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
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
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.
But I don't shoot before, after legal shooting hours or take 70 yd shots :twocents:
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:
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 :)
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 :)
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 :)
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:
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:
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:
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.
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 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.
They have already shorted are season.
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.
•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"
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.
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.
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.
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,
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......
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.
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
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.
P.S. Please tell me your not saying the lumenoks will elminate lost animals....are you?
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 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.
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!!
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.
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!!
So did the M2D guy's break the law, thats what i am interested in...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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!
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)
Wolf introduction may be the damnation of hunting, while we squabble over lighted nocks the greeners are out to strip hunters of basic privileges...
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?
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.
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)
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?
Regardless of technology, public image and game management will be the biggest hurdles for any hunting sport.
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!!!
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.
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
Snapshot, I will stand up for archery also but I won't divide it.
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.
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?
This tool is about arrow recovery only.
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?
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:
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.
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:
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!
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...
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
Wolf introduction may be the damnation of hunting, while we squabble over lighted nocks the greeners are out to strip hunters of basic privileges....
not really
"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:
Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?
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.
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.
HOW CLOSE CAN I GET instead of HOW FAR CAN I SHOOT!
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 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!
"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.
Is it worth the time to read all 12 pages?
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 ! "
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.
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
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...
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:
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 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.
I call it trad, because I am hunting in the tradition of my father, not "native"
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....
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....
Great point :tup:
I am interested how many people who are against lumenocks have even shot an arrow with a lumenock on it.
If archery isn't broken without them then I guess we don't need em. :chuckle:
I'm getting old and need all the help I can get.... :rolleyes:
I need an electronic call to help get game closer..LOL
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........
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:
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:
You forgot, my friends are idiots... :chuckle:
Well unless you throw your scope at the animal pretty much completely different. ;):chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
They are ILLEGAL, just as lighted sights for your bow, d wilson.
If your against allowing electronics into archery your just an elitist. Does that pretty much sum it up?
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
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..
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.
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........
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........
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 limitationsThat is why I said "reasons", not "pupose"
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"
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.
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?
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.]
I suppose you could launch arrows long distance during fading light and watch where they are going/hitting...?
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.
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.
So the concern is ethical hunters would suddenly become unethical hunters because of an illumanock?
Also, I've never even had the thought of the Lumenock as being an asset in finding a lost arrow after a miss.
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.
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? ;))
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?
The shortened seasons were based off of one guy who said he shot an elk at 90 yards?
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.
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.
(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? ;))
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.]
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.
There are definitely a lot of challenges that face us going into the future.
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.
What I gather is you basically threw archery hunters who chose modern equipment under the bus.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
It wouldn't be the first time that a television show was busted for using illegal tactics. Just ask Ted Nugent!! :chuckle:
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:
: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.
that a lot of "traditional" hunters want to force their hatred of technology on everyone else.
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:
:chuckle: :chuckle: This should be good for another 10 or 12 pages. :chuckle: :chuckle::chuckle:
:beatdeadhorse:
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.
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.
Expandable broadheadsOh man thats worth up to 40 pages
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.
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.
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
:bdid:I am not an archery hunter, but
Oops, sorry didn't read anything after that, did you say something? :chuckle:
: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:
: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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
hunting will become just killing. " --- Isn't that the point.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
To me the type of weopon used to make the kill doesn't make the hunt.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for not taking bad shots in the first place. Well....I'm still working on the formula for common sense in a can.......
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.
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.
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.
If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information.
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.
I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…
No one is saying that a lighted nock will improve anything besides increasing someones chance of finding an arrow.
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/)
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.
Wow, bowhunters sure get pissy after their season shuts down. Remember this come mid-november when I do...
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.
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.
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
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:
the trend over the years has been longer and longer shots (which in my "elitist snobish mind" equals risker).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I would think that any tool that helps in the retrieval of wounded game would be supported by all…
Is this not currently legal?
If you don't see need, you should look at the wounding statistics from other states that have compiled the information.
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.
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, bloodtracking dogs are legal in WA....well at least they are not illegal if they remain on a leash and no one is armed.
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. ;)
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.
Finish that line though, accomany you WHILE HUNTING.....unarmed; not hunting.:yeah:
I am hung up on the line that says "or to accompany you". That is pretty cut and dried.
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...
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.
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:
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...
Should we allow free choice in equipment, just because that is our right as Americans ?
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
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).
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 ?
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 ?
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.
The study is real look it up and FYI Mr. Landers found that one not me.
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.
So anyone could get themselves a bow to dick around with until the rifle season opened.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?Quote
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.
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
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 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 !
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?
The sounds of Taps in the background..........:salute:
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.
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.
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:
But that's not the issue. Rather, our archery seasons have long been regulated in compliance with the Pope & Young Fair Chase standard.
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?
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!
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!
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!
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)
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?
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... ???
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.
How is it a "loophole"?
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.
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.
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.