Lighed Nocks

[Ben Lamb]

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...l&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share

I'm not an archer, but certainly follow this issue as it tends to crop up during the legislative session every time they meet.

Personally, I think MBA did the right thing by helping put together a template that helps the commission make informed decisions on equipment. Very curious to hear what others think.

 

[406LIFE]

I'm an MBA member and I teach every year with Marlon. He's a trad guy and for him to endorse this is a big deal in my mind. I am in favor of lighted nocks because they aid tremendously in game retrieval. However, where you draw the line has always been the commission that I, the MBA and the Commission have always asked. This new tool will help that. I wouldn't want to see things taken further than they already are. That's me. I don't use a Vendetta range finder or gps equipped arrows. Fair chase as a principle and keeping with the spirit of the sport should be very important governing factors in the future. We already have too many people think that they can be instant bowhunters because the can get setup with a bow and shoot a pie plate before they even leave the shop. I would not want to see more of this kind of attitude be supported with gizmos that do things like that.

BTW, I don't call an 18% spread narrowly passed...

 

[zachthebowhunter]

I don't see how they'd help increase harvest by encouraging longer shots. I do think they are beneficial in seeing exactly where for arrow hits showing one whether the hit was good or marginal, and if marginal then helping inform the decision to take up the track job or let it lay for a while so you don't bump it and lose an animal for good.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Smart move by MBA.

 

[Racklover]

About time! I'm a stickler about recovering lost arrows. I've found more than a few arrows with broadheads in fields that could injure pets or livestock. That could jeopardize access when the landowner gets tired of it.

 

[JMG]

This has been a topic of discussion amongst the MBA membership and the Board for many years. The biggest issue the Board wrestled with was the potential for other technological advances in the sport of archery hunting that will likely be brought forth, now that the lighted nock (technology) has been "accepted". I'm glad to see the Board and the Board of Directors have and are listening to it's members.

I believe that archery hunting is a "primitive sport" and that one CHOOSES to archery hunt, because the archer is trying to challenge his/her skills in pursuing and harvesting game. IMO, I do not believe that lighted nocks give an archer an unfair advantage in the pursuit and taking of game.

 

[MThuntr]

This has been a topic of discussion amongst the MBA membership and the Board for many years. The biggest issue the Board wrestled with was the potential for other technological advances in the sport of archery hunting that will likely be brought forth, now that the lighted nock (technology) has been "accepted". I'm glad to see the Board and the Board of Directors have and are listening to it's members.

I believe that archery hunting is a "primitive sport" and that one CHOOSES to archery hunt, because the archer is trying to challenge his/her skills in pursuing and harvesting game. IMO, I do not believe that lighted nocks give an archer an unfair advantage in the pursuit and taking of game.

I agree. I just don't think they'll give an archer an advantage and may increase in better recovery of animal by knowing where your shot hit. I'm not sure I see they slippery slope people talk about.

 

[BuzzH]

BTW, I don't call an 18% spread narrowly passed...

What's narrow is less than 600 people speaking for and deciding what's best for 45,000 others, doesn't matter what the issue is. I think its important to keep in mind, that many of the 45k probably don't agree with some of MBA's positions.

On the other hand, if the 45K aren't going to get off the couch and get involved, well, then I guess tough luck for them.

I know Marlon as well, and the one thing he said in the article I agree with..."archery" has changed dramatically over the years. What hasn't kept up with the changes in "archery" is the FWP's response to the vast increase in "archery" hunters and the huge increase in "archery" harvest and the associated impact on wildlife resources.

 

[tjones]

What's narrow is less than 600 people speaking for and deciding what's best for 45,000 others, doesn't matter what the issue is. I think its important to keep in mind, that many of the 45k probably don't agree with some of MBA's positions.

This /\ /\

The MBA spends a lot of time stepping over dollars and picking up dimes. Gnashing teeth over lighted nocks while allowing two huge screw ups on season just here in the Root leaves me wondering about the MBA.

 

[Joe Hulburt]

If the MBA is anything like the OHA then there are some pro shop owners on the board and running things more or less. Lighted nocks equals big money for the archery industry if they can convince people they will "reduce wounding loss" and make up for poor shot selection etc....

I'm not bashing lighted nocks but they have got to be one of the most over hyped gimmicks of all times in the world of archery. They are kind of fun to shoot late in the evening but in 30 years of archery hunting I can't think of a time I would of had a different outcome due to shooting one.

 

[Dan O]

Lighted nocks do not make you a better shot or hunter. They are only helpful AFTER the shot. You still have the responsibility to make an accurate ethical shot. If you think lighted nocks will make people take bad shots I would argue they would do the same unethical shot anyway. All the nocks will do is to possibly allow you to follow the arrow in flight and it will aid in arrow retrieval. If you concentrate on the spot you may not even see the arrow until it hits that spot.
I am for the use of lighted nocks personally.

 

[406LIFE]

I'm not bashing lighted nocks but they have got to be one of the most over hyped gimmicks of all times in the world of archery. They are kind of fun to shoot late in the evening but in 30 years of archery hunting I can't think of a time I would of had a different outcome due to shooting one.

There isn't any bearing on actual shot, but for recovery of animal and arrow, there is certainly a benefit. I could have used them in the past couple seasons.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I do like the decision matrix that MBA helped develop. I think these are types of questions we should all ask ourselves when some new technology appears on the market (not saying lighted nock's are new, just the mind-set). If you were to run down the list of questions - it becomes apparent quickly whether or not said technology should be considered.

There will (and should still be) debate beyond the matrix - but it's a good place to start.

I do agree with Buzz though, there are more important issues to discuss (increasing archery harvest). Maybe this will help folks start to focus on bigger issues.

 

[Joe Hulburt]

There isn't any bearing on actual shot, but for recovery of animal and arrow, there is certainly a benefit. I could have used them in the past couple seasons.

To say that nobody will even take a lower percentage shot because they think their lighted nock will compensate for their decision is a really big assumption. I disagree with it 100% based on some of the stuff I am seeing the new breed of long range bowhunter pull. That is just my opinion and it sure doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. They are legal as of this year in Oregon and although I never heard of a case where they saved a lost animal I heard of an incredible amount of lost animals. Unheard of numbers 20 years ago!

 

[u1299]

I don't hunt with a bow any more so I won't speak about specific technology advances. I'd love to see the sport go back to how it was in about 1975 to say about 1982 when I was really into it, for 1 really important but selfish reason:

1. I never saw another archery hunter and we weren't necessarily hunting that far back in either. There were very few people into the sport back then in MT., it was awesome!

That seemed to change dramatically about in the early 80's as I recall and for me I got pretty disgusted with the increase in other hunters where I had honestly not seen any just a few years before. I started with a Wing recurve, microflite arrows, Bolo broadheads, no sights, no release eventually advancing to a 70# PSE compound with a wopping 15% letoff, XX75 arrows, still no sights or release, pretty high tech stuff back then but ancient by todays standards. Can't stop technology but sure wish we'd draw the line somewhere, just don't see it happening.

 

[teamhoyt]

I do agree with Buzz though, there are more important issues to discuss (increasing archery harvest). Maybe this will help folks start to focus on bigger issues.

I Also agree with buzz more often than not but... In Montana the place this effects the most are the limited archery areas. If we can't increase the archery harvest their just going to have to make the shoulder seasons 8 months long to compensate for our overpopulation of elk anyway so we might as well use crossbows too!

 

[Ben Lamb]

What's narrow is less than 600 people speaking for and deciding what's best for 45,000 others, doesn't matter what the issue is. I think its important to keep in mind, that many of the 45k probably don't agree with some of MBA's positions.

On the other hand, if the 45K aren't going to get off the couch and get involved, well, then I guess tough luck for them.

I know Marlon as well, and the one thing he said in the article I agree with..."archery" has changed dramatically over the years. What hasn't kept up with the changes in "archery" is the FWP's response to the vast increase in "archery" hunters and the huge increase in "archery" harvest and the associated impact on wildlife resources.

The 2008 bundled permits were an effort to get to that increase in archery hunters, as well as restore the 90/10 split in some districts. We're likely to have to defend that again in 2017 (9 years later) as I'm seeing bill drafts on permits already.

What else should FWP be doing on archery hunter increases?

 

[BuzzH]

The 2008 bundled permits were an effort to get to that increase in archery hunters, as well as restore the 90/10 split in some districts. We're likely to have to defend that again in 2017 (9 years later) as I'm seeing bill drafts on permits already.

What else should FWP be doing on archery hunter increases?

Nothing Ben...they're doing a great job responding to the increase in archery hunters and the associated impacts it has on wildlife and the resource.

Its a great idea to change essentially nothing, other than the bundled areas and limiting the breaks to about a jillion archery bull permits.

Its just awesome for rifle hunters that wait a couple decades for a bull permit in the breaks, only to have 1400 archery hunters cream a lot of the bulls before a rifle hunter ever even gets a chance. Better yet, its just freaking awesome that those 1400 archery guys have pressured the elk via the previous 6 weeks and a majority of them are already on private.

The same arguments can be made for a lot of the general units as well...elk are much more pressured for 6 weeks by archery hunters, pushed onto private sooner, and really is contributing in a very large way to the harboring issue.

Not to mention that with the advances in technology, total numbers afield, and with at least doubling of success rates/harvest since I started archery hunting in the early 80's, why would anyone expect there to be any changes by the FWP?

I know, lets just keep everything the same, and add shoulder seasons.

The FWP is the poster child for the definition of insanity when it comes to managing big-game. Doing the same thing over and over again on failed practices, change nothing, and expect better or different results. Business as usual for the FWP.

They're really knocking it out of the park.

 

[TheTone]

What about increases in rifle success, is that being accounted for? Sure archery technology is advancing but look at the difference in the rifles today vs. 15-20 years ago. How many people were shooting game with a rifle at 500+ yards in 1990 vs. today? We (hunters) truly are our own worst enemies when it comes to technology. One of the camps I talk to routinely had what they consider an awesome year in 2015 taking about 10 bulls out of one drainage and losing one (it was laying right along a road in plain sight) and killed most of them at around 1000 yards; they openly admitted one bull took around 10 shots to bring down. This year that camp killed one elk hunting that same country and truly did not have the common sense to realize the reason their success was down was because they cleaned it out the previous year. As an archery hunter I would hate to even lose one day of my season length due to a stupid gadget like a lighted nock, but from what I've seen rifle harvest has a much, much larger impact on populations and the tech in the rifle world is skyrocketing faster than archery.

 

[BuzzH]

TheTone,

No, its not being addressed either and in response to over-all increase in pressure by both archery and rifle hunters...elk hit the private land even quicker, leaving fewer and fewer elk on public.

However, its my contention that if elk were given a couple week break between Oct. 1-25th or so, they may start using public land again after being pushed onto private by archery hunters.

Seriously...6 weeks of archery elk hunting? Only a few days between rifle and archery? Then, after the 5 week rifle season, lets pound on them some more with shoulder seasons...that's the Spirit!

I have no idea why harboring is an issue...not a clue...