT MIGHT BE TOO DARK TO BE SHOOTING AT AN ANIMAL. Just my thoughts of course.
Well, I do not know about you.. but a few years ago, I had a buck step out in front of my stand with about 15 minutes of light left.. he came into range and I wacked him! Perfect shot, double lunger, I saw him clear, perfectly legal and ethical.. HOWEVER, when shooting him, the arrow went through him and into a thick berry bush that was directly behind him. I could not see my arrow. Also, upon shooting, he ran off into the trees about 50-60 yards and ultimately out of sight.
NOW.. usually most hunters wait a while to go after the animal. At least that is what I do and most others do as well.. that way you dont push the animal. So I waited about 20-30 minutes. Well, in 20 minutes, it was pitch dark.. I could not find my arrow no matter how hard I looked in the bushes with my flashlight and headlamp.. So I decided to follow the blood trail and I found him. Even though the blood trail was very difficult through some of the thick brush he ran through.
MY question was when looking for the arrow... and a lot of the time the arrow can tell you this.. is "how was the animal hit? I wanted to find the arrow first to see if I had bright pink blood or dark thick blood.. this would tell me if I needed to back out for the night or go after him right away.
I am POSITIVE with a Luminock I could have found my arrow and made a more educated decision instead of guessing.
Now, I found the deer and "that is hunting" but as I have said before, my concern is doing the right thing by the animal first. If Technology helps me do that withought a strong chance of being used for non ethical reasons, then we should use it.
:) :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on September 23, 2011, 11:43:55 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on September 23, 2011, 12:07:58 PM
I think lighted nocks are cool, I've shot them a lot in 3D and its pretty neat to be able to clearly see your arrow and shot placement. I don't like the fact that they are heavy and screw up my FOC, so unless I had a newer faster shooting bow and could afford to shoot a heavier arrow I would not hunt with them anyways. I can't imagine they would have an effect whatsoever on hunter success rates, they will not aid you in killing an animal, just in seeing where you hit... or didn't hit. Now if we were able to use other electronics on our bows such as a bow mounted laser range finder... that would increase hunter success, I can think of several animals that would be dead if we were able to use those, but we can't, and I'm glad.
Post by: GermanShorthair on September 23, 2011, 02:30:15 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 23, 2011, 03:02:34 PM
I still have not read one legitimate excuse why a lighted nock should be illegal. The slippery slope argument is just lame.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on September 23, 2011, 04:44:38 PM
i may order a few to play with this late season
only bad thing i see is always having a light on your bow for deer to see.
Post by: UptheCreek on September 23, 2011, 04:45:11 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 23, 2011, 05:25:29 PM
Quote
hunting will become just killing. " --- Isn't that the point.
ahhhhhhh NO, not even close
You summed it up a little better in your next sentence. ;)
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 07:28:37 PM
The only reason I want to see them allowed is because of the guys who say they shouldn't be because it doesn't meet their criteria of what they consider archery hunting. I have never used them and don't plan to.
I still have not read one legitimate excuse why a lighted nock should be illegal. The slippery slope argument is just lame.
The only reason I want them to continue being outlawed is because of guys always chasing the next gadget to make up for their lack of hunting skills. Always looking for the easy way instead of becoming better hunters, better trackers, better sign readers, better shots. They think these will solve all their problems, it just isn't so. And I still have not read one legitimate reason for allowing them, since you can achieve the exact same results without them.
;)
Post by: Lowedog on September 23, 2011, 07:35:35 PM
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 07:50:34 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 23, 2011, 07:57:24 PM
http://www.sternerduttera.com/store/firefly_glowing_nocks_stay_lit.asp (http://www.sternerduttera.com/store/firefly_glowing_nocks_stay_lit.asp)
Post by: Machias on September 23, 2011, 08:34:33 PM
Post by: WildWind1 on September 23, 2011, 11:50:36 PM
Who's ethics??? yours or Joe Dirtbags.....Enough of the I, I, me, me stuff.....look hard at the whole picture AND the consequences to bowhunters as a group......yes, we are individuals, but we are lumped into a group for the season setting process.....for better or for worse.
What you don't seem to understand is this, for those of us who are great shots and never lose an arrow or animal, whats the point. But for those of us who hunt in the real world wounding is a part of it and that is a fact covered in many states including ours and the statistics prove it.
With that being said, if your in favor of wounding animals, and with, the who cares attitude maybe YOU should not hunt.
And for the argument that the success rate Will determine our seasons, think again.
The animals that have been wounded, most likely died will never breed. Now if you have less wounded animals you have more deer being bread and more offspring at birthing time, IE more deer.
How can you shorten the season?
And for the slippery slope WTF. Are people smokin crack?
Look at each item on its own merits or are you incapable of doing that?
Machias, if you honestly believe that you get he same effect shoot two arrows one with your fletching and one with a lighted noch, out of a blind into a field of alfalfa during the last minutes of the golden hour ( within legal light ) wait 45min and without a flashlight, find your arrow, NOT the same effect.
Wheather your in the tall grass or in the pines, good luck with that.
This Item only helps you recover. Thus not bumping your game and taking the chance of loosing it and then shooting another one because it could not be found.
Post by: UptheCreek on September 24, 2011, 07:45:29 AM
Post by: Machias on September 24, 2011, 09:53:24 AM
Who's ethics??? yours or Joe Dirtbags.....Enough of the I, I, me, me stuff.....look hard at the whole picture AND the consequences to bowhunters as a group......yes, we are individuals, but we are lumped into a group for the season setting process.....for better or for worse.
What you don't seem to understand is this, for those of us who are great shots and never lose an arrow or animal, whats the point. But for those of us who hunt in the real world wounding is a part of it and that is a fact covered in many states including ours and the statistics prove it.
With that being said, if your in favor of wounding animals, and with, the who cares attitude maybe YOU should not hunt.
And for the argument that the success rate Will determine our seasons, think again.
The animals that have been wounded, most likely died will never breed. Now if you have less wounded animals you have more deer being bread and more offspring at birthing time, IE more deer.
How can you shorten the season?
And for the slippery slope WTF. Are people smokin crack?
Look at each item on its own merits or are you incapable of doing that?
Machias, if you honestly believe that you get he same effect shoot two arrows one with your fletching and one with a lighted noch, out of a blind into a field of alfalfa during the last minutes of the golden hour ( within legal light ) wait 45min and without a flashlight, find your arrow, NOT the same effect.
Wheather your in the tall grass or in the pines, good luck with that.
This Item only helps you recover. Thus not bumping your game and taking the chance of loosing it and then shooting another one because it could not be found.
Sorry but your whole thought process is complete CRAP. Instead of working harder, restricting your shots to as high a chance as possible, (STOP taking risky shots) you too can loose the gadgets. Your mentality is what is wrong with alot of bowhunters today, always looking for the easy way out, always relying on technology instead of making yourself better. This item only helps you recover game? No it only helps you recover your arrow. You put TOO MUCH stock into gadgets. I have killed probably 40 whitetails with my bow, I have tracked a few animals after dark, I'm not a rookie. Illuinocks are not the cure all for lost game. SO again are YOU for shorter and shorter seasons due to the increased success of finding game? I mean that is what your saying, less game animals lost=increased harvest rates. I will tell you what pisses me off about your statement is the acceptance of wounding. BOWHUNTERS stop accepting the fact that wounding is part of the game and you'll have less wounding, because you'll have the ethics to NOT take those risky shots. WOUNDING does not have to be the norm. The more I think about your statement the more ticked I get. If all the illuinock does is help you find your arrow how in the hell is that going to stop or lower wounding rates????????????? If your so concerned about bumping an animal......wait longer!!!
Post by: sixty4nhalf on September 24, 2011, 10:09:15 AM
Wish they would just legalize them. There is no advantage to the hunter and would help track the animal in an effort of being more humane. Wake up Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!!!
I agree 100% would also assist in finding your arrow, when it passes through the animal.
Post by: UptheCreek on September 24, 2011, 10:55:56 AM
Post by: Lowedog on September 24, 2011, 02:33:24 PM
Still not sure of the shorter hunting seasons angle. I hunt in an area that only allows one weekend for mule deer for the year!! I guarentee it is not because of harvest numbers. Has anyone noticed the amount of black bear. I have seen more bear this year than I can remember. Is the season longer..no. Do they allow baiting....no. Bear and couger numbers directly affect the deer numbers way more than a few hunters using a lighted nock or expandable broadhead. Do the math.
Shorter seasons are directly the cause of a lighted nock! Oh yeah, we cant use those yet. :dunno:
Post by: buckfvr on September 24, 2011, 03:08:40 PM
Wildwind, If you are suggesting I dont live or hunt in the real world, you are sadley mistaken....Ive hunted this state for over 40 years, every nook and cranny........what some of you guys think is good hunting now, is absurd. Im also retired, live where I can hunt most anything from home, and spend a great deal of time in the woods, mostly by myself.....I wont wait for others, and gladly go it alone. I recommend you hold your judgement on people you havent met......keep things to the point and try not to make it personal.......if you cant, maybe YOU shouldnt be here.
Post by: WildWind1 on September 24, 2011, 05:05:24 PM
Personal, shouldn't be here. Did you read your own post?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 24, 2011, 08:39:48 PM
It boils down to the current rule of not allowing electric or electronic accessories to be mounted to your bow or arrow. If the rules get changed to allow electronics, our primative weapons status will be compromised. This will lead to the already sought season for traditional hunters. A new traditional season would come at the expense of the other archery season....maybe not yours where you hunt, but most definetly, to many of the longer late season hunts. Its not about the benefits or advantages of the illuminoc, but more about not loosing anything we currently have. If you hunt with a compound, this very real possibility should raise your hairs......Im not looking to loose any more hunting opportunity so some of the guys can have the next, neatest gadjet.How do you know illuminocs will lead to a primitive weapons season? Out of every state that has allowed illuminocs why would we be the only ones to go to a primitive season as a result? I don't think anyone wants to lose hunting time but I don't see how an illuminoc will lead to that. I don't see how the slippery slope argument has any weight if we take each device for its own merit.
Wildwind, If you are suggesting I dont live or hunt in the real world, you are sadley mistaken....Ive hunted this state for over 40 years, every nook and cranny........what some of you guys think is good hunting now, is absurd. Im also retired, live where I can hunt most anything from home, and spend a great deal of time in the woods, mostly by myself.....I wont wait for others, and gladly go it alone. I recommend you hold your judgement on people you havent met......keep things to the point and try not to make it personal.......if you cant, maybe YOU shouldnt be here.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on September 24, 2011, 08:41:35 PM
Still not sure of the shorter hunting seasons angle. I hunt in an area that only allows one weekend for mule deer for the year!! I guarentee it is not because of harvest numbers. Has anyone noticed the amount of black bear. I have seen more bear this year than I can remember. Is the season longer..no. Do they allow baiting....no. Bear and couger numbers directly affect the deer numbers way more than a few hunters using a lighted nock or expandable broadhead. Do the math.I have also seen more bear this year than any other year... I am even seeing a lot of bear where I have not seen them before.
Post by: UptheCreek on September 24, 2011, 10:14:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on September 24, 2011, 10:19:56 PM
Post by: UptheCreek on September 24, 2011, 10:24:38 PM
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2011, 07:30:13 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83903.30.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83903.30.html)
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2011, 07:33:17 AM
Post by: flinger on September 25, 2011, 02:49:44 PM
NEXT
:chuckle: :chuckle:
:stirthepot:
Post by: boneaddict on September 25, 2011, 03:19:53 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 25, 2011, 08:01:01 PM
Post by: WildWind1 on September 25, 2011, 08:56:44 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 26, 2011, 06:16:00 AM
Do you think the people that would use these the most would be the guys like this. :chuckle:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83903.30.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83903.30.html)
C'mon now, I remember a longest shot thread where the mighty Boneaddict claimed a 500+ offhand shot on a running deer with a rifle.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2011, 08:52:59 AM
Do you think the people that would use these the most would be the guys like this. :chuckle:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83903.30.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,83903.30.html)
C'mon now, I remember a longest shot thread where the mighty Boneaddict claimed a 500+ offhand shot on a running deer with a rifle.
And another on a different thread killing a buck at over 80 yards. I'm going with the "no" camp on this.
Post by: Snapshot on September 26, 2011, 11:19:45 AM
Killing/aiming aid, I say no way... :bdid:
The only reason I want to see them allowed is because of the guys who say they shouldn't be because it doesn't meet their criteria of what they consider archery hunting. I have never used them and don't plan to.
I still have not read one legitimate excuse why a lighted nock should be illegal. The slippery slope argument is just lame.
But Wildwild1, then Lowedog will be forced support the laser broadhead because of your saying he shouldn't be allowed to use it... It could be a vicious cycle we would enter into if one exception is made but not another. There is always someone out there whose nose will be bent because some toy they used in another place isn't allowed here.
Post by: Lowedog on September 26, 2011, 11:27:24 AM
Killing/aiming aid, I say no way... :bdid:The only reason I want to see them allowed is because of the guys who say they shouldn't be because it doesn't meet their criteria of what they consider archery hunting. I have never used them and don't plan to.
I still have not read one legitimate excuse why a lighted nock should be illegal. The slippery slope argument is just lame.
But Wildwild1, then Lowedog will be forced support the laser broadhead because of your saying he shouldn't be allowed to use it... It could be a vicious cycle we would enter into if one exception is made but not another. There is always someone out there whose nose will be bent because some toy they used in another place isn't allowed here.
Nah, I wouldn't support that because I can differentiate between what actually would aid in aiming/killing and what only is an aid to revover an arrow.
That and because you made this post. ;)
Post by: WildWind1 on September 26, 2011, 10:00:12 PM
Post by: Snapshot on September 27, 2011, 08:32:37 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2011, 09:04:01 AM
IF you mean, WW1, that I don't support electric nocks because of some post on a website forum then that is absurd. I don't support electric nocks because we have taken big game with archery gear for tens of thousands of years without them. It is a choice to hunt the archery seasons; it is a choice to shoot a black arrow that costs $25; it is a choice to send it downrange at 300 fps; it is a choice as to when to begin following up on a shot. Respectfully, I think everyone should live with their choices and not try to change archery hunting in an effort to make up for shortcomings.
Respectfully, your reasoning is unsound, even though I agree to "no". We haven't been using archery equipment for thousands of years like it exists today - compound bows, sights, stabilizers, 350 FPS, carbon, aluminum, etc. Through your reasoning, lighted nocks should be allowed. But again, I think we're reaching a point where technology has made bows an incredibly more effective weapon than they were even 20 years ago.
Post by: Lowedog on September 27, 2011, 09:12:13 AM
Post by: WildWind1 on September 27, 2011, 09:33:26 AM
IF you mean, WW1, that I don't support electric nocks because of some post on a website forum then that is absurd. I don't support electric nocks because we have taken big game with archery gear for tens of thousands of years without them. It is a choice to hunt the archery seasons; it is a choice to shoot a black arrow that costs $25; it is a choice to send it downrange at 300 fps; it is a choice as to when to begin following up on a shot. Respectfully, I think everyone should live with their choices and not try to change archery hunting in an effort to make up for shortcomings.:bow: :chuckle:
Post by: Machias on September 27, 2011, 10:06:52 AM
I laugh at the reasoning some have that because others don't view archery hunting as some type of elitist activity and only as another hunting season in which they choose to use modern equipment it is to make up some sort of short coming in their ability. Does it really feed your ego that much to think of the way you do it as superior to anothers choice?
I used a compound bow for right at 30 years. The problem is today archers think the 30 to 60 fps increase in bows has extended their effective hunting ranges when in reality it has not. That is the problem I have, has nothing to do with thinking I'm more superior. I want today's archers to realize they have a responsibuility to the SPORT of bowhunting and to the animals we pursue. That is what I am trying to instill. I don't care what anyone uses equipment wise, it's all a short range endeavor. If guys would understand it's how close can you get, not how far you can shoot, I don't care if they strap a spotlight to the butt end of their arrow. It's not a long range hobby.
Post by: Snapshot on September 27, 2011, 11:28:40 AM
“...view archery hunting…only as another hunting season...” Evidently that is a notable difference between you and me, LD. Laugh all you want but to me and some others archery season is the only hunting season. It has nothing to do with ego or feelings of a method being superior; it is simply our method. I don’t understand you needing to put a label on that anymore than you understand why I hunt. I don’t hunt the archery season because it is the longest, or the best-timed; I archery hunt because it is what I love to do. If ever archery seasons were reduced to being shorter than another weapon season or the timing changed some people would say, “Oh well, that was fun while it lasted,” and go pick up another weapon. I won’t hunt if I can’t archery hunt; I am content that my deer rifle has collected dust for the past thirty-five years.
And I do not even consider another person’s equipment choices relative to my own, LD. I couldn't care less what they choose to do unless they choose to try to change the nature of archery hunting in Washington. Then I have to speak up and ask, "Why?"
Post by: Lowedog on September 27, 2011, 12:00:17 PM
Before we were forced to choose a weapon type we didn't have as much of this us and them stuff going on. I enjoy hunting and that is it. The tool that I have to carry in order to hunt doesn't mean much to me other than it is a tool to perform what is needed to accomplish my goal. I apply for multi season every year and have been lucky enough to draw every year but one. To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.
Post by: Machias on September 27, 2011, 12:25:08 PM
To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.
I would have to disagree with you there, but I understand what your saying. So when you bowhunt you don't feel any persoanl responsibility to the "sport" of bowhunting? Is that fair to say? You don't feel that your actions, when bowhunting reflect positively or negatively on the sport of bowhunting? It's just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting? Is that a fair assesment?
Post by: Snapshot on September 27, 2011, 12:52:04 PM
When the first archery seasons were established here there was then no need to define the gear as primitive (or traditional) because at that time there were only bows that had to be bent and held by the archer.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 27, 2011, 01:30:38 PM
The "nature of archery hunting in Washington" is something different to each individual. 20 years ago was in the past. I live in the present. I haven't been able to find anything in the hunting regulations that states that archery seasons are based on ideals or were created for primitive weapons.Everyone has different attitudes, that is what defines who we are.
Before we were forced to choose a weapon type we didn't have as much of this us and them stuff going on. I enjoy hunting and that is it. The tool that I have to carry in order to hunt doesn't mean much to me other than it is a tool to perform what is needed to accomplish my goal. I apply for multi season every year and have been lucky enough to draw every year but one. To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.
I live in the present, but when I got into Archery, I bought a Compound at NW Archery, a couple years later I even "upgraded" to the fastest, newest, most expensive compound they had on their rack at the time (Martin), but as I spent more time at their shop and museum, and met Glenn StCharles, I developed a new appreciation for the sport, and what the guys that first took Archery into the hunting woods had to go through.
It was not about using the latest, greatest, best equipment, it was about using a weapon they loved, and being able to accomplish something that was made more difficult by their choice in weapon.
It was also part of the satisfaction they received from making their own equipment, a sense of self reliance.
I am not as capable as they were, I use a Damon Howatt, or Bear Recurve.
I buy my arrows.
But I still feel a sense of accomplishment by hunting with the equipment I chose.
To me, it is not about the kill as much as the experience.
I believe that if I was still using a Compound, I would have harvested an animal (Elk) in the first hour of the season this year.
But I will continue to use a recurve because when I do harvest an animal, I will receive a greater satisfaction by accomplishing it in the manner that I feel is more fulfilling.
But that is my own personal view, you have yours, and I respect that :tup:
As far as not "being able to find anything in the hunting regulations that states that archery seasons are based on ideals or were created for primitive weapons."
You understand that the reg's are printed as only a summary, and the WAC's and RCW's have nothing to do with WHY we have seasons ?
If not for those that first had to prove that a bow and arrow was not a toy for Boy Scouts, but actually a viable hunting weapon for large game, there would not have been a season in the first place, and ALL of these technical improvements to archery equipment would probably never have happened.
Unless it was for target, or Olympic competition.
Without the "Fathers" of our sport, like Fred Bear, Earl Hoyt, Jr., etc. hunting bows would never had been introduced into production.
You are correct, before we were forced to chose a weapon, this kind of fighting did not exist.
There were Archery Hunters who chose to use a bow, for reasons of their own that had nothing to do with seasons, GMU's, or anything other than they loved Archery.
Those guys were "Bowhunters", simply because they did chose to use a bow to hunt with.
Times have changed, and some have chosen to take up the sport for various reasons other than a love of Archery, but I hope they have developed some respect for the limitations of their equipment.
This constant drive to push the limits, and improve performance, is inevitable.
It is a human trait, but for some of us, the ability to adhere to tradition, and use a more limiting weapon, is a part of the enjoyment of the hunt.
Even when (if) i get drawn for Multi-season, I will hunt with my weapon of choice, I just will have a longer season.
Because to me, it is about the type of weapon used that makes the hunt, the kill is just the way the hunt ends.
An arrow is just an arrow, I do not care what type of bow you use, or what accessories you put on it, as long as you understand the inherent nature of the sport, and respect the limitations of using archery equipment.
I do not feel that I am any better than anyone else, I feel that I am just different.
I hunt to commune with "my own true god" and my feeling of connectedness to the natural world due to the weapon I carry is my own.
I support your decision to hunt the way you feel, I hope you support mine.
But when the regs get published, I hope that my way of hunting will continue as those 20+ (actually more like 40+) years ago desired.
With respect to the equipment being it is a "limiting weapon" and not a "killing device" used solely as a means to an end, but a way to enjoy hunting as a sport and recreation, not just a way to successfully harvest an animal.
Post by: Lowedog on September 27, 2011, 01:49:06 PM
Another thing never mentioned by those that want to keep it "primitive" is that back in the day lots and lots of people used sights on recurves and long bows. That would be frowned upon by todays "traditionalist".
To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.
I would have to disagree with you there, but I understand what your saying. So when you bowhunt you don't feel any persoanl responsibility to the "sport" of bowhunting? Is that fair to say? You don't feel that your actions, when bowhunting reflect positively or negatively on the sport of bowhunting? It's just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting? Is that a fair assesment?
I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting. I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting. It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with. A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with. So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting.
Post by: huntnphool on September 27, 2011, 02:01:30 PM
The "nature of archery hunting in Washington" is something different to each individual. 20 years ago was in the past. I live in the present. I haven't been able to find anything in the hunting regulations that states that archery seasons are based on ideals or were created for primitive weapons.
Before we were forced to choose a weapon type we didn't have as much of this us and them stuff going on. I enjoy hunting and that is it. The tool that I have to carry in order to hunt doesn't mean much to me other than it is a tool to perform what is needed to accomplish my goal. I apply for multi season every year and have been lucky enough to draw every year but one. To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.
+1 :yeah:
Post by: Machias on September 27, 2011, 02:13:50 PM
I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting. I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting. It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with. A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with. So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting.
Gotcha, just a personal opinion, but that is a big part of what is wrong with today's archers. You don't feel any personal responsibility to the sport, so you don't consider the consequences of your choices in equipment or your hunting style. Anything is game as long as you get to notch your tag. When archery is negatively impacted it'll be no big deal to you because your not personally invested in the sport of bowhunting, just hunting in general. You'll move on to the next thing, probably muzzleloading and since you have no personal connection with that sport you'll push for changes and "advancements" that folks who love that style of the sport don't want. You'll push for changes until that sport is negatively impacted and you'll move back to rifle hunting. No biggie to you, because it's all just hunting. 8)
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 27, 2011, 02:18:28 PM
Quote
Another thing never mentioned by those that want to keep it "primitive" is that back in the day lots and lots of people used sights on recurves and long bows. That would be frowned upon by todays "traditionalist".Most of those bows with sights were target bows used for hunting, but I hear what you say.
I had one guy say that I should not consider my 1970 Damon Howatt a "Trad" bow because of my stabilizer,
I then asked him what year his bow was made, and what kind of material it was made with.
Some "Traditionalists" (and others) get a little confused about the difference between "primitive" and "Traditional"
Traditional (to me) is not using a bow with Cams, or "wheels", where the force of drawing the bow is directly connected to the transfer of energy to the arrow.
"Primitive" is when you use a "self" bow, as in a non-laminated bow made out of wood such as vine maple, yew, Osage Orange, etc. and hand made tips, either stone or steel.
When "traditionalists" speak of keeping it "primitive" it is probably just misusing the word, and means to keep the "modern" advancements off to preserve the integrity of the sport, and prevent introducing things like lasers and built on rangefinders, lighted sights, etc.
But I can only speak for myself.. :twocents:
Post by: Lowedog on September 27, 2011, 04:51:55 PM
I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting. I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting. It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with. A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with. So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting.
Gotcha, just a personal opinion, but that is a big part of what is wrong with today's archers. You don't feel any personal responsibility to the sport, so you don't consider the consequences of your choices in equipment or your hunting style. Anything is game as long as you get to notch your tag. When archery is negatively impacted it'll be no big deal to you because your not personally invested in the sport of bowhunting, just hunting in general. You'll move on to the next thing, probably muzzleloading and since you have no personal connection with that sport you'll push for changes and "advancements" that folks who love that style of the sport don't want. You'll push for changes until that sport is negatively impacted and you'll move back to rifle hunting. No biggie to you, because it's all just hunting. 8)
Just so you know, I am not pushing for anything. I stated before I have never used a lighted nock and don't plan to. I do however feel like there is no harm in allowing them. Unlike you I can differentiate between something that is only an aid in finding an arrow after the shot and something that would actually aid in aiming and killing an animal.
Pretty sweeping statement to say there is something wrong with archers of today as if no one stacks up to what you feel is a true archer such as the image you have created of yourself. What does it take to meet the criteria to be a true archer of the past like yourself? How many years must one bowhunt to be an elite archer and not be considered an archer of today? Is it someones experience in archery hunting or is it the equipment they use or is it that they see archery hunting as some sort of higher calling that only the elite should be allowed to take part in? Do you feel that those who chose to hunt with all weapon types as less of a hunter because you feel they have no dedication to one weapon?
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 27, 2011, 06:04:30 PM
Some guys drive Ford, some drive Chevy.
Some ride Honda's, some Harley's..
It makes little difference to me what weapon you use, as long as it has no effect on my weapon of choice.
I see nothing wrong with a guy using Lumenoks, or expandable Broadheads.
I just see that in order for them to be legal, the regs have to change, and in the process, more of you will complain about the "complexity" of the regs, complain that it is too confusing, and in general just complain.
A lot of money will be wasted by our WDFW and those involved in writing the regs. and in the end, once one rule is changed, something else will be there to complain about.
Sooner or later, in an effort to simplify the regs, it will re-written and now what will be legal ?
I use what I use, because I have made a choice.
I made this choice freely, and without coercion, I assume you did also...
I see no NEED to add these new advancements in technology, only others desire to use them.
I accept the changes imposed to my seasons, and feel some are for the better, but with all the complaining going on about how the WDFW is screwing us over, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Post by: WildWind1 on September 27, 2011, 09:45:36 PM
New archers that get buck fever or the thought of shooting a live target and the adrenaline gets the better of them and we have a wounded animal that may or may not be recovered. Now you can say they don't belong in the field then, but where then are the new archers coming from? They just don't sprout up and those that do I am pretty sure don't get within 10-15yrds of a deer for their first shot or the first few go arounds.
If this "gadget" helps them find the arrow and then get their game so be it! But saying it will come at the cost of Reg's or season time loss doesn't make sense if you look at the bigger picture.
OK your turn, rip this apart.
Post by: Machias on September 27, 2011, 10:11:35 PM
I don't feel any personal responibility to the "sport" of bowhunting. I feel personal responsibility to the act of hunting. It doesn't matter one bit to me what type of weapon I am hunting with. A hunter should be proficiient with what ever he or she is hunting with. So yes, it is just a different tool in the grand scheme of hunting.
Gotcha, just a personal opinion, but that is a big part of what is wrong with today's archers. You don't feel any personal responsibility to the sport, so you don't consider the consequences of your choices in equipment or your hunting style. Anything is game as long as you get to notch your tag. When archery is negatively impacted it'll be no big deal to you because your not personally invested in the sport of bowhunting, just hunting in general. You'll move on to the next thing, probably muzzleloading and since you have no personal connection with that sport you'll push for changes and "advancements" that folks who love that style of the sport don't want. You'll push for changes until that sport is negatively impacted and you'll move back to rifle hunting. No biggie to you, because it's all just hunting. 8)
Just so you know, I am not pushing for anything. I stated before I have never used a lighted nock and don't plan to. I do however feel like there is no harm in allowing them. Unlike you I can differentiate between something that is only an aid in finding an arrow after the shot and something that would actually aid in aiming and killing an animal.
Pretty sweeping statement to say there is something wrong with archers of today as if no one stacks up to what you feel is a true archer such as the image you have created of yourself. What does it take to meet the criteria to be a true archer of the past like yourself? How many years must one bowhunt to be an elite archer and not be considered an archer of today? Is it someones experience in archery hunting or is it the equipment they use or is it that they see archery hunting as some sort of higher calling that only the elite should be allowed to take part in? Do you feel that those who chose to hunt with all weapon types as less of a hunter because you feel they have no dedication to one weapon?
No, I just the opposite of what you think. I am dedicated to archery hunting, but unlike some guys who's rifles are collecting dust, I love to hunt with a rifle and a muzzleloader. I just don't get near the satisfaction from pulling the trigger on a muzzy or a rifle as I do with zipping an arrow through a deer or bears chest. It has nothing to do with equipment, I guess I really suck at conveying this. It's the mindset that makes an archer for me. If a guy shots ALL the bells and whistles including illuinocks and is dedicated to protecting what we have and is dedicated to trying to close the distance, he's the type of guy who I support. When I say today's archers I'm talking about the mindset that seems to pervade the bowhunting community today, faster bows and guys constantly talking about how they smoke the bullseye out to 80 or 90 yards and somehow equate that to their effective hunting range. Totally putting out of their minds that a animals vitals are not stationary. Why in the heck do I care if you want to hunt with an illuinock? Because I believe it will increase success rates to the point that THIS game department will see it as further evidence they need to decrease archers time in the field even more. I see all the advances in archery as advances in success rates and todays archers mindset seems to push the envelope more and more. At some point we as a group should hold the line. That line for me is no electronics on the bow or arrow, fairly easy line to draw and IMHO to hold to. I know guys who are just starting out who have been mentored that this is a close range sport and who have respect for the animals they pursue who IMHO are elite archers. There is no time period, I know a few archers who are slobs, it's all a mindset. Protect bowhunting and have respect for the animals. I don't get that sense for alot of todays archers. When a guy says I smoked a deer at 80 or 90 yards, made a perfect heart shot, IMO he has no respect for the game he pursues, it's all about notching a tag and his own ego. He doesn't care about the consequences of wounding, to the animal or the sport of bowhunting. Last year I took four deer, one with a bow, one with a muzzy and two with a rifle. I have no dedication to one weapon, however I do feel like bowhunting needs protection because it's headed so far away from it's roots.
Post by: huntnnw on September 27, 2011, 11:16:38 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 28, 2011, 05:38:57 AM
Why in the heck do I care if you want to hunt with an illuinock? Because I believe it will increase success rates to the point that THIS game department will see it as further evidence they need to decrease archers time in the field even more.
Please explain how a nock that lights up after the shot and gives no aid in aiming or arrow flight will increase success rates.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 28, 2011, 06:59:14 AM
Quote
If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information.A lighted nock will not make them hit the animal any better.
Ask Gringo about "sick" and see if a lighted nock would have made any difference.
Post by: Machias on September 28, 2011, 08:12:43 AM
Archery hunters taking shots at long ranges is nothing new. It has been common place since the days of Pope & Young, Fred Bear and Howard Hill. My first archery season was 20 years ago and I ran into and talked to plenty of people back then that talked about shooting way further than I felt was effective and a lot of those guys had been archery hunting for 10-20 years at that time. Archery hunters of today are no different than ever. There are just more of them and they have better equipment.Why in the heck do I care if you want to hunt with an illuinock? Because I believe it will increase success rates to the point that THIS game department will see it as further evidence they need to decrease archers time in the field even more.
Please explain how a nock that lights up after the shot and gives no aid in aiming or arrow flight will increase success rates.
Well this has been a fun and great debate. You guys will get your lighted nocks that I'm fairly certain. Someday when they finally do come to the point where YOU feel enough is enough, I hope your able to convey it better than I have. The whole argument FOR lighted nocks is that it allows hunters to find their arrow and see where they are hitting the animal. There by increasing your chances of finding your arrow and finding your animal. If that is true, that will increase success rates, how can it not? That's what guys here are aruging for, loosing less animals. Loosing less animals means increase harvest rates. My contention is not so much about lighted nocks as it is if you stop shooting so late in the evening and stop shooting so damn far you don't need a light saber strapped the end of your arrow to accomplish both of those goals. I wonder how rifle hunters and muzzleloaders handle the part about seeing where their shot hit and the follow up since they have nothing to look at after the shot? Oh they have to rely on their sign reading ability and tracking skills, just like bowhunters used to have to do. I'm finished with this merry go round, thanks for the good debate.
Post by: MDGrand on September 28, 2011, 09:05:20 AM
But on an outside note.. I will offer the following..
Within these hunting chat forums, its a place where we all can be Hunting Snobs and give our verision of what is right and wrong and better and worse when it comes to gear, methods, etc.
But I would caution that sometimes it can go to far.. I think the more we imput regulations and criticize the way others like to hunt, the less likely it is that someone will become an avid hunter.. and we need them to keep this thing alive. It also puts us against one another.
Now I know there is obvious things to criticize, i.e. illegal methods and poaching etc.. but I have noticed more and more that the super avid hunters are turning into snobs.. putting down everybody elses way but there that is not their own. I recently just cut a friend loose on the pro team I am on because he goes on and on about having the fastest bow and the fastest rifle and continually shows the same trophy pics to everybody.. most importantly he criticizes any other persons method, gear, etc.
I know I am on a soap box here.. but I hope at the end of the day, we can all agree its just semantics and not lose sight of the bigger picture.
Post by: Lowedog on September 28, 2011, 09:13:05 AM
The whole argument FOR lighted nocks is that it allows hunters to find their arrow and see where they are hitting the animal. There by increasing your chances of finding your arrow and finding your animal. If that is true, that will increase success rates, how can it not? That's what guys here are aruging for, loosing less animals. Loosing less animals means increase harvest rates.
If there is even a slight chance that a lighted nock helps someone find an arrow and that helps them find the animal they just shot over the opposite you see that as increasing harvest? What if that person who didn't find their animal continued hunting and harvested another animal? Do we just not count the animals lost? I know they don't count for harvest reports but they do count.
If this device and only this device was allowed and it even slightly decreases the number of lost or wounded animals then I don't see how anyone could be against it. But that is just my opinion.
Post by: Machias on September 28, 2011, 09:26:14 AM
C'mon Machias, don't quit now we only need 5 more pages to make 30!The whole argument FOR lighted nocks is that it allows hunters to find their arrow and see where they are hitting the animal. There by increasing your chances of finding your arrow and finding your animal. If that is true, that will increase success rates, how can it not? That's what guys here are aruging for, loosing less animals. Loosing less animals means increase harvest rates.
If there is even a slight chance that a lighted nock helps someone find an arrow and that helps them find the animal they just shot over the opposite you see that as increasing harvest? What if that person who didn't find their animal continued hunting and harvested another animal? Do we just not count the animals lost? I know they don't count for harvest reports but they do count.
If this device and only this device was allowed and it even slightly decreases the number of lost or wounded animals then I don't see how anyone could be against it. But that is just my opinion.
:chuckle: Come on 30 pages!!
THAT is my point all along, if guys stop taking risky shots, those numbers of lost and/or wounded animals would come down without allowing electronics on our arrows, that's all I'm saying. We both want the same thing less wounding, less lost arrows, we just disagree on how to acheive it, that's all. ;)
Post by: bullcanyon on September 28, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
As for not taking bad shots in the first place. Well....I'm still working on the formula for common sense in a can.......
Post by: Machias on September 28, 2011, 02:42:54 PM
As for not taking bad shots in the first place. Well....I'm still working on the formula for common sense in a can.......
:) I hope your successful!
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 28, 2011, 03:06:15 PM
A bad hit will still be a bad hit.
Poor shot selection will still be poor shot selection.
When in doubt of where you hit an animal, give it more time, too quick a follow up can affect recovery more than waiting longer.
It is true that you get clues as to where you hit an animal from the arrow, but if you spend a little more time looking for it (arrow), you still give a poorly hit animal a chance to expire, even if you do not find the arrow...
I have said before, I am not against your choice to use them, I just don't see the NEED.
I know it is only a matter of time before they are allowed, and I do feel that a lighted nock will encourage SOME archers to take some questionable shots because of the advantage of the "tracer" effect in low light situations, and the ability to recover their arrow ($$$) but I cannot say a majority will.
To each their own, if you feel you really NEED to use a lighted nock, then I guess that is your prerogative, eventually you will have your way.
But do not try to convince me that it will have a major effect on animal recovery, only arrow recovery,
if you are in doubt, give it more time, if the situation forces you to immediately follow up, nothing on an arrow that has already been released is going to change that.
Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.
Post by: 3Under on September 28, 2011, 06:53:06 PM
Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.:yeah: Could not have said it better myself. What happened to woodsmanship?
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on September 28, 2011, 07:04:30 PM
Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.:yeah: Could not have said it better myself. What happened to woodsmanship?
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.
Exactly... and poor shot placement will not improve with a lighted nock either. The only thing it will change is the profits of a company that is lobbying very hard on many sites to get them approved in our State. Take that for what it is worth.
Post by: huntnphool on September 28, 2011, 07:13:52 PM
Its funny how those against them continue to beat the "risky shot" drum when its simply conjecture on their part. I believe a person that will take a risky shot will do so with or without a lighted nok, its a matter of ethics not gear.
I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all archery groups, after all it means less waist and less black eyes for everyone. To argue against it just because it doesn't meet your ideals is egotistic or as some have mentioned elitist.
We all have vehicles that will drive faster than the posted limit, that doesn't mean it should be or will be done by everyone. Its a matter of choice and its not for any one person or group to say that the other can't use them. If you don't want to use them then don't but don't piss in my Cheerios just because they don't live up to your standard or ideals about hunting. :twocents:
Post by: Lowedog on September 28, 2011, 07:25:24 PM
Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.:yeah: Could not have said it better myself. What happened to woodsmanship?
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just wont lose your arrow.
Exactly... and poor shot placement will not improve with a lighted nock either. The only thing it will change is the profits of a company that is lobbying very hard on many sites to get them approved in our State. Take that for what it is worth.
No one is saying that a lighted nock will improve anything besides increasing someones chance of finding an arrow. :dunno: I can't figure out how equating someones personal choice of what type of equipment they use or would like to use as to what type of woodsman or hunter they are.
If you don't want a lighted nock to be allowed in WA because you feel electronic devices shouldn't be allowed for archery only seasons then I can understand that line of thinking but making accusations about the abilities, character or ethics of those who would use them or are not against them is just ridiculous. :twocents:
And just who is this company that is campaigning so hard for them on many sites? You evidently know something I don't.
Post by: ICEMAN on September 28, 2011, 07:47:40 PM
Post by: UptheCreek on September 28, 2011, 07:51:32 PM
Post by: Snapshot on September 29, 2011, 12:45:40 AM
If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information.
Provide the sources and I’ll take a look; until then I suspect you are blowing smoke up my skirt.
I just don't see how it will have ANY effect upon wounding …
A bad hit will still be a bad hit.
Poor shot selection will still be poor shot selection....
Poor tracking skills will still be poor tracking skills, the nock has no effect on blood trails.
A wounding loss will still be a wounding loss, you just won’t lose your arrow.
…Just won’t lose the arrow. That is a big part of this; and being told you can’t do something is another part. If conservation was so damned important these folks might do some research to learn that there is a game recovery tool available that about half of the states in our union allow but Washington does not. And, IF it were really about wanting to recover hit animals, they would ask for that STATISTICLY PROVEN tool to be legalized instead of changing archery regulations to allow electronics, because it would benefit muzzleloader and rifle hunters, too. Read that again; ALL hunters would benefit. It would be about recovering animals and not about being allowed to use another gadget.
I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…
So how about this one? http://www.unitedbloodtrackers.org/ (http://www.unitedbloodtrackers.org/)
No one is saying that a lighted nock will improve anything besides increasing someones chance of finding an arrow.
Not true: testimony was given to the WDFW Commission claiming otherwise. Listen for yourself...
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/12/audio_dec0410.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/12/audio_dec0410.html)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/03/audio_mar0511.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2011/03/audio_mar0511.html)
Post by: Lowedog on September 29, 2011, 06:10:08 AM
Sounds like he made a pretty sound case and at least one of the commissioners was in agreement.
I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…
So how about this one? http://www.unitedbloodtrackers.org/ (http://www.unitedbloodtrackers.org/)
Is this not currently legal? :dunno:
If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information.
Provide the sources and I’ll take a look; until then I suspect you are blowing smoke up my skirt.
Snapshot, I have read many of your posts and it surprises me to learn that you are a woman. I guess it just goes to show how little we know about the person behind these posts. :sry:
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 29, 2011, 09:54:21 AM
Wow, bowhunters sure get pissy after their season shuts down. Remember this come mid-november when I do...
We have been losing seasons/opportunity for years without lighted nocks. The cause is not related to lighted nocks. I wish bow-hunters could get as fired up and emotional and have a 26 page thread on the reasons for the loss of seasons/opportunity.
Did you enjoy hunting elk until only Sept. 18 this year instead of the 21st? Your early archery deer season went to Sept. 18th or the 23rd. Would you enjoy it more if it went to Sept. 31st? Your late season is 9 days this year. It use to be 2 weeks. Is it fun having more people crammed into a short amount of time or would you prefer to have the same number of hunters spaced over twice the amount of time? Success rates stay the same, relatively, while opportunity and the enjoyment/experience is going down.
Use whatever nock you want in your 9 day season... next year 8, next year 7, next year 6...0.
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 10:04:38 AM
Wow, bowhunters sure get pissy after their season shuts down. Remember this come mid-november when I do...
We have been losing seasons/opportunity for years without lighted nocks. The cause is not related to lighted nocks. I wish bow-hunters could get as fired up and emotional and have a 26 page thread on the reasons for the loss of seasons/opportunity.
Did you enjoy hunting elk until only Sept. 18 this year instead of the 21st? Your early archery deer season went to Sept. 18th or the 23rd. Would you enjoy it more if it went to Sept. 31st? Your late season is 9 days this year. It use to be 2 weeks. Is it fun having more people crammed into a short amount of time or would you prefer to have the same number of hunters spaced over twice the amount of time? Success rates stay the same, relatively, while opportunity and the enjoyment/experience is going down.
Use whatever nock you want in your 9 day season... next year 8, next year 7, next year 6...0.
So what are the reason(s) they are whittling away the seasons. No one is saying lighted nocks have had an impact on our seasons. We are worried, maybe wrongly, that they will be ANOTHER reason to shorten our seasons and cram us into few GMUs. So what have been the reason(s). I can get fired up about more than one thing at a time. Point me in the right direction and light the fuse. ;)
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 29, 2011, 10:07:55 AM
Wow, bowhunters sure get pissy after their season shuts down. Remember this come mid-november when I do...
We have been losing seasons/opportunity for years without lighted nocks. The cause is not related to lighted nocks. I wish bow-hunters could get as fired up and emotional and have a 26 page thread on the reasons for the loss of seasons/opportunity.
Did you enjoy hunting elk until only Sept. 18 this year instead of the 21st? Your early archery deer season went to Sept. 18th or the 23rd. Would you enjoy it more if it went to Sept. 31st? Your late season is 9 days this year. It use to be 2 weeks. Is it fun having more people crammed into a short amount of time or would you prefer to have the same number of hunters spaced over twice the amount of time? Success rates stay the same, relatively, while opportunity and the enjoyment/experience is going down.
Use whatever nock you want in your 9 day season... next year 8, next year 7, next year 6...0.
Popeshawn, have you joined WFW? We're addressing these issues with the WDFW now and have been during their season-setting period over the last few months. I personally sent letters to the WDFW requesting the old season lengths be brought back. Kain has be hammering them on the cougar seasons. We've all been hammering them on wolf introductions.
No one on this forum wants shorter seasons, lighted nocks or not. If you're truly passionate about hunting and want to do something to change the trend of shortening seasons in our state, join us in the WFW and get involved with us. http://www.washingtonforwildlife.org/cgi-bin/oc/register.cgi (http://www.washingtonforwildlife.org/cgi-bin/oc/register.cgi)
There is something you can do. Please put your registration to work for that which you believe. Registration is either free or $30, whichever you choose. PM me if you have questions.
John W
WFW Legislative Committee Chair
Post by: TheHunt on September 29, 2011, 10:10:57 AM
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 10:16:38 AM
Wow, bowhunters sure get pissy after their season shuts down. Remember this come mid-november when I do...
We have been losing seasons/opportunity for years without lighted nocks. The cause is not related to lighted nocks. I wish bow-hunters could get as fired up and emotional and have a 26 page thread on the reasons for the loss of seasons/opportunity.
Did you enjoy hunting elk until only Sept. 18 this year instead of the 21st? Your early archery deer season went to Sept. 18th or the 23rd. Would you enjoy it more if it went to Sept. 31st? Your late season is 9 days this year. It use to be 2 weeks. Is it fun having more people crammed into a short amount of time or would you prefer to have the same number of hunters spaced over twice the amount of time? Success rates stay the same, relatively, while opportunity and the enjoyment/experience is going down.
Use whatever nock you want in your 9 day season... next year 8, next year 7, next year 6...0.
Popeshawn, have you joined WFW? We're addressing these issues with the WDFW now and have been during their season-setting period over the last few months. I personally sent letters to the WDFW requesting the old season lengths be brought back. Kain has be hammering them on the cougar seasons. We've all been hammering them on wolf introductions.
No one on this forum wants shorter seasons, lighted nocks or not. If you're truly passionate about hunting and want to do something to change the trend of shortening seasons in our state, join us in the WFW and get involved with us. http://www.washingtonforwildlife.org/cgi-bin/oc/register.cgi (http://www.washingtonforwildlife.org/cgi-bin/oc/register.cgi)
There is something you can do. Please put your registration to work for that which you believe. Registration is either free or $30, whichever you choose. PM me if you have questions.
John W
WFW Legislative Committee Chair
I believe he's pretty involved already as the President of the WSB. Not that we couldn't use him in the WFW, just thought you should know he's already fighting pretty hard!
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 29, 2011, 10:23:07 AM
BTW, I saw you were at Loring. My mom lives in ME. I've killed quite a few Moosehead lake whitetails and more than my share of red squirrels as a kid. Great country. I do miss the hunting in the remote spots there.
Post by: huntnphool on September 29, 2011, 10:48:41 AM
You guys are missing the big picture, the hunting opportunities are still there, you simply need to apply to hunt them. The seasons have been shortened in the name of "revenue generation". Rather than being able to hunt those later dates in the general hunts you are used to, you now have to pay, in an attempt to draw either a multi weapon tag or a late hunt permit. $$$$$$$$$$$
Its all science based alright, "political science" :twocents:
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 11:10:49 AM
Yes he is the president of the WSB and is very involved. By the way, WSB supports the use of luminoks.
You guys are missing the big picture, the hunting opportunities are still there, you simply need to apply to hunt them. The seasons have been shortened in the name of "revenue generation". Rather than being able to hunt those later dates in the general hunts you are used to, you now have to pay, in an attempt to draw either a multi weapon tag or a late hunt permit. $$$$$$$$$$$
Its all science based alright, "political science" :twocents:
Not entirely correct, the WSBs position is they do not support or object if the WDFW wanted to allow lighted nocks, at least that is how Shawn explained it to me. I could be wrong, but I believe a majority of WSB members do support lighted nocks but a sizeable portion does not. If they will have no impact on the seasons and on the sport of bowhunting in WA I will withdraw my objection. Might not be any "studies" that say folks will take risker shots with lighted nocks. But since the growing trend, at least what I read here at HuntWa, the trend over the years has been longer and longer shots (which in my "elitist snobish mind" equals riskier). I believe it will result in an increase in wounding, but hey at least you guys will be able to find your arrows now.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 29, 2011, 11:12:38 AM
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 11:15:24 AM
Post by: huntnphool on September 29, 2011, 11:30:39 AM
the trend over the years has been longer and longer shots (which in my "elitist snobish mind" equals risker).
Confirming my original comment! These guys are taking these shots anyway, without the use of lumenoks. Its an ethics issue not a equipement issue, unless you want to debate the increased technology in the bows they are using, which enables them to take these shots. That, in no way, should be confused with a lighted nok but rather subject to an entirely new thread.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on September 29, 2011, 11:41:02 AM
The numbers are arranged differently over the years, but I found last years to be in an easy grab format. Well:
2001--I came up with the following
-78,419 elk hunters (eventhough close to 100k tags were sold--they say not all of them hunted)
-13,759 archers (17.5%)
-53,972 modern (68.8%)
-10,688 muzzy (13.6%)
2010
-71,418 elk hunters (-7,001 hunters 9% drop)
-16,582 archers (23.2%) (+3,003 hunters 22% increase)
-45,122 modern (63.2%) (-8,850 hunters 16% drop)
-9,714 muzzy (13.6%) (-974 hunters 9% drop)
I just used the numbers that covered the longest time span that my computer could view--I couldn't open earlier harvest reports.
I noticed overall the years in between there is a general climb in archery, but the other two are up and down, but the downs were lower than the highs were high. So from 2001 to 2010 it went from 1 in 6 elk hunters using a bow to 1 in 4.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 29, 2011, 11:45:42 AM
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 12:31:11 PM
the trend over the years has been longer and longer shots (which in my "elitist snobish mind" equals risker).
Confirming my original comment! These guys are taking these shots anyway, without the use of lumenoks. Its an ethics issue not a equipement issue, unless you want to debate the increased technology in the bows they are using, which enables them to take these shots. That, in no way, should be confused with a lighted nok but rather subject to an entirely new thread.
You are absolutely right, I just didn't see it before. Your right the guys who want lighted nocks are the guys already taking the risker, longer shots, so you are correct the wounding rate won't increase......that is what your saying right? 8) :chuckle:
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 12:33:00 PM
During the season setting meeting in Centralia, the WDFW elk guy told me that they decreased archery seasons because archery hunters were taking a larger percentage of bulls than rifle hunters.
Maybe % wise, but sheer numbers is not even close. It's the same :bs: , pitting each user group against the others. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 29, 2011, 12:43:19 PM
During the season setting meeting in Centralia, the WDFW elk guy told me that they decreased archery seasons because archery hunters were taking a larger percentage of bulls than rifle hunters.
Maybe % wise, but sheer numbers is not even close. It's the same :bs: , pitting each user group against the others. :twocents:
I agree. I also asked if they had increased the rifle season without decreasing the archery season if that would've messed up the bull to cow ratio, or meant too many animals would be taken, and couldn't get a direct answer. Political BS.
Post by: bullcanyon on September 29, 2011, 01:04:25 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 29, 2011, 02:02:23 PM
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 02:18:41 PM
I think we are on the same page technically Fred, the guys taking risky shots will do so regardless whether or not lumenoks are legalized. The difference is I believe it should be an individuals choice to use them or not since it is reactive to the shot, not proactive, and poses no advantage to the hunter over the prey.
Understand.
Post by: huntnphool on September 29, 2011, 03:14:42 PM
Quote
Quote from: Machias on Today at 02:02:23 PM
Understand.
Do you not feel bright fletching and nocks already accomplish the same thing though? Certainly not as clear or as bright in some circumstances, but do you feel they give the same results? I was watching a youtube video last night of about 90 shots with archery gear. Quite a few times the white cresting and fletching showed up even better than the lighted nocks. Granted in low light conditions they really shine, no pun intended. But there were certainly times and lighting conditions where the white cresting and fletching was much easier to see.
Actually no I don't feel they provide the same thing. For example, you shoot a deer 30 minutes before the end of legal shooting light, perfect hit and the deer bounds off through the brush. You wait 30-45 minutes so as not to push the animal too hard, now it's dark. Those bright fletching are not going to do near the job a lighted nok will do.
Post by: Snapshot on September 29, 2011, 03:16:04 PM
Snapshot, I only had time right now to listen to the first clip where Jim Sutton gave a presentation for lighted nocks. Maybe I missed something but I didn't hear anything where it is claimed to do anything but help a person find their arrow. He did say something along the lines of they can help with finding an arrow therefor allowing the hunter to address how an animal was hit.
Sounds like he made a pretty sound case and at least one of the commissioners was in agreement.
Listen again; his claim is, in part, that it is a conservation measure (Maybe he jumped on that bandwagon when he learned that only conservation measures will be considered for scrutiny in these hard financial times). Commissioner Douvia asked him to come back with some proof from other states that they actually serve as a conversation tool and he came back empty-handed (they don't keep records of wounding, he told them). So he asked some of the guys he knows who hunt what they'd do if they wounded an animal and couldn't find it, and then reports to the Commission that almost all of them said they'd try to kill a different deer. And at one point he goes so far as to suggest that just one deer instead of as many as three will be taken from the herd if electric nocks are employed.
Oh, and that it is a safety issue; has anyone ever heard of someone suffering an injury by kicking someone else's lost arrow while hunting? I haven't.
I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…
http://www.unitedbloodtrackers.org/ (http://www.unitedbloodtrackers.org/)
Is this not currently legal?
No it isn't. But if it were folks who like to work dogs in the woods would have a whole new recreational activity, wouldn’t they? They might provide the service for free or they might charge a fee. Either way when Joe-hunter finds himself in a pickle, unable to make out the bloodtrail, can phone a friend and use a tool that truly is a conservation measure.
If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information.
Provide the sources and I’ll take a look; until then I suspect you are blowing smoke up my skirt.
Snapshot, I have read many of your posts and it surprises me to learn that you are a woman. I guess it just goes to show how little we know about the person behind these posts.
No need for an apology, LD, because it was a figure of speech. No woman parts here.
Post by: Machias on September 29, 2011, 03:21:25 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 29, 2011, 03:29:12 PM
I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…Is this not currently legal?
Snapshot, I have read many of your posts and it surprises me to learn that you are a woman. I guess it just goes to show how little we know about the person behind these posts.
Snapshot, I never made either of these comments, would you mind please cleaning this up, thank you.
Post by: WildWind1 on September 29, 2011, 08:33:58 PM
Snapshot, if you listen I said two of the guys that did the survey, I knew personally. The other 48 I did not. And please don't mis-quote me like the story in the spokesman.
"This information is at least supported by a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks study on elk wounding lost conducted in the late 1980s. Researchers found that of the bowhunters who hit an elk with an arrow, only about 50 percent were able to recover the animal."
Ok, there ya go, contact them youself. ;)
Post by: Snapshot on September 30, 2011, 10:16:45 AM
Snapshot, bloodtracking dogs are legal in WA....well at least they are not illegal if they remain on a leash and no one is armed.
From the Game Regulations:
9. Using dogs:
• Hunting wild animals with dogs during any deer or elk modern firearm season is
• Hunting wild animals with dogs during any deer or elk modern firearm season is
prohibited.
• Allowing a dog, owned or controlled by
you, to pursue or injure deer or elk or to
accompany you while you are hunting
deer or elk is prohibited.
The verbiage implies that they aren't but, yes, a lawyer might get a guy off the hook. During the legal proceedings that would follow issuing a ticket for using dog to find a dead deer the definition of 'while you are hunting' will be picked apart.
Ask the chief of enforcement if it is legal and I think he'll say "No."
It would need to be stated concisely because your interpretation, Machias, is the exception not the rule; most people I've talked to about it feel that the verbiage prohibits them from taking Tuffy into the woods.
It would need to read along these lines: "The use of leashed tracking dogs to assist in the recovery of legally shot deer or elk is permitted. Before initiating tracking with a dog, the handler must first notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife."
From WAC 232-13:
Rules governing pets allow hunters to use
hunting dogs under their control, but not to letthem or other pets roam unattended.
Does this trump the verbiage in the game regulations that saying "Allowing a dog to accompany you while you are hunting deer or elk is prohibited"? I would doubt so, and besides this only applies to WDFW lands.
Post by: Snapshot on September 30, 2011, 10:31:35 AM
So he asked some of the guys he knows who hunt what they'd do if they wounded an animal and couldn't find it, and then reports to the Commission that almost all of them said they'd try to kill a different deer.
Snapshot, if you listen I said two of the guys that did the survey, I knew personally. The other 48 I did not. And please don't mis-quote me like the story in the spokesman.
"This information is at least supported by a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks study on elk wounding lost conducted in the late 1980s. Researchers found that of the bowhunters who hit an elk with an arrow, only about 50 percent were able to recover the animal."
Ok, there ya go, contact them youself. ;)
I stand corrected. Two you knew personally; with the other forty-eight you were just in the same place at the same time and asked them some questions. I get the picture.
Mr Landers misquoted you? Really? I love to know, where? This part?
"A Spokane sportsman says the state should consider his bright idea for reducing the number of deer and elk wasted by archery hunters."
Or here?
“It’s a conservation measure,” he said, noting that 45 states allow lighted nocks for bowhunting.
Did Mr Landers throw in the bit about Montana and elk wounding on his own or did you talk with him about that? Thanks for the lead there; I will see if I can find out who did the study...
Post by: BULLBLASTER on September 30, 2011, 10:40:25 AM
Machias was saying that it isn't illegal to take your dog for a walk on leash in the general area of a wounded deer. A person walking a dog on leash without a bow can't be bowhunting. Simply walking their dog. No law against dog walking.
Post by: Snapshot on September 30, 2011, 11:22:21 AM
Snapshot,
Machias was saying that it isn't illegal to take your dog for a walk on leash in the general area of a wounded deer. A person walking a dog on leash without a bow can't be bowhunting. Simply walking their dog. No law against dog walking.
So a person packing out an elk quarter or dragging out a deer who has a leashed dog along side him hasn't been hunting? Might you not agree that although there is a loophole (no law against walking the dog) the potential for a sticky situation with law enforcement would exist? Whereas a simple rule saying that it is okay to use a leashed bloodtraking dog would make it known to all hunters, no matter the weapon they choose to use, that it is all right to call cousin Bert and have him bring Fido out to help find the deer/elk.
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2011, 11:43:34 AM
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
The phroibition on page 72: 9. Using dogs: • Hunting wild animals with dogs during any deer or elk modern firearm season is prohibited. • Allowing a dog, owned or controlled by you, to pursue or injure deer or elk or to accompany you while you are hunting deer or elk is prohibited. • Hunting or pursuing any big game animal, bobcat, or coyote with dogs is prohibited, except cougar hunting as permitted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. The whole key is hunting and pursuit, neither of which can occur while the dog is on the leash. No weapon and dog on a leash they cannot cite you according to their own regulations. Everyone gets hung up on the what are you doing while leading the dog when they should realize that until you unsnap the lead you are not pursuing, by their own definition on
Page 58: "Transporting a dog(s) in a motorized vehicle or walking a dog on a leash is not pursuit."
Post by: Snapshot on September 30, 2011, 11:51:54 AM
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2011, 11:57:43 AM
Post by: seth30 on September 30, 2011, 12:00:26 PM
Finish that line though, accomany you WHILE HUNTING.....unarmed; not hunting.:yeah:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on September 30, 2011, 12:18:01 PM
I am hung up on the line that says "or to accompany you". That is pretty cut and dried.
Take Fido back to the truck before you ever touch the dead deer or elk that he may have run across... I still see no problem.
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2011, 12:28:47 PM
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2011, 12:30:41 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on September 30, 2011, 12:36:12 PM
Post by: Machias on September 30, 2011, 12:37:09 PM
Post by: Lowedog on September 30, 2011, 02:58:10 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on September 30, 2011, 04:47:13 PM
I thought it was about someone using illuminocks on a television show, then we got side tracked into whether or not they should be legal :dunno:
and then it just naturally drifted into whether or not they were necessary,
But even the original post STILL HAD THE ARROW IN THE DEER !!, so it really made no difference what nock was used.
Or do you need to have a light on your deer to find them too ? :sas:
I never said the nock was unethical, I just think that it will allow unethical hunters to take more chances than they do already, as it is a $$$ saving device.
I do not judge based on equipment, only actions.
Post by: WildWind1 on September 30, 2011, 08:56:34 PM
So he asked some of the guys he knows who hunt what they'd do if they wounded an animal and couldn't find it, and then reports to the Commission that almost all of them said they'd try to kill a different deer.
Snapshot, if you listen I said two of the guys that did the survey, I knew personally. The other 48 I did not. And please don't misquote me like the story in the spokesman.
"This information is at least supported by a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks study on elk wounding lost conducted in the late 1980s. Researchers found that of the bowhunters who hit an elk with an arrow, only about 50 percent were able to recover the animal."
OK, there ya go, contact them youself. ;)
I stand corrected. Two you knew personally; with the other forty-eight you were just in the same place at the same time and asked them some questions. I get the picture.
The other 48 were not in the same room , nice implication. They were anonymous and asked at different archery locations around Spokane to be correct.
Mr Landers misquoted you? Really? I love to know, where? This part?
"A Spokane sportsman says the state should consider his bright idea for reducing the number of deer and elk wasted by archery hunters." I did not use the term wasted, I used the term wounded..
Or here?
It's a conservation measure,” he said, noting that 45 states allow lighted nocks for bowhunting. It is a conservation measure if your not losing game.
Did Mr Landers throw in the bit about Montana and elk wounding on his own or did you talk with him about that? Thanks for the lead there; I will see if I can find out who did the study...
The study is real look it up and FYI Mr. Landers found that one not me.
You like apples?
How ya like those apples ???
Post by: huntnphool on September 30, 2011, 09:20:57 PM
I just think that it will allow unethical hunters to take more chances than they do already, as it is a $$$ saving device.
I do not judge based on equipment, only actions.
Do the ethical hunters need to be penalized because a few unethical hunters make bad decisions? The liberal thinking in this country has gotten nauseous, focus should be aimed at the people making the poor decisions.
This is exactly the same type of thinking that has the liberal think tank in DC trying to figure out a way to ban firearms, the ethical people are the ones that are effected the most. :twocents:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 01, 2011, 10:27:57 AM
The point you seem to be missing is, I am not against them being legalized, it makes no difference to me.I just think that it will allow unethical hunters to take more chances than they do already, as it is a $$$ saving device.
I do not judge based on equipment, only actions.
Do the ethical hunters need to be penalized because a few unethical hunters make bad decisions? The liberal thinking in this country has gotten nauseous, focus should be aimed at the people making the poor decisions.
This is exactly the same type of thinking that has the liberal think tank in DC trying to figure out a way to ban firearms, the ethical people are the ones that are effected the most. :twocents:
I also feel that it is an eventuality that they, and expandable broadheads, will be allowed.
I just get tired of the argument that they will assist in animal recovery.
In a very few situations, yes
but the only tangible benefit is that they look cool, and help recover your arrow.
And then I point out that a minority will be tempted to make poor decisions, and my feelings that wounding loss will be increased by those that do.
ETHICAL hunters will be penalised by our inability to keep the unethical hunters from making us look like we are all more concerned with the equipment we carry than the animals we pursue.
does the end, justify the means ?
Should we allow free choice in equipment, just because that is our right as Americans ?
Should we use the latest technology, simply because it improves our chances to be effective killing machines,
And technological advancements are necessary for our success afield.
Or should we strive to present an image where we limit ourselves because we feel that hunting with archery tackle connects us to a natural world, and the animals.
and we hunt with Archery tackle because we enjoy the increased challenge ? :dunno:
And on a side note...
Quote
The liberal thinking in this country has gotten nauseous, focus should be aimed at the people making the poor decisions.I think this is more of a CONSERVATIVE thinking than liberal...
Post by: huntnphool on October 01, 2011, 11:46:37 AM
Should we allow free choice in equipment, just because that is our right as Americans ?
YES!!!! I'm not about to give up any of my rights as an American, if you choose to then thats your prerogative, don't complain when they take away another, and another, and another then.
If trad guys don't want to use lumenoks then they can choose not to, for them to whine and make up BS, non founded, speculated excuses is wrong, its just a selfish excuse for them to pressure WDFW for their own seasons. You don't want to drive the posted limit on the interstate then fine, move right and get the f#$% out of the way, let those that do make their own choice without you holding everything up. ("You" being a general term and not directed at you personaly) ;)
As far as conservatives vs libs, I think you are confused as to which side Obummer and Pelosi are on, they can never be confused with conservatives.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 01, 2011, 01:36:22 PM
Quote
This is exactly the same type of thinking that has the liberal think tank in DC trying to figure out a way to ban firearms, the ethical people are the ones that are effected the most
Quote
As far as conservatives vs libs, I think you are confused as to which side Obummer and Pelosi are on, they can never be confused with conservatives.I was not referring to Obama and Pelosi, I was referring to the attitude that "anything goes, that is my right as an American being "liberal" thinking, while a stricter adherance to the laws as written being conservative, and the desire to keep it the way it is (was).
To use your own example, the "liberal think tank in DC trying to figure out a way to ban firearms" would compare the liberal bowhunters allowing new technology into bowhunting, to give A FEW bowhunters the opportunity to make THE MAJORITY look bad, thereby permitting THE NON_HUNTING public to have a negative opinion about ALL BOWHUNTERS.
It is not just the "Trad Guys", but until recently a MAJORITY of ALL BOWHUNTERS that were against the use.
Now times have changed, more guy are getting into bowhunting, for various reasons, but you will never convince me that our argument is any less significant, or is any more " BS, non founded, speculated excuses" than the "modern" hunters arguments based upon research by manufacturers and others that are only interested in marketing a product.
I have been Bowhunting for 24 years, have managed to harvest 5 Elk, and 18 deer, have only lost one deer, and one Elk, the deer because of a poorly designed broadhead, and the elk because of a poor choice in hunting companions, not once in my time hunting with archery equipment did my choice of nock have anything to do with harvest.
I do not say that it will have ANY effect on season structure, or success rates, merely that I feel it is just one more nail in the coffin of separate archery seasons.
I do not feel that Traditional Archers need their own seasons, or units. I just feel that Archery seasons need to remain as they are, and if you want to change the rules to compensate (("You" being a general term and not directed at you personally) for your own shortcomings, and be allowed to use the latest technology to enhance your abilities, then by all means "get on the Interstate" and hunt during a "modern Season", but if you like "cruising the back-roads" (Archery or Muzzleloader seasons) please do not try to force your "Change" on me, as that is more similar to "which side Obummer and Pelosi are on" than my own personal views.
Post by: Snapshot on October 01, 2011, 02:02:38 PM
YES!!!! I'm not about to give up any of my rights as an American...
Should we allow free choice in equipment, just because that is our right as Americans ?
For those whose blood has been on this continent for at least a few generations, if your father's grandfather (or maybe one step further back) had not willingly given up an American hunting right we probably wouldn't have any free roaming game animals to hunt today. I consider us fortunate that Teddy Roosevelt and company who thought of the future and not only themselves saw to it that market hunting, a right of all Americans for the century and a quarter prior, was stopped while there were still some game animals left. People screamed bloody murder about it at the time, "HOW DARE THEY SAY WE CAN'T HUNT HOW WE WANT WHEN WE WANT?" But in the end the conservation ethic that was birthed out of that argument has led to you and me, the future generations that Roosevelt was thinking of, having the good hunting opportunities we enjoy. My point is, "Get out of the way..." (to let us do anything we want to do) is selfish.
Further, in my opinion, this issue of keeping electronics out of archery hunting has nothing whatsoever to do with separate seasons. Talk about made-up, BS, non-founded, speculated excuses...Holy Smoke! (right up my skirt). ;)
Politics? BIG TIME :jacked: now; but it will catapult the thread to the 30 (+) page mark; no doubt about it.
Post by: huntnphool on October 01, 2011, 05:59:34 PM
Quote
I do not care what you use to hunt with, but I do feel that Lumenocs, lighted sight pins, etc, are not used by guys that hunt with a bow for the same reasons I do, they are entitled to their choices, and I see no reason why they should NOT be able to use them, but if you use a weapon with "self imposed limitations" such as Archery equipment, why do you want to add stuff to it to make things easier ?
I also read similar statements by a couple other guys in this thread. Here is one of the issues that perhaps a lot of the trad guys have not taken into account. There are several factors that have led to the number of archery hunters increasing over the years, one of the big reasons is the length of the season and the advancement in tech/gear. You are correct that these guys are not hunting with a bow for the same reason you are. They are hunting with a bow because of the longer seasons. It stands to reason that this is where the big push for rules to be changed. One more thing, I have hunted with archery gear during a modern season. For me its not about the weapon choice but rather the time of year I want to hunt. If it were legal to use archery gear during a muzzy season then I would be purchasing a muzzy "season" tag each year rather than archery.
Snapshot, I'm not suggesting that it be a free for all with gear, I do not support electronics on bows etc, I do not see why the use of a post shot product is prohibited though. Also, it was brought up a while ago that perhaps trad guys should get their own seasons, separate from the guys with "training wheels" and lumenoks. It was also speculated that it would lead to shorter seasons, another political type comment that once said, even without a shred of merit, is subconsciously stored.
Post by: Machias on October 01, 2011, 09:50:04 PM
Post by: WildWind1 on October 01, 2011, 11:01:36 PM
Machias, let us know how the ez7 shoots?
Post by: Lowedog on October 02, 2011, 09:43:26 AM
They like to brag about how they only have lost one or 2 animals over decades of archery hunting at no fault of their own no less. They have created some grand illusions of themselves being one with nature and no one else could possibly be hunting for the reasons they are. Hunting with what they call "traditional" gear has somehow connected them to the past where they can walk side by side with the "fore fathers" of archery only hunting. (lets not bring up the point that the "fore fathers" had a product to sell also)
Get off your high horse. If you are against allowing more technology in archery then leave it at that. Suggesting that anyone that uses anything but what you do are making up for shortcomings is not an argument and it just makes you sound like an ass.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 02, 2011, 10:21:32 AM
See, I like the argument from the opposing camp that simply states that "I don't want electronics allowed in archery seasons". It is the degrading comments from the elitist snobs who have a superiority complex on here that bother me.I guess you mean me... :hello:
They like to brag about how they only have lost one or 2 animals over decades of archery hunting at no fault of their own no less. They have created some grand illusions of themselves being one with nature and no one else could possibly be hunting for the reasons they are. Hunting with what they call "traditional" gear has somehow connected them to the past where they can walk side by side with the "fore fathers" of archery only hunting. (lets not bring up the point that the "fore fathers" had a product to sell also)
Get off your high horse. If you are against allowing more technology in archery then leave it at that. Suggesting that anyone that uses anything but what you do are making up for shortcomings is not an argument and it just makes you sound like an ass.
Not bragging, and I did say the lost animals were due to poor choices.
I do not have a "grand illusion" of myself, I know I am not the best (or even top 1000+'s hunter out there) I also do not say that anyone who uses anything different than I do.. etc.
I said that anyone who says that they NEED to use new technology is relying on it as a substitute for skills they lack.
If they said they want to use it just because they think it is cool, that is understandable.
But to claim it will have a major influence on their ability to recover an animal, then they are admitting that they have a problem utilizing abilities to read sign and follow tracks.
Just because I like to walk around with a recurve makes me no different than someone who uses a compound, I don't think it makes me more connected, it is the fact that I do not try to add things to my bow/arrow combination other than my eyes and ears in an effort to increase my range and ability to shoot in lower light situations, that connects me.
As far as me being against allowing more technology, I have stated repeatedly that I am not against it, I just feel it is unnecessary.
I must have some sort of communication block that keeps portraying me as an "Elitist Snob" as I welcome all hunters in my camp and appreciate their equipment as efficient arrow launching devices.
The choice to use whatever you want is yours, but as in all choices there is some give and take, when you choose to use archery tackle to hunt with, you make the choice freely.
To then decide that it is too limiting, and cry for change, well that is a good enough reason for me to feel that I am different, as I accepted the limits and then went a step further (in my own style)
My "connection" has to do with learning how to get closer to the animals, not increasing my effective range, or using attachments to my equipment to make it easier.
As far as my reverence of the fathers of our sport, yes they had a product to sell, but if it were not for them we would be hunting during modern seasons, if that is what you want to do, welcome to it.
I never claimed to be "better", I just stated my position. I only have one small Bull (242") and the rest are all meat (cows, does, spikes, forks) so I am not saying that I am a better hunter, I merely pointed out that THE NOCK END OF MY ARROW NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH RECOVERY.
Post by: Snapshot on October 02, 2011, 11:37:58 AM
The study is real look it up and FYI Mr. Landers found that one not me.
The first fact I found when looking at a document from the 1986 Western States and Provinces Workshop is that Montana did not have a "choose your weapon" rule (and I believe still doesn't, but I could be wrong about that). So anyone could get themselves a bow to dick around with until the rifle season opened. In that document the Colorado representative explained that in his state believed that "choose your weapon" had taken the not-dedicated-to-bowhunting bowhunters out of the archery season. He said, "We feel now that we've boiled archery hunting down to the real archery users, the people who are willing to practice with a bow. I think it's cut our wounding loss quite a bit."
More to follow if I find anything relevant...
Post by: Machias on October 02, 2011, 01:59:52 PM
See, I like the argument from the opposing camp that simply states that "I don't want electronics allowed in archery seasons". It is the degrading comments from the elitist snobs who have a superiority complex on here that bother me.
They like to brag about how they only have lost one or 2 animals over decades of archery hunting at no fault of their own no less. They have created some grand illusions of themselves being one with nature and no one else could possibly be hunting for the reasons they are. Hunting with what they call "traditional" gear has somehow connected them to the past where they can walk side by side with the "fore fathers" of archery only hunting. (lets not bring up the point that the "fore fathers" had a product to sell also)
Get off your high horse. If you are against allowing more technology in archery then leave it at that. Suggesting that anyone that uses anything but what you do are making up for shortcomings is not an argument and it just makes you sound like an ass.
I haven't lost an arrow or an animal in probably 20 years. Has nothing to do with being sooo much better. It comes from earlier mistakes, shooting too far, shooting at alert animals, shooting at bad angles. I haven't lost an animal or an arrow in alot of years because of the mistakes I made as a kid. I started archery hunting in 1979. Do we all have to make the same mistakes or can some of these guys maybe learn from some of our mistakes? The reason I haven't lost an arrow is now, no matter what, I won't take a bad shot. Doesn't mean I will never again loose an animal or an arrow, but I try my hardest not too. Preaching to the younger crowd or guys just taking up this great sport is not to be superior, it's hopefully they will not have to experience firsthand some of the heartaches associated with long range shooting, shooting at alert animals etc... The sport is also under alot more scrutiny than it used to be.
Will do Wildwind1. :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on October 02, 2011, 02:01:11 PM
So anyone could get themselves a bow to dick around with until the rifle season opened.
Just an FYI Snapshot, Montana requires a archery class or proof from the previous year that you hunted a archery season, eg. previous years license, to purchase a archery stamp. ;)
Its actually easier in Washington to buy a archery license. :twocents:
Post by: Snapshot on October 02, 2011, 03:29:14 PM
Yes, Montana requires that now, HnP, but did they in 1986? Not that it really matters now...but maybe it was that workshop that led to a rule change.
Post by: dreamunelk on October 02, 2011, 04:50:11 PM
http://www.nocull.org/Documentation/bowhunting_report.pdf (http://www.nocull.org/Documentation/bowhunting_report.pdf)
http://www.bowhuntersofutah.net/phocadownload/Miscellaneous/wendy%20krueger%20wounding%20study.pdf (http://www.bowhuntersofutah.net/phocadownload/Miscellaneous/wendy%20krueger%20wounding%20study.pdf)
http://www.thearcher.com/depot/resourceCentre/BowhuntingBook.pdf (http://www.thearcher.com/depot/resourceCentre/BowhuntingBook.pdf)
http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/MORTON-432-438.pdf (http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/MORTON-432-438.pdf)
I am basically against any electronic devise and lots of other things. I am a rifle, compound, and a long bow hunter. Basically depends on where I am. but, mainly traditional. However, as it seams the overall opinion for this by my fellow hunters is that they want it. So I would support. However, I think we need to take a hard look at what we are promoting. I firmly believe the wounding rate has increased based on the number of elk I know that have been harvested with old broadheads in them. I firmly believe this is because we have to many people who are just shooting to far and taking percentage shots. I often wonder how did we ever hunt with out all the modern tools? Are we more efficient now or less? Are we losing the connection that we once had? It is basically up to the individual. However, as a group I think we are doing a poor job of representing our selves. I am not that old and can remember a time when it was consider okay to take a week off from school to go deer or elk hunting. When you went in to the grocery store people wished you luck. That has really changed. Should we just blame the antis and be done with it or should we ask our selves what we did wrong. The sad truth is it is a combination of both. I really do not think the equipment makes the hunter, but it can make the killer. Think about it!
Post by: rooselk on October 02, 2011, 05:24:46 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on October 02, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Washington bowhunting seasons were established and then defended by bowhunting pioneers like Kore Duryee, Glenn St. Charles and others who used traditional archery equipment. Although those earlier pioneers were ultimately successful in establishing our bowhunting seasons, it is also true that they did so despite facing significant opposition. What I find ironic in this current discussion is that the advocates of allowing more technology in our archery seasons make the very same arguments as those long ago who opposed the establishment of our archery seasons. And I find that truly sad, to say nothing of divisive.
You are correct and what you say is very true. I really wish we could get back to the basics instead of supporting an industry that really only cares about the next years sales. I firmly believe if we went back to the some of the basics we would see a decrease in bow hunters and a resulting increase in credibility. But, I am in the minority and think that I should once in awhile go with the majority. However, now that I ponder this I wonder if I am being hypocritical.
Post by: Lowedog on October 02, 2011, 06:08:28 PM
Washington bowhunting seasons were established and then defended by bowhunting pioneers like Kore Duryee, Glenn St. Charles and others who used traditional archery equipment. Although those earlier pioneers were ultimately successful in establishing our bowhunting seasons, it is also true that they did so despite facing significant opposition. What I find ironic in this current discussion is that the advocates of allowing more technology in our archery seasons make the very same arguments as those long ago who opposed the establishment of our archery seasons. And I find that truly sad, to say nothing of divisive.
That is a reach to say the least. No one is using any argument that a bow is an ineffective tool to kill an animal with.
Also, in the days that you speak of those guys didn't use "traditional" equipment by choice. They used what was available at the time or built their own. I don't believe it was considered "traditional" at the time, it was simply considered archery. If they were trying to be "traditional" back in 1938 they would have been using sticks of wood with a sharp rock on it and a branch for a bow with a sinew string. I believe that is where the opposition came from back in those days. They had to show that archery equipment had advanced enough in technology to become an effective hunting weapon. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on October 02, 2011, 06:12:42 PM
Quote
See, this guy is out there flinging arrows all over the place and isn't using Lumenoks. Just as I pointed out earlier, those that take questionable or risky shots are going to, regardless whether or not they are using them, its a matter of ethics/sense and not a matter of gear.
Post by: rooselk on October 02, 2011, 06:40:44 PM
But it is true, as you say, that those earlier bowhunters didn't call their equipment "traditional".That designation came much later, following the invention of the compound. That said, I am not arguing against compounds. I'm merely pointing out that there comes a point when new technology crosses a line that goes against the very reason our archery seasons were established in the first place.
Post by: dreamunelk on October 02, 2011, 06:49:02 PM
I'm merely pointing out that there comes a point when new technology crosses a line that goes against the very reason our archery seasons were established in the first place.
rooselk, Well said.
Post by: Snapshot on October 02, 2011, 07:14:08 PM
No one is using any argument that a bow is an ineffective tool to kill an animal with.
But that is exactly the implication! In essence the pro argument for needing it suggests that bowhunting is broken, that it has a deficiency, and that the lighted nock is needed to somehow set things right. It undermines the whole history of legitimate archery hunting in Washington.
Post by: huntnphool on October 02, 2011, 07:36:41 PM
But that is exactly the implication! In essence the pro argument for needing it
Easy there Snapshot, who said we "need" it, it wasn't me or Lowedog. I don't "need" it but would like to have the option to use it if I wanted. I don't like anyone or any group dictating what I can and can't do based on their own beliefs. A long as this country is still free I prefer to have the choice of whether or not I buy my kid a Big Mac and fries. ;)
Post by: Machias on October 02, 2011, 07:48:48 PM
From the trespassing thread;QuoteSee, this guy is out there flinging arrows all over the place and isn't using Lumenoks. Just as I pointed out earlier, those that take questionable or risky shots are going to, regardless whether or not they are using them, its a matter of ethics/sense and not a matter of gear.
How do you know he's not using a lighted nock? From the reviews I have been reading about a third of the time they don't even work...or have they gotten better the last few years? Most of those reviews were from a few years ago.
Post by: dreamunelk on October 02, 2011, 07:52:16 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 02, 2011, 08:00:02 PM
How do you know he's not using a lighted nock?Quote
Well he is hunting in Washington, where currently they are not legal to use, so....
Then again, he is also being accused of trespassing, showing no regard for rules or laws... :o
Post by: Lowedog on October 02, 2011, 09:13:07 PM
Lowedog, it's not at all a reach. One only needs to read what those who opposed establishing bowhunting seasons said 70 years ago to some of the stuff written in this thread to find that the arguments used are exactly the same.
But it is true, as you say, that those earlier bowhunters didn't call their equipment "traditional".That designation came much later, following the invention of the compound. That said, I am not arguing against compounds. I'm merely pointing out that there comes a point when new technology crosses a line that goes against the very reason our archery seasons were established in the first place.
It is a reach because no one here is arguing against bow hunting. I have been involved in this thread pretty much since the beginning. Show me where anyone is saying that a lighted nock is needed and bowhunting is ineffective without it. I have only read what some believe will be a benefit if it is allowed. There are those who feel that we need to draw a line and not allow any type of electronics in archery only seasons and that is fine. But show me where anyone has argued that it needs to be allowed and archery hunting is not effective without it. That is a ridiculous jump to try and make comparing those who opposed archery only seasons back in 1938 to those who think a lighted nock should be allowed today.
Again, archery only seasons were not established for the use of "traditional" or "primitive" weapons. That was the archery equipment that was available at the time. The archery equipment being developed back then was advancing technology and that has never stopped and never will. Most of the men who fought for archery only seasons were bowyers and the bows they were building were cutting edge for their time. Those men weren't saying give us archery only seasons because our weapons are primitive, it was more like look how advanced and effective our equipment is. It is human nature to always improve a tool. Take a look at the top so called "traditional" bows being built today. Today's bowyers are constantly using more advanced materials to make bows faster, quieter and more lethal.
Post by: UptheCreek on October 02, 2011, 09:36:39 PM
Post by: Machias on October 02, 2011, 09:39:44 PM
How do you know he's not using a lighted nock?
Well he is hunting in Washington, where currently they are not legal to use, so....
Then again, he is also being accused of trespassing, showing no regard for rules or laws... :o
:chuckle:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 02, 2011, 11:16:03 PM
What have we acheived ?
Some people want to use them, some dont. :twocents:
Will they be legalised ? most likely...
no matter what you cannot stop "progress" :o :rolleyes:
What is the next thing ?
Even one of my "heroes" had fears about the future of Archery, advocating the use of POD's, Fred Bear went to his grave convinced that the use of drug-tipped arrows would somehow be beneficial to bowhunting.
To quote
Quote
if we don’t do something to clean up our ranks the time will most surely come when we will be unmasked, the impotency of our weapons revealed, and we will stand there with bowed heads faintly mumbling, yes, you are right.Now, I guess a Lumenoc will allow you to see where you hit in a low light situation, if you have trouble seeing, but as clearly stated it has no effect upon arrow flight, so therefore should be allowed..
“… no archer, no matter how good he is, except under certain circumstances, can be sure of hitting an animal where he wants to hit him at bow shot distances.
I really have no opposition to them, people will do what they do, my main reason for engaging in this debate was to attempt to figure out why those that want them feel so strongly about them.
I mean even expandables do not get this much controversy.
I have heard a lot of arguments, but the only one in my opinion is creditable is the ability to recover an arrow that otherwise would have been lost.
I understand that, I currently have one of my Bill Sweetland compressed cedar arrows out in my yard, I know where it went, but still cannot find it, it has white wrap, white fletching, but is buried in the dirt, grass and leaves of my yard. :bash:
I released it at a target (grouse) and missed, it is an irreplaceable arrow (ever try to buy a 1/2 doz Sweetlands?) custom built for me by Larry StLarent , adapters from Joe StCharles, and tipped with an Asbell Broadhead, sure wish it had a lighted nock so I could find it (although they do not come in that size, or glue on)
I understand why some would want them.
I am not against them, what I am against is the fact that in order to change the regs, it would affect the laws written, without Lumenocs in mind, creating a reason for "exceptions" to be written, and then what is next ?
I fear that the constant desire to rewrite the regs, will only contribute to what an awful lot of you already complain about being "too confusing"
How would "does not aid in aiming, or accuracy" fit in ? there goes your sights, releases, etc.
If we strive for change in our regs, "no mounted electronics", except for lighted nocks and cameras, seems simple, but would it stop at that ?
I have been accused of being an "Elitist Snob" because I feel that because I use a recurve, and don't release an arrow unless I am 100% positive I have an unobstructed shot at an animal within my self imposed limited range, and feel that all Bowhunters, regardless of weapon, should understand that to hunt with Archery equipment is a close range sport, and taking shots where they are unsure of arrow flight, or impact locations should rely upon their instincts and not on some device that lights up their nock.
I also feel that when you decide to use Archery equipment, you do so knowing the limits, and restrictions, and to then complain about not being allowed to use something that is not legal, well I have no sympathy.
To claim that it is your right as an American to use whatever you feel is acceptable, to hell with what those that have been doing it for decades think, well... I think you know how I feel about the "righteous sense of entitlement" that seems to be how "modern thinking" next thing you know you will complain about illegal immigrants, welfare, Obama, etc.. When you are acting just like them... :sry:
I am for Also my estimation that SOME archers might take shots that they normally would pass on because it would not cost them a $$$ arrow, well unfounded as MY OPINION might be, I have witnessed a lot of so called "Bowhunters" engaged in what in my opinion is sheer idiocy, and do feel that an idiot with a lighted nock will take more chances when he has nothing to lose.
Quote
I now have to apologize for my comments, I meant no disrespect to anyone, I just had a few beers, and overreacted, but as a "Self Righteous Elitist Snob" who thinks he is somehow better because of the equipment he uses, felt that my opinion actually meant something, but have come to realize that my opinion actually only counts as much as yours. See you at the meetings !
Post by: rooselk on October 02, 2011, 11:37:34 PM
Post by: Lowedog on October 03, 2011, 06:16:01 AM
I haven't read much of his writings but I have read a bit about the history of archery hunting seasons. What were the concerns about modern archery? That the equipment would become too efficient and increase the distance one could shoot? Those bowhunting pioneers are well documented with taking shots with recurves and long bows at distances that most compound shooters of today wouldn't take. They also missed a lot and wounded a lot of game. If those men were alive today and hunted like they did back in the day they would be ridiculed by the people on here who hold them at such high regards.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 03, 2011, 08:21:51 AM
I still have it, just because of his signature (and it is an unsellable piece of garbage)
Yes, he had Martin make a compound for his store, and sold Martin bows.
However he also reduced his inventory of Compound bows and began selling staves and roughed out bows to try to regain the connection to what he felt was "true Archery"
Although he ran a business, he did not just carry products to make a profit, he honestly cared about Archery.
As far as I remember hearing from him, his concerns were not about equipment becoming too efficient, or increased distance,
but in Archery not being a form of connecting to the equipment and a way of hunting, and in a disassociation from the equipment and Archery being more of a way of just harvesting an animal than a style of hunting.
As far as the shots they took, the animals they lost/wounded, and just plain missed, well that is true.
They also did not wear seatbelts, paint had lead in it, Every pick up truck at the local High School had a firearm in it in the fall, the Internet was not invented, there were no animal rights activists, etc...
the common perception was to put a heavy arrow with a sharp broadhead into the animal, and let it do its job.
After practicing on targets out to 100 yards, and being able to CONSISTANTLY hit the target, they felt comfortable releasing arrows out to that distance, and considering most hunting arrows ran 800+gr. they had the energy to penetrate.
You are correct to say that "If those men were alive today and hunted like they did back in the day they would be ridiculed by the people on here who hold them at such high regards. "
but... I hold them in high regards because they were the PIONEERS of the sport, and dealt with adversity you have no way of understanding, and fought to establish seasons and gain acceptance.
They might not have had the same "ethics" as far as to what was acceptable ranges, but then again, it was a different era.
They also had a lot of arrows, and figured losing them was just what happened when you released, had not even considered the possibility of lighting the nock...
Post by: Machias on October 03, 2011, 08:55:46 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2011, 09:09:56 AM
So what do you guys think, should we let this thread die a slow death? We've all stated our opinions pretty well, now wer're just going round and round and kind of getting of tangent. What do you guys think?
I'm not sure. Have we discussed special privileges to use lighted nocks if you're a minority member? I think we should throw that in there and see what pops out! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Machias on October 03, 2011, 09:10:49 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 03, 2011, 09:51:32 AM
For me it's not so much that I want to use them, it's that I want the choice. In the day of increasing regulation by our government, and losing more and more of our daily freedoms I am ALWAYS going to lean on the side of choice, let each man make his own decision.
Post by: Machias on October 03, 2011, 09:59:43 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 03, 2011, 10:04:34 AM
The sounds of Taps in the background..........:salute:
Post by: Elkrunner on October 03, 2011, 10:21:08 AM
Post by: Snapshot on October 03, 2011, 10:23:36 AM
Post by: rooselk on October 03, 2011, 10:26:30 AM
Post by: Lowedog on October 03, 2011, 11:35:01 AM
Yes, as far as this thread goes I certainly agree that we should siimply agree to disagree (and do so agreeably). But I also think it needs to be understood that for some of us the issue of the issue of allowing electronic equipment on bows and arrows, like crossbows, could prove to be the straw that breaks the camels back. I personally feel that should this be allowed then it will finally be time for traditional bowhunters to look out for their own interests by seeking their own tag and seasons.
There you go. Then you guys can argue on what is truly "traditional". Where will you draw the line on technology allowed with your "traditional" only seasons? And then when people start hunting those seasons because they prefer the timing or location of the season will you complain that they aren't doing it for the right reasons? :fishin:
Post by: rooselk on October 03, 2011, 11:49:53 AM
Post by: Lowedog on October 03, 2011, 11:54:05 AM
Post by: rooselk on October 03, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 03, 2011, 01:25:56 PM
Actually, if you check out the popular traditional archery forums there is no real controversy about any of the items you mention. Folks have their personal preferences of course. But all those items fit within the broad definition of traditional.
LOL, of course they do. :chuckle:
Post by: rooselk on October 03, 2011, 02:00:46 PM
Post by: Lowedog on October 03, 2011, 02:33:07 PM
Post by: Machias on October 03, 2011, 03:00:08 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2011, 03:01:54 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 03, 2011, 03:44:59 PM
Yes, it's OK for "traditional" archery hunters to use the latest and greatest technology but only if it fits what they perceive as "traditional". :tup:
Exactly why I'm laughing, who would have believed aluminum inserts or broadheads would be considered "traditional" :chuckle:
Post by: rooselk on October 03, 2011, 04:14:27 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 03, 2011, 04:21:56 PM
But that's not the issue. Rather, our archery seasons have long been regulated in compliance with the Pope & Young Fair Chase standard.
Really? Then why are there late November archery hunts where the deer are often in belly deep snow, Entiat for example?
Post by: Lowedog on October 03, 2011, 05:14:50 PM
But that's not the issue. Rather, our archery seasons have long been regulated in compliance with the Pope & Young Fair Chase standard.
Really? Then why are there late November archery hunts where the deer are often in belly deep snow, Entiat for example?
huntnphool, it is still fair chase as long as you don't use a lighted nock. :chuckle:
Post by: actionshooter on October 03, 2011, 05:24:52 PM
tagged for future reference.
Post by: rooselk on October 03, 2011, 06:02:13 PM
...then again I have always found it difficult to have a serious exchange of ideas with those that bring a video game mentality to hunting and don't mind pissing on the legacy of those that came before us.
So have at it, boys. I'll shut my mouth and let you whine about how unfair it is that you aren't allowed to play wth your shiny electric toys. (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv105%2FRooselk%2FGraemlins%2FSmilies%2FG-Thumbsup2b.gif&hash=02c9e8c5ecee99678ad9b3801277c47aa97ae06a)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv105%2FRooselk%2FGraemlins%2FGraphics%2FG-Waaah.gif&hash=1ff7307d0829a12b86d60e4e9c46c7be879c1b9c)
Post by: UptheCreek on October 03, 2011, 06:35:30 PM
Post by: Lowedog on October 03, 2011, 06:55:19 PM
I have always found it difficult to have a serious debate with those that bring a superiority mentality to hunting.
Post by: huntnphool on October 03, 2011, 07:03:11 PM
Post by: 3Under on October 03, 2011, 07:27:10 PM
Post by: sisu on October 03, 2011, 08:20:46 PM
Time to rename this thread Can-O-Worms. I think we've heard every argument that should be heard more than once, and 10x as many that never should have been brought up. Let it die.Ya it is starting to sound like Obumbles and his Crew!
Post by: actionshooter on October 03, 2011, 09:03:48 PM
Time to rename this thread Can-O-Worms. I think we've heard every argument that should be heard more than once, and 10x as many that never should have been brought up. Let it die.Ya it is starting to sound like Obumbles and his Crew!
Sisu, that was a below the Obama belt.... :chuckle:
Post by: Lowedog on October 03, 2011, 09:09:52 PM
Time to rename this thread Can-O-Worms. I think we've heard every argument that should be heard more than once, and 10x as many that never should have been brought up. Let it die.Ya it is starting to sound like Obumbles and his Crew!
Oh no not Obumbles! :rolleyes:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 04, 2011, 06:57:12 AM
i
Post by: Lowedog on October 04, 2011, 09:18:15 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.zaazu.com%2Fimg%2Fcaveman-caveman-cave-dweller-prehistoric-smiley-emoticon-000204-medium.gif&hash=2dcd33ad42760b6bf542e897b67e31a4044638d3)
Post by: BEARHUNTER1 on October 05, 2011, 06:36:43 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on October 08, 2011, 05:28:09 PM
Post by: Special T on October 09, 2011, 01:45:20 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 09, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Here SpecialT
I just looked at the Sterner Duttera Fire Fly glowing nocks and it is the answer for everyone! :)
http://www.sternerduttera.com/store/firefly_glowing_nocks_stay_lit.asp (http://www.sternerduttera.com/store/firefly_glowing_nocks_stay_lit.asp)
Post by: Snapshot on October 13, 2011, 09:46:30 AM
It's okay Rooselk, I really didn't think you had a reasonable explanation for that question anyway. I have read P&Y's rules of fair chase and if our seasons are regulated in compliance with their rules, why does Washington allow baiting? Or is this "being ridiculous" too?
Just to make it known to those who have not read them, Pope & Young's Rules of Fair Chase don't say anything whatsoever about baiting... ???
And if someone killed a helpless animal and stated as much on their P&Y entry form it would be denied inclusion in that record book.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 13, 2011, 09:48:19 AM
It's okay Rooselk, I really didn't think you had a reasonable explanation for that question anyway. I have read P&Y's rules of fair chase and if our seasons are regulated in compliance with their rules, why does Washington allow baiting? Or is this "being ridiculous" too?
Just to make it known to those who have not read them, Pope & Young's Rules of Fair Chase don't say anything whatsoever about baiting... ???
According to the woman with whom I spoke at the Reg. 5 office, this is a loophole in the regs and may change soon.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 13, 2011, 09:52:46 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 13, 2011, 09:56:27 AM
Are you saying that if someone stated they are baiting it would not be allowed inclusion in the Record Book?It's okay Rooselk, I really didn't think you had a reasonable explanation for that question anyway. I have read P&Y's rules of fair chase and if our seasons are regulated in compliance with their rules, why does Washington allow baiting? Or is this "being ridiculous" too?
Just to make it known to those who have not read them, Pope & Young's Rules of Fair Chase don't say anything whatsoever about baiting... ???
And if someone killed a helpless animal and stated as much on their P&Y entry form it would be denied inclusion in that record book.
If that is what you are saying it is absolutely not true.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 13, 2011, 10:15:51 AM
How is it a "loophole"?
Don't know. That's what I was told. She may have been inserting a judgement or may have been parroting a Dept. attitude about baiting elk and deer. No idea.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 13, 2011, 10:28:51 AM
How is it a "loophole"?
Don't know. That's what I was told. She may have been inserting a judgement or may have been parroting a Dept. attitude about baiting elk and deer. No idea.
I think that is the most likely scenario. I called about it 10 years ago and the individual I spoke to had a similar opinion/attitude. I am sure they will eventually do away with it. It seems they put it up for public input every year so someone is pushing hard to take it away.
Post by: Ray on October 13, 2011, 11:07:02 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 13, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Are you saying that if someone stated they are baiting it would not be allowed inclusion in the Record Book?It's okay Rooselk, I really didn't think you had a reasonable explanation for that question anyway. I have read P&Y's rules of fair chase and if our seasons are regulated in compliance with their rules, why does Washington allow baiting? Or is this "being ridiculous" too?
Just to make it known to those who have not read them, Pope & Young's Rules of Fair Chase don't say anything whatsoever about baiting... ???
And if someone killed a helpless animal and stated as much on their P&Y entry form it would be denied inclusion in that record book.
If that is what you are saying it is absolutely not true.
I am pretty sure Snapshot is referring to the "helpless" animal, as many have used the late deer hunts in the deep snow scenario as an argument.
I was unclear. Thanks for clarifying.
Post by: sebek556 on October 13, 2011, 11:09:53 AM
Post by: Snapshot on October 13, 2011, 11:45:45 AM
Are you saying that if someone stated they are baiting it would not be allowed inclusion in the Record Book?It's okay Rooselk, I really didn't think you had a reasonable explanation for that question anyway. I have read P&Y's rules of fair chase and if our seasons are regulated in compliance with their rules, why does Washington allow baiting? Or is this "being ridiculous" too?
Just to make it known to those who have not read them, Pope & Young's Rules of Fair Chase don't say anything whatsoever about baiting... ???
And if someone killed a helpless animal and stated as much on their P&Y entry form it would be denied inclusion in that record book.
If that is what you are saying it is absolutely not true.
I am pretty sure Snapshot is referring to the "helpless" animal, as many have used the late deer hunts in the deep snow scenario as an argument.
NWWABOHNTR is correct. Huntnphool brought up "deep snow" and so that is what I was addressing, with my personal emphasis on the word "helpless". Whether due to snow, ice, water or fencing killing a helpless animal and then trying to enter it in the record book as a "Fair Chase" kill would be a lie.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on October 13, 2011, 11:52:42 AM