HB 26, lighted knocks
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
so are the rule of P&Y governed by its members or the few that run the organization? just curious
spook12
New member
Mudranger, this let off issue was fought for years by the leadership,when the heat got turned up enough by the membership it was put before all members for a vote.There was quite the gnashing of teeth over it, lots of longtime members,and if memory serves some leadership left over it.
Khunter
Well-known member
BOHNTR
Well-known member
Most of these changes are voted on by the Senior & Regular members of the Club....not the Board.
Lighted nocks? GPS broad heads? Bow mounted rangefinders? Allow them all. Why not? Honestly, if we truly believed in bow hunting without technological advantages, we all would be carrying long bows. 85% let off, 70lb draw, 330fps…come on, don’t kid yourself.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Exactly. Lighted knocks are a drop in the bucket compared to modern compound bows.
What a joke.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
well if I can get a gps broad head maybe I don't need lighted nocks after all 
dustinf
Active member
lol.
Toadslayer
Member
Here's what can happen when you don't have that line in sand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd4X9naO_04
I'm sure some here will think this is the best thing since sliced bread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd4X9naO_04
I'm sure some here will think this is the best thing since sliced bread.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
I'm not quite sure how you can compare an arrow with a bullet on the end to one with a lighted nock ...just keep drinkin the good stuff my friend
Southwind
New member
They only help AFTER the arrow has been released. There is no advantage in the taking of game but only in the recovery. I don't understand the slippery slope.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,855
tell me is this considered a mechanical broad head or not? it doesn't have any moving parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkpawOKbPD8
then I could just hope to find some antlers too pack out instead of the entire animal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkpawOKbPD8
then I could just hope to find some antlers too pack out instead of the entire animal
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Southwind, go back and consider MBA's official position then read post #24 by Khunter. You may not agree with the "slippery slope" concern, but at least you should understand it.
There are those who have expressed concern about the improved advantage in visually tracking the arrow's flight after release thus perhaps resulting in motivation to take longer, more risky shots. Again, whether or not you agree with the concern ... it still exists and it is not for you or I to day it is invalid.
There are those who have expressed concern about the improved advantage in visually tracking the arrow's flight after release thus perhaps resulting in motivation to take longer, more risky shots. Again, whether or not you agree with the concern ... it still exists and it is not for you or I to day it is invalid.
Summitthunting
Well-known member
Khunter,
I am all for lighted knockers, much better in low light conditions.
I am all for lighted knockers, much better in low light conditions.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I
but have been known to create sudden blindness and temporary lack of good judgement.
but have been known to create sudden blindness and temporary lack of good judgement.
Southwind
New member
I'm sure there are plenty of field and controlled studies that back up that assertion of hunter intent in that situation right? I've shot lighted nock's in Kansas since their inception and can tell you that thought never crossed my mind. I don't see a correlation between to the two. I understand the "slope" but it seems a fabrication of a problem that doesn't exist by someone trying to find fault.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Southwind, I respect that the riskier shot "never crossed" your mind, but the concern still exists.
The "lighted nock" and the crossbow during archery season debates have consistently emerged during the past few legislative sessions in Montana. The regulations are now pretty clear and have been established with much debate and consideration. We could debate forever about whether or not lighted nocks as an exception to the "no electronics" rule will lead to more exceptions and then a serious dilution of the challenge of archery hunting, which justifies a long separate hunting season in Montana.
But here in Montana it boils down to what may be perceived as merely a "want or desire" rather than a requirement to resolve an existing problem in archery hunting. The Montana Bowhunters Association membership seems divided on the issue, but overall is opposed to introducing lighted nocks to the archery season. Past debates in legislative committees have also resulted in the same conclusion.
A separate, but equally important, issue has to do with special interests pursuading a legislator to sponsor a bill on behalf of a minority of citizens and pushing it through an already jam-packed session.
Another concern is with forwarding hunting-related bills and passing state laws that really should be regulatory provisions vetted and decided upon by Fish, Wildlife, and Park agency professionals and the Commission that oversees those processes and decisions.
So, as you can see, these kind of issues that get elevated to the state legislative level become complex and, in my opinion, degrade the lawmakers' ability to address the really important hunting and wildlife related problems faced by this state. (ie: brucellosis mitigation, wild bison hunting & programs, wildlife habitat acquisition & enhancement, landowner concerns, access issues, funding, etc.)
The "lighted nock" and the crossbow during archery season debates have consistently emerged during the past few legislative sessions in Montana. The regulations are now pretty clear and have been established with much debate and consideration. We could debate forever about whether or not lighted nocks as an exception to the "no electronics" rule will lead to more exceptions and then a serious dilution of the challenge of archery hunting, which justifies a long separate hunting season in Montana.
But here in Montana it boils down to what may be perceived as merely a "want or desire" rather than a requirement to resolve an existing problem in archery hunting. The Montana Bowhunters Association membership seems divided on the issue, but overall is opposed to introducing lighted nocks to the archery season. Past debates in legislative committees have also resulted in the same conclusion.
A separate, but equally important, issue has to do with special interests pursuading a legislator to sponsor a bill on behalf of a minority of citizens and pushing it through an already jam-packed session.
Another concern is with forwarding hunting-related bills and passing state laws that really should be regulatory provisions vetted and decided upon by Fish, Wildlife, and Park agency professionals and the Commission that oversees those processes and decisions.
So, as you can see, these kind of issues that get elevated to the state legislative level become complex and, in my opinion, degrade the lawmakers' ability to address the really important hunting and wildlife related problems faced by this state. (ie: brucellosis mitigation, wild bison hunting & programs, wildlife habitat acquisition & enhancement, landowner concerns, access issues, funding, etc.)
