HB 26, lighted knocks

[RobG]

Montana HB 26: allowing lighted knocks

Ben L. mention a lighted nock bill is on the agenda. How do people feel about them?

[edit, HB 26 is a bill being considered by the Montana legislature to allow lighted nocks. I was wondering if it was a controversial subject and, if so, why.]

 

[sweetnectar]

I feel lighted knocks are a good idea. They can help in the recovery of an already hit animal by giving the hunter a better view of were the arrow hit. If it looks like an elk is hit further back then the hunter can make a better choice of giving the animal more time before beginning the tracking job. Lighted knocks mean lest waisted game.

 

[dustinf]

I used them this year.

They do affect arrow flight. At 40 yards there is about a 2" difference between my luminock and plain nock. I can only image what the difference is at 60+ yards.

 

[muleguy]

You have to draw the line somewhere so this is as good a place as any. You don't need electronics on your bow.

 

[spook12]

Lighted nocks are a non issue, IMHO. I've never bought into the ''Slippery Slope''crap. Use them, don't use them doesn't matter.

P.S. If legal where you are hunting.

 

[MTbowhunter84]

I think it's a good thing. I probably won't use them due to weight and cost, but I don't see where it would hurt as it would help in recovery and doesn't seem to improve anything other than that.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The Montana FWP regulations are now clear prohibiting artificial light or electronics, so why try to "fix" something that's not broken, merely to satisfy the wants and desires of someone, not necessarily in the majority. I think a good general rule for new regulations is to address needs or problems ... not merely wants, desires, and conveniences.

 

[BRI]

I feel lighted knocks are a good idea. They can help in the recovery of an already hit animal by giving the hunter a better view of were the arrow hit. If it looks like an elk is hit further back then the hunter can make a better choice of giving the animal more time before beginning the tracking job. Lighted knocks mean lest waisted game.

I've felt the same way but wonder how many people out there might take riskier shots thinking "I have lighted nocks, recovery will be easier"? But I figure those people already take risky shots and will continue to do so.

I just don't think it's appropriate use of taxpayer money for legislators to be determining what they think is an acceptable piece of electronic equipment for hunting is.

 

[----]

I just don't think it's appropriate use of taxpayer money for legislators to be determining what they think is an acceptable piece of electronic equipment for hunting is.

Exactly my thoughts. Let FWP make them legal if they feel the need, but no reason crap like this should be a legislature issue.

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

I agree with most of you. I don't think it makes a lick of difference really, its a matter of personal choice to me. I don't use them myself, but, I do think they are neat and do help when trying to determine where the shot hit in a low light condition. I agree. . .waste of money and time.

 

[Goldtip]

I've never used them, never really cared if someone else did. Not sure exactly how they would result in decreasing the actual effort needed to hunt an animal, and not sure how they would be an unfair advantage for the animal. If they give someone more confidence to take a shot in low light, that same person would have taken the shot more than likely anyway, and then it's a matter of hunting ethics, and we sure can't legislate those.

 

[Ben Lamb]

and then it's a matter of hunting ethics, and we sure can't legislate those.

It's done all the time.

 

[danr55]

Out of curiosity, what advantage or disadvantage would it serve the hunter vs. animal, to use a lighted knock? It's not artificial light like that used for nighttime varmint hunting. What I mean is that it has no effect on how the animal acts or reacts. I can see not allowing electronics that give the hunter an advanatge over the animal but this doesn't seem to have any effect on the prey.

 

[BRI]

Here is the MBA's stance.

January 11, 2013


Legislative Alert
Members-

We have a very high priority bill which needs your immediate response by January 15.
HB 26 is a bill allowing lighted nocks on arrows during big game seasons.
We need your help to kill this bill.
Refer to our justification points below.

HB 26 Allow lighted nock on arrows while big game hunting.
Position: Oppose
Sponsor: Ted Washburn
(H) Hearing January 15 3:00 PM, Rm 152, House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Committee
The bill inserts an exception into the statute language to allow lighted nocks on arrows (refer to full bill text in the attachment). Please understand that the exception for the lighted nock is not just a minor adjustment to the equipment regulations; it makes a change to the law which permanently and dramatically alters the Commission’s authority to regulate archery equipment. In doing so, lighted nocks are exempted from Commission authority, and this action sets a precedent for other devices to be introduced in future legislative sessions.

Currently, laser broadheads are on the market and a GPS broadhead and “BowMag arrow” are in the works. It is only a matter of time before someone will ask for these exceptions to the law. I’ve attached documents to the alert illustrating each device, or you can click on the links below.

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/spot-on-laser-broadhead.aspx?a=886182
http://www.google.com/patents/US7632199
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd4X9naO_04

The recent push for electronic equipment fosters a misguided message that bowhunters cannot be effective without continually advancing technology. There are non-electronic alternatives such as reflective cap wraps and bright fletching to aid hunters in seeing the point of impact. Allowing an exception for the use of lighted nocks introduces the first of many electronic devices for which exceptions will be requested. The current regulations are crystal clear and parallel Pope & Young Club regulations for ethical, fair chase hunting. Deviation from the current regulations will create all sorts of gray areas for devices to be introduced.

Whether you see where the arrow hits or not, it is always better to wait longer to ensure the
animal has expired. Seeing a bright nock hit what is perceived to be a "good" hit will only cause bowhunters to rush in more quickly than they should and risk spooking the animal if it is a less than perfect shot. Again, IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS BETTER TO WAIT. Knowing where the arrow hit does nothing to improve the blood trail itself.

Our most recent survey supports our “no electronics” stance. We received many comments associated with this question which reinforced “no exceptions.” We did have nine respondents on the survey who said that while overall they support the “no electronics” position, they’d like to see lighted nocks as an exception to the regulations. It is important to understand that if lighted nocks are allowed, GPS and laser broadheads are the next devices which some may see as an improvement to archery equipment, and which may be requested in subsequent sessions. As a board, we feel we cannot take this first step in allowing exceptions to the “no electronics” stance.

In summary, we oppose this legislation because it undermines the clarity of the current regulations. Exceptions to the statute and regulations will create a “moving target” of legal equipment which will alter the nature of bowhunting. As an organization, we carefully consider all of the various impacts which equipment has on our seasons, and guide our membership towards actions which serve the best interests of bowhunting. We believe allowing this exception to the statute is not in the best interests of bowhunting.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The MT legislature must not have many very pressing issues if they feel the need to take a look at this one.

 

[JCS]

The MT legislature must not have many very pressing issues if they feel the need to take a look at this one.

Last time I looked, there were 131 fish and game bills listed for Montana Legislature

 

[shoots-straight]

Montana Sportsmen's Alliance (MSA) is going to sit on the sidelines on this one. We're going to defer to the MBA and let them move what ever direction it is that they choose.

Individually we all can weigh in and should.

I don't want the legislature deciding anything that has to do with Fish Wildlife and Parks. The problem is they kind of threw the Montana Sportsman under the bus in making some decisions recently. They dealt us a bad hand just before the session started. It's hard to defend them after the Milk River acquisition, and the wolf buffer zone.

I see nothing wrong with modern gadgets that don't give us an unfair advantage over the animal. Lighted knocks by all rights don't do that.

Now how many from this site are willing to give up their range finders? Lighted electronic scopes? I agree that the line has to be drawn, but should it be painted with a wide brush?

I will send in a comment against the lighted knocks because the legislature is the one that's trying to slip it in statutorily..

Now how do we feel about the legislature making it a statute for up to 5 wolf's, and electronic calls?

 

[belly-deep]

I really don't see how or why anyone should care about lighted knocks.

Seems like a dumb thing to argue about.

Want to talk about contraptions that give hunters a discernable advantage? Let's talk about the compound bow...

Lighted knocks are a drop in the bucket

 

[belly-deep]

Exactly my thoughts. Let FWP make them legal if they feel the need, but no reason crap like this should be a legislature issue.

This is exactly how the legislature is supposed to act..."by the people"

 

[RobG]

This is exactly how the legislature is supposed to act..."by the people"

I disagree. The legislature are mostly radical tea baggers who feel like wildlife are preventing them from making money. You definitely don't want the legislature telling FWP what to do. The lighted nock bill seems innocent enough, but there are bills out there ranging from making bison livestock to having MFWP pay for elk brucellosis testing.