Post by: dreamingbig on April 16, 2012, 01:44:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2012, 01:46:06 PM
Post by: grundy53 on April 16, 2012, 01:48:53 PM
Yes, me too, I thought it was a done deal.
:yeah: They said they are willing to revisit the issue next year. So now there will be another 50 page thread on here arguing about this issue next winter :chuckle: :chuckle:. At least it will help pass the time :chuckle:.
Post by: Machias on April 16, 2012, 01:55:03 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 16, 2012, 01:55:12 PM
Post by: Machias on April 16, 2012, 01:56:21 PM
Just goes to show that repeating something again and again as being truth doesn't necessarily make it truth.
:chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2012, 01:57:14 PM
Post by: Machias on April 16, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
Post by: buckfvr on April 16, 2012, 02:02:35 PM
Glad to see it, those that will take up the argument for them AGAIN......take note of the fact that if/when you do get them, it will be at a price.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 16, 2012, 02:06:14 PM
Post by: danderson on April 16, 2012, 02:07:21 PM
Post by: fair-chase on April 16, 2012, 02:09:21 PM
I don't really have a dog in this fight. As such I will leave this to those of you who hunt archery much more than I do. I just don't see what the big fuss is about on either side of this issue.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 16, 2012, 02:10:45 PM
Post by: arguhl on April 16, 2012, 02:14:54 PM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 16, 2012, 02:19:51 PM
April 16, 2012
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267
WDFW Wildlife Program, (360) 902-2515
Commission expands elk hunting,
rejects electronic duck decoys
OLYMPIA – New hunting rules approved by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission for the 2012-14 seasons will expand hunting opportunities for elk and cougar, but leave intact the statewide ban on using electronic decoys to attract waterfowl.
The commission, a nine-member citizen panel that sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), took action on those and dozens of other proposed rules during a public meeting March 13-14 in Olympia.
With most of the state’s 10 elk herds increasing in size, the commission increased the number of bull-elk permits for the Nooksack, Blue Mountain and Yakima herds. Permits for antlerless elk were also increased in the Blue Mountain, Yakima, and Colockum areas.
In addition, a day was added to the general season for elk hunters using modern firearms in western Washington, giving those hunters a total of 12 days in the field this year.
“The health of our elk herds has shown real improvement since 2001, when the department started developing management plans specific to each herd,” said Commission Chair Miranda Wecker. “Most of our elk herds are now at or near the population goals established under those plans.”
The commission also expanded hunting seasons for cougar, reflecting changes in laws and management models for the species. Starting Sept. 1, the general hunting season will run through March 31 statewide, so long as harvest guidelines are not exceeded.
In addition, the commission added two landowners to the state’s Landowner Hunting Permit Program, which sets terms for special hunts on participants’ property. With the new additions in Spokane and Walla Walla counties, nine landowners are now enrolled in the program, all of them in eastern Washington.
But the commission rejected a proposal to lift the statewide ban on using electronic decoys to attract waterfowl. Also not adopted was a proposal to allow the use of illuminated arrow nocks, which make it easier for bow hunters to recover their arrows. The commission did, however, indicate a willingness to revisit that issue next year.
“The commission has struggled with the issue of allowing new technologies in hunting,” Wecker said. “It raises questions of fair chase, equal opportunity among hunters and the very tradition of the sport. The commission has to uphold those standards, and some of us believe we have to draw the line at the use of electronics.”
All of the changes approved by the commission will be posted on WDFW’s website (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/) and incorporated into the state’s 2012 Big Game pamphlet, available later this month.
In other business, the commission approved a request by WDFW to purchase 1,144 acres along Asotin Creek in Asotin County and 49 acres on the Methow River in Okanogan County to maintain habitat for fish and wildlife.
Both properties support salmon and bull trout populations listed for protection under federal endangered species laws. The Asotin property also features shrub-steppe habitat beneficial to sharp-tailed grouse, elk, and bighorn sheep.
Also approved was a Statement on Wolves in Washington, developed by the commission to guide WDFW’s implementation of the state’s wolf plan. The final statement will be posted later this week on the commission’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/.
Post by: deleted BGS on April 16, 2012, 02:30:40 PM
Post by: Machias on April 16, 2012, 02:32:49 PM
Post by: buckfvr on April 16, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
Post by: Matt on April 16, 2012, 03:18:58 PM
In all reality after the governors guidance for any rule changes this one should have never even been considered and was just a big waste of money. Like it has been said if you want to see your nock use the glow stick lighted nock it is legal
Unfortunately this is far from dead. At least we got some good elk hunting news.
Post by: Fullabull on April 16, 2012, 08:04:34 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2012, 08:32:27 PM
I think the hunting with a bow during ML got shot down also, in may multi season letter is stated you can only hunt with a ML during ML season but with any legal weapon during rifle. Interesting...
I noticed that too but I don't think it means anything.
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on April 16, 2012, 08:35:38 PM
Post by: ribka on April 16, 2012, 08:36:25 PM
Just goes to show that repeating something again and again as being truth doesn't necessarily make it truth.
Isn't that the definition for insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? :chuckle:
Post by: ribka on April 16, 2012, 08:39:37 PM
they're the only way I can see where my arrow goes after the lights go out in the woods......
Try taping a flashlight to your bow ;)
Post by: saylean on April 16, 2012, 08:40:07 PM
Post by: oldleclercrd on April 16, 2012, 08:40:21 PM
Post by: BullMagnet76 on April 16, 2012, 08:56:36 PM
Post by: huntinguy on April 16, 2012, 09:07:16 PM
I think the hunting with a bow during ML got shot down also, in may multi season letter is stated you can only hunt with a ML during ML season but with any legal weapon during rifle. Interesting...
I think it has to do with weapon restricted areas. Otherwise those areas would be closed by default during regular season.
I bet they would have approved the lighted nocks if you had to buy a special tag to use them. (I didn't say that did I?) :bash:
Post by: sled on April 16, 2012, 09:12:34 PM
Pay attention to the part about electronics and keeping with the tradition.......i dont think there is much traditional with archery hunting now anyway.
Glad to see it, those that will take up the argument for them AGAIN......take note of the fact that if/when you do get them, it will be at a price.
Post by: dreamunelk on April 16, 2012, 09:26:54 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on April 16, 2012, 09:27:36 PM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on April 16, 2012, 09:38:21 PM
:bash:
Fricken idiots, if you arge against them you are just bored and have nothin better to do.
I for one would like to go back to traditional bowhunting, make your own bow from a tree branch, whittle your own shafts, and use a stone arrow head. Unless you use that don't whine about being traditional.
Post by: DoubleJ on April 17, 2012, 06:57:47 AM
they're the only way I can see where my arrow goes after the lights go out in the woods......
Try taping a flashlight to your bow ;)
I came here to post this
Post by: boneaddict on April 17, 2012, 07:03:52 AM
Post by: Matt on April 17, 2012, 07:38:46 AM
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 07:53:22 AM
If seeing your nock light up is so damned important then use these, they are completely legal and are just as effective.
There you go, problem solved and both camps are happy.
Post by: Matt on April 17, 2012, 08:23:11 AM
There you go, problem solved and both camps are happy.
There is a pipe dream. Make everyone happy. LOL
People need to realise that those of us that fought so hard to prevent the passing of lighted nocks are not against the nock at all. Most of us do feel that the arguements behind it to be passed are quite silly but the actual use of the nock is a mute point.
The real point is the fact that we enjoy more time in the woods hunting because we are still categorized as a primative weapon. If we keep pushing technology (electronics) on our equipment then we will surely start losing more of those days in the woods. Even though these gimmicks will not actually help us harvest more game it will be percieved by other user groups and more importantly the general public that it does aid us, thus they will take away what we cherrish and that is 2 long hunting seasons.
Washington isn't like other states in the east that are over run by deer and they are doing and allowing everything possible to control the herd. Out west we get to harvest one animal of each species and the manufacturers like luminock need to realize this and leave our regulations alone. They could careless if we lose days, they just want to sell their goods. That's my rant
Post by: JohnVH on April 17, 2012, 08:38:51 AM
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 08:53:31 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 17, 2012, 09:26:07 AM
If seeing your nock light up is so damned important then use these, they are completely legal and are just as effective.have you used these? Definitely not as bright. I used them last year and in full daylight I could see no notable difference from my regular nocks. Low light you could see them in the target but not in flight very well. Not even close to the electronic ones. I don't really care either way as I won't be spending 10 dollars on a single nock. I tried the glow stick ones because they were $8 for 6 of them.
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on April 17, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Post by: HornHoarder on April 17, 2012, 09:46:15 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 17, 2012, 10:09:23 AM
Post by: cryfowl on April 17, 2012, 10:13:11 AM
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 10:16:26 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2012, 10:17:21 AM
As far as not losing anything else for archery season is concerned, we did get a few antler point restrictions that weren't there last year for deer on the west side. I know 560 went from any deer to any buck and there are others.
Post by: Fullabull on April 17, 2012, 10:30:00 AM
Although I believe there are many more important topics Archers should be arguing for then lighted nocks!!! Season dates is my hot button...
Post by: ribka on April 17, 2012, 10:38:47 AM
Has little to do with limiting your equipment. We just want our seasons to remain as they are or possibly get a few more days.
I grew up in the midwest where archery deer was almost 4 months. Now with advent of more technology, alllowing x bows, season is almost cut in half.
There you go, problem solved and both camps are happy.
There is a pipe dream. Make everyone happy. LOL
People need to realise that those of us that fought so hard to prevent the passing of lighted nocks are not against the nock at all. Most of us do feel that the arguements behind it to be passed are quite silly but the actual use of the nock is a mute point.
The real point is the fact that we enjoy more time in the woods hunting because we are still categorized as a primative weapon. If we keep pushing technology (electronics) on our equipment then we will surely start losing more of those days in the woods. Even though these gimmicks will not actually help us harvest more game it will be percieved by other user groups and more importantly the general public that it does aid us, thus they will take away what we cherrish and that is 2 long hunting seasons.
Washington isn't like other states in the east that are over run by deer and they are doing and allowing everything possible to control the herd. Out west we get to harvest one animal of each species and the manufacturers like luminock need to realize this and leave our regulations alone. They could careless if we lose days, they just want to sell their goods. That's my rant
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 17, 2012, 10:40:36 AM
So the option Matt posted above does not help you guys? Because it accomplishs everything you wanted and keeps eletronics ourt of archery. If that option does nothing for you then I have to really wonder what is the motive?
I think they said it isn't nearly as bright or effective as the battery operated nocks. I haven't seen any of them so I don't have any first hand experience with them. That being said, if they are as effective, aren't the anti-lighted nock people concerned that people will use these late in the day, take risky shots, etc? There seems to be no outcry for these given half the anti-lighted nock arguments I've heard...
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 10:46:39 AM
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 11:01:27 AM
Post by: Matt on April 17, 2012, 11:27:32 AM
I brought up the subject of baiting bears and why they won't even revisit this subject. Baiting of bears has a huge benifit to hunting bears and being able to be selective and keep from orphaning cubs. Real and legitimite arguements. Unanimously their response has nothing to do with scientific facts but 100% public opinion and that is what we need to worry about.
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 11:36:11 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2012, 11:40:51 AM
Post by: huntingfool7 on April 17, 2012, 11:48:07 AM
As far as the glow stick alternative. You have to activate the glow stick before the shot or before you go out into the woods in anticipation of getting a shot. Light ups activate from the momentum of the bow string. Much more user friendly. I guess the glow sticks would work shooting bales in the shop but I can use light ups there without legal concerns. Battery powered nocks don't do a thing to make you more deadly in the woods, make your arrows fly better/farther or make your sticks any sharper.
Post by: Matt on April 17, 2012, 01:20:12 PM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 17, 2012, 01:36:47 PM
Post by: Special T on April 17, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
AND predator control.
Post by: dreamingbig on April 17, 2012, 02:00:14 PM
Time for all bowhunters to move on and address the more significant problems and issues we face. Lets get united and stand up for our seasons and achieving the goal of improving our time in the woods as bowhunters, expand our seasons, get back what we once had, open more GMU's...:yeah:
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 02:04:42 PM
Time for all bowhunters to move on and address the more significant problems and issues we face. Lets get united and stand up for our seasons and achieving the goal of improving our time in the woods as bowhunters, expand our seasons, get back what we once had, open more GMU's...
I agree that we need to address other issues as well but we will have to agree to disagree on the luminok issue. I will agree that you are never going to stop fighting against them, but you will have to agree I will not stop fighting for them. ;)
Actually this recent decission is going to have me lobbying even harder, after all they even said they will leave it on the table for next year.
That being said, if they are going to go to the trouble of creating their own poll, soliciting public opinion and then simply ignore the overwhelming majority of polled opinions, (80% in favor) then we must ask why they even bothered with the poll in the first place. They knew their stance, and excuse, before the poll was conducted.If a majority 80% vote was not enough to change "their stance" then what was the real intent of the poll in the first place? Perhaps just to appease the hunters voice and act like they put out a "good faith" effort?
As I said before, even if they were legal I probably wouldn't use them, but I know friends that would and I believe they should have that option and choice. I don't think the small minority of trad hunters should be able to dictate what the overwhelming majority of archery hunters overall can and can't do, that's just my opinion.
In the end we should all be able to make our own choice. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on April 17, 2012, 02:12:50 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 17, 2012, 02:15:44 PM
Time for all bowhunters to move on and address the more significant problems and issues we face. Lets get united and stand up for our seasons and achieving the goal of improving our time in the woods as bowhunters, expand our seasons, get back what we once had, open more GMU's...One can only hope! If they who challenged the self-imposed, hard-won restrictions on electronics in archery will let it rest, why then, yes, we can get on to more important work. But while there is a fire in the engine room isn't the time to be swabbing the deck.
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
I don't think the small minority of trad hunters should be able to dictate what the overwhelming majority of archery hunters overall can and can't do, that's just my opinion.
Take out the trad and you might be right. There were and are plenty of compound users also against lighted nocks, this is not just a trad versus modern issue.
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2012, 02:30:34 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 02:34:08 PM
I don't think the small minority of trad hunters should be able to dictate what the overwhelming majority of archery hunters overall can and can't do, that's just my opinion.
Take out the trad and you might be right. There were and are plenty of compound users also against lighted nocks, this is not just a trad versus modern issue.
Point taken Fred. :tup:
Post by: Curly on April 17, 2012, 02:35:30 PM
In general, I don't think hunter's opinions should have too much weight in the setting of hunting seasons and rules. If they did everything hunters wanted, we'd have general rifle seasons for elk from September 15 to September 30, and general rifle season for deer would be November 1 to November 30.
Why waste everybody's time with polls then. I do agree in a sense, they shouldn't manage based on public opinion, but it doesn't make sense to have polls and just dismiss them either.
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2012, 02:39:34 PM
In general, I don't think hunter's opinions should have too much weight in the setting of hunting seasons and rules. If they did everything hunters wanted, we'd have general rifle seasons for elk from September 15 to September 30, and general rifle season for deer would be November 1 to November 30.
Why waste everybody's time with polls then. I do agree in a sense, they shouldn't manage based on public opinion, but it doesn't make sense to have polls and just dismiss them either.
I think they still like to have an idea of hunter's opinions on certain issues. So the polls do have value. And I believe they actually do listen to us at times. Look at the cougar seasons this year- we've now got a 7 month season, statewide, no weapon restrictions, just like it used to be.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 02:47:23 PM
In general, I don't think hunter's opinions should have too much weight in the setting of hunting seasons and rules. If they did everything hunters wanted, we'd have general rifle seasons for elk from September 15 to September 30, and general rifle season for deer would be November 1 to November 30.
Then why go through the time and trouble to create the poll of public opinion? at what point would the poll have even mattered, 85%, 90% 95%?
In hind sight Bob it sure seems disingenuous to me. :twocents:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 17, 2012, 02:51:58 PM
Post by: Curly on April 17, 2012, 02:55:58 PM
1) Approving the category system of special permits
2) Adopting the wolf plan
3) Not allowing Lighted nocks
Personally, I think they are doing a lousy job. They have lost all credibility in my mind. (They really shouldn't do polls and waste time and money. They will do what they want anyway).
Post by: boneaddict on April 17, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
Quote
I love how people get so pissy about little things, if you dont want to use them dont, I see no problem with help recovering an arrow in the forest and also being able to easier seeing your shot. Why is that a bad thing?
i always think its funny when a post like this comes 10 minutes after a perfect plausible explanation. LOL
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 03:00:52 PM
Phool, there seemed to be some issues with the survey and the accuracy. The parameters for getting a survey was supposed to be elk and deer license for the previous ( I think?) 3 years, however hundreds if not thousands of bowhunters who met those parameters did not receive the survey, including some very influential people within our State government. If you look, out of the 24,000 that met the surveys requirements only 10% answered, that raised many an eyebrow. As Matt stated above there are alternatives on the market of legal lighted nocks, no batteries.
As was brought up earlier, the main reason behind the opposition of legalizing luminoks was they promoted "risky shots", "unethical shots", "shots in the dark" etc. yet now it seems these these arguments are no longer valid or important as long as batteries are not involved. How are these chemically lighted sticks any different with these concerns held by so many "anti's"?
I'm not picking on you in particular NW, just pointing out the hypocrisy. ;)
Post by: Curly on April 17, 2012, 03:04:50 PM
I don't like a lot of the decisions the commission has made lately:
1) Approving the category system of special permits
2) Adopting the wolf plan
3) Not allowing Lighted nocks
Personally, I think they are doing a lousy job. They have lost all credibility in my mind. (They really shouldn't do polls and waste time and money. They will do what they want anyway).
I should say that I don't really care that lighted nocks are not legal. I just think they should give reasons why they are not allowing them and not cop out and say they will look at it again next year. If they have reasons why they should not be allowed, then stick to those reasons and be done with it. Are they really going to change their minds if they think about the issue for another year?
Post by: boneaddict on April 17, 2012, 03:09:32 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 03:18:02 PM
politics.......
You got that right Bone!!!
Post by: Snapshot on April 17, 2012, 03:24:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 03:30:26 PM
I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."
:chuckle: Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal. :chuckle:
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 03:32:26 PM
In general, I don't think hunter's opinions should have too much weight in the setting of hunting seasons and rules. If they did everything hunters wanted, we'd have general rifle seasons for elk from September 15 to September 30, and general rifle season for deer would be November 1 to November 30.
Then why go through the time and trouble to create the poll of public opinion? at what point would the poll have even mattered, 85%, 90% 95%?
In hind sight Bob it sure seems disingenuous to me. :twocents:
I agree, all it does is create more distrust and anger at the WDFW. Hey we'd like your opinions, oh you overwhelming want this, nope. If you're going to take a poll and then completely disregard the poll, what was the point? I was against them, but the poll makes no sense now.
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 03:36:37 PM
I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."
I do agree with this, but I do think it was wrong for them to have the survey if they are not going to follow it. Now if they did look at the results and realized the results were wrong or inaccurate then say so. I can understand the anger from the folks who were wanting this.
Post by: Snapshot on April 17, 2012, 03:38:41 PM
I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."
:chuckle: Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal. :chuckle:
Tell my wife I was behaving like a liberal, please! I might get lucky if she hears that.
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2012, 03:39:16 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 17, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."
:chuckle: Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal. :chuckle:
And could you repeat the question?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 17, 2012, 03:42:28 PM
Now we have public opinion in 80%+ favor of lighted nocks, GMAC 14-4 voted to approve them, and the commission ignores this and does what they want. Now you may agree with the ultimate issue in this particular circumstance but need to wonder about how this is done. The WDFW has a problem here. Just wait until it is a decision where you are in the majority and this happens or an issue that is of concern to you. While you may not want lighted nocks, this brings into question the WDFW and what/how they are doing things. I'm more concerned about this process and how these decisions are made.
Bobcat stated that public opinion shouldn't dictate issues the WDFW made. On seasons issues, I might tend to agree. On general equipment issues where the equipment doesn't effect hunter success, I disagree. There is no correlation between lighted nocks use and ultimate hunter success of a game species in any study.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 03:45:33 PM
I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."
:chuckle: Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal. :chuckle:
Tell my wife I was behaving like a liberal, please! I might get lucky if she hears that.
LMAO :chuckle:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 17, 2012, 03:46:00 PM
Phool, there seemed to be some issues with the survey and the accuracy. The parameters for getting a survey was supposed to be elk and deer license for the previous ( I think?) 3 years, however hundreds if not thousands of bowhunters who met those parameters did not receive the survey, including some very influential people within our State government. If you look, out of the 24,000 that met the surveys requirements only 10% answered, that raised many an eyebrow. As Matt stated above there are alternatives on the market of legal lighted nocks, no batteries.
As was brought up earlier, the main reason behind the opposition of legalizing luminoks was they promoted "risky shots", "unethical shots", "shots in the dark" etc. yet now it seems these these arguments are no longer valid or important as long as batteries are not involved. How are these chemically lighted sticks any different with these concerns held by so many "anti's"?
I'm not picking on you in particular NW, just pointing out the hypocrisy. ;)
Phool,
I still have those concerns, however my main point against this is electronics, yes I argued about the others as I feel they are a valid concern! Luv ya man..... :-)
Post by: Snapshot on April 17, 2012, 03:46:39 PM
If you think about it, it was the department that did the survey, but the F & W Commission that voted down making illuminocks legal. So you're talking about two different entities here. The WDFW probably would go with public opinion and make illuminocks legal. But the Commission won't let them. So I see no reason to question why they bothered to do the public opinion survey.
The whole purpose of the Commission is to monitor the department. The department can only make recommendations. Occasionally those recommendations are tainted with politics. Occasionally the commission is tainted with politics. But overall the checks and balances generally work, in my opinion.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 03:49:29 PM
If you think about it, it was the department that did the survey, but the F & W Commission that voted down making illuminocks legal. So you're talking about two different entities here. The WDFW probably would go with public opinion and make illuminocks legal. But the Commission won't let them. So I see no reason to question why they bothered to do the public opinion survey.
Thats a cop out Bob, the commision holds the dept's opinion in very high regards. If the dept. presented the results of the poll and recommended it be pushed through then its my contention the results would have been different. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2012, 03:52:09 PM
If you think about it, it was the department that did the survey, but the F & W Commission that voted down making illuminocks legal. So you're talking about two different entities here. The WDFW probably would go with public opinion and make illuminocks legal. But the Commission won't let them. So I see no reason to question why they bothered to do the public opinion survey.
Thats a cop out Bob, the commision holds the dept's opinion in very high regards. If the dept. presented the results of the poll and recommended it be pushed through then its my contention the results would have been different. :twocents:
Why? What would be the purpose of the commission if all they did was to follow every single recommendation of the DFW?
Post by: Special T on April 17, 2012, 03:52:43 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 17, 2012, 03:58:24 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 17, 2012, 04:00:38 PM
Post by: Machias on April 17, 2012, 04:23:16 PM
The presidence has been set, whitetail antler restrictions despite overwhelming oppostion, shortened field time, wolf proposal and now luminoks. I'm not the only one that sees the pattern here. We are completely ignored, why should we think we will get anything changed as a group when they have shown complete disregard to our opinions?
The presidence was set years ago, starting (and it may even be earlier than this) with the shortening of the fall bear season in the NE corner of the state way back in the mid to late 90s. I went to a three year meeting years ago and they said they were going to shorten the fall bear season in the very NE part of the state due to conflicts with hikers. This caused an uproar in the meeting and then they said well the real reason is too many sows are being killed. They shortened the season in the NE. Three years later I returned to the meeting and asked what impact on the sow harvest had resulted in the shortening of the season. The Bio had no idea what the heck I was talking about. They have always done and will always do whatever the heck they want. Our input has meant nothing to them for a long time. One of the few times I have ever seen an impact was with the night hunting proposals this year, but I wonder if they hadn't been written so poorly and actually incorrectly if they would have not been adopted anyways.
Post by: Fullabull on April 17, 2012, 05:42:47 PM
By the way, there would be nothing wrong with having archery season into late September...then we would be like all the other states!!!!
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2012, 06:02:26 PM
Hopefully we can get Rob elected in November after the queen has done enough damage to our state to convince a few of the I-5 democrats to vote the other way. I'm hopeful, but I'm not holding my breath.
Post by: Special T on April 17, 2012, 06:38:43 PM
The presidence has been set, whitetail antler restrictions despite overwhelming oppostion, shortened field time, wolf proposal and now luminoks. I'm not the only one that sees the pattern here. We are completely ignored, why should we think we will get anything changed as a group when they have shown complete disregard to our opinions?
The presidence was set years ago, starting (and it may even be earlier than this) with the shortening of the fall bear season in the NE corner of the state way back in the mid to late 90s. I went to a three year meeting years ago and they said they were going to shorten the fall bear season in the very NE part of the state due to conflicts with hikers. This caused an uproar in the meeting and then they said well the real reason is too many sows are being killed. They shortened the season in the NE. Three years later I returned to the meeting and asked what impact on the sow harvest had resulted in the shortening of the season. The Bio had no idea what the heck I was talking about. They have always done and will always do whatever the heck they want. Our input has meant nothing to them for a long time. One of the few times I have ever seen an impact was with the night hunting proposals this year, but I wonder if they hadn't been written so poorly and actually incorrectly if they would have not been adopted anyways.
Machias this is the exact kind of example that we need to force the issue on with the WDFW. They give us some cock and bull about changing $hit and then play the "I don't know game"... We really need to find a good candidate or 3, for the commission NOW so that when we get a new Gov we can raise holy hell and get some hunters in instead of a bunch of anti hunters. :twocents:
The WDFW has not had a organized watch dog on its heals for a long time. I think this is one of the key roles that WFW can play. God knows no one else is...
Post by: DoubleJ on April 17, 2012, 07:37:28 PM
If seeing your nock light up is so damned important then use these, they are completely legal and are just as effective.
http://glowproducts.com/products/GSMINAS
Way cheaper. Just get some clear nocks
Post by: Snapshot on April 17, 2012, 09:24:00 PM
The commission ignoring the hunters on this one issue has occurred. However, this is not new. Look at the unit 100 whitetail antler point restriction of 4 points or better last year. The majority supported status quo, and the GMAC supported to not adopt the restriction. All the WDFW biologists except for one recommend they not approve antler point restrictions but an outfitter or two, and commissioner Gary Douvia get it rammed through and passed.
Now we have public opinion in 80%+ favor of lighted nocks, GMAC 14-4 voted to approve them, and the commission ignores this and does what they want. Now you may agree with the ultimate issue in this particular circumstance but need to wonder about how this is done. The WDFW has a problem here. Just wait until it is a decision where you are in the majority and this happens or an issue that is of concern to you. While you may not want lighted nocks, this brings into question the WDFW and what/how they are doing things. I'm more concerned about this process and how these decisions are made.
Bobcat stated that public opinion shouldn't dictate issues the WDFW made. On seasons issues, I might tend to agree. On general equipment issues where the equipment doesn't effect hunter success, I disagree. There is no correlation between lighted nocks use and ultimate hunter success of a game species in any study.
Because there isn't a conservation-based reason to have done so, the department had no business putting this issue in front of the Commission in the first place. I suspect that in the end the Commission did what it ought to do and made no change precisely because there is no correlation whatsoever between nocks and the consummation of success (finding a dead animal). Try as he might Commissioner Douvia, even with the help he had, didn't get this pet project rammed through...
What is most important is that the Commission upheld valued principles of hunting, (the kind that are seldom if ever taught on TV shows) by saying that allowing new technologies would raise questions about fair-chase, equal opportunity and the tradition of hunting. Kudos to the Commission for upholding those standards. How this can be considered a "problem" is worrisome to me.
Imagine, if the children were left in charge of the schoolhouse where would it lead them in the future? 85% of them would love to have recess all day long, but at what cost? They would not foresee any consequences because they'd be too caught up in the freedom of getting to do anything they pleased. Kids don't run schoolhouses for the exact same reason that the general public doesn't set the hunting regulations; to save them from themselves.
Post by: Matt on April 17, 2012, 09:25:15 PM
Now as far as an argument that luminoks will promote poor light shots and unethical shots. Those bowhunters that would take those shots do not need a lighted nock to make those shots they will do them no matter what. The main argument to this is to keep ALL electronics off of archery equipment so that no one can argue the primativeness of our equipment any more than it currently is.
This also isn't a Trad thing. Trust me them trad guys need all the help they can get. Just kidding. :chuckle: :chuckle: Lets be honest here. The only real arguement here that hold any water in favor of a lighted nock is that we can find our arrow or part of it anyway. All the others are fluff. We have all made great shots and the animal quit bleeding within a few yards and we lose the blood trail or even a bad shot. A glowing nock isn't going to help anyone in these cases. Good shot or bad, wait awhile then start tracking.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 10:53:30 PM
I don't think there is any hypocrisy in saying, "Play by the current rules." It is apparent that the Commission understands what was said right early on in this whole debate: "Electronics are not necessary in archery."
:chuckle: Nicely done, keep diverting the attention from the question, spoken like a true liberal. :chuckle:
And could you repeat the question?
Okay Snapshot, earlier I was willing to let lying dogs lay but it seems you are intent on beating the drum so........
Quote
but what they really will be allowing is more shots that can be taken in less-than-favorable conditions (too far or too dark to see) and so more wounding loss would likely be the result.
The question was
Quote
How are these chemically lighted sticks any different with these concerns held by so many "anti's"?
You hypocrites can't seem get this simple question answered. First you say lighted nocks will be the doom of all archery hunting and then out the other sides of your mouths you say glow sticks or lighted fletching is ok. :chuckle: So which is it? How are glow in the dark fletching or chemically lighted nocks any different? Wont shots be taken in "less than favorible conditions" with these too? How are these acceptable? Is it just batteries you have issues with? :chuckle:
Post by: Miles on April 17, 2012, 11:18:25 PM
If they aren't giving you any advantage, then why cry about it not being allowed?
If you're worried about your shot placement (and couldn't see your arrow's flight path), then wait a while and give the animal some time. It's pretty simple really.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 11:22:28 PM
Are lighted nocks really that big of a deal?
Not really, its just the principle of the whole thing for me.
Post by: steeleywhopper on April 17, 2012, 11:39:07 PM
Just my opinion...
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2012, 11:41:31 PM
Its legal in other states so it ought to be legal here.44 to be exact. ;)
Post by: Chase 1 on April 18, 2012, 03:16:57 AM
The commission ignoring the hunters on this one issue has occurred. However, this is not new. Look at the unit 100 whitetail antler point restriction of 4 points or better last year. The majority supported status quo, and the GMAC supported to not adopt the restriction. All the WDFW biologists except for one recommend they not approve antler point restrictions but an outfitter or two, and commissioner Gary Douvia get it rammed through and passed.
Now we have public opinion in 80%+ favor of lighted nocks, GMAC 14-4 voted to approve them, and the commission ignores this and does what they want. Now you may agree with the ultimate issue in this particular circumstance but need to wonder about how this is done. The WDFW has a problem here. Just wait until it is a decision where you are in the majority and this happens or an issue that is of concern to you. While you may not want lighted nocks, this brings into question the WDFW and what/how they are doing things. I'm more concerned about this process and how these decisions are made.
Bobcat stated that public opinion shouldn't dictate issues the WDFW made. On seasons issues, I might tend to agree. On general equipment issues where the equipment doesn't effect hunter success, I disagree. There is no correlation between lighted nocks use and ultimate hunter success of a game species in any study.
Because there isn't a conservation-based reason to have done so, the department had no business putting this issue in front of the Commission in the first place. I suspect that in the end the Commission did what it ought to do and made no change precisely because there is no correlation whatsoever between nocks and the consummation of success (finding a dead animal). Try as he might Commissioner Douvia, even with the help he had, didn't get this pet project rammed through...
What is most important is that the Commission upheld valued principles of hunting, (the kind that are seldom if ever taught on TV shows) by saying that allowing new technologies would raise questions about fair-chase, equal opportunity and the tradition of hunting. Kudos to the Commission for upholding those standards. How this can be considered a "problem" is worrisome to me.
Imagine, if the children were left in charge of the schoolhouse where would it lead them in the future? 85% of them would love to have recess all day long, but at what cost? They would not foresee any consequences because they'd be too caught up in the freedom of getting to do anything they pleased. Kids don't run schoolhouses for the exact same reason that the general public doesn't set the hunting regulations; to save them from themselves.
Not sure how you can even see the issue from way up there on your soapbox? All the school boys down here are looking at the issue and you just seem to want to find ways to drive a wedge in the archery community. Your opinion is no luminock... got it. But your argument fails to look at the big picture of how this process went.
This change was not in the original rules package when it was presented.
Archers requested the change to WDFW and it was added to the package of possible rule changes. This was in line with the rule moratorium as it was requested by the user group (public).
After all the letters, public comment, and the poll, the overwhelming opinion (nearly 85%) was in favor of the rule change.
The rule change came before the GMAC committee and was voted 14-4 for approval.
The WDFW, considering all the public input, recommended that the Commission approve the rule change.
The Commission voted against the change and tabled the issue til next year. What?
So let me get this straight... the user group, the representatives of all the user groups, the hunting majority, and the WDFW Directors, all had it wrong? I have too think these are all the "schoolhouse children" you are referring too? I can't help but wonder why you are so eager to fetch the ruler for the nuns to help keep us all in line? Your unforeseen consequences prophecies are a weak justification for your narrow view of the issue. I have yet to see anyone say the public should make policy. Don't see you finding any sportsman that would support that. Consider that a Snapshot in the mirror may expose part of the problem.
This issue was approved by the user groups and dfw managers. The approval was by a landslide at every step in the process. The Commission's decision on this is difficult to understand and I'm looking forward to hearing their reasoning.
I am very concerned when a open process and vote of sportsman, filed with checks and balances, essentially passes 85-15, and is approved by the governing body of oversight, can be nullified by so few. I'm not nearly as concerned with luminocks as I am the rule making process. The process is on the pendulum of broken and this is just another example! Wake up, we are losing control over OUR resources! This is a trivial issue but imagine if it wasn't.
Post by: winshooter88 on April 18, 2012, 03:52:39 AM
The most likely reason the commission ruled against lighted nocks is to keep all electronics out of what is supposedly a primitive weapons season. We know what the surveys showed about archers wanting lighted nocks, but does anyone know what kind of positive or negative emails or letters or calls they received on the subject? Popeshawnpaul is correct in saying that this isn't the first time that the commission has gone against GMAC and WDFW recommendations.
As far as other states allowing the use of lighted nocks, there are allot of things that Washington does different than other states and in most cases that is a good thing, because our human population and wildlife population are different than other states.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 18, 2012, 06:49:47 AM
there seemed to be some issues with the survey and the accuracy. The parameters for getting a survey was supposed to be elk and deer license for the previous ( I think?) 3 years, however hundreds if not thousands of bowhunters who met those parameters did not receive the survey, including some very influential people within our State government. If you look, out of the 24,000 that met the surveys requirements only 10% answered, that raised many an eyebrow. As Matt stated above there are alternatives on the market of legal lighted nocks, no batteries.
Phool,
you seem to only read the parts you want and then accuse those of us against the lit nocks of hypocrisy, as we have stated, first and foremost it is the electronics, it also was argued that lit nocks could be used in low light conditions possibly making a border line ethical hunter take a less than ethical lowlight shot. AS Matt has stated the unethical will do it anyway. There are legal alternatives, but I guess a couple people (not you) are not going to get the benefits of being a close friend of Lumenok's now.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 18, 2012, 07:14:04 AM
Post by: Matt on April 18, 2012, 07:53:03 AM
You hypocrites can't seem get this simple question answered. First you say lighted nocks will be the doom of all archery hunting and then out the other sides of your mouths you say glow sticks or lighted fletching is ok. :chuckle: So which is it? How are glow in the dark fletching or chemically lighted nocks any different? Wont shots be taken in "less than favorible conditions" with these too? How are these acceptable? Is it just batteries you have issues with? :chuckle:
Talk about missing the point. It has nothing to do with a lighted nock. It has to do with leave electronics off of our equipment so that no one can say that we are not a "primative" weapon anymore so lets limit their time in the woods. You guys are playing with that twitching tail of the tiger. Keep doin it and we are gonna get bit.
Post by: TommyH on April 18, 2012, 08:00:36 AM
There you go, problem solved and both camps are happy.
There is a pipe dream. Make everyone happy. LOL
People need to realise that those of us that fought so hard to prevent the passing of lighted nocks are not against the nock at all. Most of us do feel that the arguements behind it to be passed are quite silly but the actual use of the nock is a mute point.
The real point is the fact that we enjoy more time in the woods hunting because we are still categorized as a primative weapon. If we keep pushing technology (electronics) on our equipment then we will surely start losing more of those days in the woods. Even though these gimmicks will not actually help us harvest more game it will be percieved by other user groups and more importantly the general public that it does aid us, thus they will take away what we cherrish and that is 2 long hunting seasons.
Washington isn't like other states in the east that are over run by deer and they are doing and allowing everything possible to control the herd. Out west we get to harvest one animal of each species and the manufacturers like luminock need to realize this and leave our regulations alone. They could careless if we lose days, they just want to sell their goods. That's my rant
:tup:
Post by: Snapshot on April 18, 2012, 08:01:07 AM
Yes, steelywhopper, our state has thusfar been better than allowing broadheads that can fail and electronics in bowhunting. More power to them!
I think what gnaws some who are whining for electric nocks more than anything is that their homegrown hunting videos don't look as cool as Texans' homegrown hunting videos. If the industry can't shove it's electric nocks down every state's throat then they'll go back to the drawing board and come out with a fibre-optic nock that will work as well or better than any non-electric nock on the market now. In the meantime the glow sticks will show up well enough when the sun goes down that any arrow not buried in duff can be found. IF the shots were shortened up far fewer arrows would be lost anyway...
Post by: Snapshot on April 18, 2012, 08:06:40 AM
As far as other states allowing the use of lighted nocks, there are allot of things that Washington does different than other states and in most cases that is a good thing, because our human population and wildlife population are different than other states.
:yeah:
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 18, 2012, 08:11:57 AM
First of all, there was no vote of hunters on this issue. It was a poll. Secondly, regardless of the number of letters received against luminocks (or in support), the poll reflected that an overwhelming majority of hunters support luminocks. I assume that all of those who wrote letters also participated in the poll. If you didn't, your non-participation isn't my concern. Finally, the commission does whatever it wants, in line with a philosophy of divide and conquer WA hunter groups, and in line with the wishes of our liberal governor (in fact, a line of liberal governors) who I believe wants to see hunting at least severely reduced in WA, if not eliminated. They have not a care in the world what the hunters of this state want. They have their marching orders. The polls are meant to pacify the masses and make us think they give a crap what we want. They do not!
I didn't think we agreed on anything but good post, right on point.
Chase1, I agree with about 98% of what you are saying. Great perspective. There are some elitist attitudes from some archers that harm bow-hunting and any chance of unity among groups. As they say, it all starts at the top.
Post by: Snapshot on April 18, 2012, 08:15:02 AM
Chase 1.... please re-read this in regards to the flawed survey.... hunters opinions? Over 1000 letters, emails against lighted nocks and electronics were submitted to the Commission in regards to this by bowhunters that felt strongly enough to do so. Were any of you that are upset at the Commission meeting in Moses Lake? I didn't see one person testify on Saturday "FOR" it...
I have to correct you there, NWW...; there was one in the room on that Friday who testified in favor of an exception for electric nocks. The others, the working men who took time off to be there on the appointed date at the appointed time, spoke against it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 18, 2012, 08:19:14 AM
You hypocrites can't seem get this simple question answered. First you say lighted nocks will be the doom of all archery hunting and then out the other sides of your mouths you say glow sticks or lighted fletching is ok. :chuckle: So which is it? How are glow in the dark fletching or chemically lighted nocks any different? Wont shots be taken in "less than favorible conditions" with these too? How are these acceptable? Is it just batteries you have issues with? :chuckle:
The state loves this stuff, especially the commission. Huntnphool, you'll probably get your picture up on the wildlife commission's meeting room wall as their poster child. I think they really love it when we call each other names over something as small as luminocks and stay divided. Wait until there's a really important issue. They'll just sit back and watch us fight while they create laws and plans to ruin our hunting. Without a unified front, we're powerless to oppose them. Nice work! :tup: :bash:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 18, 2012, 08:22:56 AM
Now that right there is funny....
Post by: Matt on April 18, 2012, 08:47:07 AM
I have to correct you there, NWW...; there was one in the room on that Friday who testified in favor of an exception for electric nocks. The others, the working men who took time off to be there on the appointed date at the appointed time, spoke against it.
Yeah she was from the trappers association. WTH do they care about electronics on archery equipment. LOL Not to mention that she pretty much just quoted the BS that was in the article from the Spokane paper. None of her statement made any sense nor had any real relevance.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 18, 2012, 08:55:56 AM
Its legal in other states so it ought to be legal here. What makes our deer or elk any different from other states. Are they too good for lighted nocks or expandable broadheads?
Just my opinion...
Maybe we need to outlaw hunting with centerfire rifles because other states don't allow it. And Sunday hunting also... your logic is flawed.
I didn't really care either way but all the people who are complaining about these not being allowed have turned me against allowing them... I want them to stay illegal now. :bash:
Post by: Chase 1 on April 18, 2012, 09:43:08 AM
There are some elitist attitudes from some archers that harm bow-hunting and any chance of unity among groups. As they say, it all starts at the top.
Now that right there is funny....
Care to elaborate? I missed the joke.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 18, 2012, 09:56:59 AM
Chase 1.... please re-read this in regards to the flawed survey.... hunters opinions? Over 1000 letters, emails against lighted nocks and electronics were submitted to the Commission in regards to this by bowhunters that felt strongly enough to do so. Were any of you that are upset at the Commission meeting in Moses Lake? I didn't see one person testify on Saturday "FOR" it...
That was one of several ways to address the issue with the Commission, so that argument holds little water. The WDFW response to your comment was...
"While the survey was not random, it is our
belief that a significant majority of archers
support illuminated nocks. Our belief is largely
based on our experience and the large number
of respondents (3000+)."
So your saying that all the sportsman that couldn't take a day off work should not have a say on the matter? C' on Man.
Post by: Snapshot on April 18, 2012, 10:16:27 AM
There are some elitist attitudes from some archers that harm bow-hunting and any chance of unity among groups. As they say, it all starts at the top.
Now that right there is funny....
Care to elaborate? I missed the joke.
It's like the pot calling the kettle black...
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 18, 2012, 03:17:20 PM
Chase 1.... please re-read this in regards to the flawed survey.... hunters opinions? Over 1000 letters, emails against lighted nocks and electronics were submitted to the Commission in regards to this by bowhunters that felt strongly enough to do so. Were any of you that are upset at the Commission meeting in Moses Lake? I didn't see one person testify on Saturday "FOR" it...
That was one of several ways to address the issue with the Commission, so that argument holds little water. The WDFW response to your comment was...
"While the survey was not random, it is our
belief that a significant majority of archers
support illuminated nocks. Our belief is largely
based on our experience and the large number
of respondents (3000+)."
So your saying that all the sportsman that couldn't take a day off work should not have a say on the matter? C' on Man.
No but if you read my response it also talks about letters, emails and phone calls..... had the survey indeed been sent to everyone that met the parameters of the survey as was suggested then over 20,000 people would have been polled.
Post by: Lowedog on April 19, 2012, 05:45:07 AM
Post by: Snapshot on April 19, 2012, 08:37:03 AM
Man, I don't know about this chemically lighted nock. That would open up Pandora's box! Pretty soon people will be using chemicals on the other end of their arrow so they can kill an animal just by grazing it. Imagine all the un-ethical hunting practices this will cause!!!!Those are called POD's Lowedog, and to the best of my knowledge are only legal in state of Mississippi. All national bowhunting organizations as well as the National Bowhunter Education Foundation have taken positions against the use of POD's.
Post by: dscubame on April 19, 2012, 10:43:46 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 19, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Post by: DoubleJ on April 19, 2012, 11:58:19 AM
Man, I don't know about this chemically lighted nock. That would open up Pandora's box! Pretty soon people will be using chemicals on the other end of their arrow so they can kill an animal just by grazing it. Imagine all the un-ethical hunting practices this will cause!!!!
My god tell me this post was completely sarcastic.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 19, 2012, 11:09:17 PM
Man, I don't know about this chemically lighted nock. That would open up Pandora's box! Pretty soon people will be using chemicals on the other end of their arrow so they can kill an animal just by grazing it. Imagine all the un-ethical hunting practices this will cause!!!!
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: That' Hilarious!
Post by: Chase 1 on April 19, 2012, 11:55:33 PM
Can someone explain to me what the big deal is anyway?...... :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle:
To me the big deal is that the voice of the people was completely ignored by the people that were put in place to insure that it is heard.(a stretch yes, but that is suppose to be the idea) I have a hard time with the fact that after all the effort and money that went into gathering impute on the issue, the commission found a way to justify voting against an 85% hunter support, GMAC approval, and department recommendation. Everyone had ample time (or as ample as the dept ever gives) to give their position to the department. Although not a perfect measurement, the pole certainly took a good dip out of the hunter pool. I also cringe at the thought that a very vocal minority has pushed to influence this decision from a bully pulpit thinly veiled as representation of a fictitious number of supporters.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 20, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
It's a big deal because some people who wanted them didn't get their way. I spoke in favor of them and don't care. There are way bigger fish to fry and ones that we can all get together on, like more OTC tags and increased opportunities for everyone. Nocks? very minute in the larger picture.
In a nutshell, I agree. I have voiced support of this issue from the get go. What I haven't divulged is that I have never, nor do I plan to, use lite nocks when they are made legal. I have kept an open mind to the concerns of my fellow archers and have been willing to consider factors that I may not have considered. Unfortunately for the loud >15% minority, I am still part of the vast majority. The arguments in opposition have been flimsy at best. I respect the opinions of the few, but at the end of the day they are just that, an extreme minority opinion.
As for it being a petty and distracting issue, it's absolutely true. I try to be as active on as many issues as I can find time for, this one just happen to be in our face this go round. I really wish that it had been passed this year so we could move on to the issues that really need attention.
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 06:50:30 AM
It's a big deal because some people who wanted them didn't get their way. I spoke in favor of them and don't care. There are way bigger fish to fry and ones that we can all get together on, like more OTC tags and increased opportunities for everyone. Nocks? very minute in the larger picture.
In a nutshell, I agree. I have voiced support of this issue from the get go. What I haven't divulged is that I have never, nor do I plan to, use lite nocks when they are made legal. I have kept an open mind to the concerns of my fellow archers and have been willing to consider factors that I may not have considered. Unfortunately for the loud >15% minority, I am still part of the vast majority. The arguments in opposition have been flimsy at best. I respect the opinions of the few, but at the end of the day they are just that, an extreme minority opinion.
As for it being a petty and distracting issue, it's absolutely true. I try to be as active on as many issues as I can find time for, this one just happen to be in our face this go round. I really wish that it had been passed this year so we could move on to the issues that really need attention.
The resolution is staring everyone right in the face: leave the current archery rules alone. Forget about changing them and move on to the other issues.
Bowhunters wrote those rules in the first place to protect the image of bowhunting; and now other bowhunters have to protect the rules that protect the image. Image is the single most important thing we have, because it took a good image to gain hunting opportunity in the first place and it will take a good public image to keep what we have.
Trying to change the archery rules and regulations is not PETTY. I have read and heard over and over again, "It is just a nock. It isn't important. I can't believe so much time is being wasted on it." If all that is true then let go of it. Prove that it isn't important by dropping the matter. IT caused a rift by rearing its' head in the first place; dropping it will allow the rift to start to mend and allow everyone to focus on hunting seasons, public outreach, etc. Important stuff.
Post by: Miles on April 20, 2012, 06:54:09 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lp2epd7QrL1qbhtrto1_500.gif&hash=3239e303f298059329ed4fd7473733c1bea427ab)
Post by: huntnnw on April 20, 2012, 09:50:55 AM
the decision makes 0 sense and its right along the lines of not allowing inline muzzys if anything the inlines are far more advantagous then allowing a stupid lighted nock that does s&^%$ to aid in harvest..
Post by: Machias on April 20, 2012, 09:56:33 AM
how many times has a warden checked your nocks? :chuckle: people who wanna use them wil
the decision makes 0 sense and its right along the lines of not allowing inline muzzys if anything the inlines are far more advantagous then allowing a stupid lighted nock that does s&^%$ to aid in harvest..
Really, I didn't realize we could use inlines during archery season. :)
Post by: Curly on April 20, 2012, 10:34:12 AM
Post by: Special T on April 20, 2012, 10:38:25 AM
Post by: Curly on April 20, 2012, 10:40:46 AM
Post by: steeleywhopper on April 20, 2012, 01:29:52 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2012, 01:31:52 PM
Post by: buckfvr on April 20, 2012, 01:45:18 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2012, 02:29:26 PM
How is it so many bow hunters just can NOT grasp the primative weapon concept ???? They can read it , but they cant fully understand what it means. They just want what they want , with out regards to what changes will result from allowing changes to the original negotiated reasons for seperate archery seasons to begin with. :twocents:
Unless you're hunting with obsidian broadheads that you chiseled yourself, you don't grasp it either. If you use manufactured arrows, even just the manufactured shafts, you're using something non-primitive. If your string didn't come from the gut of an animal that you killed, you're using innovations. Why can't you grasp that?
The fact is that it's just another innovation, and not even one that makes it easier to kill, like synthetic strings and aluminum arrows. Like I've said before, I don't care if they don't allow them. But please don't get all high horse about what people don't grasp just because you think you're more primitive than the next. You're not.
Post by: Machias on April 20, 2012, 02:49:16 PM
How is it so many bow hunters just can NOT grasp the primative weapon concept ???? They can read it , but they cant fully understand what it means. They just want what they want , with out regards to what changes will result from allowing changes to the original negotiated reasons for seperate archery seasons to begin with. :twocents:
Unless you're hunting with obsidian broadheads that you chiseled yourself, you don't grasp it either. If you use manufactured arrows, even just the manufactured shafts, you're using something non-primitive. If your string didn't come from the gut of an animal that you killed, you're using innovations. Why can't you grasp that?
The fact is that it's just another innovation, and not even one that makes it easier to kill, like synthetic strings and aluminum arrows. Like I've said before, I don't care if they don't allow them. But please don't get all high horse about what people don't grasp just because you think you're more primitive than the next. You're not.
Says the man who posted this. :chuckle: :chuckle:
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
Post by: buckfvr on April 20, 2012, 02:55:29 PM
Post by: h20hunter on April 20, 2012, 02:57:39 PM
Haven't we done this once before?
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 02:57:56 PM
Post by: dscubame on April 20, 2012, 04:24:37 PM
How is it so many bow hunters just can NOT grasp the primative weapon concept ???? They can read it , but they cant fully understand what it means. They just want what they want , with out regards to what changes will result from allowing changes to the original negotiated reasons for seperate archery seasons to begin with. :twocents:
What is primitive about today's archery equipment?
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2012, 04:30:05 PM
The resolution is staring everyone right in the face: leave the current archery rules alone. Forget about changing them and move on to the other issues.
This is the same arrogant type of attitude in the white house that has 70% of the people in this country so pissed off, that it doesn't matter what the overwhelming majority wants, some feel that they know better than the majority so its the majority that should conform to the opinions of the few, in this case Obamacare.
Why should us 85% be the ones that "forget about changing them and move on to other issues"? If the other issues are really what we should be uniting against, then why don't those that fought so hard against luminoks just let it go and fight the fight of what really matters? What gives you the right to dictate what the archery hunters in this state fight for and what their majority stance is on any given issue? You are not in a elected position to represent the opinion of the collective archery hunters in this state and your opinion should be considered no more than any one archery hunter on this site or in this state.
You blow smoke with unfounded speculation that we either leave the luminok rule the way it is or lose opportunity, when it has NEVER been the commissions or the departments stance that we choose one or the other. All it is is scare tactics by you and your supporters. Show me where either the department or the commission have ever officially taken this stance.
Even if we all agree to let it die and move on to those other important issues, as Chase1 brought up, why should we believe that anything we bring to the table will be considered in good faith? The decision makers clearly don't hold in regard the recommendations of the department, GMAC or the hunters.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 20, 2012, 05:47:19 PM
Post by: Curly on April 20, 2012, 07:03:53 PM
Even if we all agree to let it die and move on to those other important issues, as Chase1 brought up, why should we believe that anything we bring to the table will be considered in good faith? The decision makers clearly don't hold in regard the recommendations of the department, GMAC or the hunters.
Exactly. Why would GMAC members even bother wasting their time anymore meeting on issues when it really doesn't matter what they recommend? Or, why should hunters even bother taking the time to vote in WDFW polls when it seems that it doesn't matter what the poll results are? ???
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2012, 07:34:04 PM
Or, why should hunters even bother taking the time to vote in WDFW polls when it seems that it doesn't matter what the poll results are? ???
Don't give up on the department quite yet. I have been as critical of them as anyone over the years, but in their defence they took the results of the poll seriously and were recommending to the commission that luminoks be legalized. It was the commission that didn't listen.
On another note, I think the reason Snapshot is so quick to have everyone drop the issue and accept the results is because he knows the final vote by the commission was minus one member, one member that he knows is in favor of luminoks. Unfortunately for those of us that want them legalized, that member was out of town for the vote but will likely be there should we get it brought to the table again, I don't think Snapshot wants another vote.
They did say they were going to table it for now and discuss it again for next year. Well "next year" actually started the 15th of this month, time to get back in the fight. ;)
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 08:06:45 PM
All it is is scare tactics by you and your supporters.
I don't have any supporters, Phool. There are supporters of bowhunting and I stand along side them. And then there are people that don't give a rip about whether bowhunting survives for their grandkids or not, and their rash, unthoughtful actions are harmful to bowhunting. They are the opportunists; people who care only about their best chance to kill something. It doesn't matter to them whether they use a compound or some other weapon. They are not the type who'd carry their bow if they were to draw a once-in-a-lifetime moose tag. Would you? I sure as hell would.
The entirety of bowhunters is not in 85% percent support for electronics in archery, and anyone who says they are is a dreamer or, if they know better, then a liar. That 85% number that has been paraded around is out of the only 10% that bothered to respond at all to the poll, and the poll only went to the people that the Big Game Manager, Dave Ware, decided they should go to. His criteria was that the people had to have bought an archery deer tag for just two consecutive years; how representative is that of the populace? And there were a lot of people who met that criteria that didn't get to partake in the poll. It excluded anyone who didn't have an email address! Fact!
And you talk about scare tactics, but you conjure up Obama's name in drawing an analogy. Jeez, try crying 'wolf'. Just how stupid do you think people are?
Good faith in the commission? What they decided was consistent with what they decided at the last three-year season-setting meeting when they toed the line on muzzleloader technology.
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 08:11:58 PM
Curly, BJ's testimony was probably PURCHASED by way of monetary support of the group she represents. She has always followed the money. I don't fault her for that; it is the way of politics.
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
How is it so many bow hunters just can NOT grasp the primitive weapon concept ???? They can read it , but they cant fully understand what it means. They just want what they want , with out regards to what changes will result from allowing changes to the original negotiated reasons for separate archery seasons to begin with. :twocents:
What is primitive about today's archery equipment?
Great question! Other than the machine that flings the arrow Washington has so far kept it under control, unlike some other states (that have so many deer that they are pests to be killed by any means at hand). I think the regulations should keep bowhunting as primitive as possible, because if it were left up to those who stand to profit by allowing anything and everything into archery season it would be completely unrecognizable in a generation's time. It is the 'anything goes' mentality that may one day lead to compounds with all their accouterments being stuck into a different class of season. If a time comes that anything electronic is allowed on compounds, how could they and longbows be clasified as the same weapon? They couldn't.
Post by: Lowedog on April 20, 2012, 08:39:40 PM
If a time comes that anything electronic is allowed on compounds, how could they and longbows be clasified as the same weapon? They couldn't.
:chuckle: That's funny! They both can be shot with sights or not, they both can be shot with fingers or a release and they both shoot the same projectile so how could they not be classified as the same weapon? Because of what you shoot? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 08:52:05 PM
If a time comes that anything electronic is allowed on compounds, how could they and longbows be classified as the same weapon? They couldn't.
:chuckle: That's funny! They both can be shot with sights or not, they both can be shot with fingers or a release and they both shoot the same projectile so how could they not be classified as the same weapon? Because of what you shoot? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Maybe I should have said 'naked' longbows. A potential difference in classification might be electronics.
Post by: JCKILLSHOT on April 20, 2012, 08:57:40 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 09:05:35 PM
Why do all the "traditional bowhunters" hate on every new thing that comes out for compound bows? You can use what you like to use. If you don't like lighted nocks then you don't have to use them. I just don't get why we all can't be on the same page? We all would like the same thing not to lose arrows and to recover our animals and if someone wants to use a lighted nock I say let them.That lighted nocks will help to recover animals is a fantasy.
Post by: Lowedog on April 20, 2012, 09:06:52 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 09:07:37 PM
I don't know anything about the commission being minus one member last weekend. But I'll bone up on that because I want to know who...
So Commissioner Douvia says "Compounds are the problem..." Sheesh.
But who was absent?
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
All it is is scare tactics by you and your supporters.And then there are people that don't give a rip about whether bowhunting survives for their grandkids or not, and their rash, unthoughtful actions are harmful to bowhunting.
What actions would those be specifically Snapshot? Where are the consequences to these actions officially noted? :dunno:
Again I think you are spouting your minds own speculation without a shred of evidence.
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 09:11:32 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 20, 2012, 09:16:27 PM
All it is is scare tactics by you and your supporters.And then there are people that don't give a rip about whether bowhunting survives for their grandkids or not, and their rash, unthoughtful actions are harmful to bowhunting.
What actions would those be specifically Snapshot? Where are the consequences to these actions officially noted? :dunno:
Again I think you are spouting your minds own speculation without a shred of evidence.
Specifically, attacking the status quo of the archery rules despite the consequences.
Post by: Lowedog on April 20, 2012, 09:17:24 PM
I'm a lover, Lowedog, not a hater. But being a son of the revolution it is in my blood to stand up to perceived treachery. ;)
A lover of only what your closed mind thinks is acceptable. :rolleyes: A hater of anything else. :chuckle: Why else would you put so much effort into something as minute as a lighted nock?
So Commissioner Douvia says "Compounds are the problem..." Sheesh.
What problem?
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2012, 09:20:03 PM
That 85% number that has been paraded around is out of the only 10% that bothered to respond at all to the poll, and the poll only went to the people that the Big Game Manager, Dave Ware, decided they should go to.
So what are you saying here? Dave Ware had his own agenda and knew how the people that he sent the poll to would vote? Come on man, thats a stretch don't you think! :chuckle:
If Dave did not have his own agenda then you are suggesting that he intentionally omitted trad hunters and anyone else he thought would be opposed to luminoks? :chuckle: Again, thats a real stretch!
You honestly believe that even if the poll reached every archery hunter in the state that the results percentage would be that much different? A lot of polls are conducted this way, sampling a percentage of a user group, most polls like this are pretty accurate with a +/- 5%. Even if you assume the remaining user group would have resulted in a additional 5% against you would still be looking at a landslide favorable result.
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2012, 09:22:54 PM
Specifically, attacking the status quo of the archery rules despite the consequences.
And what would those consequences be Snapshot? Come on man, I'm giving you the podium so you can let everyone know exactly what WDFW and the commission will do, lay it on us brother. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2012, 09:43:28 PM
then there are people that don't give a rip about whether bowhunting survives for their grandkids or not, and their rash, unthoughtful actions are harmful to bowhunting. They are the opportunists; people who care only about their best chance to kill something. It doesn't matter to them whether they use a compound or some other weapon.They are not the type who'd carry their bow if they were to draw a once-in-a-lifetime moose tag. Would you?Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1246693#msg1246693 date=1334964605
:chuckle:
Post by: Lowedog on April 20, 2012, 09:51:51 PM
then there are people that don't give a rip about whether bowhunting survives for their grandkids or not, and their rash, unthoughtful actions are harmful to bowhunting. They are the opportunists; people who care only about their best chance to kill something. It doesn't matter to them whether they use a compound or some other weapon.They are not the type who'd carry their bow if they were to draw a once-in-a-lifetime moose tag. Would you?Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1246693#msg1246693 date=1334964605
:chuckle:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy197%2FVendel%2Frandom%2520stuff%2Fhighhorse.jpg&hash=136c8b4bbd4445e9bd1dd4b2696c698b488e9e4e)
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2012, 09:54:40 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2012, 10:06:27 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 21, 2012, 09:41:49 AM
Why do all the "traditional bowhunters" hate on every new thing that comes out for compound bows? You can use what you like to use. If you don't like lighted nocks then you don't have to use them. I just don't get why we all can't be on the same page? We all would like the same thing not to lose arrows and to recover our animals and if someone wants to use a lighted nock I say let them.That lighted nocks will help to recover animals is a fantasy.
You say a lot yet totally lack substance or knowledge. Your Pandora's box theory, rigged poles, voice of the revolution, edge of the technology cliff, open door for laser guided grenade tip arrows and on and on... blah blah blah. Are you one of the "representatives" of archers that was at the Moses meeting?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on April 21, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
Even if we all agree to let it die and move on to those other important issues, as Chase1 brought up, why should we believe that anything we bring to the table will be considered in good faith? The decision makers clearly don't hold in regard the recommendations of the department, GMAC or the hunters.
Exactly. Why would GMAC members even bother wasting their time anymore meeting on issues when it really doesn't matter what they recommend? Or, why should hunters even bother taking the time to vote in WDFW polls when it seems that it doesn't matter what the poll results are? ???
I heard the director at one of the last GMAC meetings say the GMAC would be taken serious and that the recommendations would be carefully considered by the WDFW. This is but one issue where this has not occurred. It's disappointing the process is probably an exercise in futility. I'll once again stress that everyone on this thread, no matter if your pro-nock or not, will be concerned when 85% of us don't want lazer guided grenade arrow tips, the GMAC votes to not allow them, and they get passed by the Commission...
Post by: JCKILLSHOT on April 21, 2012, 04:17:25 PM
Post by: huntnnw on April 21, 2012, 05:10:24 PM
How is it so many bow hunters just can NOT grasp the primative weapon concept ???? They can read it , but they cant fully understand what it means. They just want what they want , with out regards to what changes will result from allowing changes to the original negotiated reasons for seperate archery seasons to begin with. :twocents:
my point exactly..why in the hell was inline muzzys allowed into the muzzy world?
Post by: Chase 1 on April 21, 2012, 05:18:17 PM
Even if we all agree to let it die and move on to those other important issues, as Chase1 brought up, why should we believe that anything we bring to the table will be considered in good faith? The decision makers clearly don't hold in regard the recommendations of the department, GMAC or the hunters.
Exactly. Why would GMAC members even bother wasting their time anymore meeting on issues when it really doesn't matter what they recommend? Or, why should hunters even bother taking the time to vote in WDFW polls when it seems that it doesn't matter what the poll results are? ???
I heard the director at one of the last GMAC meetings say the GMAC would be taken serious and that the recommendations would be carefully considered by the WDFW. This is but one issue where this has not occurred. It's disappointing the process is probably an exercise in futility. I'll once again stress that everyone on this thread, no matter if your pro-nock or not, will be concerned when 85% of us don't want lazer guided grenade arrow tips, the GMAC votes to not allow them, and they get passed by the Commission...
The tough part is that, at least in this case, the WDFW did listen and did recommend the change to the Commission. How they managed to find a justification to vote against it is baffling.
Post by: Curly on April 21, 2012, 05:27:32 PM
The whole process has gotten frustrating.Even if we all agree to let it die and move on to those other important issues, as Chase1 brought up, why should we believe that anything we bring to the table will be considered in good faith? The decision makers clearly don't hold in regard the recommendations of the department, GMAC or the hunters.
Exactly. Why would GMAC members even bother wasting their time anymore meeting on issues when it really doesn't matter what they recommend? Or, why should hunters even bother taking the time to vote in WDFW polls when it seems that it doesn't matter what the poll results are? ???
I heard the director at one of the last GMAC meetings say the GMAC would be taken serious and that the recommendations would be carefully considered by the WDFW. This is but one issue where this has not occurred. It's disappointing the process is probably an exercise in futility. I'll once again stress that everyone on this thread, no matter if your pro-nock or not, will be concerned when 85% of us don't want lazer guided grenade arrow tips, the GMAC votes to not allow them, and they get passed by the Commission...
The tough part is that, at least in this case, the WDFW did listen and did recommend the change to the Commission. How they managed to find a justification to vote against it is baffling.
The special permit category b.s. that we have today I wanted the commission to not approve it and wait for at least another year to allow time for us hunters to give input. Nope, they went and approved it, when there was a bunch of flaws with it and they said something about working the bugs out later. >:( (I don't believe the GMAC was all behind the permit system either).
The 4 point APR was not recommended by WDFW biologists and the commission went and voted to approve it. (I believe this was also against the GMAC recommendations).
Then the wolf plan I would have hoped that the commission would go against the Department but they went along with them and approved the plan.
And then this decision on lighted nocks. Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I just don't see any consistency. Some things the commission votes with WDFW and others they don't. Seems like more times than not I am in agreement with GMAC recommendations........ :dunno:
Post by: JCKILLSHOT on April 21, 2012, 05:39:25 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 21, 2012, 05:44:21 PM
How does a nock change bow hunting??You get to make cooler videos that make it look like a tracer hitting an animal at 70 yds 1 minute before legal time ends. :sry:
Post by: JCKILLSHOT on April 21, 2012, 06:04:58 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 21, 2012, 11:33:27 PM
How does a nock change bow hunting??You get to make cooler videos that make it look like a tracer hitting an animal at 70 yds 1 minute before legal time ends. :sry:
So your contention is that lite nocks encourage increased poaching and unethical hunting practice for the entertainment and illeagle footage of the hunt? C'mon man!
Post by: Matt on April 23, 2012, 09:31:50 AM
What is primitive about today's archery equipment?
Exactly. And that is the attitude that will cost you and every other bowhunter days in the woods. At some point a line must be drawn and that line should be at electronics on the equipment.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on April 23, 2012, 10:49:53 AM
What is primitive about today's archery equipment?
Exactly. And that is the attitude that will cost you and every other bowhunter days in the woods. At some point a line must be drawn and that line should be at electronics on the equipment.
Post by: huntnphool on April 23, 2012, 03:24:02 PM
What is primitive about today's archery equipment?
Exactly. And that is the attitude that will cost you and every other bowhunter days in the woods.
WDFW and the commission have NEVER given archery hunters an ultimatum that they draw a line on electronics or lose days in the field, just more scare tactics by those against luminoks.
Post by: MDGrand on April 24, 2012, 11:10:27 AM
Bottom line in my eyes... It came down to a few people who REALLY make the decisions on the WDFW board wanting to ignore the wants of what MOST WA bowhunters in WA want.
Fact: 80% of the people polled wanted luminocks, only 20% did not. When well over 2/3rds of congress votes yes, even the president can't veto a bill... but here in the good ol state of WA on the board of WDFW... they get to be selfish.
As they stated:
“The commission has struggled with the issue of allowing new technologies in hunting,” Wecker said. “It raises questions of fair chase, equal opportunity among hunters and the very tradition of the sport. The commission has to uphold those standards, and some of us believe we have to draw the line at the use of electronics.”
My thoughts are that for those 80% that voted yes... that we form another petition and we also before presenting ask WHO on the board of WDFW veto'd this obvious statement of what the majority wanted in WA. Especially when they have the authority to over-rulo the majority, they should have to say WHO they are so we know WHO to call out and ask they be dismissed.
BTW... if it was 80/20 the other way... I would feel the same. Ignoring what the majority wants should be grounds for dismissal especially when it comes to government regulations.
:twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2012, 11:26:00 AM
Post by: MDGrand on April 24, 2012, 11:58:25 AM
I would agree that the DFW is not a democracy.. in fact, I dont believe that we have a democracy at ALL in the US. The politicians run this country as they see fit and care little for the people they represent... They care for themeselves and their party as that is their little club that gives permission to live at an exception to the rest of us. Just like the Senators in ancient Rome cared more about their estates, mistresses and $, the government is that way. The DFW and their current stance on ignoring the wants of the majority is an example of that. So you are right, I totally agree... the DFW is not a democracy.
That being said... the assumption and the hope that we are still a democratic society keeps the fire burning in the hopes of change.... so, with that I will offer the following...
Either way you slice it, ASKING the people for their opinion and getting an overwhelming "yes" reponse and ignoring it... is wrong. And the very fact that they DID ask for feedback screams that they follow the same traditional American philosophy of "putting it up to a vote" Meaning...The DFW opened the perception of being a democratic run organization. Not me and not the other people that gave feedback. So, my comparision to Congres is valid as the lie we are told in this country is founded on the fact that the people have the power, not the government. Am I wrong? I am as the DFW proved they have the power, not the people.
Moreover, since they are a government run ogranization and not part of a military or defense related department, it means we as citizens get to have oversight (to tell you the truth we are entitled to oversight there too, but that is another topic and I have to admit.. I am going a bit over the top here :) ). Oversight means we should get to know the people on the board of the WDFW and notify our local congressman of their biased and selfish positions when it comes to the issues put to a popular opinion within the state.
Will that do anything? Probably not. As again, I know we don't live in a democratic society.. and as long as we don't poeple will continue to break the rules and do things according to their own conscience vs. the law of the land. For example.... I know a lot of hunters who have 1 luminock in the quiver and also cover their #11 ignition on thier muzzy with fingernail polish. Both, unless visibily inspected or whitnessed when the shot occurs are difficult to detect.
Post by: Machias on April 24, 2012, 01:02:58 PM
Post by: Fullabull on April 24, 2012, 01:03:59 PM
Post by: Curly on April 24, 2012, 01:07:52 PM
The people should be able to see who on the commission voted yes or no on all subjects... Anyone know if that is true? I think it is a good idea for them to show that...
Should be able to find out somehow. But I'm not sure it really matters. With the commission members being appointed by the governor, what good would it do to know how each member votes? :dunno:
Like Special T said, the best thing we can do is vote McKenna in office this November. :twocents:
Post by: Fullabull on April 24, 2012, 01:16:37 PM
Post by: Curly on April 24, 2012, 02:35:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 24, 2012, 03:14:18 PM
Post by: Special T on April 24, 2012, 03:35:59 PM
Post by: Machias on April 24, 2012, 03:50:55 PM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
You are aware Mr. McKenna is a hard core Traditional Archery guy, right?
Post by: Special T on April 24, 2012, 03:55:18 PM
Post by: Machias on April 24, 2012, 03:56:51 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2012, 04:12:38 PM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
The NRA gave Jay Inslee an F rating.
Post by: huntnphool on April 24, 2012, 04:16:26 PM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
You are aware Mr. McKenna is a hard core Traditional Archery guy, right?
Thats not what he says during dinner conversations. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on April 24, 2012, 04:17:31 PM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
The NRA gave Jay Inslee an F rating.
Ya think? :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2012, 04:26:55 PM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
The NRA gave Jay Inslee an F rating.
Ya think? :chuckle:
Do you know Rob well? Do you know if we can depend on him to support hunting?
Post by: Snapshot on April 24, 2012, 05:05:32 PM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
Post by: huntnphool on April 24, 2012, 11:57:05 PM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
The NRA gave Jay Inslee an F rating.
Ya think? :chuckle:
Do you know Rob well? Do you know if we can depend on him to support hunting?
I can't speak for him, I am only a finacial contributor. That being said, I am not supporting Inslee financially. ;)
Post by: Chase 1 on April 25, 2012, 12:19:35 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on April 25, 2012, 12:20:47 AM
Do you know Rob well? Do you know if we can depend on him to support hunting?
I've met "Rob" a few times. Like Dino, he is a.very down to earth, hard working family man. i doubt he'd have a wolf in the crosshairs on the first cover of the hunting regs he'd publish but in time Im optimistic that conditions would improve.
Guys like Dino and McGavick have a tough time being elected in a *censored* state like WA and I am similarly afraid for McKenna. Only an absolute tool would call these candidates unqualified. When I realized that this described a plurality of WA voters, it went into the decision process that led to my emigration from WA a few years ago. Wish I'd have left sooner.
Good luck this November. Oh yeah, SHE's still my governor :IBCOOL:
Post by: huntnphool on April 25, 2012, 12:33:46 AM
:tup:One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
At least we have one thing we can agree to unite on. ;)
Post by: Machias on April 25, 2012, 08:09:00 AM
One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
You are aware Mr. McKenna is a hard core Traditional Archery guy, right?
Thats not what he says during dinner conversations. ;)
:chuckle:
Post by: Snapshot on April 25, 2012, 12:01:31 PM
:tup:One more reason to get Rob McKenna in office rather than another liberal in Jay Inslee.
At least we have one thing we can agree to unite on. ;)
Yessir!
Post by: Matt on April 25, 2012, 02:58:16 PM
WDFW and the commission have NEVER given archery hunters an ultimatum that they draw a line on electronics or lose days in the field, just more scare tactics by those against luminoks.
No they haven't and they probably never will. But once you cross the line there is no going back and if it does come up then there is only one way to deal with it.....reduce time.
phool how many times do I have to stress that I have absolutely nothing against luminocks. I say keep electronics of any kind off of archery equipment in the hunting woods. I own more state of the art archery equipment than 99% of folks on this thread, hell than most archery shops, so you cannot say that I am against technology in archery. A lighted nock is not going to help anyone hunting.
I don't hang out on the ML thread but they can't even have a fiber optic sight are they crying as loud???? I don't think so.
Post by: Holg3107 on April 25, 2012, 03:05:15 PM
Quote
b. Sights must be open, peep, or of other
open sight design. Fiber optic sights
are legal.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 25, 2012, 03:45:38 PM
Quote
A lighted nock is not going to help anyone hunting.
That's just it, it doesn't. The issue of electronics is a fine line, I get it. The reg would have read, No electronics except luminocks. I'm not in favor of outfitting archery gear with every new piece of technology or electronic out there. But is there another that could be added that doesn't help anyone hunting? If it doesn't affect success rate than the claim that somehow it will result in a lose of opportunity is a smoke screen. If you don't want to use them than don't! Why are some of you so insistant that you should be able to tell everyone else what to do just because you don't like it? It doesn't change anything about your opportunity, if it did this issue would be 98% the other direction.
Post by: Machias Bowhunter on April 25, 2012, 06:19:25 PM
Quote
A lighted nock is not going to help anyone hunting.
That's just it, it doesn't. The issue of electronics is a fine line, I get it. The reg would have read, No electronics except luminocks. I'm not in favor of outfitting archery gear with every new piece of technology or electronic out there. But is there another that could be added that doesn't help anyone hunting? If it doesn't affect success rate than the claim that somehow it will result in a lose of opportunity is a smoke screen. If you don't want to use them than don't! Why are some of you so insistant that you should be able to tell everyone else what to do just because you don't like it? It doesn't change anything about your opportunity, if it did this issue would be 98% the other direction.
Just throwing something else out there, with no electronics allowed you cant even have a camera mounted on your bow, and the for sure doesnt help a person with the actual hunting and shooting of a animal!!
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 25, 2012, 06:47:36 PM
Post by: Machias Bowhunter on April 25, 2012, 08:38:46 PM
Machias, that is true, however just like luminok there are alternatives. There is the video camera that is mounted in glass frames, and also clip to a hat bill or the front of a hat... they work real well.
Oh I i know I was just trying to lighten the topic, we are fighting over what a person deems primitive and not what needs to worked on, ie why do they give out whitetail doe tags to modern and muzzle loader but not archery when the reason they changed the NE corner of the state to buck only was that the population was down, but we will give the the doe tags to weapons that can shoot over a 100yrds with extreme accuracy, but yet we argue over lighted nocks, I personaly would like to see them, and no not to find my arrow or to allow me to shoot later into the evening, but to help me see where my shot went to help determine how long I should wait until I start looking for the animal, which will help in game recovery, we all make bad shots at times, may shoot a little to far back, to low and so on, knowing where you hit the animal can play a big part in deciding when to look, you dont want to push a gut shot animal, they can run forever, would rather let them lie down and go back in the morning if you shot in the evening or later in the evening if shot in the morning, that would be the only reason.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 25, 2012, 10:39:37 PM
Machias, that is true, however just like luminok there are alternatives. There is the video camera that is mounted in glass frames, and also clip to a hat bill or the front of a hat... they work real well.
So your fine with archers carryin a back pack with 10 lbs of GPS, range finder, radios, flashlight,and Bond glasses/robo hat cams in it, but drawn the line at lite nocks? :dunno:
Post by: Matt on April 26, 2012, 06:56:28 AM
Machias, that is true, however just like luminok there are alternatives. There is the video camera that is mounted in glass frames, and also clip to a hat bill or the front of a hat... they work real well.
So your fine with archers carryin a back pack with 10 lbs of GPS, range finder, radios, flashlight,and Bond glasses/robo hat cams in it, but drawn the line at lite nocks? :dunno:
We can carry anything that we want as long as there are no electronics attached to the archery equipment. If you go by Pope and Young 2-way radios will keep you out of the record book. Not fair chase talking your buddy in on the big one.
Post by: Matt on April 26, 2012, 07:01:36 AM
Oh I i know I was just trying to lighten the topic, we are fighting over what a person deems primitive and not what needs to worked on, ie why do they give out whitetail doe tags to modern and muzzle loader but not archery when the reason they changed the NE corner of the state to buck only was that the population was down, but we will give the the doe tags to weapons that can shoot over a 100yrds with extreme accuracy, but yet we argue over lighted nocks, I personaly would like to see them, and no not to find my arrow or to allow me to shoot later into the evening, but to help me see where my shot went to help determine how long I should wait until I start looking for the animal, which will help in game recovery, we all make bad shots at times, may shoot a little to far back, to low and so on, knowing where you hit the animal can play a big part in deciding when to look, you dont want to push a gut shot animal, they can run forever, would rather let them lie down and go back in the morning if you shot in the evening or later in the evening if shot in the morning, that would be the only reason.
This is a GREAT point. While we were all bickering with each other over this lighted nock issue these kinds of things were going on. In fact it was also happening with cow tags. Luckily Ren injected that archery should get some of those cow tags that were exclusively going to ML and MF. You read the regs and you can see that we did get some of those. So while everyone is flogging Ren he was fighting for more opportunity and won. We can make a difference if we ban together on important issues.
Post by: Matt on April 26, 2012, 07:04:43 AM
I'm not completely sure where you get your information but here's the direct quote from the regs under Muzzleloader Regulations. Fiber optic sights are legal for muzzleloaders. That may be why they aren't crying :twocents:Quoteb. Sights must be open, peep, or of other
open sight design. Fiber optic sights
are legal.
See proves my point that I don't go on their forums. But they still can't have a scope. :tung:
Post by: Snapshot on April 26, 2012, 08:52:04 AM
...but yet we argue over lighted nocks, I personaly would like to see them, and no not to find my arrow or to allow me to shoot later into the evening, but to help me see where my shot went to help determine how long I should wait until I start looking for the animal, which will help in game recovery, we all make bad shots at times, may shoot a little to far back, to low and so on, knowing where you hit the animal can play a big part in deciding when to look, you dont want to push a gut shot animal, they can run forever, would rather let them lie down and go back in the morning if you shot in the evening or later in the evening if shot in the morning, that would be the only reason.
I rarely have any trouble seeing my (11/32" or 23/64") arrow with bright feathers and white or yellow nock. Reasons for that are simply: 1) shot distances are always under 22-25 yards and 2) the arrow is traveling at a speed of maybe 150 or 175 fps.
Post by: Snapshot on April 26, 2012, 09:10:54 AM
Snapshot you must like loosing arrows!!
Loosing: letting the string slip from the fingers to launch an arrow. Yes, I love doing that.
Losing: misplacing an arrow. I don't recall that last time I lost a hunting arrow that I shot at a big game animal. I might have lost one on the westside when I missed a deer in tall ferns about five years ago. I'd have to ask my hunting partners...they remember stuff like that.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 09:48:32 AM
Snapshot you must like loosing arrows!!
Loosing: letting the string slip from the fingers to launch an arrow. Yes, I love doing that.
Losing: misplacing an arrow. I don't recall that last time I lost a hunting arrow that I shot at a big game animal. I might have lost one on the westside when I missed a deer in tall ferns about five years ago. I'd have to ask my hunting partners...they remember stuff like that.
That might have been the broadhead my buddy stepped on in a fern patch a few years ago. If you just had a lite nock on that arrow you could have found it and saved him a trip to the ER, stitches, and lost opportunity.
Post by: huntnphool on April 26, 2012, 10:35:37 AM
Quote
We can make a difference if we ban together on important issues.
After the result handed down by the commission I don't believe it will make a difference but we will see. That being said, I am going to make it a priority to work harder than I did last year to get luminoks passed for next year, see you at the meetings Snapshot. :tup:
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 10:37:03 AM
Oh I i know I was just trying to lighten the topic, we are fighting over what a person deems primitive and not what needs to worked on, ie why do they give out whitetail doe tags to modern and muzzle loader but not archery when the reason they changed the NE corner of the state to buck only was that the population was down, but we will give the the doe tags to weapons that can shoot over a 100yrds with extreme accuracy, but yet we argue over lighted nocks, I personaly would like to see them, and no not to find my arrow or to allow me to shoot later into the evening, but to help me see where my shot went to help determine how long I should wait until I start looking for the animal, which will help in game recovery, we all make bad shots at times, may shoot a little to far back, to low and so on, knowing where you hit the animal can play a big part in deciding when to look, you dont want to push a gut shot animal, they can run forever, would rather let them lie down and go back in the morning if you shot in the evening or later in the evening if shot in the morning, that would be the only reason.
This is a GREAT point. While we were all bickering with each other over this lighted nock issue these kinds of things were going on. In fact it was also happening with cow tags. Luckily Ren injected that archery should get some of those cow tags that were exclusively going to ML and MF. You read the regs and you can see that we did get some of those. So while everyone is flogging Ren he was fighting for more opportunity and won. We can make a difference if we ban together on important issues.
Careful to not credit one with the efforts of many. Especially after you hear how some chose to spend their 3 minutes in front of the Commission. I certainly don't want to belittle all the behind the scene efforts of the archer "reps" but when you get one shot to address the 3 year package directly with the Commission and you spend that collective 15 minutes to rail against luminocks, I can't help but question if it was really worth side lining some of the bigger issues to push their own agenda. :dunno:
Let me be clear, I appreciate the efforts of all the guys that give their time to promote and protect the rights of archers. This is one small issue that we don't agree on but it pales when compared with the ones that we do agree on. I look forward to the resolution of this next year so this manufactured rift between archer groups is not the defining issue before the DFW and so the united voice of archers can tackle the real issues.
Post by: Matt on April 26, 2012, 12:33:33 PM
Post by: boneaddict on April 26, 2012, 12:53:03 PM
Well, he is going to get your guns, so I hope you are good with these lighted sharp sticks....good at stump shooting I guess because hunting as you know is gone gone gone....Like a Montgomery Gentry song.
Post by: Matt on April 26, 2012, 12:53:16 PM
Of course if the commission, WDFW or whoever wants to issue a survey/poll to archers, sends one out ASKING if archers want electronic to be allowed on their equipment then you will get a majority to say yes. But lets face it, if you ask everyone if they want to eliminate bag limits a majority will say yes as well (I would hope that wouldn't be the case though). If we allow electronics on archery equipment then why not allow crossbows, draw locks and whatever else you can put on a bow or classify as archery equipment? Where are we going to stop or are we? I hope that at some point we keep it real and say to ourselves that it isn't needed. The powers that be have no business ASKING us what WE want. They should spend their time managing the resources that we all enjoy pursuing. Nor should we let the industry try to persued those making the rules. Of course they want to open up another state to sales.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 26, 2012, 12:58:03 PM
[/quote]
Careful to not credit one with the efforts of many. Especially after you hear how some chose to spend their 3 minutes in front of the Commission. I certainly don't want to belittle all the behind the scene efforts of the archer "reps" but when you get one shot to address the 3 year package directly with the Commission and you spend that collective 15 minutes to rail against luminocks, I can't help but question if it was really worth side lining some of the bigger issues to push their own agenda. :dunno:
Let me be clear, I appreciate the efforts of all the guys that give their time to promote and protect the rights of archers. This is one small issue that we don't agree on but it pales when compared with the ones that we do agree on. I look forward to the resolution of this next year so this manufactured rift between archer groups is not the defining issue before the DFW and so the united voice of archers can tackle the real issues.
[/quote]
This was one of very few items on the agenda presented for public input to the Commission at the meeting. So there for it was discussed by those who took the time to attend. The Commission accepted public input on all other items via emails, phone calls and letters. So if we wasted our 3 minutes and the 6 hour drive, to discuss what was on the agenda, I guess I don't understand???
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 01:18:20 PM
We all agree that we enjoy a very liberal hunting season. We all have to agree that we are classified as a primitive weapon. We can all also agree that we have plenty of modern accessories to go along with the bow.
Of course if the commission, WDFW or whoever wants to issue a survey/poll to archers, sends one out ASKING if archers want electronic to be allowed on their equipment then you will get a majority to say yes. But lets face it, if you ask everyone if they want to eliminate bag limits a majority will say yes as well (I would hope that wouldn't be the case though). If we allow electronics on archery equipment then why not allow crossbows, draw locks and whatever else you can put on a bow or classify as archery equipment? Where are we going to stop or are we? I hope that at some point we keep it real and say to ourselves that it isn't needed. The powers that be have no business ASKING us what WE want. They should spend their time managing the resources that we all enjoy pursuing. Nor should we let the industry try to persued those making the rules. Of course they want to open up another state to sales.
Tough sell with that Matt! Maybe you should put up a poll and test your "eliminate the bag limits" theory. And enough with the Pandora's box argument, there is no box! There will continue to be new issues raised and debated and on most of them the majority will be in the other direction. But on this one...it's not.
As for not asking our opinion on what we want, I couldn't disagree more. Do you think that archery seasons, rules, and allocation should be set by a department without archer impute? That would be a disaster! Just ask one of the guys that started the archery season push. Archers had nothing until they demanded a voice in the process. Not only should they ask what we want but when they hear an overwhelming majority...they should DO what we want.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 01:41:07 PM
This was one of very few items on the agenda presented for public input to the Commission at the meeting. So there for it was discussed by those who took the time to attend. The Commission accepted public input on all other items via emails, phone calls and letters. So if we wasted our 3 minutes and the 6 hour drive, to discuss what was on the agenda, I guess I don't understand???
[/quote]
I don't think I said wasted time, I said questionable priorities. Your fully within your right to express your views to the commission... as a member of the public. But when folks put themselves out there as representatives of archers and commit this kind of effort to such a narrow issue, especially when 85% of archers disagree with you, I have to take issue with the motives.
Post by: Matt on April 26, 2012, 01:43:31 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 01:55:24 PM
No they should not ask us to do their job which is to manage the game and to not give every group everything that they want. They can come up with issues, regulations, seasons and whatnot and ask for our input and take it into serious consideration. They are humane and they make mistakes and no one person or group can make everyone happy. Does your boss come to you and ask if you would like a raise?
Can't follow you on this left turn, I'm gonna stick with the thread topic. :dunno:
Post by: Matt on April 26, 2012, 02:00:20 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 26, 2012, 02:34:55 PM
why is anyone asking us if we want them.
Because 85% of the hunters want them legal, seems like a no brainer to me. :dunno:
Isn't it funny that 85% are in favor, yet the 15% that are opposed think the 85% are the wedge dividing the group. :chuckle:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 26, 2012, 02:50:47 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 03:03:28 PM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 26, 2012, 03:25:18 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 04:04:01 PM
Only 3000 answered the survey... that is less than 10% of the licensed archers in this state. 10,000 signatures were provided to the Commission against the lighted nock.
And who authored the petition, do you have copies for review, what organizations backed the petition, how many of the 10,000 you say? were archers? or are we now putting the question to joe public? Funny no mention of these signatures from the archery "reps" at the Commission hearing or from the DFW managers. If I had a petition with 10,000 archer signatures on it, I would have used it as my platform for the whole conversation and this would be a dead issue. When it comes to archer rules and regs, I'll take a poll of archers over a public opinion petition, 10 times out of 10. No matter how you twist it the facts are <85% of archers approval, GMAC approval, WSB approval, and WDFW approval. This should be a done deal. Not really willing to see any part of my hunting dictated by so few. We can go back and forth all year until this is approved or the 15% can quit manufacturing opposition and we can move on.
Post by: danderson on April 26, 2012, 05:38:32 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 26, 2012, 05:43:45 PM
stop beating this dead horse. lets focus attention elswere
Says the guy with "speak your mind" listed under his username, thats awesome. :chuckle:
Post by: scoyoc5 on April 26, 2012, 06:09:06 PM
Post by: Snapshot on April 26, 2012, 10:11:36 PM
Only 3000 answered the survey... that is less than 10% of the licensed archers in this state. 10,000 signatures were provided to the Commission against the lighted nock.
I'll take a poll of archers over a public opinion petition, 10 times out of 10. No matter how you twist it the facts are <85% of archers approval, GMAC approval, WSB approval, and WDFW approval. This should be a done deal. Not really willing to see any part of my hunting dictated by so few. We can go back and forth all year until this is approved or the 15% can quit manufacturing opposition and we can move on.
Simply repeating over and over that "85% of archers approve" isn't going to make it a fact. [And for the record: The GMAC is hunter-group sounding-board for departmental ideas; nothing more and it carries no more weight than that. The archery organization you mention took the position of "Not opposed to the electric nock" (and there are other archery hunting organizations in the state that told the Commission how their membership felt about the status quo). And the WDFW only makes recommendations; they cannot approve anything.]
Might there be a more balanced source for opinions? Perhaps! One could look at this very website and the opinions of its' members. The posts on this website suggest that hunter opinion is notably different than that shown by the department's highly acclaimed "informal survey", and the GMAC vote.
Here is what I found seven weeks ago when I looked at the trends. On Hunting-washington.com, between around the first of September 2011 through the first ten days or so of April 2012, members shared their vastly educated opinions on electric nocks after a full sixteen months of it having been a topic of heated debate. [There were about 180 bowhunting-specific thread topics started in the six months from Sept '11 to April '12 making this the most active washington-specific-bowhunting site that I am aware of.]
Some people posted an answer on the thread entitled something like, "If they were legal, would you use a lighted nock for big game hunting?" Others made their opinion known by saying so on another of the threads. Documenting these comments provides a sampling of (presumably concerned...or else terribly bored) washington hunters who have had the privilege of reading each and every pro and con point known to mankind regarding the question of whether an exception to the "no electronics" rule should be made for this particular gadget.
There are 10,750 or so website members here. If averages hold true about 25% of those will have bowhunted; so about 2690 of the members on this site have a valuable opinion in the matter. As of about the first week of April only 77 people felt strongly enough about the issue to state exactly where they stood on it.
[Not long ago Al Rinaldi wrote an article entitled "Are you Apathetic?" that was published in The Washington Bowhunter magazine; does a 3% offering of opinion depict apathy? But I digress...]
The results (lighted nocks; yes or no) were: 44% yes, 48% no, 8% no opinion. And that, I believe, is more representative of hunter opinion on the matter. Of the very few who felt it was even worth saying anything at all about it, the opinions were pretty much split down the middle.
And so I have to think that the much acclaimed 85% is, in truth, a very vocal minority.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 26, 2012, 11:22:22 PM
I can leave it alone for now, I just wanted to get a firm grasp on the position of the opposition. Got it.
It's been a spirited debate that has stayed above board and I can appreciate that.
Post by: Snapshot on April 27, 2012, 08:51:20 AM
What??? Where do I even start with that? The 85% is the vocal minority? You do have a creative way of manufacturing data to support your position, I'll give you that. What about that 10,000 signature petition? Still waiting for the details on that. As far as your blinding stats and tread counts, like I said creative. These are the very tactics that have made this a contentious issue. Misrepresenting the information on the issue to bolster your position is destructive and disingenuous. I have never thought that anything I would say would sway Snapshot or NWWA but recognize that your antics on this issue have been noticed and not in a "pat on the back" way. I might want to thank you this time next year for igniting a much louder political voice from the majority.
I can leave it alone for now, I just wanted to get a firm grasp on the position of the opposition. Got it.
It's been a spirited debate that has stayed above board and I can appreciate that.
Yes it has been a very good discussion.
I'll boil down my "creative" data manufacturing process to the bare bones. That 85% amounts to 360 people. That is 1.4% of the all people who were sent the informal survey. [ALERT: B^#*S+@& MATH AT WORK; PLEASE SEE POST #247 FOR CORRECTION]
See you down the trail.
Post by: dscubame on April 27, 2012, 09:00:23 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 27, 2012, 09:33:13 AM
Someone should set up another Hunt-Wa poll on this matter to update where the "true" archers stand against the "non true" archers.
There will be plenty of time for that in 8 months when this issue is front and center...again.
Post by: huntnphool on April 27, 2012, 09:49:44 AM
There will be plenty of time for that in 8 months when this issue is front and center...again.
:yeah: Thanks for stoking the fire Snapshot, I'm sure there are plenty of worthy issues to dedicate my time and resources to, but this next year will be focussed on getting this passed. :tup:
Post by: Chase 1 on April 27, 2012, 10:21:07 AM
What??? Where do I even start with that? The 85% is the vocal minority? You do have a creative way of manufacturing data to support your position, I'll give you that. What about that 10,000 signature petition? Still waiting for the details on that. As far as your blinding stats and tread counts, like I said creative. These are the very tactics that have made this a contentious issue. Misrepresenting the information on the issue to bolster your position is destructive and disingenuous. I have never thought that anything I would say would sway Snapshot or NWWA but recognize that your antics on this issue have been noticed and not in a "pat on the back" way. I might want to thank you this time next year for igniting a much louder political voice from the majority.
I can leave it alone for now, I just wanted to get a firm grasp on the position of the opposition. Got it.
It's been a spirited debate that has stayed above board and I can appreciate that.
Yes it has been a very good discussion.
I'll boil down my "creative" data manufacturing process to the bare bones. That 85% amounts to 360 people. That is 1.4% of the all people who were sent the informal survey.
See you down the trail.
Couldn't help yourself, just had to manufacture one more bs stat that you could present as fact. Just so it's clear 85% of 3000 is 2550, not 360. That leaves 450 opposed, a landslide anyway you stack it! As far as people surveyed vs return response, if you get an opinion request from the department and chose not to participate, I consider your vote as "unopposed" or "no opinion" to the requested change.
Just because you think it or say it, doesn't make it true! I really am ready to let this go for a few months, but if you insist on making up new stats to spread false information, I'll debate it all year. Your not foolin anyone (maybe a couple people...NWWA) with your "new math" and "blinding science". Might be time for you to take a breathe and consider the damage that such a small minority have manage to cause the archery community. Division is destructive!
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 27, 2012, 10:25:41 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 27, 2012, 10:26:37 AM
80% of the survey, which was (I am going from memory here) approx 2000, yet over 10K signed against them ....... come on guys, lets get on to important things like getting our seasons back.
Still waiting on the details about these 10,000 signatures? Or did you totally make that up? Spreading misinformation is not good policy when there are folks listening and willing to call you out. So...details?
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 27, 2012, 10:36:16 AM
Post by: Snapshot on April 27, 2012, 02:05:32 PM
Couldn't help yourself, just had to manufacture one more bs stat that you could present as fact. Just so it's clear 85% of 3000 is 2550, not 360. That leaves 450 opposed, a landslide anyway you stack it! As far as people surveyed vs return response, if you get an opinion request from the department and chose not to participate, I consider your vote as "unopposed" or "no opinion" to the requested change.
Just because you think it or say it, doesn't make it true! I really am ready to let this go for a few months, but if you insist on making up new stats to spread false information, I'll debate it all year. Your not foolin anyone (maybe a couple people...NWWA) with your "new math" and "blinding science". Might be time for you to take a breathe and consider the damage that such a small minority have manage to cause the archery community. Division is destructive!
I could blame my shoddy math skill on fat fingers or I can just admit that math and I have never gotten along very well. You are correct that 85% of 3000 is 2550; my head was squarely up my arse there. So of the 26,000 people who were sent the informal survey 9.8% said yes to "Should an exception to the no electronics rule be made for the lighted nock" (or however it was worded).
Please don't preach to me about division being destructive. I am not trying to change the status quo. If unity was really so important the status quo would not be challenged because it isn't broke. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 27, 2012, 02:20:11 PM
DUde, you need to take a chill pill. You are about to step over the line, challenge my integrity? FU. Yes over 10,000 signatures were submitted to the commission, whether you want to believe it or not, along with the hundreds of emails and letters they received. You talk about division, look in the mirror. WHere were you at the public commission meeting, how many WDFW meetings did you attend, did you take the timne to go to any of them and testify, or were you hiding behind your keyboard? I am done with this thread, I am moving on to what needs to be done.
Wow just when I complimented all the posters for keeping the debate above board, you go with that? All I asked was for you to produce the details of the signature campaign that was filed with the commission. It can go two ways, you should be able to back up your claim by answering my previous questions or admit that it was a mistake.
I have been at most of the commission meetings this year, but your right I couldn't make it to Moses. Had I been there my focus would have been on expanding elk opportunity for early archery in the Bumping and Nile units, maybe you read my report?. Before that I was busy writing a 10 page petition and collecting signatures to keep the department from closing sturgeon fishing in the Puget Sound and tributaries. Now I'm working to get the allocation of PS Spot Shrimp reviewed by the department and commission to expand recreational opportunity, and furthering the Goose Prairie discussion, O yeah and getting vocal on this issue. Like I said, I can do more than one thing at a time.
If by chill pill you mean sit idly by and allow a few to spread misinformation and represent it as fact...don't count on it.
Post by: huntnphool on April 27, 2012, 02:29:29 PM
I am not trying to change the status quo. If unity was really so important the status quo would not be challenged because it isn't broke. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1252398#msg1252398 date=1335547267
Another poorly thought out comment Snapshot, even our founding fathers knew that times change and with it so must we, that is why we have amendments to our constitution.
Are you suggesting that our dept. believes they got everything perfect when the original set of rules were adopted and they would never require amending? Come on, even they understood it would evolve over time.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 27, 2012, 04:06:48 PM
Couldn't help yourself, just had to manufacture one more bs stat that you could present as fact. Just so it's clear 85% of 3000 is 2550, not 360. That leaves 450 opposed, a landslide anyway you stack it! As far as people surveyed vs return response, if you get an opinion request from the department and chose not to participate, I consider your vote as "unopposed" or "no opinion" to the requested change.
Just because you think it or say it, doesn't make it true! I really am ready to let this go for a few months, but if you insist on making up new stats to spread false information, I'll debate it all year. Your not foolin anyone (maybe a couple people...NWWA) with your "new math" and "blinding science". Might be time for you to take a breathe and consider the damage that such a small minority have manage to cause the archery community. Division is destructive!
I could blame my shoddy math skill on fat fingers or I can just admit that math and I have never gotten along very well. You are correct that 85% of 3000 is 2550; my head was squarely up my arse there. So of the 26,000 people who were sent the informal survey 9.8% said yes to "Should an exception to the no electronics rule be made for the lighted nock" (or however it was worded).
Please don't preach to me about division being destructive. I am not trying to change the status quo. If unity was really so important the status quo would not be challenged because it isn't broke. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But you have to see that your self admitted lack of a friendly relationship with math makes your fun facts and statistics difficult to take at face value? I am not trying to devalue up opinion or position on this, I respect and value it. Everyone gets one and I have heard yours. This is a particularly difficult issue because on the vast majority of everything else that faces archers in the future, we will be on the same page.
My issue has become bigger than lite knocks. I take issue with a vocal few deciding that their views should supercede everyone else's, I take issue when the loud drown out the many, and I take issue with misinformation. I am concerned that the direction of archery could be getting slanted in a way that does not represent the entire community of archers.
I'm not preachin, I'm sayin what I see. As said before, next year I will be thanking you for riling up the inactive majority and putting them in the mix. As for the status quo... if that held water there would be no archery seasons.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 27, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Anyone hear about the proposal to outlaw string silencers? :ban: :peep: :sas:
Yeah... but after archers polled 85% in favor, and the GMAC, WSB, and WDFW approved the change... the commissioners rejected it. :chuckle:
Post by: Lowedog on April 27, 2012, 05:11:54 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on April 27, 2012, 10:15:44 PM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 28, 2012, 08:26:41 AM
Anyone hear about the proposal to outlaw string silencers? :ban: :peep: :sas:
Yeah... but after archers polled 85% in favor, and the GMAC, WSB, and WDFW approved the change... the commissioners rejected it. :chuckle:
Wrong again... you would think you would know your own organizations stand... WSB did not approve.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 28, 2012, 11:07:01 AM
Anyone hear about the proposal to outlaw string silencers? :ban: :peep: :sas:
Yeah... but after archers polled 85% in favor, and the GMAC, WSB, and WDFW approved the change... the commissioners rejected it. :chuckle:
Wrong again... you would think you would know your own organizations stand... WSB did not approve.
:dunno: :chuckle: You know everyone hates those dam string silencers! :chuckle:
At least we know that your missing a sense of humor?
Now how about those details on the 10,000 signatures filed with the Commission?
Post by: Snapshot on April 28, 2012, 06:32:22 PM
As for the status quo... if that held water there would be no archery seasons.
Kin you s'plain that fer me real slow? Cuz I don't git that a'tall... :dunno:
Post by: Snapshot on April 28, 2012, 07:24:40 PM
I am not trying to change the status quo. If unity was really so important the status quo would not be challenged because it isn't broke. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1252398#msg1252398 date=1335547267
Another poorly thought out comment Snapshot, even our founding fathers knew that times change and with it so must we, that is why we have amendments to our constitution.
Are you suggesting that our dept. believes they got everything perfect when the original set of rules were adopted and they would never require amending? Come on, even they understood it would evolve over time.
Go ahead and insult my thinking; have fun with that.
Fifty years ago bowhunting was the true test of a woodsman/hunter; it was damned difficult. Seasons were carved out that provided lots of time in the field because of how difficult bowhunting was. These days there are people getting into bowhunting because they like the seasons but they do not really like everything that bowhunting involves; they want to change the rules.
Did you know that it was bowhunters who wrote, proposed and saw passed the current archery rule that keeps electronics out of Washington’s bowhunting season? They were forward thinking men who saw where commerce was leading bowhunting, and recognized that manufacturers didn’t have bowhunting’s long-term interests at heart. Twenty-five years have passed since then and now in many places across North America there isn’t much if any regulation on what electronics can or can’t be used in bowhunting seasons. There are nineteen states and provinces that have allowed the crossbow full inclusion during general archery seasons. Washington is one of the few places the founding fathers of bowhunting could come back to and recognize what it is they started.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 29, 2012, 10:47:00 AM
As for the status quo... if that held water there would be no archery seasons.
Kin you s'plain that fer me real slow? Cuz I don't git that a'tall... :dunno:
As stated there was a time when there was no archery season. If status quo would have been kept intact then there still wouldn't be.
Your position is crystal clear, you don't want electronics of any kind in archery. You want traditional equipment only and you are oppose to change of any kind. Bout sum it up?
Problem is you don't get to decide for everyone, just for yourself. When 85% of archers feel differently than you that a change is exceptable because of the inconsequential nature of that change, then it should be made. If said electronic affected season length, harvest rate, opportunity, allocation, available units to hunt,or others ability to enjoy the outdoors, then I'm with you. But it doesn't!
Post by: Snapshot on April 29, 2012, 03:21:39 PM
Your position is crystal clear, you don't want electronics of any kind in archery. You want traditional equipment only and you are oppose to change of any kind. Bout sum it up?
Correct on the first charge; yes it is that simple. With all due respect, :liar: on the second. As to the third I will only suggest (and I'm stealing this from a friend because I think it fits) a frog doesn't jump out of a pan of water that is slowly heating because any change he might sense isn't perceived as a threat; but once the point of no return is reached, he can't get out. I think bowhunting is already the cooked frog in places that have an "anything goes" attitude about what can be used in general bowhunting seasons. And I don't think everyplace else has to follow that path.
Post by: Webfoot on April 29, 2012, 06:18:41 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with your position on archery hunting.
If I had my way there would be no compound bows, even though I do own one.
I feel the same way about muzzle loaders. The muzzleloaders of today were not what the people had in mind when they made special seasons for them either.
John
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on April 29, 2012, 07:38:57 PM
Post by: ribka on April 29, 2012, 08:22:23 PM
Great reply.Some of the newer archery hunters are so attracted to new pretty shiny things they do not understand (or do not care) by allowing more technology into primitive seasons that our season will be shortened or cancelled.
Your position is crystal clear, you don't want electronics of any kind in archery. You want traditional equipment only and you are oppose to change of any kind. Bout sum it up?
Correct on the first charge; yes it is that simple. With all due respect, :liar: on the second. As to the third I will only suggest (and I'm stealing this from a friend because I think it fits) a frog doesn't jump out of a pan of water that is slowly heating because any change he might sense isn't perceived as a threat; but once the point of no return is reached, he can't get out. I think bowhunting is already the cooked frog in places that have an "anything goes" attitude about what can be used in general bowhunting seasons. And I don't think everyplace else has to follow that path.
Post by: huntnphool on April 29, 2012, 10:49:16 PM
Great reply.Some of the newer archery hunters are so attracted to new pretty shiny things they do not understand (or do not care) by allowing more technology into primitive seasons that our season will be shortened or cancelled.Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1254008#msg1254008 date=1335721620
And here we go, ribka is drinking Snapshots kool-aid and spewing more of their left wing scare tactics without a single shred of evidence or documentation to back their bull *censored* speculation.
WDFW has NEVER suggested an ultimatum for archery hunters to either choose modern gear or lose days in the field, don't fall for Snapshots crap. If you go back and read the entire thread, as well as any other luminok thread, you will see Snapshot always diverts the questions, and attempts to change the subject rather than admit that season dates and luminoks have NEVER been a "one or the other" with the Dept or the commision!
Post by: Chase 1 on April 30, 2012, 12:05:53 AM
Your position is crystal clear, you don't want electronics of any kind in archery. You want traditional equipment only and you are oppose to change of any kind. Bout sum it up?
Correct on the first charge; yes it is that simple. With all due respect, :liar: on the second. As to the third I will only suggest (and I'm stealing this from a friend because I think it fits) a frog doesn't jump out of a pan of water that is slowly heating because any change he might sense isn't perceived as a threat; but once the point of no return is reached, he can't get out. I think bowhunting is already the cooked frog in places that have an "anything goes" attitude about what can be used in general bowhunting seasons. And I don't think everyplace else has to follow that path.
Your cute little fos emo says liar and I can't figure where that is? Are you referring to when I said you don't get to decide for everyone, just you? Too bad, felt like the conversation had really been kept above board. Soon as the issue gets down to bare bones, and all the fun facts, creative stats, and misinformation is dispelled as the smoke screen it is, you and NW revert your argument to insults.
Like I said, my goal and willingness to confront the issue has never been to change you or anyone elses opinion. I have no intrest in that. Your entitled to one and I respect that. I also respect your right to discuss your position in a way that tries and change other peoples opinion. What I have had a problem with is how "politically creative" a slim few have been in an attempt to over shout the majority of archers. Not really willing to sit idly by and watch the collective voices of the archery community hijacked by a small contingent of an extreme fraction of the total. So thank you, thanks for helping me decide where to focus part of my efforts in the coming year.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 30, 2012, 12:23:12 AM
Great reply.Some of the newer archery hunters are so attracted to new pretty shiny things they do not understand (or do not care) by allowing more technology into primitive seasons that our season will be shortened or cancelled.
You could be right. If my 26 years of flingin arrows isn't enough to give me an opinion than let me know how many more I need before I get one.
Can you please let everyone know, especially archers, what it is that archers will be losing for time in the field, opportunity, or :yike: canceled seasons when this is approved?
Don't you see by now that it's not enough to just say something to make it true?
Post by: Snapshot on April 30, 2012, 05:58:26 AM
Your position is crystal clear, you don't want electronics of any kind in archery. You want traditional equipment only and you are oppose to change of any kind. Bout sum it up?
Correct on the first charge; yes it is that simple. With all due respect, :liar: on the second. As to the third I will only suggest (and I'm stealing this from a friend because I think it fits) a frog doesn't jump out of a pan of water that is slowly heating because any change he might sense isn't perceived as a threat; but once the point of no return is reached, he can't get out. I think bowhunting is already the cooked frog in places that have an "anything goes" attitude about what can be used in general bowhunting seasons. And I don't think everyplace else has to follow that path.
Your cute little fos emo says liar and I can't figure where that is?
To clarify, you made three assertions, concluding with "Bout sum it up?" I answered each; first, second and then third, in order.
Post by: Snapshot on April 30, 2012, 06:02:18 AM
Great reply.Some of the newer archery hunters are so attracted to new pretty shiny things they do not understand (or do not care) by allowing more technology into primitive seasons that our season will be shortened or cancelled.
You could be right. If my 26 years of flingin arrows isn't enough to give me an opinion than let me know how many more I need before I get one.
Can you please let everyone know, especially archers, what it is that archers will be losing for time in the field, opportunity, or :yike: canceled seasons when this is approved?
Don't you see by now that it's not enough to just say something to make it true?
I am not a flippin' fortune teller. But look to the east for clues; no controls what-so-ever on electronic gadgets in many places, crossbows in nineteen states. Those places didn't start with all that crap in general bowhunting seasons; they showed up one at a time. Unless you are selling archery gadgets I just don't understand what you stand to gain to push for change. :dunno:
Post by: Matt on April 30, 2012, 07:25:00 AM
Fifty years ago bowhunting was the true test of a woodsman/hunter; it was damned difficult. Seasons were carved out that provided lots of time in the field because of how difficult bowhunting was. These days there are people getting into bowhunting because they like the seasons but they do not really like everything that bowhunting involves; they want to change the rules.
Did you know that it was bowhunters who wrote, proposed and saw passed the current archery rule that keeps electronics out of Washington’s bowhunting season? They were forward thinking men who saw where commerce was leading bowhunting, and recognized that manufacturers didn’t have bowhunting’s long-term interests at heart. Twenty-five years have passed since then and now in many places across North America there isn’t much if any regulation on what electronics can or can’t be used in bowhunting seasons. There are nineteen states and provinces that have allowed the crossbow full inclusion during general archery seasons. Washington is one of the few places the founding fathers of bowhunting could come back to and recognize what it is they started.
This is how more "bowhunters" need to think :tup:
Post by: Matt on April 30, 2012, 08:00:43 AM
Instead of taking the approach that 85% want it (which in my oppinion is not how the decision should be made), the approach should be that only equipment that will help the archer take game in a more humane and ethical way be considered (electronics does not fill this requirement). Just like we don't allow things that help one draw or hold the bow at full draw. The goal here is not to kill more animals, nor is it to chunk out small parts of the state just for archery like the WDFW does for fly fishing. The goal here is to be able to enjoy our sport with it's current seasons. Archery is not meant for every one. You have to have certain skills and abilities to be able to archery hunt ethically. It takes a ton of commitment and practice. The guy that picks his bow up for the first time a week before the season and has 3 different arrows in his quiver is a major part of the 85%. Unfortunately there are a large number of people in the woods during archery season that are not ready to bowhunt.
I view the electronic nock as a disease carrying tick. In itself it appears as something small and harmless. But potentially it can be disasterous. If this is the chance that you want to take then fight for it but remember that once the line has been crossed there is no going back. Just something to think about instead of insulting each other.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 30, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
Great reply.Some of the newer archery hunters are so attracted to new pretty shiny things they do not understand (or do not care) by allowing more technology into primitive seasons that our season will be shortened or cancelled.
You could be right. If my 26 years of flingin arrows isn't enough to give me an opinion than let me know how many more I need before I get one.
Can you please let everyone know, especially archers, what it is that archers will be losing for time in the field, opportunity, or :yike: canceled seasons when this is approved?
Don't you see by now that it's not enough to just say something to make it true?
I am not a flippin' fortune teller. But look to the east for clues; no controls what-so-ever on electronic gadgets in many places, crossbows in nineteen states. Those places didn't start with all that crap in general bowhunting seasons; they showed up one at a time. Unless you are selling archery gadgets I just don't understand what you stand to gain to push for change. :dunno:
I appreciate you acknowledging that you aren't a fortune teller because sometimes it's hard to see through your prophecies of demise and doom of archery as we know it. Your knowledge of the nationwide regs is again, baffling fun facts. You cherry pick a stat that will suit your position and put it forth like it supports your dire predictions. Many of these "States Gone Wild" have huge populations and a need to increase harvest rates. Consider also that in many of these states, vehicles kill more deer annually than we have in this entire state. Yet even in these states you can still hunt with a recurve or longbow, anyway you chose...each to their own.
Folks in these states spend a lot less time tellin other folks what they should and shouldn't do.
Crossbows have been discussed and rules made that fit this state so to use that argument is just another scare tactic. Every new issue also comes up in this state and they are discussed and decided one at a time... just like this one.
As for what I gain for pushing change? That's just it... nothing. That is, nothing beyond the knowledge that when the archer voice is requested on an issue, the voice that's heard does in fact represent all archers, not just a few loud ones.
Post by: Matt on April 30, 2012, 03:53:06 PM
As for what I gain for pushing change? That's just it... nothing. That is, nothing beyond the knowledge that when the archer voice is requested on an issue, the voice that's heard does in fact represent all archers, not just a few loud ones.
Here is a question that I would like answered but only if it is a factual answer. Beings how you seem to be very knowledgable regarding this subject. Was it the voices of thousands of archers that requested lighted nocks? And through the screaming for them the WDFW felt it necessary to put it to a poll?
Up until the last year or so I never even heard anyone voice that it should be legalized. Sure there were a few that thought they were cool but not to the extent that they demanded their legalization.
Now this is just hearsay but from what I have gathered there is someone on the committee that has a friend that has friends that would benefit financially from the legalization of electronics on archery equipment in this state. Now I am far from saying that this is fact and I hope that isn't how this issue came to be so popular. But in my very limited and small archery world I did not hear from other archers that it was such a dramatic issue.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 30, 2012, 06:45:15 PM
check out my new signature......
Post by: 3Under on April 30, 2012, 07:11:32 PM
Matt,
check out my new signature......
Same reason I haven't jumped into this debate.
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on April 30, 2012, 08:36:47 PM
Post by: Lowedog on April 30, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
Matt,
check out my new signature......
Same reason I haven't jumped into this debate.
Till now... :chuckle:
Post by: Chase 1 on April 30, 2012, 11:32:25 PM
As for what I gain for pushing change? That's just it... nothing. That is, nothing beyond the knowledge that when the archer voice is requested on an issue, the voice that's heard does in fact represent all archers, not just a few loud ones.
Here is a question that I would like answered but only if it is a factual answer. Beings how you seem to be very knowledgable regarding this subject. Was it the voices of thousands of archers that requested lighted nocks? And through the screaming for them the WDFW felt it necessary to put it to a poll?
Up until the last year or so I never even heard anyone voice that it should be legalized. Sure there were a few that thought they were cool but not to the extent that they demanded their legalization.
Now this is just hearsay but from what I have gathered there is someone on the committee that has a friend that has friends that would benefit financially from the legalization of electronics on archery equipment in this state. Now I am far from saying that this is fact and I hope that isn't how this issue came to be so popular. But in my very limited and small archery world I did not hear from other archers that it was such a dramatic issue.
I've responded truthfully and factually to everything that's been asked. My understanding is the proposal was put to the department as a request from a sportsman and after department review it was added to the public review process. That's how the process works. And reviewed it was. Who actually filed the request, don't know the man beyond his testimony to the commission. I do know that he answered to all the trumped up claims of the opposition that your referring too, at the commission meeting. If you want to know what he said, give it a listen. Careful not to drink the koolaid until you know who made it, you never know what they might of put in it.
Post by: Chase 1 on April 30, 2012, 11:35:57 PM
Matt,
check out my new signature......
Fitting reminder as we consider your posts. Now how about those details on the 10,000 signatures filled with commission?
Post by: Matt on May 01, 2012, 06:32:36 AM
I've responded truthfully and factually to everything that's been asked. My understanding is the proposal was put to the department as a request from a sportsman and after department review it was added to the public review process. That's how the process works. And reviewed it was. Who actually filed the request, don't know the man beyond his testimony to the commission. I do know that he answered to all the trumped up claims of the opposition that your referring too, at the commission meeting. If you want to know what he said, give it a listen. Careful not to drink the koolaid until you know who made it, you never know what they might of put in it.
In bold kind of backs what I have heard. Like you said it was presented by "A" sportsman. And if true this sportsman had friends that would greatly benefit from these becoming legal. No where does the request of one person gain such considerartion unless there is some other source of backing. Think about it. WHere is all of this coming from because I didn't see it.
As for all the name calling and what not c'mon gow up. Like the request for 10,000 signatures I too want facts. Not just the ones that support it's passage but was this proposal even brought about in an ethical way. Lobbyists should be placed next to poachers neither one has the interest of hunters or the resource that we hunt.
Post by: Fullabull on May 01, 2012, 08:48:33 AM
Personally, I am tired of how the archers are being treeting here in WA and I believe that is because to many are afraid to speak up. That is why MF is taking over and getting so many changes in their favor. Just MHO...
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
From what I can see from following this post there are two groups here, one that is afraid to push because they feel they will lose what they have and the other who believes the only way to get what you feel is right is to push. Just different ways of thinking, not that either is right.
Personally, I am tired of how the archers are being treeting here in WA and I believe that is because to many are afraid to speak up. That is why MF is taking over and getting so many changes in their favor. Just MHO...
MF get more of what they want because there are more of them. Going along with MF is the path of least resistance. The state did this when they restricted cougar hunting during archery season. They didn't restrict bear seasons during archery because there were too many bear hunters. Path of least resistance.
The argument that more technology means less days to hunt isn't supported by science, especially with the ilumenock. The DFW has even gone as far to say that elk and deer populations are at historically high levels, when they announced this year that they were increasing the number of multi-season tags. There should be no need to cut hunting days for advancements in technology. That may be in the imagination of the more "traditional" archers in this state, or if it exists, it may exist because it was suggested and the state grabbed onto it as policy.
Post by: huntnphool on May 01, 2012, 12:56:33 PM
Post by: Matt on May 01, 2012, 01:08:43 PM
Nice buck for the young man that made the cover shot on the hunting regs this year, I wonder how many of those arrows missing from his quiver would have been found if he had been using luminoks.
More intelleigent and scientific comments. I'm glad that we have gotten past sarcasm. Maybe that kid practices enough that he only needs 2 arrows. Besides what are luminocks gonna do melt through that 8" of snow so that you can find them? They must burn hot and bright. :chuckle:
Post by: Snapshot on May 01, 2012, 01:33:12 PM
Nice buck for the young man that made the cover shot on the hunting regs this year, I wonder how many of those arrows missing from his quiver would have been found if he had been using luminoks.
That comes across as a diversion...steers the reader to consider the gloom and doom prophesy of lost broadheads being stepped on and causing injury. Maybe there is a fortune teller on the forum, and he is huntnphool. [And maybe I am not alone in "always diverting the questions, and attempting to change the subject." Hmm?]
And speaking of diversions, my big brother uses a three-arrow quiver or a four-arrow quiver. He never carries more because selective shooters don't require a quiver that holds a dozen arrows. I imagine the youth on the cover to be cut out of that mold.
Post by: Fullabull on May 01, 2012, 01:53:45 PM
Post by: Snapshot on May 01, 2012, 01:59:01 PM
And I agree wholeheartedly.
Post by: Matt on May 01, 2012, 02:03:43 PM
Post by: Fullabull on May 01, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 01, 2012, 02:35:44 PM
Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1256289#msg1256289 date=1335902193
That comes across as a diversion...steers the reader to consider the gloom and doom prophesy of lost broadheads being stepped on and causing injury.
Says the man using "doom and gloom" tactics to equate luminoks with lost days in the field, oh the hypocrisy of it all! :chuckle:
Post by: Snapshot on May 01, 2012, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1256289#msg1256289 date=1335902193
That comes across as a diversion...steers the reader to consider the gloom and doom prophesy of lost broadheads being stepped on and causing injury.
Says the man using "doom and gloom" tactics to equate luminoks with lost days in the field, oh the hypocrisy of it all! :chuckle:
Egads, phool, I took the diversion page from your book...(post #263) :chuckle:
Post by: Chase 1 on May 01, 2012, 03:33:03 PM
I've responded truthfully and factually to everything that's been asked. My understanding is the proposal was put to the department as a request from a sportsman and after department review it was added to the public review process. That's how the process works. And reviewed it was. Who actually filed the request, don't know the man beyond his testimony to the commission. I do know that he answered to all the trumped up claims of the opposition that your referring too, at the commission meeting. If you want to know what he said, give it a listen. Careful not to drink the koolaid until you know who made it, you never know what they might of put in it.
In bold kind of backs what I have heard. Like you said it was presented by "A" sportsman. And if true this sportsman had friends that would greatly benefit from these becoming legal. No where does the request of one person gain such considerartion unless there is some other source of backing. Think about it. WHere is all of this coming from because I didn't see it.
As for all the name calling and what not c'mon gow up. Like the request for 10,000 signatures I too want facts. Not just the ones that support it's passage but was this proposal even brought about in an ethical way. Lobbyists should be placed next to poachers neither one has the interest of hunters or the resource that we hunt.
I didn't figure you really wanted a factual answer to consider, but I gave you it anyway. If you want to get educated on the issue...research it, it's not that tough. If you truly wanted to know about the process you would find out for yourself rather than taking others word for it. Did you listen to the testimony from the fella answering to the trumped up and inflammatory comments made about him to the commission about his "hidden agenda" and "friends in high places"? Rhetorical question because obviously you didn't. Did you look into how the rule review request process works? Again, rhetorical.
As for name calling and such, your just showing that you haven't really read this thread. I have kept that out of how I have interacted with guys on the opposite side of the issue... even when the same is not extended to me. I can attack an issue without attacking the person. I will however hold folks accountable for the things they say that are simply not true. Spreading misinformation is something I simply can't stomach. If you truly want the facts, find them for yourself, then you can make a decision based on what you know rather than what you've heard.
Post by: huntnphool on May 01, 2012, 10:11:22 PM
Quote from: link=topic=96267.msg1256289#msg1256289 date=1335902193
That comes across as a diversion...steers the reader to consider the gloom and doom prophesy of lost broadheads being stepped on and causing injury.
Says the man using "doom and gloom" tactics to equate luminoks with lost days in the field, oh the hypocrisy of it all! :chuckle:
Egads, phool, I took the diversion page from your book...(post #263) :chuckle:
Nice try snapshot. :chuckle:
Post by: Chase 1 on May 02, 2012, 12:54:43 AM
Matt, that is how they make the numbers look more equal to the MF hunters. Allow archers to take more cows but provide MF with a ton more antlered opportunities. The complaint of archers taking more mature bulls is even more bogus.
I think your topic deserves it's own thread, it's a good one and right on point! I think a consensus topic but planning requests for next year would be a positive conversation to start. Post it, I'll jump in.
I will however find time for both issues... and not just to piss and moan.
Post by: Matt on May 02, 2012, 07:33:18 AM
As for name calling and such, your just showing that you haven't really read this thread. I have kept that out of how I have interacted with guys on the opposite side of the issue... even when the same is not extended to me. I can attack an issue without attacking the person. I will however hold folks accountable for the things they say that are simply not true. Spreading misinformation is something I simply can't stomach. If you truly want the facts, find them for yourself, then you can make a decision based on what you know rather than what you've heard.
I wasn't refering to you or any one person. So don't take things too seriously or rhetorically. Aren't you a board member of an archery org?
Post by: Chase 1 on May 02, 2012, 10:35:01 AM
As for name calling and such, your just showing that you haven't really read this thread. I have kept that out of how I have interacted with guys on the opposite side of the issue... even when the same is not extended to me. I can attack an issue without attacking the person. I will however hold folks accountable for the things they say that are simply not true. Spreading misinformation is something I simply can't stomach. If you truly want the facts, find them for yourself, then you can make a decision based on what you know rather than what you've heard.
I wasn't refering to you or any one person. So don't take things too seriously or rhetorically. Aren't you a board member of an archery org?
It was a direct reply to one of my posts so it was hard to see how it wasn't directed to me. If you want to direct a comment on a thread to everyone, just post it as a reply, rather than a reply to a quote. That may help avoid any misunderstanding.
No, I'm not a board member in an archery org.
Post by: Matt on May 02, 2012, 12:09:37 PM
As for name calling and such, your just showing that you haven't really read this thread. I have kept that out of how I have interacted with guys on the opposite side of the issue... even when the same is not extended to me. I can attack an issue without attacking the person. I will however hold folks accountable for the things they say that are simply not true. Spreading misinformation is something I simply can't stomach. If you truly want the facts, find them for yourself, then you can make a decision based on what you know rather than what you've heard.
I wasn't refering to you or any one person. So don't take things too seriously or rhetorically. Aren't you a board member of an archery org?
It was a direct reply to one of my posts so it was hard to see how it wasn't directed to me. If you want to direct a comment on a thread to everyone, just post it as a reply, rather than a reply to a quote. That may help avoid any misunderstanding.
You're a pretty fart smeller. I would have assumed that someone reading it would have seen that I addressed your comment with the bold highlight and then in a seperate paragragh it was seperately addressing the not needed snide comments. :dunno: But hey. Thanks for the posting tutorial it will definately help with future postings. :chuckle:
Post by: Chase 1 on May 02, 2012, 01:00:55 PM
As for all the name calling and what not c'mon gow up.
Wasn't it you that just posted this? C'mon man, your better than that. :dunno:
Post by: dscubame on May 02, 2012, 02:36:22 PM
Let a persons true colors shine.
Post by: Matt on May 02, 2012, 02:54:16 PM
Wasn't it you that just posted this? C'mon man, your better than that. :dunno:
That wasn't name calling. Come on didn't you see the little guy laughin. I just thought that it was funny how you was giving me lessons on proper posting. Now can we get back to arguin nocks. 8)
Post by: Chase 1 on May 02, 2012, 11:39:54 PM
Wasn't it you that just posted this? C'mon man, your better than that. :dunno:
That wasn't name calling. Come on didn't you see the little guy laughin. I just thought that it was funny how you was giving me lessons on proper posting. Now can we get back to arguin nocks. 8)
Not a lesson, mere suggestion to avoid misunderstanding for future conversation. Putting a :chuckle: doesn't automatically make something funny.
That said, what would you like to discuss. I think at this point all the misinformation has been called out and dispelled.
Post by: huntnphool on May 02, 2012, 11:48:36 PM
This should already be a done deal. The commission voted to approve lite nocks. WHAAAATTTT??? You heard that right...
The Commission voted to approve lite nocks!!!!
Thats correct, just a lesson in delayed gratification. ;)
Post by: Chase 1 on May 02, 2012, 11:50:32 PM
The Commission voted to approve lite nocks!!!! 4-3 :yike:
That should do it... :chuckle:
Post by: Matt on May 03, 2012, 09:21:36 AM
Post by: huntnphool on May 03, 2012, 12:49:29 PM
Let's forget about lighted nocks for a second and let me ask you two. What would you list as the most important issue in regards to bowhunting right now and why? Take some time and really contemplate this before answering. If you had to focus all of your attention to just one bowhunting related issue what would that be.
I'll assume this was, in part, addressed at me. There are lots of archery related issues IMO but if I had to prioritize them and start at the top of my list it would be lobbying to get our lost season dates and days back.
Post by: Chase 1 on May 03, 2012, 01:26:14 PM
Let's forget about lighted nocks for a second and let me ask you two. What would you list as the most important issue in regards to bowhunting right now and why? Take some time and really contemplate this before answering. If you had to focus all of your attention to just one bowhunting related issue what would that be.
1. Fair and equatable distribution of allocation across the board for archers.
2. Increased opportunity for archer days in the field and available units.
3. Vocal representation of archer intrests in WFDW issues.
Do you really need the why? Nocks fall into #3. As far as my priorities? Read back through the thread and I think you will easily find your answers.
Post by: Matt on May 03, 2012, 03:45:00 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 03, 2012, 03:48:06 PM
I've read the whole thing. I agree with most except on the list of importance lighted nocks don't even merit an entry. I nice thing to have but important to our sport no. Mandatory Bowhunter education would be up there for me.
Just let me put on this helmet before the chit hits the fan for this comment. :peep: :jacked:
Post by: huntnphool on May 03, 2012, 04:07:57 PM
Mandatory Bowhunter education would be up there for me.
Waste of time!! All it would do is generate revenue for the state, the people making unethical decisions are going to do it regardless whether of not the took some class or passed some test. Hunter education grads make unethical decisions every year, do you believe a bowhunter education grad wouldn't?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 03, 2012, 04:10:56 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 03, 2012, 04:26:18 PM
And the fight begins. In the right corner, Matt, weighing in at 210 lbs, with huntnphool in the left, foaming at the mouth and chomping at the bit to take a swipe at the newcomer. :boxin:
No fighting, I'm just pointing out that educated people make unethical decisions daily, a mandatory class is not going to change that. :twocents:
Post by: Chase 1 on May 03, 2012, 04:37:34 PM
I've read the whole thing. I agree with most except on the list of importance lighted nocks don't even merit an entry. I nice thing to have but important to our sport no. Mandatory Bowhunter education would be up there for me.
Like I've said, everyone gets an opinion. IMHO, every issue that is brought to the forefront and effects archers makes the list. For that matter, if it effects sportsman in general it makes my list.
I do find it puzzling that the same guy who just said he wants to, "...get back to arguing about nocks" is now trying so hard to change the subject? :dunno:
I guess when all else fails and all the misinformation has been dispelled, all the "facts" have been clarified, and the bully pulpit crumbles...try and change the subject. Funny how that works. No worries, if I was on the other side of this issue I think I would want to change the subject too.
Post by: Matt on May 03, 2012, 05:09:56 PM
piano thanks for the compliment btw, I aint seen 210 in 10 years. 8)
Post by: Matt on May 03, 2012, 05:19:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 03, 2012, 05:33:29 PM
As for the attitude about bowhunter education. That is one that I could passionately argue especially against arguements like yours.
The formost arguement Snapshot and others have been preaching is that luminoks promote unethical choices. My contention is that unethical hunters will make unethical decisions regardless whether or not they are using the luminoks. You are suggesting that luminok proponents need only take a bowhunter education class and Snapshots entire foundation for arguement is worthless, correct?
Post by: Matt on May 03, 2012, 05:48:21 PM
Post by: Lowedog on May 03, 2012, 06:12:53 PM
Now this is just hearsay but from what I have gathered there is someone on the committee that has a friend that has friends that would benefit financially from the legalization of electronics on archery equipment in this state. Now I am far from saying that this is fact and I hope that isn't how this issue came to be so popular. But in my very limited and small archery world I did not hear from other archers that it was such a dramatic issue.
This is one of the funniest statements I have read in this argument. :rolleyes:
Let's think back to a lot of the men who are credited with fighting for and getting archery only seasons established and what they gained financially by doing so...
I would guess that a lot of those men would have no problem with a device that aided them in finding their arrow after the shot. Especially considering the fact that they took some pretty risky and long shots back in their day. :dunno:
Post by: Snapshot on May 03, 2012, 10:05:33 PM
Undereducated hunters can be steered into unknowingly making bad decisions. Maybe the things a newbie would learn in a bowhunter education class would counter misinformation put out by manufacturers.
The uneducated/unknowing are the ones likely to, for example, believe it when the Burt Coyote Company says that the electric nock will make them "...more confident in (their) ability to make 'that' shot'.
"Forget the wind, just hunt," sold a lot of dollars worth of product until the makers were forced to remove their misleading claims of 'scent elimination'. It was an example of how some will claim anything that benefits their bottom line.
Post by: Chase 1 on May 03, 2012, 10:52:56 PM
Unethical hunters are going to do what they are going to do.
Undereducated hunters can be steered into unknowingly making bad decisions. Maybe the things a newbie would learn in a bowhunter education class would counter misinformation put out by manufacturers.
The uneducated/unknowing are the ones likely to, for example, believe it when the Burt Coyote Company says that the electric nock will make them "...more confident in (their) ability to make 'that' shot'.
"Forget the wind, just hunt," sold a lot of dollars worth of product until the makers were forced to remove their misleading claims of 'scent elimination'. It was an example of how some will claim anything that benefits their bottom line.
And Nike's make you run faster, Gatoraid makes you jump like Mike, and every new car on the market will make you drive like Dale. Are you insinuating we are all mindless zombies at the mercy of every new add campaign? :dunno: Tough sell.
As far as self imposing even more regulations to discourage future archers...
no thanks! :bdid:
Post by: JCKILLSHOT on May 04, 2012, 01:11:26 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on May 04, 2012, 11:24:36 PM
Just to let you know your wrong about "forget the wind just hunt" its still scent loks slogan. They still are going to make a lot of dollars cause I for one am still going to buy there clothes. Those guys that sued scentlok were just looking to make a dollar. Which is totally ridiculous so is thinking that a companies slogan is not going to make people follow the rules, or someone one is just going to walk on a b-line straight toward a deer with the wind at their back just cause there clothes say to. "Redbull gives you wings" I don't see people sueing over that slogan or jumping off of things thinking they can fly.
Hhhmmmm? Another "fact" that doesn't ring true...weird. When will guys learn that you can't just say or write something to make it true? Still waiting on the 10,000...yes 10,000 signatures to the Commission details. Anyone?
Post by: huntnphool on May 04, 2012, 11:46:09 PM
Just to let you know your wrong about "forget the wind just hunt" its still scent loks slogan. They still are going to make a lot of dollars cause I for one am still going to buy there clothes. Those guys that sued scentlok were just looking to make a dollar. Which is totally ridiculous so is thinking that a companies slogan is not going to make people follow the rules, or someone one is just going to walk on a b-line straight toward a deer with the wind at their back just cause there clothes say to. "Redbull gives you wings" I don't see people sueing over that slogan or jumping off of things thinking they can fly.Hhhmmmm? Another "fact" that doesn't ring true...weird. When will guys learn that you can't just say or write something to make it true? Still waiting on the 10,000...yes 10,000 signatures to the Commission details. Anyone?
Don't hold your breath brother, Snapshot has proven that he only answers the questions that fit his agenda and nothing more, even those he attempts to answer are nothing more than circle jerk rhetoric that he has no foundation of fact. :chuckle:
Post by: Snapshot on May 05, 2012, 12:44:05 PM
Just to let you know your wrong about "forget the wind just hunt" its still scent loks slogan. They still are going to make a lot of dollars cause I for one am still going to buy there clothes. Those guys that sued scentlok were just looking to make a dollar. Which is totally ridiculous so is thinking that a companies slogan is not going to make people follow the rules, or someone one is just going to walk on a b-line straight toward a deer with the wind at their back just cause there clothes say to. "Redbull gives you wings" I don't see people sueing over that slogan or jumping off of things thinking they can fly.Hhhmmmm? Another "fact" that doesn't ring true...weird. When will guys learn that you can't just say or write something to make it true? Still waiting on the 10,000...yes 10,000 signatures to the Commission details. Anyone?
Don't hold your breath brother, Snapshot has proven that he only answers the questions that fit his agenda and nothing more, even those he attempts to answer are nothing more than circle jerk rhetoric that he has no foundation of fact. :chuckle:
I am not in a position to answer anyone's question about petitions because I have no knowledge on the topic. You might want to return to your own circle and check who is holding what, HnP.
I didn't make up the bit about the Burt Coyote Company telling consumers what their electric nock will do for them. I quoted it off their website; they say that using their nock "may make you a better archer and make you more confident in your ability to make 'that' shot." [I wonder what is meant by 'that' shot? On very same page it says their product makes an arrow visible at practice distances "beyond 100 yards." Could that be what they mean when they say "that" shot. :dunno: I hope not, but a greenhorn could sure take it that way.]
As I recall it seems to me that the words "Scent Control" had, in at least some instances, replaced the words "scent elimination." I could be wrong about that. I don't watch the hunting-porn channels very often and I don't go down the aisles at the sporting good stores that display the stuff, so I haven't seen recent ad campaigns.
The bottom line is that there are messages being sent in advertising that could, in my opinion, use some balancing. Bowhunter education is a good program and the instructor that conducted the class when I accompanied my daughter through it did a great job. If every person who wants to try bowhunting had to take his class he/she would come away with first-hand knowledge that would have taken them years to obtain on their own. I'd much rather have an experienced bowhunter instructor influencing hunter decisions than have manufacturers influencing hunter decisions.
Post by: JCKILLSHOT on May 05, 2012, 05:45:08 PM
Post by: Snapshot on May 05, 2012, 07:00:05 PM
Look it up they just won the appeal!!! I did look it up just to let you know and seen it on there commercial. THANKS THOUGH!!!
They didn't 'just' win the appeal; that was decided eight months ago. From FieldandStream.com dated Aug 26, 2011:
The judge presiding over the appeal ruled that ALS’s use of the terms “odor eliminating” and “reactivation” was not literally false. According to a press release issued by ALS, the judge ruled that “the district court had erred in ‘basing its determination of literal falsity on the most absolute of competing dictionary definitions of the word eliminate.’” .”
Some lively discussion followed the Field & Stream piece: talk of advertisers taking advantage of unknowing people. Thanks, JC for prompting me to Google that topic. I had not seen the report before and now that I have I know I am not alone in my thinking.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/whitetail-365/2011/08/scent-lok-notches-victory-appellate-court
Post by: Chase 1 on May 07, 2012, 12:07:34 PM
Retrieved from Lumenok website:
"They work great for hunting and target shooting. The Lumenok aids the archer with bow tuning.You can see erratic arrow flight much better because of the light on the end of the arrow. Practicing at greater distances allows the archer to immediately associate the result of a shot with his effort. The archer’s ability to see the arrow from release to impact at distances beyond 100 yards allows unprecedented rapid feedback to the shooter, even with today’s fastest bows. If your bow needs tuning, or your form needs improvement, the Lumenok will help you realize it and address those issues."
If the "beyond 100yd." reference is your issue, then you must skip the last stand at the archery shoots? Almost every shoot I've been to has a long distance shot to end the course and they have little to do with hunting. Longshots are fun to practice but certainly aren't intended to translate to the field. As far as encouraging archers to take unethical shots, this statement seems to suggest the exact opposite. Proper tuning, recognition of eratic arrow flight, correcting shooting form, learning distance to arrow drop, improved confidence, and immediate feedback, all seem like positive help for archers to improve their skills. Not to mention the aid in arrow retrieval. Helping archers prevent leaving razorblades in the woods seems like a good enough reason for them to be legal to me.
Post by: D-Rock425 on May 07, 2012, 12:27:42 PM
Post by: Snapshot on May 07, 2012, 08:10:05 PM
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
C'mon, D-Rock, Chase has a dog in the fight so humor us both, please, as we feel each other out. We are not going to change each other's mind; but the folks who don't yet have an opinion and who stumble upon threads like this have the good fortune of being shown every side of the topic of debate. What harm could come of that?
Yes, Chase, that is exactly where I saw it. What is obvious to an experienced bowhunter isn't obvious to someone who has no experience in the matter. What one person takes from an advertisement will be different from what another will take from the same advertisement; it is entirely dependant upon each individual's life experiences. I know that some people launch arrows at live animals at distances of ninety yards, maybe more. Just what life experiences leads them to having the idea that doing so is conscionable is beyond me! Could it be the power of suggestion in such advertising as this? Or is it simply the mindset that comes from having cut one's eye teeth using a long-range weapon? No one can answer that...
Lost arrows cutting people is such a rarity that I had never heard of it until someone made a claim to the game commission these past two years of it having happened to someone. [People shooting from roads into private agricultural fields and leaving the arrows rather than being caught trespassing is a different issue; mandating identifiers on arrows might be the only way to curtail that...yuck.] Maybe replaceable stainless steel broadheads that don't corrode in a single winter like ordinary steel are the real culprit and are to blame? They too were birthed out of an inability and/or an unwillingness to put an effort into something that used to be integral to bowhunting and woodsmanship: sharpening steel with a file and stone. ...Teach a man to fish...
Post by: JCKILLSHOT on May 07, 2012, 08:53:26 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on May 08, 2012, 12:27:42 AM
Yes, Chase, that is exactly where I saw it. What is obvious to an experienced bowhunter isn't obvious to someone who has no experience in the matter. What one person takes from an advertisement will be different from what another will take from the same advertisement; it is entirely dependant upon each individual's life experiences. I know that some people launch arrows at live animals at distances of ninety yards, maybe more. Just what life experiences leads them to having the idea that doing so is conscionable is beyond me! Could it be the power of suggestion in such advertising as this? Or is it simply the mindset that comes from having cut one's eye teeth using a long-range weapon? No one can answer that...
Lost arrows cutting people is such a rarity that I had never heard of it until someone made a claim to the game commission these past two years of it having happened to someone. [People shooting from roads into private agricultural fields and leaving the arrows rather than being caught trespassing is a different issue; mandating identifiers on arrows might be the only way to curtail that...yuck.] Maybe replaceable stainless steel broadheads that don't corrode in a single winter like ordinary steel are the real culprit and are to blame? They too were birthed out of an inability and/or an unwillingness to put an effort into something that used to be integral to bowhunting and woodsmanship: sharpening steel with a file and stone. ...Teach a man to fish...
Unethical practices plague every user group, it's not unique to archers. This isn't a matter of keeping a new tool used for unethical practices out of the hands of those who would use it to further their questionable practices. Equipment, standards, advertising, even rules are not the source of this problem. I for one am not in favor of defining rules based on this extreme minority group. I don't think for one second that any of the unethical hunters you speak of were convinced by a company ad campaign that they are justified in their actions.
IMO unrecovered broadheads are much more threatening to animals than people. Of course there is no data to support this, but how could there be? My contention is that every broadhead not left in the field is a good thing and just one of the reasons for this to go through.
I also have a major issue when Commissioner Jennings (the most vocal opponent of this change) told his fellow commissioners that the majority of arrows shot in the field are not recoverable so lumenok will make no difference in recovery. What?? The majority are unrecoverable? This kind of spoken like fact, misinformation really fires me up. Some of the Commissioners are absolutely clueless on the issues they vote on, this was no diffrent. The information that reaches the Commission is often all they use to vote with. When a Commissioner spreads misinformation or ignorants on an issue like it's fact, without any opportunity for rebuttal because it's during the voting process, I have an issue with that. Much like I have had an issue with that same tactics from you and others on the other side of this issue. Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.
Post by: Lowedog on May 08, 2012, 06:08:51 AM
I know that some people launch arrows at live animals at distances of ninety yards, maybe more. Just what life experiences leads them to having the idea that doing so is conscionable is beyond me! Could it be the power of suggestion in such advertising as this? Or is it simply the mindset that comes from having cut one's eye teeth using a long-range weapon? No one can answer that...
Or perhaps they read some of the adventures of Fred Bear or Pope & Young and some of the other pioneers of modern archery...
Post by: D-Rock425 on May 08, 2012, 06:15:06 AM
Post by: Matt on May 08, 2012, 07:46:28 AM
Unethical practices plague every user group, it's not unique to archers. This isn't a matter of keeping a new tool used for unethical practices out of the hands of those who would use it to further their questionable practices. Equipment, standards, advertising, even rules are not the source of this problem. I for one am not in favor of defining rules based on this extreme minority group. I don't think for one second that any of the unethical hunters you speak of were convinced by a company ad campaign that they are justified in their actions.
IMO unrecovered broadheads are much more threatening to animals than people. Of course there is no data to support this, but how could there be? My contention is that every broadhead not left in the field is a good thing and just one of the reasons for this to go through.
I also have a major issue when Commissioner Jennings (the most vocal opponent of this change) told his fellow commissioners that 90% of arrows shot in the field are not recoverable so lumenok will make no difference in recovery. What?? 9-10 unrecoverable? This kind of spoken like fact, misinformation really fires me up. Some of the Commissioners are absolutely clueless on the issues they vote on, this was no diffrent. The information that reaches the Commission is often all they use to vote with. When a Commissioner spreads misinformation or ignorants on an issue like it's fact, without any opportunity for rebuttal because it's during the voting process, I have an issue with that. Much like I have had an issue with that same tactics from you and others on the other side of this issue. Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.
Now that's just plain funny right there, you should have quit after the 3rd sentence. You know, I would venture a wager that a good % of arrows that are lost while hunting are the ones that skip off a branch and launch themselves into oblivion. Your telling me that a lighted nock is gonna make a guy try to recover an arrow from a thick berry patch or 200 yards down or up a mountain side? That is a weak arguement at best. Now it may allow the archer to find the broken off back end of the arrow that is buried in an animal and give the guy some sense of direction it traveled. But that's it. Still not a good enough arguement for electronics on archery equipment. Get a chem nock.
Post by: huntnphool on May 08, 2012, 09:34:02 AM
Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.
+1
As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commision is going to pass this the next time they vote on it. :brew:
I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.
He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important" :chuckle:
Post by: Matt on May 08, 2012, 11:19:15 AM
As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commision is going to pass this the next time they vote on it. :brew:
I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.
He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important" :chuckle:
Just remember that quotes stay on the internet and for some out of this world chance that it doesn't pass I wouldn't want those words to come back on ya.
Post by: huntnphool on May 08, 2012, 11:30:05 AM
As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commision is going to pass this the next time they vote on it. :brew:
I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.
He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important" :chuckle:
Just remember that quotes stay on the internet and for some out of this world chance that it doesn't pass I wouldn't want those words to come back on ya.
:tup:
Post by: Chase 1 on May 08, 2012, 11:45:45 AM
I understand giving both sides a chance to express their stance on the subject but 22 pages of it c'mon :bash:
You just started the 23rd. :chuckle: If your uninterested, it's pretty easy...stop opening the thread. It seems to me that over 5000 views means that guys are interested in both sides of this issue and want to be informed. My involvement on this thread has primarily been spent squashing misinformation and scare tactics put up by very few on the far extreme of the issue. I wish this was a dead horse but unfortunately it's alive and well.
Post by: dscubame on May 08, 2012, 02:36:55 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on May 08, 2012, 10:34:53 PM
Post by: Matt on May 09, 2012, 08:08:19 AM
Whew I feel better. Please enlighten us on all other issues that we have lived in the dark about o'wise one.
Post by: UptheCreek on May 09, 2012, 09:23:15 AM
Post by: Snapshot on May 09, 2012, 11:20:48 AM
I also have a major issue when Commissioner Jennings (the most vocal opponent of this change) told his fellow commissioners that 90% of arrows shot in the field are not recoverable so lumenok will make no difference in recovery. What?? 9-10 unrecoverable? This kind of spoken like fact, misinformation really fires me up. Some of the Commissioners are absolutely clueless on the issues they vote on, this was no diffrent. The information that reaches the Commission is often all they use to vote with. When a Commissioner spreads misinformation or ignorants on an issue like it's fact, without any opportunity for rebuttal because it's during the voting process, I have an issue with that. Much like I have had an issue with that same tactics from you and others on the other side of this issue. Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.
Anyone who cares to listen to the words that Commissioner Jennings actually spoke can listen to the audio transcripts. http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2012/04/audio_apr1412.html Agenda item 13. Over the past three years since the commission first heard testimony about electric nocks, they have asked many questions and held discussions about what happens to arrows after they leave a bow. Anyone who had been to commission meetings (other than the wolf-specific meetings) in 2009-2011 knows this to be the case.
Post by: Chase 1 on May 09, 2012, 03:26:10 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on May 09, 2012, 04:32:19 PM
So be it Chase. Beings how you and only you know all the facts and everyone else is just spewing nonsense then I proclaim that every word that you type from this point on be taken as THE ONLY TRUTHS that anyone and everyone should believe. You have proven to me, through just diligence, that electronics on archery equipment is not only a good thing but it is also necessary to it's survival as a sport. Without electronics bowhunting will die and it is totally unfair that we are deprived of it.
Whew I feel better. Please enlighten us on all other issues that we have lived in the dark about o'wise one.
Can't help yourself can you. Funny how you can twist things around to say whatever you want them too. I am far from all knowing, never claimed it, never will. Since I know that you have followed this thread, I also know that you don't believe anything you just wrote. I am not an advocate for all electronics in archery and have stated it many times. If nocks increased success or effected others opportunity, then I would have had only one word to say on the issue...NO. As far as the truth vs misinformation/scare tactics... lets recap shall we?
10,000 signature petition from archers against lite nocks filled with the Commission- False
Lite nocks will result in less archer days in the field- False
Lite nocks will result in loss of archer opportunity- False
WDFW poll was somehow bias- False
All the archery organizations were against lite nocks- False
Chem-nocks are just as good as Lumenocks- False
The Commission voted against lite nocks- False
Lite nocks are the key to Pandora's box- False
First lite nocks, next laser guided exploding broadheads- False
Lumenock promotes 100yd shots on game- False
Lite nocks promote unethical practices- False
Just because you say it makes it true- False
Volume equals truth- False
The minority should decide for the majority- False
Should I go on? The bottom line is this... This issue comes down to one thing and one thing only...opinion. Trying to influence others opinion by spreading false information is intolerable. I recognize that a select few don't share my feeling on this so the only answer is to call them out on their "facts" and I have respectfully debated the issue while doing just that. I realize that this issue would be much easier for you to debate if you could put me in the far right extreme on the issue...but you can't, because I'm not. And really have you added anything to this conversation beyond twisting your wooden spoon?
Post by: Snapshot on May 09, 2012, 08:41:36 PM
Can't help yourself can you. Funny how you can twist things around to say whatever you want them too. I am far from all knowing, never claimed it, never will. Since I know that you have followed this thread, I also know that you don't believe anything you just wrote. I am not an advocate for all electronics in archery and have stated it many times. If nocks increased success or effected others opportunity, then I would have had only one word to say on the issue...NO. As far as the truth vs misinformation/scare tactics... lets recap shall we?
10,000 signature petition from archers against lite nocks filled with the Commission- False
Lite nocks will result in less archer days in the field- False
Lite nocks will result in loss of archer opportunity- False
WDFW poll was somehow bias- False
All the archery organizations were against lite nocks- False
Chem-nocks are just as good as Lumenocks- False
The Commission voted against lite nocks- False
Lite nocks are the key to Pandora's box- False
First lite nocks, next laser guided exploding broadheads- False
Lumenock promotes 100yd shots on game- False
Lite nocks promote unethical practices- False
Just because you say it makes it true- False
Volume equals truth- False
The minority should decide for the majority- False
Should I go on? The bottom line is this... This issue comes down to one thing and one thing only...opinion. Trying to influence others opinion by spreading false information is intolerable. I recognize that a select few don't share my feeling on this so the only answer is to call them out on their "facts" and I have respectfully debated the issue while doing just that. I realize that this issue would be much easier for you to debate if you could put me in the far right extreme on the issue...but you can't, because I'm not. And really have you added anything to this conversation beyond twisting your wooden spoon?
It appears that everything that doesn't align with your way of thinking earns the label, "FALSE". Very tidy, that.
Post by: Snapshot on May 09, 2012, 09:22:23 PM
Scare tactics, misinformation, extremists, elitists, and down right fabrication, is personally intolerable to me. That, like I've said, is my driving motivation to even engage in this debate.
+1
As I said earlier, this is just a lesson in delayed gratification. I think Snapshot and the rest of the anti's realize the commission is going to pass this the next time they vote on it. :brew:
I'll be sure to be at the meetings this year just to continue to let them know that the 85% are not going to just let it go away like Snapshot is hoping.
He who laughs last laughs best and the giggles will soon begin, we will then see if the anti's follow their own advice, drop the luminok issue and get on to "whats really important" :chuckle:
HnP, this is much bigger than individuals; dragging it down to personalities denigrates its importance. This is about bowhunting as it was originally conceived within the North American model of conservation surviving somewhat intact, completely without the aid of electronic devices. Electronics are just are not necessary to bowhunting; all that is are a bow and an arrow.
And if you are needing to label anyone an 'anti' (conjuring up the term "anti-hunter" for effect!) then look to those who went before the GMAC and the Commission with the unmitigated audacity to claim that bowhunters in Washington are wounding a deer or two or three before they finally tag one. How could anyone be more an anti-bowhunter than someone who would makes such outragious claims just for the purpose of trying to get an exception to the 'no electronics' rule for a battery-powered nock?! What was the carrot that led the donkey down that road? The answer to that question is one I'd like to see uncovered.
Post by: huntnphool on May 09, 2012, 09:44:21 PM
This is about bowhunting as it was originally conceived within the North American model of conservation surviving somewhat intact, completely without the aid of electronic devices. Electronics are just are not necessary to bowhunting; all that is are a bow and an arrow.
And if you are needing to label anyone an 'anti' (conjuring up the term "anti-hunter" for effect!)
First of all with regards to electronics, range finders are not necessary to bowhunting either, I don't see you beating the drum to get rid of their use. Some may even argue that they are more a issue than luminoks since they are used pre shot as opposed to post shot.
Secondly, the word "anti" was used in the context of the thread title, I'm quite sure everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to understand its intended meaning, despite another of your many twists. :chuckle:
I'm a very patient person Snapshot, the end of this whole debate will be here soon enough and then we will see who is laughing and toasting the commission. :brew:
Post by: Snapshot on May 10, 2012, 08:44:25 AM
This is about bowhunting as it was originally conceived within the North American model of conservation surviving somewhat intact, completely without the aid of electronic devices. Electronics are just are not necessary to bowhunting; all that is are a bow and an arrow.
And if you are needing to label anyone an 'anti' (conjuring up the term "anti-hunter" for effect!)
First of all with regards to electronics, range finders are not necessary to bowhunting either, I don't see you beating the drum to get rid of their use. Some may even argue that they are more a issue than luminoks since they are used pre shot as opposed to post shot.
...electronic devices attached to the bow or arrow is the issue.
If an exception is made for an electric nock, people who use/sell rangefinders will step right into line asking for an exception for the bow-mounted rangefinder. At least one person on this thread already asked, 'why not?' There is blood in the water and the sharks are beginning to circle.
I've never beaten my drum to "try to get rid" of anything; I am defending the line.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2012, 08:54:56 AM
Post by: Matt on May 10, 2012, 09:37:25 AM
This isn't doomsday thinking. It's scenerio analysis. Are you willing to take that chance on something that really has no effect on your bowhunting????? Think about it.
As for the majority thing. It isn't up to us to demand that our equipment rules be changed. It is up to the department to manage the resource. Sure we can ask for things but just because the "majority" want it doesn't mean that it should be granted. That's how Sh.. gets ruined. People will always vote their own prosperity even if it comes with consequence. There must be checks and balances.
Post by: dscubame on May 10, 2012, 10:48:29 AM
Post by: Machias on May 10, 2012, 10:50:48 AM
This thread is like a soap opera, you can leave it for days on end and come back and pick right up where you left off and already know what the characters have been up to.
Post by: Matt on May 10, 2012, 12:59:58 PM
I would argue that the arrow is not "attached" to the bow therefore illuminated nocks would not be opening the door for attached electronics.
You should read the regulations closer. Page 74 under Archery Regulations, paragraph 1.b.
b. It is unlawful to have any electrical
equipment or electric device(s) attached
to the bow or arrow while hunting.
Post by: Lowedog on May 10, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
I also would hope that true archers would be accepting of this and not necessarily jump on the band wagon of electronics.
Please define "true archers"...
If you are implying that "true archers" would never use a nock that lights up after the shot then I would have to guess that there may be thousands if not tens of thousands of archery hunters across the US that may take offense to that.
Post by: UptheCreek on May 10, 2012, 08:23:13 PM
Post by: Snapshot on May 10, 2012, 08:39:36 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle:
This thread is like a soap opera, you can leave it for days on end and come back and pick right up where you left off and already know what the characters have been up to.
Like sands through the hourglass...
:chuckle:
Post by: Snapshot on May 10, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
The line you draw at ... electronics is arbitrary....
The status quo is that no electronics may be attached to a bow or arrow. It is cut and dry and easy for law enforcement to enforce.
I think the rule was born out of the premonition that bowhunting could be completely reinvented if technological advances were allowed to run amok. As evidenced by what is allowed in many states the premonition was largely correct. In states like ours where there isn't a deer hiding behind every bush reinvention isn't needed to control game populations.
The "no attached electronics" rule that exists in just a handful of western states is perhaps the only thing that has kept compound manufacturers from fully integrating electronic gadgets into the compounds themselves. Thus far the accouterments (rangefinders, sights, etc) are add-ons that each person can choose to do with or without (except in the case of axle-to-axle lengths which have been shortened to the point that archers who want to feel the string under their fingers have an ever-shrinking number of models to choose from). But if the day ever comes that "anything goes" everywhere, then the door would be open for manufacturers to build all that stuff right into the compound; at which point these various accouterments would no longer be 'choices'. The price of the product would be raised accordingly and everyone would have to "buy the whole package." Imagine that...
Post by: Snapshot on May 10, 2012, 09:51:52 PM
So, are expandible broadheads considered electronic?
I don't know of any that are battery operated but I don't read magazines that advertise such stuff. They may exist...
The reason expandables are illegal for big game in this state, (aside from the barbed shape of most of them) is that they have not proven to be 100% dependable. And so long as there is a chance of failure to open properly, the Commission has maintained that it will not allow them. They wouldn't allow people to shoot field points at big game; when a mechanical broadhead fails to open it is no better than a field point.
Post by: Chase 1 on May 10, 2012, 11:13:49 PM
Chase I have not made any false comments. Infact I have even said that it is not a certainty that allowing luminoks will decrease hunting days nor am I even against them. What I have said is that there needs to be a line drawn and it should be at electronics on archery equipment. I also would hope that true archers would be accepting of this and not necessarily jump on the band wagon of electronics. My biggest "fear" would be that if luminoks are accepted that in fact it would open the flood gates to the other electronic accessory manufacturers to lobby their products and if that does happen there is no going backwards, the only recourse for WDFW would be to limit our seasons if they felt the need. If electronics are allowed on the arrow then there is no arguement to not allow any other electronics on any other equipment.
This isn't doomsday thinking. It's scenerio analysis. Are you willing to take that chance on something that really has no effect on your bowhunting????? Think about it.
As for the majority thing. It isn't up to us to demand that our equipment rules be changed. It is up to the department to manage the resource. Sure we can ask for things but just because the "majority" want it doesn't mean that it should be granted. That's how Sh.. gets ruined. People will always vote their own prosperity even if it comes with consequence. There must be checks and balances.
...it's not a certainty that lumenoks will decrease hunting days..?
Some of the issue is that you see no issue with this type of statement. How about, ...it's a certainty that lumenoks will not affect hunting days because lumenoks and hunting days are completely unrelated..? Lite nocks have zero impact on harvest rate...how many ways can that be said?
...I also would hope that true archers would be accepting of this..?
Really? Are you the guy who decides the criteria for being a "true archers"?
...open the floodgates..?
Isn't that the old Pandora's box argument again?
...the only recourse for WDFW would be to limit our seasons if they felt the need..?
You have to see how this sounds?
...there is no argument to not allow any other electronics on any other equipment.?
How about, ummm...they increase harvest rate and will negatively effect archery seasons?
... It's scenario analysis..?
What are we trading penny stocks or weather forecasting? Scenerio analysis doesn't produce reliable results if you have a preconceived bias or allow fiction to infiltrate the equations.
...up to the department to manage the resource..?
This isn't a resource issue.
People will always vote their own prosperity even if it comes with consequence.
Don't find to many sentences that start...People will always...that hold much water. Just another example.
There must be checks and balances.
How many more do you want? We don't really need to go back over all of them do we?
I'm not sure why you fellas insist on going on and on? Don't you realize that this issue would have gone quiet for a while if you had just let it? Talk about cutting off your nose to spit your face. I'm more than happy to see this thread disappear for 6 months... You?
Post by: popeshawnpaul on May 11, 2012, 02:39:00 PM
Reality is until Pope and Young changes the fair chase rules this issue will continue. It seems a lot of people with time and energy might focus their attention on that. I know quite a few "true bow hunters" as some like to call them that are asking P&Y to make this change. Perhaps focusing attention to that issue might help some achieve their goal in WA. The base premise of the "antis" (that was funny) is that P&Y fair chase rules prohibit use. The whole deck of cards would crumble if P&Y updated their fair chase rules as they did with the let-off issue a few years ago.
Beyond this issue, I think most bow hunters are united in what they want. Nobody wants other gadgets or stuff attached to the bow. In the end, things change over time. We can all reminisce of the "good old days" but we need to find a way to balance some modernization with sufficient safeguards to ensure seasons aren't compromised. Ignoring modernization won't keep it "out of sight, out of mind"...
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 11, 2012, 02:49:54 PM
The line you draw at ... electronics is arbitrary....
The status quo is that no electronics may be attached to a bow or arrow. It is cut and dry and easy for law enforcement to enforce.
That's what the whole debate is about, changing the law (status quo? maybe) to add luminoks. I'm talking about the line that YOU draw, not the law. I'm saying that when you allow things like peep sights, light gathering fiber optics, modern broadheads, compound bows, 80% let-off, string silencers, stabilizers, releases, quivers which attach to the bow, etc., drawing the line at electronics is, in this perspective, quite arbitrary and almost laughable. So to speak, you've got the stuff you want, so screw everyone else? They're certainly not any more of a departure from tradition than these other items I've listed.
Post by: huntnphool on May 11, 2012, 02:53:06 PM
That's what the whole debate is about, changing the law (status quo? maybe) to add luminoks. I'm talking about the line that YOU draw, not the law. I'm saying that when you allow things like peep sights, light gathering fiber optics, modern broadheads, compound bows, 80% let-off, string silencers, stabilizers, releases, quivers which attach to the bow, etc., drawing the line at electronics is, in this perspective, quite arbitrary and almost laughable. So to speak, you've got the stuff you want, so screw everyone else? They're certainly not any more of a departure from tradition than these other items I've listed.The line you draw at ... electronics is arbitrary....The status quo is that no electronics may be attached to a bow or arrow. It is cut and dry and easy for law enforcement to enforce.
Excellent post right there. :tup:
Post by: Snapshot on May 13, 2012, 06:31:55 PM
The line you draw at ... electronics is arbitrary....
The status quo is that no electronics may be attached to a bow or arrow. It is cut and dry and easy for law enforcement to enforce.
That's what the whole debate is about, changing the law (status quo? maybe) to add luminoks. I'm talking about the line that YOU draw, not the law. I'm saying that when you allow things like peep sights, light gathering fiber optics, modern broadheads, compound bows, 80% let-off, string silencers, stabilizers, releases, quivers which attach to the bow, etc., drawing the line at electronics is, in this perspective, quite arbitrary and almost laughable. So to speak, you've got the stuff you want, so screw everyone else? They're certainly not any more of a departure from tradition than these other items I've listed.
I am tired, too, gentlemen. I am (to steal Pope's fitting analogy) discouraged that 'the missionaries' have come to Washington's 'door' and are trying to 'convert' our house to 'their way' of thinking. I am discouraged their message was embraced even though it would obviously divide the community.
P, you wrote, '(Status quo? maybe)'. "Status quo" by definition is the current state of being...there is no question of how the law currently reads. Maybe?... :dunno:
Steel broadheads, fur string silencers and a bow quiver...I am guilty as charged. I have never used that other stuff. Neither did I 'allow' it (a rather silly charge, that one). I was too young and naive to be involved in defending bowhunting then (born too late). In fact I walked away from bowhunting because I was told that things like peep sights, sights, compound bows, stabilizers and releases were the only things the future was going to offer; those things didn't interest me so I quit. Later I discovered they were wrong in their prediction of the end of the old ways.
To speak momentarily to the topic of the likelihood of the Pope & Young Club changing their Rules of Fair Chase: their membership just reaffirmed their desire for the club to maintain its longstanding leadership role in setting the bar for bowhunting ethics. In elections completed only a month or two ago (with 80% return on ballots), two directors were replaced by traditionalists who vowed to maintain the standards, and both the President and First Vice President (both against lowering the bar on equipment) were reelected.
Post by: huntnphool on January 28, 2013, 04:55:25 PM
Post by: oldleclercrd on January 28, 2013, 05:17:56 PM
Post by: fair-chase on January 28, 2013, 05:56:46 PM
The fight is back on, see you guys at the public input meeting. :tup:
Which side are we supposed to be on again? :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on January 28, 2013, 11:25:36 PM
I respect your view on either side, see you there. :tup:The fight is back on, see you guys at the public input meeting. :tup:
Which side are we supposed to be on again? :chuckle:
Post by: Russ McDonald on January 29, 2013, 06:54:40 AM
Post by: D-Rock425 on January 29, 2013, 07:23:48 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 29, 2013, 07:48:35 AM
We should be fighting together to get are elk season back to the start date of sept 8. Get are extra day back that they took away but most of you would rather fight over a little lighted nock :bash:
These are not mutually exclusive fights. One can fight for or against either or both.
I never did see the reason to outlaw them, but I don't care that we don't have them. I don't lose arrows very often at all and you can usually be pretty close at guessing where your arrow hit from what's on it and on the ground. :dunno:
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 29, 2013, 08:19:17 AM
The fight is back on, see you guys at the public input meeting. :tup:
When and where?
Post by: bobcat on January 29, 2013, 08:31:42 AM
The fight is back on, see you guys at the public input meeting. :tup:
When and where?
Quote
Lighted Nocks for Archery Equipment
Department staff is considering amending the archery equipment rules to allow lighted nocks.
CR-101 - filed as WSR 12-23-013 on November 9, 2012
Invitation to discuss rules on this subject
CR-102 - filed as WSR 13-03-152 on January 23, 2013
Notice and opportunity to comment on this current rule-making proposal
Public Comment Period:
Written comments are due by February 15, 2013
Written comments may be e-mailed to: Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov
or mailed to: Wildlife Program Commission Public Comments, WDFW, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091
A public hearing will take place on March 1-2, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
Moses Lake Civic Center
401 S. Balsam
Moses Lake, Washington 98837
Post by: TheHunt on January 29, 2013, 08:32:27 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 29, 2013, 08:45:56 AM
Please accept my comments in favor of allowing illuminated nocks. I don't see any advantage to the hunter in the actual shooting of the animal using these nocks. I see an advantage in seeing where the nock strikes the animal and it will also save people money recovering lost arrows. I believe they will help increase the number of recovered animals and that's never a bad thing.
If people are concerned about the sport staying traditional, that train left the station a long time ago with compound bows, fiber optic sights, pre-made arrows, plastic fletchings, range finders, stabilizers, removable quivers, string silencers, peep sights, and about 300 other advances in archery equipment that takes it far from its traditional beginnings. If illuminated nocks are being kept illegal because of this reason, that's really dumb and not well-thought out.
Some who wants to hunt without them isn't required to. Light 'em up! I don't intend to use them, but see only benefits in their use. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
--
Most Sincerely,
John W
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 29, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
Post by: huntingfool7 on January 29, 2013, 09:56:03 AM
On the target range, I have used several brands of lighted nocks and find that they are a great asset in seeing where the arrow strikes.
While bow hunting, knowing where your arrow hits an animal has a direct correlation on how to proceed and how soon tracking should begin. Lighted nocks give immediate feedback on where the arrow struck. For instance, knowing an arrow hit too far back requires a longer wait than normal before following up. Starting too soon and bumping the animal greatly decreases the chances of recovery. I believe that lighted nocks would be a huge benefit in preventing losses in this type of scenario.
At this time without the use of lighted nocks, when there is a clean miss finding your arrow is critical in order to verify the animal was not struck. Very often in Western Washington there is thick underbrush that makes recovering shot arrows difficult.
Lighted nocks would help in finding arrows because the nock by itself is highly visible. Secondly, these nocks would make it possible to mark where your arrow went into the brush making recovery highly likely. Most importantly lighted nocks would aid in accurately noting a miss.
Negatives about possible shooting after dark and extending shooting ranges have little merit. Hunters need enough natural light in order to see our sights and the quarry.
As for extending shooting ranges, lighted nocks do nothing to extend the effective range of archery equipment. Laser rangefinders which are already legal to use in the field have done more to extend the effective range of archery equipment than pulleys, fiber optic sights, carbon fiber arrows or any other advancement in equipment.
Overall, I believe that lighted nocks would be an asset in recovering game and shot arrows.
Thanks and best regards,
James Halvorson
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2013, 02:41:20 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on January 30, 2013, 12:15:31 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on January 30, 2013, 12:37:54 AM
We should be fighting together to get are elk season back to the start date of sept 8. Get are extra day back that they took away but most of you would rather fight over a little lighted nock :bash:
This issue is on the tongue of every archery elk hunter I know. I do believe that with organized effort it is possible. Start a tread and kick it around. They know we want it, so the answer may be volume. Won't happen this year and may take until the next three year package but the time to organize for that is now.
Post by: dreamingbig on February 04, 2013, 02:49:19 PM
We should be fighting together to get are elk season back to the start date of sept 8. Get are extra day back that they took away but most of you would rather fight over a little lighted nock :bash:
This issue is on the tongue of every archery elk hunter I know. I do believe that with organized effort it is possible. Start a tread and kick it around. They know we want it, so the answer may be volume. Won't happen this year and may take until the next three year package but the time to organize for that is now.
Here! Here! Amen! I will be writing a letter. Heck, they even added a day to some modern firearm seasons this year (see little naches rifle hunt in October).
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2013, 03:37:42 PM
We should be fighting together to get are elk season back to the start date of sept 8. Get are extra day back that they took away but most of you would rather fight over a little lighted nock :bash:
This issue is on the tongue of every archery elk hunter I know. I do believe that with organized effort it is possible. Start a tread and kick it around. They know we want it, so the answer may be volume. Won't happen this year and may take until the next three year package but the time to organize for that is now.
Here! Here! Amen! I will be writing a letter. Heck, they even added a day to some modern firearm seasons this year (see little naches rifle hunt in October).
They DID NOT add a day to the modern firearm season. It's due to a change in the calendar!
The season begins on a Saturday. Last year that day happened to be the 27th of October. This year the 26th is on Saturday, so it begins on the 26th instead of the 27th.
And yes, that does increase the length of the season by 1 day. I can't believe you would complain about that.
The calendar changes every year, people!
Sorry but I just get tired of hearing this same complaint year after year. :bash:
Post by: Smossy on February 04, 2013, 03:46:00 PM
We should be fighting together to get are elk season back to the start date of sept 8. Get are extra day back that they took away but most of you would rather fight over a little lighted nock :bash:
This issue is on the tongue of every archery elk hunter I know. I do believe that with organized effort it is possible. Start a tread and kick it around. They know we want it, so the answer may be volume. Won't happen this year and may take until the next three year package but the time to organize for that is now.
Here! Here! Amen! I will be writing a letter. Heck, they even added a day to some modern firearm seasons this year (see little naches rifle hunt in October).
They DID NOT add a day to the modern firearm season. It's due to a change in the calendar!
The season begins on a Saturday. Last year that day happened to be the 27th of October. This year the 26th is on Saturday, so it begins on the 26th instead of the 27th.
And yes, that does increase the length of the season by 1 day. I can't believe you would complain about that.
The calendar changes every year, people!
Sorry but I just get tired of hearing this same complaint year after year. :bash:
Lol I love how knowledgeable bob is! Hes my fav mod!
I learn more and more from this guy everyday!
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 04, 2013, 03:48:19 PM
I have thought the same thing. The seasons seem to change slightly from one year to the next because of the calender. I dont think one day is gonna make a difference in your season overall. Yet it seems to really upset people. I just dont see why?We should be fighting together to get are elk season back to the start date of sept 8. Get are extra day back that they took away but most of you would rather fight over a little lighted nock :bash:
This issue is on the tongue of every archery elk hunter I know. I do believe that with organized effort it is possible. Start a tread and kick it around. They know we want it, so the answer may be volume. Won't happen this year and may take until the next three year package but the time to organize for that is now.
Here! Here! Amen! I will be writing a letter. Heck, they even added a day to some modern firearm seasons this year (see little naches rifle hunt in October).
They DID NOT add a day to the modern firearm season. It's due to a change in the calendar!
The season begins on a Saturday. Last year that day happened to be the 27th of October. This year the 26th is on Saturday, so it begins on the 26th instead of the 27th.
And yes, that does increase the length of the season by 1 day. I can't believe you would complain about that.
The calendar changes every year, people!
Sorry but I just get tired of hearing this same complaint year after year. :bash:
Post by: bullcanyon on February 04, 2013, 03:53:56 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 04, 2013, 03:57:29 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on February 04, 2013, 04:02:55 PM
I don't want to argue but I feel compelled to point out that they did in fact add a day to the special permit rifle hunt in the Little Naches. Last year it was Oct 1 to the 10th. This year it is proposed to be Oct 1st to the 11th. I think that means they now have an extra day.
"Little Naches EF Any Oct. 1-(
Feel free to double check again.
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2013, 04:16:03 PM
Bobcat,That is correct but I hope all you guys don't believe this is a direct result of legalizing luminoks.
I don't want to argue but I feel compelled to point out that they did in fact add a day to the special permit rifle hunt in the Little Naches. Last year it was Oct 1 to the 10th. This year it is proposed to be Oct 1st to the 11th. I think that means they now have an extra day.
"Little Naches EF Any Oct. 1-((10)) 11 Any bull GMU 346"
Feel free to double check again.
WDFW have never taken away season days as a result of weapons/gear technology, this fear mongering by the "anti luminok" crew is the exact same tactic employed by the media and the left, don't fall for it. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2013, 04:47:10 PM
Bobcat,
I don't want to argue but I feel compelled to point out that they did in fact add a day to the special permit rifle hunt in the Little Naches. Last year it was Oct 1 to the 10th. This year it is proposed to be Oct 1st to the 11th. I think that means they now have an extra day.
"Little Naches EF Any Oct. 1-((10)) 11 Any bull GMU 346"
Feel free to double check again.
Oh sorry, didn't know you were talking about a special permit hunt. Still, that doesn't seem like a big deal. There are very few of those permits anyway.
Post by: dreamingbig on February 04, 2013, 04:58:53 PM
What I am getting at is that they claim they want things to be equitable between user groups and then they try to catch us sleeping by adding more days to other user groups.
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2013, 05:15:40 PM
I guess the way I look at is this: 1. They don't think archery hunters should hunt close to the rut thus they took away our 8-21st season and replaced with a rotating one. 2. They said we were taking too many animals (harvest rate too high) so they took one of our days away (13 now). 3. Archery hunters get 13 days to fill a bull tag in little naches now vs. 11 days for a modern firearm permit holder and to top it off, Oct 1st is closer to peak rut than September 15th (end of archery).And none of this has anything to do with this thread, it would be more appropriate to discuss it here. ;) http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,117018.msg1541056.html#msg1541056 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,117018.msg1541056.html#msg1541056)
What I am getting at is that they claim they want things to be equitable between user groups and then they try to catch us sleeping by adding more days to other user groups.
Post by: dreamingbig on February 04, 2013, 06:28:46 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2013, 06:48:08 PM
Good point 'phool. I didn't start the tangent but I contributed to it! And I even started this thread... shame on me! :sry::chuckle: :tup:
Post by: rooselk on February 04, 2013, 09:09:32 PM
While I'm personally glad that I no longer have to concern myself with this issue in the state where I was born, raised, and lived all my life until just a few months ago, I do wish nothing but the best to those back home who continue to fight the good fight by upholding the time honored Pope & Young Fair Chase hunting ethic.
Post by: huntnphool on February 04, 2013, 09:18:14 PM
I like to think I had at least enough good sense to (A) move to Montana; and (B) join a state bowhunting that still subscribes to, and upholds, the Pope & Young Fair Chase ethic, which includes no electronic attachments to archery equipment.http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/ (http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/) ;)
Post by: buck man on February 05, 2013, 09:00:06 AM
I like to think I had at least enough good sense to (A) move to Montana; and (B) join a state bowhunting that still subscribes to, and upholds, the Pope & Young Fair Chase ethic, which includes no electronic attachments to archery equipment.http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/ (http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/) ;)
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: it might be time to move again rooselk. Oh and expandables are legal too in MT. :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 05, 2013, 09:41:32 AM
:yeah:I like to think I had at least enough good sense to (A) move to Montana; and (B) join a state bowhunting that still subscribes to, and upholds, the Pope & Young Fair Chase ethic, which includes no electronic attachments to archery equipment.http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/ (http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/) ;)
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: it might be time to move again rooselk. Oh and expandables are legal too in MT. :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on February 05, 2013, 09:49:32 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 05, 2013, 09:50:48 AM
i think Montana will be the 45th state to allow lumenoks, he only has 5 to choose from if P&Y compliance are among his requirements. :chuckle:I like to think I had at least enough good sense to (A) move to Montana; and (B) join a state bowhunting that still subscribes to, and upholds, the Pope & Young Fair Chase ethic, which includes no electronic attachments to archery equipment.http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/ (http://www.archerywire.com/releases/278319/) ;)
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: it might be time to move again rooselk. Oh and expandables are legal too in MT. :chuckle:
Post by: Machias Bowhunter on February 05, 2013, 07:11:36 PM
While bow hunting, knowing where your arrow hits an animal has a direct correlation on how to proceed and how soon tracking should begin. Lighted nocks give immediate feedback on where the arrow struck. For instance, knowing an arrow hit too far back requires a longer wait than normal before following up. Starting too soon and bumping the animal greatly decreases the chances of recovery. I believe that lighted nocks would be a huge benefit in preventing losses in this type of scenario.
At this time without the use of lighted nocks, when there is a clean miss finding your arrow is critical in order to verify the animal was not struck. Very often in Western Washington there is thick underbrush that makes recovering shot arrows difficult.
Lighted nocks would help in finding arrows because the nock by itself is highly visible. Secondly, these nocks would make it possible to mark where your arrow went into the brush making recovery highly likely. Most importantly lighted nocks would aid in accurately noting a miss.
Negatives about possible shooting after dark and extending shooting ranges have little merit. Hunters need enough natural light in order to see our sights and the quarry.
As for extending shooting ranges, lighted nocks do nothing to extend the effective range of archery equipment. Laser rangefinders which are already legal to use in the field have done more to extend the effective range of archery equipment than pulleys, fiber optic sights, carbon fiber arrows or any other advancement in equipment.
Overall, I believe that lighted nocks would be an asset in recovering game and shot arrows.
Thanks and best regards,
James Halvorson
I 100% agree with this post, If your worried about Pope and Young Rules dont use them!! IF you dont like them for any other reason, dont use them!!!!!
But to say that they help when actually shooting the arrow is crazy talk. I would like the ones that feel that these nocks actually give a advantage to the hunter by making them more accurate show the proof! You cant, because the only thing they do is light up AFTER they have left the bow, how does that make it easier for me to hit what I aim at?
"While bow hunting, knowing where your arrow hits an animal has a direct correlation on how to proceed and how soon tracking should begin. Lighted nocks give immediate feedback on where the arrow struck. For instance, knowing an arrow hit too far back requires a longer wait than normal before following up. Starting too soon and bumping the animal greatly decreases the chances of recovery. I believe that lighted nocks would be a huge benefit in preventing losses in this type of scenario."
How do you argue with this?
"At this time without the use of lighted nocks, when there is a clean miss finding your arrow is critical in order to verify the animal was not struck. Very often in Western Washington there is thick underbrush that makes recovering shot arrows difficult. Lighted nocks would help in finding arrows because the nock by itself is highly visible. Secondly, these nocks would make it possible to mark where your arrow went into the brush making recovery highly likely. Most importantly lighted nocks would aid in accurately noting a miss."
You really cant argue this as well.
As others have said, we notice focus our resources and wants to things that matter, e.i. extending seasons, getting more permits for archery and so on.
Post by: Smossy on February 05, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 05, 2013, 07:14:43 PM
Welcome to the debate. :tup:While bow hunting, knowing where your arrow hits an animal has a direct correlation on how to proceed and how soon tracking should begin. Lighted nocks give immediate feedback on where the arrow struck. For instance, knowing an arrow hit too far back requires a longer wait than normal before following up. Starting too soon and bumping the animal greatly decreases the chances of recovery. I believe that lighted nocks would be a huge benefit in preventing losses in this type of scenario.
At this time without the use of lighted nocks, when there is a clean miss finding your arrow is critical in order to verify the animal was not struck. Very often in Western Washington there is thick underbrush that makes recovering shot arrows difficult.
Lighted nocks would help in finding arrows because the nock by itself is highly visible. Secondly, these nocks would make it possible to mark where your arrow went into the brush making recovery highly likely. Most importantly lighted nocks would aid in accurately noting a miss.
Negatives about possible shooting after dark and extending shooting ranges have little merit. Hunters need enough natural light in order to see our sights and the quarry.
As for extending shooting ranges, lighted nocks do nothing to extend the effective range of archery equipment. Laser rangefinders which are already legal to use in the field have done more to extend the effective range of archery equipment than pulleys, fiber optic sights, carbon fiber arrows or any other advancement in equipment.
Overall, I believe that lighted nocks would be an asset in recovering game and shot arrows.
Thanks and best regards,
James Halvorson
I 100% agree with this post, If your worried about Pope and Young Rules dont use them!! IF you dont like them for any other reason, dont use them!!!!!
But to say that they help when actually shooting the arrow is crazy talk. I would like the ones that feel that these nocks actually give a advantage to the hunter by making them more accurate show the proof! You cant, because the only thing they do is light up AFTER they have left the bow, how does that make it easier for me to hit what I aim at?
"While bow hunting, knowing where your arrow hits an animal has a direct correlation on how to proceed and how soon tracking should begin. Lighted nocks give immediate feedback on where the arrow struck. For instance, knowing an arrow hit too far back requires a longer wait than normal before following up. Starting too soon and bumping the animal greatly decreases the chances of recovery. I believe that lighted nocks would be a huge benefit in preventing losses in this type of scenario."
How do you argue with this?
"At this time without the use of lighted nocks, when there is a clean miss finding your arrow is critical in order to verify the animal was not struck. Very often in Western Washington there is thick underbrush that makes recovering shot arrows difficult. Lighted nocks would help in finding arrows because the nock by itself is highly visible. Secondly, these nocks would make it possible to mark where your arrow went into the brush making recovery highly likely. Most importantly lighted nocks would aid in accurately noting a miss."
You really cant argue this as well.
As others have said, we notice focus our resources and wants to things that matter, e.i. extending seasons, getting more permits for archery and so on.
Post by: Smossy on February 05, 2013, 07:16:18 PM
I guess the way I look at is this: 1. They don't think archery hunters should hunt close to the rut thus they took away our 8-21st season and replaced with a rotating one. 2. They said we were taking too many animals (harvest rate too high) so they took one of our days away (13 now). 3. Archery hunters get 13 days to fill a bull tag in little naches now vs. 11 days for a modern firearm permit holder and to top it off, Oct 1st is closer to peak rut than September 15th (end of archery).Bowhunters are just savage :) and need to pay more attention to detail.
What I am getting at is that they claim they want things to be equitable between user groups and then they try to catch us sleeping by adding more days to other user groups.
NO OFFENSE to anyone who hunts with rifles, But It seems like bowhunting is more intimate and actually hunting.
Long range with a rifle, I doubt scent or camo really comes into play.
But then what do I know.
Really to all the rifle hunters do not take that as a stab, Huntings hunting.
Just like people who hunt with recurves or longbows where you have alot less aiming and more instincts when it comes to shooting.
My compound bow is surgical, and goes exactly where I want it.
Post by: rooselk on February 05, 2013, 08:04:13 PM
Our Montana state bowhunting organization took a solid stand against the the legislation that would allow lighted nocks in this state, as the article clearly states.
Post by: Chase 1 on February 06, 2013, 01:13:06 AM
Written comments may be emailed to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov or mailed to: Wildlife Program Commission Public Comments, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.
But do it now because the deadline is Feb.15th.
OR…
You can show up at one of the Commission meetings that will take place before the vote in April (no testimony will be heard at the meeting in April).
The next meeting is in Olympia at the end of this week. Your opportunity to express your support of this change will be on Friday Feb 8th at 8:45 …or… Saturday Feb 9th at 8:30. Show up a little early, sign in, and tell the Commission in person that you support a yes vote on this proposal. You will have 3 minutes and you can use as little or much of it as you wish.
The last chance to speak to the Commission (and a lot closer to some of you) is the March meeting that will be held in Moses Lake on March 1-2. The agenda is not yet set so I will update the time when it is or you can check this link.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html)
THIS IS NOT A DONE DEAL. It could still go either way. Last year the Commission voted 4-3 in favor of approving the change, but a change requires 5 votes. Two Commissioners were not at the last vote and will swing this one way or the other.
And make no mistake; a handful of very vocal opponents will do what they can to keep this from happening. If history is any indicator, they will attend the meeting and let their opposition be heard loud and clear. They will present themselves as the voices of the archery community, and despite all the information to the contrary, represent that this change is opposed by archers.
Notice a relative lack of posts from those opposing this change?
The voice of the majority cannot be heard if it is not spoken! So speak up and be heard. If you want to see that this rule makes it to the final draft of the regs, you need to drop a letter to the Commission telling them so by Feb.15th or better yet show up at the meeting to tell them in person. :tup:
Post by: madmack76 on February 06, 2013, 02:43:16 AM
Post by: 3Under on February 06, 2013, 07:02:46 AM
Notice a relative lack of posts from those opposing this change?
Some can't stand to continue beating a dead horse on such a divisive issue (notice the previous 26 pages of arguments, let alone a dozen more threads on the issue), especially when there are greater issues to fight for than allowing electronics on archery equipment.
Thanks for the deadline reminder.
Post by: boneaddict on February 06, 2013, 07:45:06 AM
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 06, 2013, 08:04:16 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2013, 08:18:19 AM
Typical of any agenda that someone wants, if they stand at the front porch and bang loud enough sooner or later someone is going to pass it. The folks that want it think the folks that don't want it are stupid. The folks that don't think its right or don't want it will put less energy into the fight and sooner or later will move on to something that is more important, such as saving the 2nd. The folks that want it will still be jumping up and down screaming and pretty soon you will have it in law. By the time you have your lighted fire sticks with gps beacons on them so you can find the arrow you shot at a deer 100 yards away, there probably wont be any deer left. You might of/should have put as much effort into ending the decimation of the herds from wolves, tribal hunting, etc.i don't think the opposition are stupid and I can assure you my voice is being heard on the wolf and tribal hunting issues as well!!! ;)
Post by: spur_ride on February 06, 2013, 08:28:39 AM
Post by: Chase 1 on February 06, 2013, 08:55:19 AM
Here's the bottom line on this issue. If you want the Commission to vote yes for this change, then you have two options to let your voice be heard. You can write a letter expressing your support for the change (there are some great examples in previous posts) and email or send it to the addresses below…
Written comments may be emailed to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov or mailed to: Wildlife Program Commission Public Comments, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501.
But do it now because the deadline is Feb.15th.
OR…
You can show up at one of the Commission meetings that will take place before the vote in April (no testimony will be heard at the meeting in April).
The next meeting is in Olympia at the end of this week. Your opportunity to express your support of this change will be on Friday Feb 8th at 8:45 …or… Saturday Feb 9th at 8:30. Show up a little early, sign in, and tell the Commission in person that you support a yes vote on this proposal. You will have 3 minutes and you can use as little or much of it as you wish.
The last chance to speak to the Commission (and a lot closer to some of you) is the March meeting that will be held in Moses Lake on March 1-2. The agenda is not yet set so I will update the time when it is or you can check this link.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings.html)
THIS IS NOT A DONE DEAL. It could still go either way. Last year the Commission voted 4-3 in favor of approving the change, but a change requires 5 votes. Two Commissioners were not at the last vote and will swing this one way or the other.
And make no mistake; a handful of very vocal opponents will do what they can to keep this from happening. If history is any indicator, they will attend the meeting and let their opposition be heard loud and clear. They will present themselves as the voices of the archery community, and despite all the information to the contrary, represent that this change is opposed by archers.
Notice a relative lack of posts from those opposing this change?
The voice of the majority cannot be heard if it is not spoken! So speak up and be heard. If you want to see that this rule makes it to the final draft of the regs, you need to drop a letter to the Commission telling them so by Feb.15th or better yet show up at the meeting to tell them in person. :tup:
And if you go on Friday you will be done in plenty of time to head over to the 2nd Amendment rally taking place that day. Info on the link below.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,117549.msg1552156/topicseen.html#new (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,117549.msg1552156/topicseen.html#new)
Post by: Chase 1 on February 06, 2013, 11:30:30 AM
Typical of any agenda that someone wants, if they stand at the front porch and bang loud enough sooner or later someone is going to pass it. The folks that want it think the folks that don't want it are stupid. The folks that don't think its right or don't want it will put less energy into the fight and sooner or later will move on to something that is more important, such as saving the 2nd. The folks that want it will still be jumping up and down screaming and pretty soon you will have it in law. By the time you have your lighted fire sticks with gps beacons on them so you can find the arrow you shot at a deer 100 yards away, there probably wont be any deer left. You might of/should have put as much effort into ending the decimation of the herds from wolves, tribal hunting, etc.
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more with your summation of this debate/discussion, especially that I feel that those who don't want the change are stupid. That is absolutely not the case! Most of those on both sides of this debate are fellow archers and sportsman and on 95% of the issues, we have the same agenda! This is a small issue that we disagree on.
And the idea that folks can't put out effort in many directions at once just leaves me scratching my head. Sportmans intrest are best served if that is what we all do.
Post by: boneaddict on February 06, 2013, 11:48:02 AM
I do understand the analogy of having my hand in more than one cookie jar. :)
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 06, 2013, 12:02:31 PM
Typical of any agenda that someone wants, if they stand at the front porch and bang loud enough sooner or later someone is going to pass it. The folks that want it think the folks that don't want it are stupid. The folks that don't think its right or don't want it will put less energy into the fight and sooner or later will move on to something that is more important, such as saving the 2nd. The folks that want it will still be jumping up and down screaming and pretty soon you will have it in law. By the time you have your lighted fire sticks with gps beacons on them so you can find the arrow you shot at a deer 100 yards away, there probably wont be any deer left. You might of/should have put as much effort into ending the decimation of the herds from wolves, tribal hunting, etc.:bash: I don't think you could be more wrong.
Post by: boneaddict on February 06, 2013, 12:53:40 PM
Quote
I don't think you could be more wrong
I'm sure I'll prove that wrong someday. :)
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 12:55:00 PM
My experience as a fairly new to the sport archer but a guy that's been on this forum way way way more than enough says that when you get right down to it..really pick it apart... there's a lot more dividing archers on both sides of the equipment aisle than the lighted nock debate. I've seen bow hunters arguing on here about everything from lighted nocks to training wheels to acceptable shooting distances to flashlights duct taped to bows(inside joke).Typical of any agenda that someone wants, if they stand at the front porch and bang loud enough sooner or later someone is going to pass it. The folks that want it think the folks that don't want it are stupid. The folks that don't think its right or don't want it will put less energy into the fight and sooner or later will move on to something that is more important, such as saving the 2nd. The folks that want it will still be jumping up and down screaming and pretty soon you will have it in law. By the time you have your lighted fire sticks with gps beacons on them so you can find the arrow you shot at a deer 100 yards away, there probably wont be any deer left. You might of/should have put as much effort into ending the decimation of the herds from wolves, tribal hunting, etc.
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more with your summation of this debate/discussion, especially that I feel that those who don't want the change are stupid. That is absolutely not the case! Most of those on both sides of this debate are fellow archers and sportsman and on 95% of the issues, we have the same agenda! This is a small issue that we disagree on.
And the idea that folks can't put out effort in many directions at once just leaves me scratching my head. Sportmans intrest are best served if that is what we all do.
Post by: boneaddict on February 06, 2013, 12:58:28 PM
Post by: 92xj on February 06, 2013, 01:00:17 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 01:02:00 PM
Pretty soon we'll sound like those "Duck hunters." (another inside joke)
We have before. Well, not WE, but its been done before.
Post by: h20hunter on February 06, 2013, 01:11:52 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 06, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
I probably should have been clearer in what I was referring to. First off I and most other are perfectly capable of being behind and following more than one controversial issue at a time. I also don't think anyone who is in favor of lighted knocks wants them so they can shoot a deer at 100 yards. Anyone who is being honest knows and will say that a knock does not help you make a longer shot. And to even suggest that that is the reason some would want them is ludicrous. That implies that we are all unethical hunters, and that I take offense to. I do agree with you that they will probably get passed because those that oppose them will give up. I have yet to have anyone give me a legitimate reason to not allow them if one chooses.QuoteI don't think you could be more wrong
I'm sure I'll prove that wrong someday. :)
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 01:36:15 PM
I'm pretty sure you're too new here to have been through this debate the 11 or 12 times its already been hashed out here before. I think I can speak for Bone and say that he is referring to all the past discussions in his statements. The biggest reason I think people are against them is that they go against Pope and Young guidelines and they don't fit into the tradition lines for archery tackle. You know an animal taken with a lighted nock'd arrow does not qualify for the book, right?
For the record, I officially don't care if I can or can't use lighted nocks.
Post by: Chase 1 on February 06, 2013, 01:39:21 PM
My experience as a fairly new to the sport archer but a guy that's been on this forum way way way more than enough says that when you get right down to it..really pick it apart... there's a lot more dividing archers on both sides of the equipment aisle than the lighted nock debate. I've seen bow hunters arguing on here about everything from lighted nocks to training wheels to acceptable shooting distances to flashlights duct taped to bows(inside joke).Typical of any agenda that someone wants, if they stand at the front porch and bang loud enough sooner or later someone is going to pass it. The folks that want it think the folks that don't want it are stupid. The folks that don't think its right or don't want it will put less energy into the fight and sooner or later will move on to something that is more important, such as saving the 2nd. The folks that want it will still be jumping up and down screaming and pretty soon you will have it in law. By the time you have your lighted fire sticks with gps beacons on them so you can find the arrow you shot at a deer 100 yards away, there probably wont be any deer left. You might of/should have put as much effort into ending the decimation of the herds from wolves, tribal hunting, etc.
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more with your summation of this debate/discussion, especially that I feel that those who don't want the change are stupid. That is absolutely not the case! Most of those on both sides of this debate are fellow archers and sportsman and on 95% of the issues, we have the same agenda! This is a small issue that we disagree on.
And the idea that folks can't put out effort in many directions at once just leaves me scratching my head. Sportmans intrest are best served if that is what we all do.
That's why I said 95% and not 99%.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 06, 2013, 01:40:26 PM
So instead of fighting to get our archery elk back closer to the rut, we fight over a lighted nock that in the end they give us and because of it the modern and muzzy guys have more fuel (justified or not) that we have too much technology so the game department takes more days away.
I personally don't care if they allow them or not, I think it is a choice for each to make. If in the end I lose hunting time because of them then I am definately against that.
just my :twocents:
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 06, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
Post by: dscubame on February 06, 2013, 01:48:10 PM
Yes, I am absolutely aware of that. And I believe if someone wants to qualify for the books and follow their guidlines more power to them. I think that's great. I also think that if someone is just hunting for meat, and or can't afford to be replacing arrows all the time there is no harm in using them. I believe we as individuals should have that choice. If you don't wanna use them that's fine, if you do that's good too. But when one can use a compound bow, carbon fiber arrows, electronic range finders, tree stands, etc. I could go on and on. All these things take away from traditional archery. So to make the argument that they are wrong because they ruin what archery was meant to be is pissing in the wind. That ship sailed along time ago.
TF, dont you know you need to have over 15,000 posts and not be so new to this forum with a mere 1,100 posts to address this issue that has been rehashed so many times?
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 01:49:30 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 06, 2013, 01:51:08 PM
Well I do now, thanks. :chuckle:Yes, I am absolutely aware of that. And I believe if someone wants to qualify for the books and follow their guidlines more power to them. I think that's great. I also think that if someone is just hunting for meat, and or can't afford to be replacing arrows all the time there is no harm in using them. I believe we as individuals should have that choice. If you don't wanna use them that's fine, if you do that's good too. But when one can use a compound bow, carbon fiber arrows, electronic range finders, tree stands, etc. I could go on and on. All these things take away from traditional archery. So to make the argument that they are wrong because they ruin what archery was meant to be is pissing in the wind. That ship sailed along time ago.
TF, dont you know you need to have over 15,000 posts and not be so new to this forum with a mere 1,100 posts to address this issue that has been rehashed so many times?
Post by: dscubame on February 06, 2013, 01:51:21 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 01:52:53 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 01:53:45 PM
I have been told your a good guy Jackelope so I was just having a little harmless fun. No offense meant.Thanks. I'm sure the same holds true for you.
No offense taken.
Post by: h20hunter on February 06, 2013, 01:54:14 PM
I've never heard the "for" side say that it will help them kill more deer in a different way.
The gist that I get is the For side says what is the harm and the against says why do you need them?
I agree that bow hunters, both modern and traditional, could better spend the energy working on getting season/tag changes but the debate for and against will never be answered. It will either stay illegal or will become legal.
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 01:58:35 PM
Against- not consistent with P&Y standards.
That's my take.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 06, 2013, 02:01:02 PM
TF, for the record I agree with you. Just wanted you to know where I think Bone's comments were coming from and that they were likely not specifically directed at you. He can confirm that or correct me if I am wrong.Jackelope, I never thought Bone's comments were directed towards me. I just had a problem with the generalization of some of his statements. I thought they were off base and actually made him sound more like an anti. I don't know if Bones a archery hunter or not, but I don't know a single archery guy that thinks the way he appeared to be suggesting.
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 02:03:31 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 06, 2013, 02:03:51 PM
For-so I can find my arrows.I obviously can't speak for all, but I am in favor for the reason of being able to identify if I may have missed where I was aiming. That way I know whether I can retrieve my animal or give it time to expire without pushing it.
Against- not consistent with P&Y standards.
That's my take.
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2013, 02:06:42 PM
It is all numbers game and comes down to fighting between user groups and in this case inside of one user group. It has been said that nothing has been taken away because of improved equipment and that is true. Days in the field and permit numbers change based on hunter success reports. When lighted nocks get passed if at any time the archery success numbers go up and the other group stays the same, modern or muzzy will argue that the harvest numbers have increased because there is more technology on the bow and it is not such a primitive weapon anymore, true or not definately debatable, but they will ask to have their season increased so they get their fair share of the harvest. WDFW won't increase their seasons but they can shorten the archery season or give out fewer permits to decrease archery harvest. It may have just been a great year for hunting and that is why the numbers seemed higher, not because of the lighted nocks, but logic isn't excatly the basis for WDFW decisions, it is the squeaky wheel or the person yelling the loudest from their porch as others have said.if you believe this theory then the theory of less overall animals killed applies as well, and isn't that a very important factor?
So instead of fighting to get our archery elk back closer to the rut, we fight over a lighted nock that in the end they give us and because of it the modern and muzzy guys have more fuel (justified or not) that we have too much technology so the game department takes more days away.
I personally don't care if they allow them or not, I think it is a choice for each to make. If in the end I lose hunting time because of them then I am definately against that.
just my :twocents:
Post by: Rainier10 on February 06, 2013, 02:10:12 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
Less overall animals killed how? Are you talking a decrease in harvest for some reason or a decrease in lost animals?You state that the harvest could increase. Since a lighted nock is "reactive" and not "proactive" the only affirmation for your theory is it will decrease the amount of lost animals, which therefore prohibits the hunter from killing another, resulting in less animals being killed each season.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 06, 2013, 02:23:52 PM
That is definately an argument for having lighted nocks, game recovery, the problem is how to quantitatively put a number to how many animals are not being lost and another one shot in its place. They only have numbers of actual harvest to base their decisions off of and that is if people report honestly which is a whole different can of worms that has been argued forever.Less overall animals killed how? Are you talking a decrease in harvest for some reason or a decrease in lost animals?You state that the harvest could increase. Since a lighted nock is "reactive" and not "proactive" the only affirmation for your theory is it will decrease the amount of lost animals, which therefore prohibits the hunter from killing another, resulting in less animals being killed each season.
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2013, 02:28:00 PM
True, but you do realize that for your theory to be proven, that would mean that animals that were otherwise lost without lumenoks were now found, resulting in less animals being targeted overall. ;)That is definately an argument for having lighted nocks, game recovery, the problem is how to quantitatively put a number to how many animals are not being lost and another one shot in its place. They only have numbers of actual harvest to base their decisions off of and that is if people report honestly which is a whole different can of worms that has been argued forever.Less overall animals killed how? Are you talking a decrease in harvest for some reason or a decrease in lost animals?You state that the harvest could increase. Since a lighted nock is "reactive" and not "proactive" the only affirmation for your theory is it will decrease the amount of lost animals, which therefore prohibits the hunter from killing another, resulting in less animals being killed each season.
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2013, 02:33:18 PM
Why would anyone argue that's not a good thing to employ!
Post by: Rainier10 on February 06, 2013, 02:45:49 PM
You can't have it both ways. If you claim that lumenoks will result in a higher harvest percentage, knowing lumenoks are purely "reactive", then the higher percentage is a direct result of being able to locate the animal AFTER the shot and nothing more.I am not claiming that they would equate to higher a success percentage. My argument is if in 2012 the reports say archers are 10% successful and the other two user groups are 11% successful and the following year with the addition of luminoks archers jumpt to 12% success and the other groups stay at 11% they would argue that it was because of the luminoks when in fact it could be anything that caused the increase. Not to mention you can actually juggle the success numbers to show anything you want.
Why would anyone argue that's not a good thing to employ!
I don't think the luminoks make a big difference and don't care if they get used or not, but I do think that there are those that would argue that they did help archers so seasons should be shortened.
If they do help find game that otherwise would not have been recovered great. If they only help archers find lost arrows that I personally wouldn't shoot again anyways but they want to great. If I end up losing time in the woods due to shortened seasons.. not great.
I do wish people were more vocal about getting our seasons lengthened and moved back closer to the rut than they seem to be about a lighted nock.
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2013, 02:51:50 PM
those lost season days are gone for good, the only way they come back is through some kind of revenue generation stream.You can't have it both ways. If you claim that lumenoks will result in a higher harvest percentage, knowing lumenoks are purely "reactive", then the higher percentage is a direct result of being able to locate the animal AFTER the shot and nothing more.I am not claiming that they would equate to higher a success percentage. My argument is if in 2012 the reports say archers are 10% successful and the other two user groups are 11% successful and the following year with the addition of luminoks archers jumpt to 12% success and the other groups stay at 11% they would argue that it was because of the luminoks when in fact it could be anything that caused the increase. Not to mention you can actually juggle the success numbers to show anything you want.
Why would anyone argue that's not a good thing to employ!
I don't think the luminoks make a big difference and don't care if they get used or not, but I do think that there are those that would argue that they did help archers so seasons should be shortened.
If they do help find game that otherwise would not have been recovered great. If they only help archers find lost arrows that I personally wouldn't shoot again anyways but they want to great. If I end up losing time in the woods due to shortened seasons.. not great.
I do wish people were more vocal about getting our seasons lengthened and moved back closer to the rut than they seem to be about a lighted nock.
Post by: jackelope on February 06, 2013, 02:52:15 PM
Agreed. I think I would only use them for targets or 3d shoots. I'd hate to shoot something and not be able to put it in the books if I wanted to. Don't know if I'd do that either but I don't want the chance and not be able to.For-so I can find my arrows.I obviously can't speak for all, but I am in favor for the reason of being able to identify if I may have missed where I was aiming. That way I know whether I can retrieve my animal or give it time to expire without pushing it.
Against- not consistent with P&Y standards.
That's my take.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 06, 2013, 02:57:39 PM
those lost season days are gone for good, the only way they come back is through some kind of revenue generation stream.
[/quote]
They may be gone, again debatable, but the shift in the early archery away from the floating post Labor day start to a fixed 8-20/21 is still possible, also debatable.
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2013, 03:05:15 PM
They may be gone, again debatable, but the shift in the early archery away from the floating post Labor day start to a fixed 8-20/21 is still possible, also debatable.those lost season days are gone for good, the only way they come back is through some kind of revenue generation stream.
[/quote]Its not by accident, they did the same thing with modern deer seasons, all in the name of revenue. It would not surprise me to see those dates you lost come back as permit dates, if at all.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 06, 2013, 03:12:18 PM
Its not by accident, they did the same thing with modern deer seasons, all in the name of revenue. It would not surprise me to see those dates you lost come back as permit dates, if at all.They may be gone, again debatable, but the shift in the early archery away from the floating post Labor day start to a fixed 8-20/21 is still possible, also debatable.those lost season days are gone for good, the only way they come back is through some kind of revenue generation stream.
[/quote]
Oh the almighty dollar, that and the squeaky wheel seem to be the driving force in all WDFW policy, the latter being a distant second to the dollar. ;)
Post by: boneaddict on February 07, 2013, 07:38:08 AM
I am hard to peg on this as it really means little to me. Most of the time it seems like I am argueing against them. Most of that is poking fun for those so adamentally for them. I don't like change and I don't like technology much, especially when it comes to hunting.
My thought process if I can explain this and it seems like I have somewhere on the 5th or 6th one of these.....I know we are very capable of handling more items than just one or two. Its more like if 10,000 of us all stood up at once and said treatys need to be dealt with NOW and then there was deadly silence, there would be impact. Instead we may have x amount saying that, x amount say wolves, x amount saying seasons, x amount saying lighted fire stick, x amount saying discover pass, x amount saying right to carry. I am guessing out of human behavior they pick which is the easist to fix in order to shut some people up, and justify that they are doing something. I am hoping this makes some sense as I really don't feel like trying to explain it more. Thats where I am coming with this. I know this means something obviously to some folks, I see the little emoticon of you banging your head on the wall. This must mean alot to you. Its probably wrong for me to blow it off. I do have concerns about technology overwhelming the hunt and seasons being shortened. I do worry about people taking shots they shouldn't. I honestly think its nutz that people can't find their arrows or think this will help them recover their animals. Even these great monetery losses everyone thinks they have. If they are shooting and losing that many arrows, then maybe they need to look at what they are doing, or learn to shoot better. I even think in my mind. If you aren't close enough to see and its not light enough to see bright fltechings and nocks that we have today then maybe you should adjust your hunting style a bit. Maybe thats arrogance. Of course I want animals to be recovered, but really, how about putting gps chips in our arrows. We will find everyone of them that way, and every animal we shoot? Does that sound farfetched? There is a limit out there for all of us, where we draw the line. For some this is it. Who are we to judge where the next line will be. I guess thats where stupid is.
Whether its passed or not, I won't hunt with them or need them. If I do shoot a monster I wouldn't mind entering it as well. Somewhere out there I think technology needs to slow down and hunting needs to take over. I am almost positive I have offended you or someone else in all of this. I expect all sorts of comments. I am very likely not to return to this thread as again it means very little to me and I am really surprised at how passionate people are who think we need these things. It is their rite to want and ask for them. I sincerely hope that those that are opposing it are all wrong as I am sure this will be passed.
Post by: 92xj on February 07, 2013, 07:42:59 AM
When you read this and get a little chuckle out of it, delete it with your mod ways. No need to get this going any other random off topic direction. A simple joke is all it is.
Post by: boneaddict on February 07, 2013, 07:44:43 AM
Post by: 92xj on February 07, 2013, 07:46:06 AM
If you ever get the chance, I will carry the flash for you.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 08:21:32 AM
I would KILL to have one of those. Believe it or not, I picked up an AE-1 to play with. Its almost hard to find film these days :chuckle:n ESPECIALLY for the polaroid I just got.i still have my black body A-1, can't bring myself to sell it, even though its now worth anything to anyone but me.
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 10:02:12 AM
For-so I can find my arrows.I obviously can't speak for all, but I am in favor for the reason of being able to identify if I may have missed where I was aiming. That way I know whether I can retrieve my animal or give it time to expire without pushing it.
Against- not consistent with P&Y standards.
That's my take.
Cloooooooose the distance and you can accomplish the exact same thing without adding electronics to your bow. Remember archery is how close can I get not how far can I shoot. ;)
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:13:56 AM
I am fully aware of what archery is all about. However even with perfect 20/20 vision and the sun shining arrows are still very hard to see with today's extremely fast bows. I will say it again cause it seems like some aren't listening. It has nothing to do with being able to make a further shot. Those that think that's what its about or those that think they can do that are simply clueless.For-so I can find my arrows.I obviously can't speak for all, but I am in favor for the reason of being able to identify if I may have missed where I was aiming. That way I know whether I can retrieve my animal or give it time to expire without pushing it.
Against- not consistent with P&Y standards.
That's my take.
Cloooooooose the distance and you can accomplish the exact same thing without adding electronics to your bow. Remember archery is how close can I get not how far can I shoot. ;)
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 10:15:17 AM
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Post by: JLS on February 07, 2013, 10:20:30 AM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Couldn't have said it better.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:22:26 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 10:25:11 AM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)Same old excuses. We all agree that we don't need them but nobody can explain why it should not be our choice.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:27:23 AM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)Did you even read what I said. I didn't say you were clueless, I said that idea that those that want to use a lighted nock to be able to shoot at unethical distances was clueless. I don't rifle hunt, but I do go with buddies that do. And a bullet causes alot more damage and trauma than a arrow. And I think you know that. There fore chances are your animal will bleed a lot more a lot faster and not go as far. Now that is not always the case, but is more often than not.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 10:27:58 AM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)Same old excuses. We all agree that we don't need them but nobody can explain why it should not be our choice.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Because collectively we all agree to draw a line somewhere, that we as a group do not want to cross. We are just standing firm on that line while some folks (admittedly alot more lately) want to redraw the line. Once we redraw that line, then the next group will stand at the line and say hey who are you to say I can do what I want..... :)
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:31:05 AM
Why does where you think the line to be drawn have to mean thats where it should be for everyone? Again I will say if you don't like it and don't wanna use them then dont. But to say that nobody else can cause some don't is frankly a little arrogant.Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)Same old excuses. We all agree that we don't need them but nobody can explain why it should not be our choice.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Because collectively we all agree to draw a line somewhere, that we as a group do not want to cross. We are just standing firm on that line while some folks (admittedly alot more lately) want to redraw the line. Once we redraw that line, then the next group will stand at the line and say hey who are you to say I can do what I want..... :)
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 10:34:45 AM
I never agreed on where that line was, what gives you, example, the right to tell me where the line is drawn?Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)Same old excuses. We all agree that we don't need them but nobody can explain why it should not be our choice.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Because collectively we all agree to draw a line somewhere, that we as a group do not want to cross. We are just standing firm on that line while some folks (admittedly alot more lately) want to redraw the line. Once we redraw that line, then the next group will stand at the line and say hey who are you to say I can do what I want..... :)
Post by: JLS on February 07, 2013, 10:35:37 AM
If you can convince the commish they should be allowed, then fine. I won't support it, however arrogant that may seem. I've said it before, electronics on archery equipment is a slippery slope and I am perfectly fine operating within the Pope and Young constraints.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:40:53 AM
Because it affects all of us by potentially affecting season length. I care more about my season length than someone being allowed to use lighted nocks.Good for you, that's great. I frankly don't really care about records. And you cannot make the argument that it affects the season length cause that hasn't happened yet.
If you can convince the commish they should be allowed, then fine. I won't support it, however arrogant that may seem. I've said it before, electronics on archery equipment is a slippery slope and I am perfectly fine operating within the Pope and Young constraints.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 10:42:00 AM
Because it affects all of us by potentially affecting season length.Thats BS and you know it. WDFW has NEVER changed seasons or threatened to change seasons in lieu of modernized equipment. Show me where this has happened or threatened by the use of lighted nocks and ill change my stance, until then your scare tactics are complete fear mongering rhetoric.
Post by: JLS on February 07, 2013, 10:42:39 AM
Because it affects all of us by potentially affecting season length. I care more about my season length than someone being allowed to use lighted nocks.Good for you, that's great. I frankly don't really care about records. And you cannot make the argument that it affects the season length cause that hasn't happened yet.
If you can convince the commish they should be allowed, then fine. I won't support it, however arrogant that may seem. I've said it before, electronics on archery equipment is a slippery slope and I am perfectly fine operating within the Pope and Young constraints.
Nor can you argue it'll increase recoveries, because it hasn't happened yet.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:43:44 AM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Post by: JLS on February 07, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
Because it affects all of us by potentially affecting season length.Thats BS and you know it. WDFW has NEVER changed seasons or threatened to change seasons in lieu of modernized equipment. Show me where this has happened or threatened by the use of lighted nocks and ill change my stance, until then your scare tactics are complete fear mongering rhetoric.
Notice I said potentially, as in something that MAY happen as a result but hasn't yet? It's not a chance I'm willing to take.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:46:03 AM
I will look cause I do believe that there has been studies done that does in fact prove that. Either way how does it negatively affect you?Because it affects all of us by potentially affecting season length. I care more about my season length than someone being allowed to use lighted nocks.Good for you, that's great. I frankly don't really care about records. And you cannot make the argument that it affects the season length cause that hasn't happened yet.
If you can convince the commish they should be allowed, then fine. I won't support it, however arrogant that may seem. I've said it before, electronics on archery equipment is a slippery slope and I am perfectly fine operating within the Pope and Young constraints.
Nor can you argue it'll increase recoveries, because it hasn't happened yet.
Post by: JLS on February 07, 2013, 10:47:07 AM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
One last comment and I'm out for good. You guys ask for why we are opposed to lighted nocks. We tell you, and you're not satisfied. I can accept the fact that you want them. Seems that some folks can't accept the fact that others don't.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 07, 2013, 10:48:49 AM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
One last comment and I'm out for good. You guys ask for why we are opposed to lighted nocks. We tell you, and you're not satisfied. I can accept the fact that you want them. Seems that some folks can't accept the fact that others don't.
And you not accepting why people think they Should be legal is different how?
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 10:51:22 AM
I haven't seen a reason why one doesn't want them other than they don't or they would affect P&Y entries(which is not true if you dont use them) so your left with only one reason cause you don't want them. We that are for them have given several reasons in favor besides just cause we want them. You come up with a legitamate reason how they could be a negative and I will listen. But just cause you don't like them is not a good enough reason.Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
One last comment and I'm out for good. You guys ask for why we are opposed to lighted nocks. We tell you, and you're not satisfied. I can accept the fact that you want them. Seems that some folks can't accept the fact that others don't.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 10:51:30 AM
Well "potentially" they could result in less animals being killed each year, therefore resulting in getting our lost season dates back. ;)Because it affects all of us by potentially affecting season length.Thats BS and you know it. WDFW has NEVER changed seasons or threatened to change seasons in lieu of modernized equipment. Show me where this has happened or threatened by the use of lighted nocks and ill change my stance, until then your scare tactics are complete fear mongering rhetoric.
Notice I said potentially, as in something that MAY happen as a result but hasn't yet? It's not a chance I'm willing to take.
We can "speculate" all day long, I choose to see the benefit of them "glass half full" as opposed to "glass half empty" fear mongering tactics used to support your baseless rhetoric.
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 02:12:16 PM
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 02:15:44 PM
huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
Post by: JPhelps on February 07, 2013, 02:17:42 PM
I also don't see how they greatly assist in recovery either. So you find your arrow and can see/smell blood, guts, etc... If you are unsure of the shot you would still wait before tracking. You can't track without blood, tracks, broken sticks, trampled vegetation,etc... and all the combinations of those. So on the ground you have the same information available to you.
I don't really want them to be legal but if they add confidence for some, I don't see the issue. I think there has to be some limit to the technology. What if there was a bow that could spit a 2000 gr. Arrow at 1000 fps with a scope so that 200 yard shots could be made when you had a good rest on your bow tripod???
Post by: buckfvr on February 07, 2013, 02:19:46 PM
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 02:26:58 PM
It shouldnt change hunting dates as the same amount of animals would still die.every year there are animals killed by archers that can't locate the animal after the shot, some of those archers end up continuing their hunts and kill another one. If this can help eliminate this scenario just once then it's less animals being killed and worth it, IMO. And this is not to say that it doesn't happen with other user groups as well, we are talking about archery though.
Quote
I also don't see how they greatly assist in recovery either.The word "greatly" is irrelevant, if it contributes to locating any animal that otherwise would not have been found then its justified, again JMO.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.More BS scare tactics, again WDFW has never said that. The same scenario could be made for firearms without scopes, should 30-30 lever action guys have their own season? :chuckle: it won't happen.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
Post by: boneaddict on February 07, 2013, 02:29:59 PM
Quote
but if they add confidence for some
This is the concern I had and what I believe people are speculating about unethical shots etc. Its called over confidence. OF COURSE its speculation of human behavior. I'm probably just stupid or stubborn for thinking that might happen. :chuckle:
I wonder if they decided that those that hunt with them would have to hunt modern or lose two weeks of their season. I wonder if folks would still support it as much.
I'm still trying to figure out why Phool wants them so bad. I know he doesn't need them. I am starting to think he owns stock in the company, or has a wager with someone about them. :)
TF, never called you stupid or was insinuating that in my post. Glad you mentioned it, so you didn't go away thinking that.
You come up with a legitamate reason how they could be a positive and I will listen. But just cause you like them is not a good enough reason. :chuckle: remember just because its not legitamate to you doesn't mean it isn't to someone else and vice versa. :)
Post by: buckfvr on February 07, 2013, 02:34:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 02:34:20 PM
LOL, :chuckle: I'm just sick and tired of over regulation in this country. If someone wants to use them, and they provide no discernible advantage to the hunter before the shot, then it should be up to the individual to make that choice. :twocents:Quotebut if they add confidence for some
I'm still trying to figure out why Phool wants them so bad. I know he doesn't need them. I am starting to think he owns stock in the company, or has a wager with someone about them. :)
Post by: boneaddict on February 07, 2013, 02:35:43 PM
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 02:37:43 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 02:39:06 PM
Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will .get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.This same scenario could be said for modern firearm hunters. How about we split up the season for those that choose to use a lever action, open sights, vs. those that want to use a more modern style rifle with a powerful scope. We could play this game all day. I don't know for sure if I want to use them as that would require me to possibly have to adjust and re-tune my bow. But if I decided to I still have not heard a good reason against them yet.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
Post by: buckfvr on February 07, 2013, 02:41:10 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 07, 2013, 02:43:56 PM
Nah you won't have to retune nothing. When I stuck them in in Minnesota last year my pattern didn't change at all. Pins stayed right where I had them with out them.Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will .get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.This same scenario could be said for modern firearm hunters. How about we split up the season for those that choose to use a lever action, open sights, vs. those that want to use a more modern style rifle with a powerful scope. We could play this game all day. I don't know for sure if I want to use them as that would require me to possibly have to adjust and re-tune my bow. But if I decided to I still have not heard a good reason against them yet.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 02:45:49 PM
Well, thats pretty weak......modern firearms isnt relevent in this discussion.......Maybe not but its the same pipe dream.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 02:46:30 PM
That's good to know. I figured the little extra weight in the back could throw it off a bit.Nah you won't have to retune nothing. When I stuck them in in Minnesota last year my pattern didn't change at all. Pins stayed right where I had them with out them.Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will .get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.This same scenario could be said for modern firearm hunters. How about we split up the season for those that choose to use a lever action, open sights, vs. those that want to use a more modern style rifle with a powerful scope. We could play this game all day. I don't know for sure if I want to use them as that would require me to possibly have to adjust and re-tune my bow. But if I decided to I still have not heard a good reason against them yet.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 02:51:46 PM
Post by: JPhelps on February 07, 2013, 02:55:12 PM
huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
Post by: Russ McDonald on February 07, 2013, 02:56:10 PM
Nope...I have to tell you that they are pretty helpfull when using them even in practice. Seeing the illumated knock and how it flies after you shot I think helped inprove my form too when I was practicing with them. The other nice thing was when my aunt got her 8 pointer it was a pass through. She took her arrown and stuck in in the ground where the first blood was. When your tracking at night that is pretty helpfull.That's good to know. I figured the little extra weight in the back could throw it off a bit.Nah you won't have to retune nothing. When I stuck them in in Minnesota last year my pattern didn't change at all. Pins stayed right where I had them with out them.Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will .get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.This same scenario could be said for modern firearm hunters. How about we split up the season for those that choose to use a lever action, open sights, vs. those that want to use a more modern style rifle with a powerful scope. We could play this game all day. I don't know for sure if I want to use them as that would require me to possibly have to adjust and re-tune my bow. But if I decided to I still have not heard a good reason against them yet.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
Post by: Chase 1 on February 07, 2013, 03:15:44 PM
Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.More BS scare tactics, again WDFW has never said that. The same scenario could be made for firearms without scopes, should 30-30 lever action guys have their own season? :chuckle: it won't happen.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
:yeah:
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 03:17:17 PM
i didn't say they shouldn't be allowed did I, I said I would not support it.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 03:20:24 PM
i didn't say they shouldn't be allowed did I, I said I would not support it.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
:) Careful someone will call you stubborn and out of touch.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 03:22:30 PM
i would never argue "stubborn" :chuckle:i didn't say they shouldn't be allowed did I, I said I would not support it.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
:) Careful someone will call you stubborn and out of touch.
Post by: JPhelps on February 07, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
i didn't say they shouldn't be allowed did I, I said I would not support it.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
Ok, I don't support lighted nocks :chuckle:
I don't have an argument against them besides the slowing down of techonology advancement in the archery hunting world.
Post by: jackelope on February 07, 2013, 03:32:45 PM
Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
TF--
Let the post count thing go. It has no bearing on this debate or any other debate on here. An admitted joke was made a few days ago about post count in a conversation you were involved in. It has nothing to do with this. No need to dwell on it. This has been Machias' stance on this issue since longing before he had zero posts.
Post by: jackelope on February 07, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
I used to shoot an overdraw 25 years ago. That's old school, Phelps.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
:chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 03:36:22 PM
And just for the record he was wrong back then too, sorry Fred. :rolleyes: :chuckle:This has been Machias' stance on this issue since longing before he had zero posts.Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
Post by: Chase 1 on February 07, 2013, 03:37:36 PM
Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will .get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.
DOes that illuminate things for you
and
From what Ive heard from those in the know, compounds will be modern, trad gear and recurves will get their own season.....if the envelope keeps getting pushed. Its a very real possibility.
Not sure who you know in the know that knows how this goes... :chuckle: :chuckle: but that is complete garbage! Quit it! Enough with drumming up anything you can come up with to shock people into somehow, someway changing their mind.
Let's be honest here, this issue is already decided in the mind of every person posting in this thread. Most are ok with it or want it and a few aren't. But please... quit throwing every piece of nonsense you can come up with against the tread and think it is going to stick!
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
Instead of the majority of complaints being archers asking for lighted nocks the new majority will be the modern firearm guys saying archers have an unfair advantage. It won't matter if they have a good argument or not they will be loud and heard and probably get their way as the new majority complainers.
Right now the modern guys aren't saying anything because they think the issue is dead and most haven't seen the new proposals or have any idea this is still alive. When they do get word of it watch out.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 04:10:24 PM
Oh come on. I didn't directly call you stubborn. I said that maybe the stance against the nocks was maybe a bit stubborn.i didn't say they shouldn't be allowed did I, I said I would not support it.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
:) Careful someone will call you stubborn and out of touch.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 04:12:06 PM
Jackelope- I completely understand that. It was supposed to be kind of a tounge in cheek type of thing. Unfortunately that doesn't always come across in text.Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
TF--
Let the post count thing go. It has no bearing on this debate or any other debate on here. An admitted joke was made a few days ago about post count in a conversation you were involved in. It has nothing to do with this. No need to dwell on it. This has been Machias' stance on this issue since longing before he had zero posts.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 04:16:05 PM
I hope that when this does get passed everyone that is for it is just as passionate and writes lots of letters to the WDFW about not changing the seasons. Because I guaranty when the archers get their way and quiet down the modern firearms guys will definitely be asking for either better/longer seasons for themselvesAnd what is wrong with them pushing to get their season dates back? There season was not shortened to give more dates to archers, nor was the archery season shortened to extend the general.
This is a prime example of pitting one user group against the other and causing division, why should one group care what the other petitions for if it has no relevance to their season/regulations. Unbelievable!!! :bash:
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 04:23:46 PM
Oh come on. I didn't directly call you stubborn. I said that maybe the stance against the nocks was maybe a bit stubborn.i didn't say they shouldn't be allowed did I, I said I would not support it.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
:) Careful someone will call you stubborn and out of touch.
Hey no worries, I took no offense, I realize both sides of this issue are passionate about their point of view. :)
Post by: Machias on February 07, 2013, 04:25:08 PM
And just for the record he was wrong back then too, sorry Fred. :rolleyes: :chuckle:This has been Machias' stance on this issue since longing before he had zero posts.Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
At least I'm consistently wrong!! :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on February 07, 2013, 04:25:37 PM
10-4
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 04:26:27 PM
LMAO :chuckle:And just for the record he was wrong back then too, sorry Fred. :rolleyes: :chuckle:This has been Machias' stance on this issue since longing before he had zero posts.Yep 34 years of bowhunting, totally clueless. :)One last thing. Just cause you have been bow hunting for 30+ years or have 10,000+ plus posts doesnt mean you right or you know better. It likely means your just stubborn and opposed to change.
TF do you rifle hunt? Use tracer rounds? How in the world do you know where you hit your animal or when to start recovery/tracking? That's right you go to the spot where the animal was standing and you read sign.
At least I'm consistently wrong!! :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 04:27:25 PM
Ok good it's never my intent to offend anyone, that does none of us any good. :tup:Oh come on. I didn't directly call you stubborn. I said that maybe the stance against the nocks was maybe a bit stubborn.i didn't say they shouldn't be allowed did I, I said I would not support it.huntnphool, is there anything in archery equipment you can't support? If so why? What if someone else wants it? Where does it end?I do not support laser sights, scopes, bow mounted range finders but would support a camera that had no viewfinder for the archer.
TF, Sorry bud I thought you were asking why we didn't want to support them. I didn't say anything about your post count or your years in archery. Yes I have my idea of what is right and what is wrong, sorry that happens to you when you're old and cranky. ;)
So you guys would be for doing away with all equipment regulations, correct?
So why should those not be allowed? Because you have drawn a line in your mind. So have people in opposition of lighted nocks, but the lines just don't match up.
Where do you stop? Expanding broadheads, laser rangefinder on bow, overdraws, etc...?
:) Careful someone will call you stubborn and out of touch.
Hey no worries, I took no offense, I realize both sides of this issue are passionate about
their point of view. :)
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 05:54:41 PM
I guess I would love to live in a world where it isn't one user group arguing over what the other one has, but lets be real that is not the world we live in. Gun hunters are upset that archers get to hunt during the elk rut and deer on winter grounds, what happens rifle hunters get permits for the rut and late season deer tags at winter range. Archers look at the number of deer rifle hunters kill and complain that they need an even bigger piece of the pie even though by success percentage the numbers are close.I hope that when this does get passed everyone that is for it is just as passionate and writes lots of letters to the WDFW about not changing the seasons. Because I guaranty when the archers get their way and quiet down the modern firearms guys will definitely be asking for either better/longer seasons for themselvesAnd what is wrong with them pushing to get their season dates back? There season was not shortened to give more dates to archers, nor was the archery season shortened to extend the general.
This is a prime example of pitting one user group against the other and causing division, why should one group care what the other petitions for if it has no relevance to their season/regulations. Unbelievable!!! :bash:
Maybe when lighted nocks are approved all user groups will be happy about it and there won't be any in fighting, my guess is no it will just be more fuel for the rifle guys to say archery is not that primitive any more. They already argue that point with what we have, compound bows, faster speeds, 85% letoff. Maybe one more bit of technology will make them say good for archers but I think not, reallity is that the grass is always greener.
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2013, 06:03:22 PM
I've been a member of this site for a while now, there are thousands of threads for you to prove your point. I challenge you to show me one thread where rifle hunters are bitching to WDFW that archery equipment is too modern now. I'd be willing to bet you that there are far more trad hunters complaining about modern archery gear than anyone. :twocents:I guess I would love to live in a world where it isn't one user group arguing over what the other one has, but lets be real that is not the world we live in. Gun hunters are upset that archers get to hunt during the elk rut and deer on winter groundsI hope that when this does get passed everyone that is for it is just as passionate and writes lots of letters to the WDFW about not changing the seasons. Because I guaranty when the archers get their way and quiet down the modern firearms guys will definitely be asking for either better/longer seasons for themselvesAnd what is wrong with them pushing to get their season dates back? There season was not shortened to give more dates to archers, nor was the archery season shortened to extend the general.
This is a prime example of pitting one user group against the other and causing division, why should one group care what the other petitions for if it has no relevance to their season/regulations. Unbelievable!!! :bash:
Maybe when lighted nocks are approved all user groups will be happy about it and there won't be any in fighting, my guess is no it will just be more fuel for the rifle guys to say archery is not that primitive any more. They already argue that point with what we have, compound bows, faster speeds, 85% letoff.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 06:18:25 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 06:32:12 PM
I appreciate your experience with this site and I hope that the people on this site will be this passionate in communications with the game department. Because my experience in going to public hearings for the season setting process has been gun hunters saying that archery equipment is getting so good we shouldn't be given the late season hunts as we are too successful on the deer and if archery guys get to hunt those times permits should be given to rifle hunters also. The same argument was made for rut elk hunting.I've been a member of this site for a while now, there are thousands of threads for you to prove your point. I challenge you to show me one thread where rifle hunters are bitching to WDFW that archery equipment is too modern now. I'd be willing to bet you that there are far more trad hunters complaining about modern archery gear than anyone. :twocents:I guess I would love to live in a world where it isn't one user group arguing over what the other one has, but lets be real that is not the world we live in. Gun hunters are upset that archers get to hunt during the elk rut and deer on winter groundsI hope that when this does get passed everyone that is for it is just as passionate and writes lots of letters to the WDFW about not changing the seasons. Because I guaranty when the archers get their way and quiet down the modern firearms guys will definitely be asking for either better/longer seasons for themselvesAnd what is wrong with them pushing to get their season dates back? There season was not shortened to give more dates to archers, nor was the archery season shortened to extend the general.
This is a prime example of pitting one user group against the other and causing division, why should one group care what the other petitions for if it has no relevance to their season/regulations. Unbelievable!!! :bash:
Maybe when lighted nocks are approved all user groups will be happy about it and there won't be any in fighting, my guess is no it will just be more fuel for the rifle guys to say archery is not that primitive any more. They already argue that point with what we have, compound bows, faster speeds, 85% letoff.
This is a great site but this site is not where seasons are set, this is where many people vent and express ideas from their homes or work, but there are only a small majority of members here that actually go to the game department meetings or write to the commission. You see it on this site all the time, WDFW meeting on blank day everyone needs to attend, then after the meeting all the questions come out on this site, "anybody go to this meeting? I had to do blank instead." One of the meetings I went to on last year townhall meeting in Federal Way had maybe 30 people at it, that is in the most populated county with the highest number of licensed hunters, 30 people seriously, I mean for me it was great for those of us there, I got to talk to Dave Ware, Jerry Nelson and Donny Montello one on one and voice my concerns and hear their feedback.
Like I say it will be interesting to see what happens when this passes. Maybe the next meeting will have a higher attendance and I will have to fight to get a word in with the commissioners.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 06:43:23 PM
Gonna hit the gym, but had to say this first. Rifle hunters I am willing to bet would be more for this cause let's be honest in a few years they will be archery hunting as well. :chuckle: Check in when I'm done trimming the fat.They already are, Multiseason baby, a ton of bows got sold the first year between the end of rifle season and actually the 2 weeks before late archery, there were a ton of new archers. Many of them went to Cabela's and bought new bows with sights that had lights on them and expandable broadheads just like the ones on TV. :tup:
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 07:12:29 PM
That just shows how clueless a lot of people are. But I wasnt talking about multi season permits. There arent that many of those. I was referring to the fact that the way things are going we could end up like those fly over states where gun hunting isn't allowed at all.Gonna hit the gym, but had to say this first. Rifle hunters I am willing to bet would be more for this cause let's be honest in a few years they will be archery hunting as well. :chuckle: Check in when I'm done trimming the fat.They already are, Multiseason baby, a ton of bows got sold the first year between the end of rifle season and actually the 2 weeks before late archery, there were a ton of new archers. Many of them went to Cabela's and bought new bows with sights that had lights on them and expandable broadheads just like the ones on TV. :tup:
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 07:29:00 PM
That just shows how clueless a lot of people are. But I wasnt talking about multi season permits. There arent that many of those. I was referring to the fact that the way things are going we could end up like those fly over states where gun hunting isn't allowed at all.Gonna hit the gym, but had to say this first. Rifle hunters I am willing to bet would be more for this cause let's be honest in a few years they will be archery hunting as well. :chuckle: Check in when I'm done trimming the fat.They already are, Multiseason baby, a ton of bows got sold the first year between the end of rifle season and actually the 2 weeks before late archery, there were a ton of new archers. Many of them went to Cabela's and bought new bows with sights that had lights on them and expandable broadheads just like the ones on TV. :tup:
2010 harvest reports
24,000 archery deer tags
100,000 modern deer tags
8,000 muzzleloader deer tags
and 8000 multiseason tags I am thinking that is a lot of multiseason hunters by percentage in any category.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 07:53:24 PM
Swing and a miss. You completely missed what I was talking about.That just shows how clueless a lot of people are. But I wasnt talking about multi season permits. There arent that many of those. I was referring to the fact that the way things are going we could end up like those fly over states where gun hunting isn't allowed at all.Gonna hit the gym, but had to say this first. Rifle hunters I am willing to bet would be more for this cause let's be honest in a few years they will be archery hunting as well. :chuckle: Check in when I'm done trimming the fat.They already are, Multiseason baby, a ton of bows got sold the first year between the end of rifle season and actually the 2 weeks before late archery, there were a ton of new archers. Many of them went to Cabela's and bought new bows with sights that had lights on them and expandable broadheads just like the ones on TV. :tup:
2010 harvest reports
24,000 archery deer tags
100,000 modern deer tags
8,000 muzzleloader deer tags
and 8000 multiseason tags I am thinking that is a lot of multiseason hunters by percentage in any category.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 08:09:35 PM
I still don't care if luminoks get approved or not as long as the seasons don't change and people stay passionate about their beliefs. I am guessing that the people that fought so hard last year to not legalize them will be shocked when they see not staying involved in the discussion this year has resulted in them now becoming legal.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 09:14:57 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 09:27:48 PM
That just shows how clueless a lot of people are. But I wasnt talking about multi season permits. There arent that many of those. I was referring to the fact that the way things are going we could end up like those fly over states where gun hunting isn't allowed at all.
Okay, I thought this is where you said there weren't that many multiseason permits. Maybe not maybe you meant there aren't many of those fly over states, I guess I was confused. Anyways I don't care either way on the nocks I care about the season staying the same. I assume you want lighted nocks and so I hope you get them if that is what you are for.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 09:33:55 PM
Wow, you really arent paying attention. I clearly said in that statement that I was not talking about that. You brought it up. You have to read an entire statement, not pick and choose what you want out of it. But again beings you keep bringing it up 6% is not nor ever has been considered alot.That just shows how clueless a lot of people are. But I wasnt talking about multi season permits. There arent that many of those. I was referring to the fact that the way things are going we could end up like those fly over states where gun hunting isn't allowed at all.
Okay, I thought this is where you said there weren't that many multiseason permits. Maybe not many of those you meant fly over states, I guess I was confused. Anyways I don't care either way on the nocks I care about the season staying the same. I assume you want lighted nocks and so I hope you get them if that is what you are for.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 07, 2013, 09:45:38 PM
What am I not paying attention to? What in your statement about people being clueless and "there aren't that many of those" were you referring to?Did you mean there aren't too many clueless people? There aren't that many fly over states? Those are the only two subjects that I can find in that statement that "there aren't that many of those." could refer to.Wow, you really arent paying attention. I clearly said in that statement that I was not talking about that. You brought it up. You have to read an entire statement, not pick and choose what you want out of it. But again beings you keep bringing it up 6% is not nor ever has been considered alot.That just shows how clueless a lot of people are. But I wasnt talking about multi season permits. There arent that many of those. I was referring to the fact that the way things are going we could end up like those fly over states where gun hunting isn't allowed at all.
Okay, I thought this is where you said there weren't that many multiseason permits. Maybe not many of those you meant fly over states, I guess I was confused. Anyways I don't care either way on the nocks I care about the season staying the same. I assume you want lighted nocks and so I hope you get them if that is what you are for.
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 07, 2013, 09:51:26 PM
Post by: Chase 1 on February 07, 2013, 10:41:11 PM
Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
No way! We are getting our blow dart season long before that happens! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 09, 2013, 10:15:53 AM
:chuckle:Think about getting lighted nocks and that being what it takes to give traditional archers their own season....as in splitting current dates for archery ( modern ), into two seasons. If you put your ear to the ground TF, thats what the talk has been for several years.....its a change in how they look at modern archery tackle and its being categorized as primative. Trad gear will get their own primative season, and modern archers will loose up to half their season to accommodate a new trad season.
DOes that illuminate things for you ??????
No way! We are getting our blow dart season long before that happens! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Todd_ID on February 10, 2013, 08:29:45 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 10, 2013, 08:34:13 PM
Rob, you're slacking. This thread dropped down like six places from the top without a bump today. :chuckle::chuckle: Thought I'd give the admin team the weekend off. ;)
Post by: boneaddict on February 11, 2013, 05:34:01 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on February 11, 2013, 07:32:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 11, 2013, 07:56:29 PM
Imagine if all the energy put towards getting lighted mocks approved was diverted to more late season mule deer options? Or back to 14 days for archery elk? C'mon man! :bash::chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2013, 08:12:04 PM
Imagine if all the energy put towards getting lighted mocks approved was diverted to more late season mule deer options? Or back to 14 days for archery elk? C'mon man! :bash:
Why would we want these things? Is there a need to increase the harvest of mule deer and elk?
Really?
So, the populations are so high they need to be reduced?
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on February 11, 2013, 08:34:01 PM
Post by: cwuhunter on February 11, 2013, 08:36:48 PM
This way off.target of post but, archery should have the whole month of september to hunt any elk with lighted nocks! :tup:
no way, i agree with lighted nocks, but why shoot cows and spikes it is destroying the elk population, same with deer.
Post by: hughjorgan on February 11, 2013, 08:53:26 PM
Imagine if all the energy put towards getting lighted mocks approved was diverted to more late season mule deer options? Or back to 14 days for archery elk? C'mon man! :bash:
:yeah:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 12, 2013, 11:22:05 AM
shooting deer is destroying the elk population? :chuckle: :sry:This way off.target of post but, archery should have the whole month of september to hunt any elk with lighted nocks! :tup:
no way, i agree with lighted nocks, but why shoot cows and spikes it is destroying the elk population, same with deer.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 12, 2013, 11:34:00 AM
I think you are confused, shooting cows and spikes is destroying the elk and deer population, shooting deer only hurts deer. :chuckle:shooting deer is destroying the elk population? :chuckle: :sry:This way off.target of post but, archery should have the whole month of september to hunt any elk with lighted nocks! :tup:
no way, i agree with lighted nocks, but why shoot cows and spikes it is destroying the elk population, same with deer.
Post by: whackmaster 93 on February 12, 2013, 04:29:59 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on February 12, 2013, 04:46:28 PM
so are lighted nocks going to be legal this year or not
My source says no :stirthepot:
Post by: huntnphool on February 12, 2013, 05:39:35 PM
:chuckle:so are lighted nocks going to be legal this year or not
My source says no :stirthepot:
Post by: Rainier10 on February 12, 2013, 06:06:57 PM
I heard they are going to be allowed.so are lighted nocks going to be legal this year or not
My source says no :stirthepot:
We should do a poll or something and see what everyone thinks. :stirthepot:
Post by: hughjorgan on February 12, 2013, 06:16:16 PM
Post by: Curly on February 12, 2013, 06:20:34 PM
Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it... I sure am getting tired reading about the illumenoks, hopefully they legalize them and then the archery community can refocus on getting our September elk dates changed backed 8-21
Or maybe they will keep them illegal and tell people to give up trying to get them legalized. :dunno: Then everyone can get past the issue and move on to other issues......
:stirthepot:
Post by: JLS on February 12, 2013, 06:21:53 PM
Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it... I sure am getting tired reading about the illumenoks, hopefully they legalize them and then the archery community can refocus on getting our September elk dates changed backed 8-21
Or maybe they will keep them illegal and tell people to give up trying to get them legalized. :dunno: Then everyone can get past the issue and move on to other issues......
:stirthepot:
Right there with ya bro :brew:
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 12, 2013, 06:45:21 PM
Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it... I sure am getting tired reading about the illumenoks, hopefully they legalize them and then the archery community can refocus on getting our September elk dates changed backed 8-21Yet you continue to open threads and comment on them. :chuckle:
Post by: trophyhunt on February 12, 2013, 06:55:26 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on February 12, 2013, 06:58:15 PM
Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it... I sure am getting tired reading about the illumenoks, hopefully they legalize them and then the archery community can refocus on getting our September elk dates changed backed 8-21Yet you continue to open threads and comment on them. :chuckle:
Hey it beats listening to the president :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on February 12, 2013, 07:38:57 PM
Good pointHeck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it... I sure am getting tired reading about the illumenoks, hopefully they legalize them and then the archery community can refocus on getting our September elk dates changed backed 8-21Yet you continue to open threads and comment on them. :chuckle:
Hey it beats listening to the president :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 12, 2013, 11:07:57 PM
Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it...You need to do some research on the issue and check your "source", I think this year could have a different outcome, I am probably wrong though. ;)
Post by: Holg3107 on February 13, 2013, 09:48:57 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on February 13, 2013, 09:58:04 AM
Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it...You need to do some research on the issue and check your "source", I think this year could have a different outcome, I am probably wrong though. ;)
I don't have a source just an opinion. That is why I put the stirring the pot emoticon in my post. :chuckle: I am not going to use them, but see no reason they should not be legal.
Post by: huntnphool on February 13, 2013, 10:00:54 AM
Me either.I am not going to use them, but see no reason they should not be legal.Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it...You need to do some research on the issue and check your "source", I think this year could have a different outcome, I am probably wrong though. ;)
Post by: Rainier10 on February 13, 2013, 10:52:06 AM
x2Me either.I am not going to use them, but see no reason they should not be legal.Heck everyone thought it was a done deal last year until the commission put an end to it...You need to do some research on the issue and check your "source", I think this year could have a different outcome, I am probably wrong though. ;)
Post by: Curly on March 20, 2013, 10:34:27 AM
Quote
3:10 PM 17. Lighted Nocks for Archery Equipment – Decision
Department staff will request that the Commission approve amendments to regulations regarding lighted nocks for archery equipment.
Amend: WAC 232-12-054 Archery requirement – Archery special use permits
Staff Report: Dave Ware, Game Division Manager, Wildlife Program
Please note the April 11th Special Meeting is an Executive Session for Commissioner Members and is not open to the public pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/04/agenda_apr1313.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/04/agenda_apr1313.html)
Post by: Smossy on March 20, 2013, 10:37:07 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 20, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
I'd imagine hunting shows is the big draw for illumination, looks cool on film.
Post by: bobcat on March 20, 2013, 11:48:41 AM
Special use permit? Wth does that mean? You gotta be special to be able to find arrows easier?
That's just the title, the proposed amendment has nothing to do with the special use permit. That permit is what allows a disabled person to hunt with a crossbow during archery seasons.
I would guess that (1) (b) is the part that would be amended to allow the use of lighted nocks.
Quote
WAC 232-12-054
Agency filings affecting this section
Archery requirements — Archery special use permits.
(1) Rules pertaining to all archery hunting seasons:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to carry or have in his possession any firearm while in the field archery hunting, during an archery season specified for that area, except for modern handguns carried for personal protection. Modern handguns cannot be used to hunt big game or dispatch wounded big game during an archery, big game hunting season.
(b) It is unlawful to have any electrical equipment or electric device(s) attached to the bow or arrow while hunting.
(c) It is unlawful to shoot a bow and arrow from a vehicle or from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway, except that persons with a disabled hunter permit may shoot from a vehicle if the hunter is in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.
(d) It is unlawful to use any device secured to or supported by the bow for the purpose of maintaining the bow at full draw or in a firing position, except that persons with an archery special use permit may hunt game birds or game animals using a device that stabilizes and holds a long bow, recurve bow, or compound bow at a full draw, and may use a mechanical or electrical release.
(e) It is unlawful to hunt wildlife with a crossbow during an archery season. However, disabled hunter permittees in possession of a crossbow special use permit may hunt with a crossbow in any season that allows archery equipment.
(f) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with any arrow or bolt that does not have a sharp broadhead, and the broadhead blade or blades are less than seven-eighths inch wide.
(g) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with a broadhead blade unless the broadhead is unbarbed and completely closed at the back end of the blade or blades by a smooth, unbroken surface starting at maximum blade width and forming a smooth line toward the feather end of the shaft, and such line does not angle toward the point.
(h) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with a retractable broadhead.
(i) It is unlawful to hunt wildlife with any bow equipped with a scope. However, hunters with disabilities who meet the definition of being visually impaired in WAC 232-12-828 may receive a special use permit that would allow the use of scopes or other visual aids. A disabled hunter permit holder in possession of a special use permit that allows the use of a scope or visual aid may hunt game birds or game animals during archery seasons.
(2) Rules pertaining to long bow, recurve bow and compound bow archery:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to hunt big game animals with a bow that does not produce a minimum of 40 pounds of pull measured at twenty-eight inches or at full draw.
(b) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with any arrow measuring less than 20 inches in length or weighing less than 6 grains per pound of draw weight with a minimum arrow weight of 300 grains.
(3) Archery special use permits:
(a) An archery special use permit is available to a person who possesses a valid disabled hunter permit. An archery special use permit application must be signed by a physician stating that the person's disability is permanent and the person has a loss of use of one or both upper extremities, has a significant limitation in the use of an upper extremity, or has a permanent physical limitation, which loss or limitation substantially impairs the ability to safely hold, grasp, or shoot a long bow, recurve bow or compound bow. The loss or limitation may be the result of, but not limited to, amputation, paralysis, diagnosed disease, or birth defect. The approved archery special use permit must be in the physical possession of the person while using adaptive archery equipment as described in subsection (1)(d) of this section to hunt game birds or game animals.
(b) A crossbow special use permit is available to a person who meets the requirements for an archery special use permit and is unable to use adaptive archery equipment. Adaptive equipment includes, but is not limited to: Cocking devices that hold the bow at full draw; trigger mechanisms that may be released by mouth, or chin, or hand supporting the bow; and devices that assist in supporting the bow. Information describing types of adaptive equipment will be provided to physicians for their assessment of the applicant's ability to utilize adaptive archery equipment. Muscle weakness, impaired range of motion, or unilateral hand weakness disability, of both hands or both arms or both sides of the upper extremity, may result in an inability to use adaptive archery equipment. Standard tests approved by the American Medical Association may be conducted to assess a person's abilities.
Post by: Smossy on March 20, 2013, 12:21:28 PM
Ahh ok thanks for clarifying I have a hard time following the way they write stuff. I r eetarded.Special use permit? Wth does that mean? You gotta be special to be able to find arrows easier?
That's just the title, the proposed amendment has nothing to do with the special use permit. That permit is what allows a disabled person to hunt with a crossbow during archery seasons.
I would guess that (1) (b) is the part that would be amended to allow the use of lighted nocks.QuoteWAC 232-12-054
Agency filings affecting this section
Archery requirements — Archery special use permits.
(1) Rules pertaining to all archery hunting seasons:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to carry or have in his possession any firearm while in the field archery hunting, during an archery season specified for that area, except for modern handguns carried for personal protection. Modern handguns cannot be used to hunt big game or dispatch wounded big game during an archery, big game hunting season.
(b) It is unlawful to have any electrical equipment or electric device(s) attached to the bow or arrow while hunting.
(c) It is unlawful to shoot a bow and arrow from a vehicle or from, across, or along the maintained portion of a public highway, except that persons with a disabled hunter permit may shoot from a vehicle if the hunter is in compliance with WAC 232-12-828.
(d) It is unlawful to use any device secured to or supported by the bow for the purpose of maintaining the bow at full draw or in a firing position, except that persons with an archery special use permit may hunt game birds or game animals using a device that stabilizes and holds a long bow, recurve bow, or compound bow at a full draw, and may use a mechanical or electrical release.
(e) It is unlawful to hunt wildlife with a crossbow during an archery season. However, disabled hunter permittees in possession of a crossbow special use permit may hunt with a crossbow in any season that allows archery equipment.
(f) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with any arrow or bolt that does not have a sharp broadhead, and the broadhead blade or blades are less than seven-eighths inch wide.
(g) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with a broadhead blade unless the broadhead is unbarbed and completely closed at the back end of the blade or blades by a smooth, unbroken surface starting at maximum blade width and forming a smooth line toward the feather end of the shaft, and such line does not angle toward the point.
(h) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with a retractable broadhead.
(i) It is unlawful to hunt wildlife with any bow equipped with a scope. However, hunters with disabilities who meet the definition of being visually impaired in WAC 232-12-828 may receive a special use permit that would allow the use of scopes or other visual aids. A disabled hunter permit holder in possession of a special use permit that allows the use of a scope or visual aid may hunt game birds or game animals during archery seasons.
(2) Rules pertaining to long bow, recurve bow and compound bow archery:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to hunt big game animals with a bow that does not produce a minimum of 40 pounds of pull measured at twenty-eight inches or at full draw.
(b) It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with any arrow measuring less than 20 inches in length or weighing less than 6 grains per pound of draw weight with a minimum arrow weight of 300 grains.
(3) Archery special use permits:
(a) An archery special use permit is available to a person who possesses a valid disabled hunter permit. An archery special use permit application must be signed by a physician stating that the person's disability is permanent and the person has a loss of use of one or both upper extremities, has a significant limitation in the use of an upper extremity, or has a permanent physical limitation, which loss or limitation substantially impairs the ability to safely hold, grasp, or shoot a long bow, recurve bow or compound bow. The loss or limitation may be the result of, but not limited to, amputation, paralysis, diagnosed disease, or birth defect. The approved archery special use permit must be in the physical possession of the person while using adaptive archery equipment as described in subsection (1)(d) of this section to hunt game birds or game animals.
(b) A crossbow special use permit is available to a person who meets the requirements for an archery special use permit and is unable to use adaptive archery equipment. Adaptive equipment includes, but is not limited to: Cocking devices that hold the bow at full draw; trigger mechanisms that may be released by mouth, or chin, or hand supporting the bow; and devices that assist in supporting the bow. Information describing types of adaptive equipment will be provided to physicians for their assessment of the applicant's ability to utilize adaptive archery equipment. Muscle weakness, impaired range of motion, or unilateral hand weakness disability, of both hands or both arms or both sides of the upper extremity, may result in an inability to use adaptive archery equipment. Standard tests approved by the American Medical Association may be conducted to assess a person's abilities.
Post by: biggfish on June 03, 2013, 05:21:35 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 03, 2013, 09:57:56 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 03, 2013, 10:05:20 PM
I just got the new hunt regs for 2013 looks like illuminated nocks will be legal this year
Really? :yike:
First I've heard of this. :dunno:
Post by: Smossy on June 03, 2013, 10:06:59 PM
Whaaat dang o snap o dang! How comes they didn't tells us bout them lighted arrows? mhmmI just got the new hunt regs for 2013 looks like illuminated nocks will be legal this yearReally? :yike:
First I've heard of this.
Post by: huntingfool7 on June 04, 2013, 06:06:03 AM
Post by: Russ McDonald on June 04, 2013, 06:24:27 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 04, 2013, 10:44:25 AM
I already wrecked one while practicing.Too expensive to shoot at the same spot on the target each time, try a target with multipul aiming points. ;)
Post by: billdo5 on June 04, 2013, 10:47:12 AM
I usually just follow the blood trail anyway I don't know why the big deal over illuminated nocks, most all my arrows are destroyed after they do there job, or are laying on the ground after a pass through shot, If you miss the shot you are going to loose your arrow. :dunno::yeah: Only cool thing is to shoot them into a canyon at night lol
Post by: Russ McDonald on June 04, 2013, 11:43:07 AM
I know but I want to see how my groups were sigting in my new sight. :bash:I already wrecked one while practicing.Too expensive to shoot at the same spot on the target each time, try a target with multipul aiming points. ;)
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 04, 2013, 12:11:47 PM
Post by: Fullabull on June 04, 2013, 06:18:04 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on June 10, 2013, 08:13:11 PM
They are way costly to be shooting in my opinion. Not worth the price to be shooting them. Almost as much as arrows...that's nuts!!!
Let's see..........$12 arrow, $15 broadhead, $11 nock(after taxes) - $38.00 per hunting arrow.
Kind of spendy.
I probably won't be using any illuminated nock but not because of cost, because it'll change my FOC a lot and I've put in way too much time setting up my hunting arrows and sighting in out to 100yds.
Still, they look really cool when someone shoots one into a 3D target.
Post by: Maybee-R on June 11, 2013, 05:09:00 PM
You also change FOC and make the arrow act like a stiffer spine. Id have to add 21 grains to the tip if I used a lighted nock just to get the arrow to spine again. 42 extra grains isnt what Im looking for.
6 gpp is perfect for my set up. Ill pass on them. Glad they made them legal though. lots want them.
Post by: Smossy on June 11, 2013, 05:59:06 PM
If you use the lighted nocks and take a pope and young class deer you guys know it cant be entered right?Lots of people really don't care about being in a book. I know I don't atleast. I know quite a few others who don't either.
You also change FOC and make the arrow act like a stiffer spine. Id have to add 21 grains to the tip if I used a lighted nock just to get the arrow to spine again. 42 extra grains isnt what Im looking for.
6 gpp is perfect for my set up. Ill pass on them. Glad they made them legal though. lots want them.
Your right about the FOC though, Thats not a big deal to me either. Easy to compensate for in many ways.
Post by: demontang on June 11, 2013, 07:51:10 PM
Post by: matt345 on June 11, 2013, 07:54:56 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on June 11, 2013, 08:08:21 PM
Post by: matt345 on June 11, 2013, 08:12:45 PM
When i was in Minnesota last year and shooting them at 40 yards they were grouped right with my non lighted nocks. I don't forsee me shooting more than 50 yards. Man you guys shooting farther than that are incredible. Heck your pins at over 50 yards would be covering most of the animal.
Russ, just get the smaller pins. I have been practicing out to 100 yds at the range and it gets easier with time. Wouldn't take that shot on an animal but it makes the shorter shots easier.
Post by: Smossy on June 11, 2013, 10:39:19 PM
Where do you practice at 100 yards being from tacoma? Just curious, Ive been wanting to do long range practice but our yard pretty much limits out around 65 yards.When i was in Minnesota last year and shooting them at 40 yards they were grouped right with my non lighted nocks. I don't forsee me shooting more than 50 yards. Man you guys shooting farther than that are incredible. Heck your pins at over 50 yards would be covering most of the animal.
Russ, just get the smaller pins. I have been practicing out to 100 yds at the range and it gets easier with time. Wouldn't take that shot on an animal but it makes the shorter shots easier.
Post by: Disturbed1 on June 11, 2013, 10:49:17 PM
Where do you practice at 100 yards being from tacoma? Just curious, Ive been wanting to do long range practice but our yard pretty much limits out around 65 yards.
for $5 you can go out to Skookum range out off meridian in puyallup, or $7 Tacoma sportsman Club off 160th canyon.. both have flat range out to 100 yards. both ranges both have walk thru courses out in the woods that you can usually create whatever kind of shot you want but you would need a range finder to get your distances correct. And if money is tight go down to the puyallup river on the levy side and throw your block out and move back as far as you want.
Post by: matt345 on June 11, 2013, 10:51:46 PM
Where do you practice at 100 yards being from tacoma? Just curious, Ive been wanting to do long range practice but our yard pretty much limits out around 65 yards.When i was in Minnesota last year and shooting them at 40 yards they were grouped right with my non lighted nocks. I don't forsee me shooting more than 50 yards. Man you guys shooting farther than that are incredible. Heck your pins at over 50 yards would be covering most of the animal.
Russ, just get the smaller pins. I have been practicing out to 100 yds at the range and it gets easier with time. Wouldn't take that shot on an animal but it makes the shorter shots easier.
Skookum in Puyallup or Tacoma Sportsmans club
Post by: Smossy on June 12, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
I'm a full member at Tacoma Sportsmans Club, Just never done any shooting down there yet.. :dunno: Guess its time to mosey on down there.
Where do you practice at 100 yards being from tacoma? Just curious, Ive been wanting to do long range practice but our yard pretty much limits out around 65 yards.
for $5 you can go out to Skookum range out off meridian in puyallup, or $7 Tacoma sportsman Club off 160th canyon.. both have flat range out to 100 yards. both ranges both have walk thru courses out in the woods that you can usually create whatever kind of shot you want but you would need a range finder to get your distances correct. And if money is tight go down to the puyallup river on the levy side and throw your block out and move back as far as you want.
Post by: Maybee-R on June 13, 2013, 05:50:27 PM
Really, I am by no means an expert but if you replace your existing Nock which probably weighs around 12 grains and then put a 20 grain lighted nock in. Is it really going to make a huge difference??? I have heard many people say they experienced no difference in flight!!!!
At hunting distances probably not much difference, But if your 10 grains changes FOC enough to cause flyers with broadheads then yes. Nothing like trying to train an arrow that has a mind of its own. lol.
Reality of over 30 years of hunting this state has me not too worried about book bucks...But Some do think about it. If enough states legalize the lighted nocks im sure an asterisk beside your name would be an option for the listing.. Most nocks dont weight more then 8 to 10 grains. Ive played with lighted nocks as heavy as 40 gr. most around 21. Thats enough to change FOC on my arrows to less then 11-12 percent. Broadheads work flawless for me around 15-16% Foc. Smaller heads maybe less. larger maybe more. just an FYI.
Post by: RadSav on June 14, 2013, 12:43:39 AM
Really, I am by no means an expert but if you replace your existing Nock which probably weighs around 12 grains and then put a 20 grain lighted nock in. Is it really going to make a huge difference??? I have heard many people say they experienced no difference in flight!!!!
It's all about FOC. If someone says they see no difference I'd expect they do not shoot beyond 30 yards, they are fair weather shooters or they had a good bit of FOC in the first place. An additional 10 to 15 grains on the back half of the arrow takes a good bit of weight in the front to compensate. If you are always in the trees and you never shoot more than 30 yards you won't find it a big deal. And if you never shoot truly tight groups you might not find it a big deal either. But if you shoot less than 10% FOC out in the open at any extended distance in rain and/or wind you will learn to regret it sooner or later - lighted nocks or not!
Sometimes with four fletch I will allow my arrows to fall close to that 10% FOC mark, but with three fletch it's always 12% or more. I know I say it over and over again, but there really is something magical about 12% FOC. Just take the precautions to monitor your FOC when choosing to shoot lighted nocks and you should be happy with the results. Well, at least until you pull your wallet out at the cash register. And the first time that $12.00 nock doesn't work even when it's new out of the package. ;)
Post by: Machias on June 14, 2013, 08:19:42 AM