why wont odf litsus use lightnocks in or
Oregon
why wont odf used lighted nock in ore
why wont odf used lighted nock in ore
Because there battery operated.
Why not Mechanical Broadheads, Light on your sight,newer style Muzzle Loaders....Because there Idiots...
Might as well use a rifle if all the aids are needed. We're going the wrong direction, fast. Soon, we won't have our nice, long season.
Brad
Brad is right fellers. If we push for more trinkets and duckets to add to our bows, the "anti-hunting" crowd, not necessarily the State will push to limit our season. My three blade Muzzy's are just as effective as any expandable as long as "I" don't do something stupid and if I need a lighted nock to see where my arrow went, then maybe I need to quit bow hunting or get glasses. I THINK INSTEAD OF PUSHING THE STATE TO ALLOW SUCH THINGS, WE NEED TO PUSH THE STATE TO BETTER MANAGE THE RESOURCES WE HAVE BEEN PAYING FOR THRU TAXES, LICENCES AND TAGS.
I agree with Brad and Canuk, but am interested in why lillybear and others here want these devices? If you can't hit right on with your fixed blade broad heads, have you considered educating yourself so you can? When I first started bow hunting, I had a problem getting arrows with broad-heads to hit where I wanted. Then I spend some time studying. That was years ago, but learning what it takes to achieve consistently good arrow flight with fixed blade tips has paid big dividends. do not want or need any mechanical contraption fixed to my arrow to kill deer or elk. I use a compound bow, but would be more than willing to go back to my recurve, if the State wanted to require it for all bow hunters. The bottom line for me is that I think the State is heading the wrong way by approving more and more equipment to kill animals.
to swede I was just asking I do fine two blade broadhead I have a few people ask me
Thanks lillybear. Lots of folks go to mechanicals to try and compensate for poor bow set up, or arrows that are not suited to their use. The trouble is that they do not know just what the real problem(s) are, but know that they can shoot a field point. Since mechanicals shoot much like a field point, that is what the want to use. I do not know, but suspect the Oregon Game Commission does not want everyone who buys a bow to be a serious predator.
They probably don't want people to have a false sense of ability that those products don't provide & hunting at night comes to mind also. I don't know why anyone would want it, to me it seams like a waste of money.
I am not sure but I thought the lighted nocks just help find the arrow after the shot. They do not help aim at any light conditions.
I don't care one way or the other about mechanical broadheads. I think fixed-blade broadheads shoot well and I think they're generally tougher and more durable than most mechanicals.
On the other hand, I completely support legalizing lighted nocks. Unfortunately, I am not blessed with the perfect eyesight that some folks seem (or, at least, claim) to have and I already wear glasses. I can see plenty well enough to aim at a deer or elk under most hunting conditions if I keep my shots to 40 yards or so (which I do). However, once the arrow is released, I can rarely, if ever in hunting conditions, track its flight. I've had two instances in recent years when I wasn't sure whether I hit the animal I was aiming at or not. I always make a concerted effort to listen and look for signs that I hit any animal I shoot at, but, in these instances, I couldn't find any sign I'd made a hit and I couldn't find my arrows to be certain I'd missed. I believe that using lighted nocks might help reduce wounding loss in similar situations. And, I don't believe that using lighted nocks helps anyone shoot any better or further since they don't work until the shot is released.
I feel the exact same way WB, I don't know if it's the excitement or maybe the shade of light in the timber, but following the arrow is tough. lighted knocks would be nice. It would save hours wasted searching for an animal not even hit and would make searching for a positively hit animal longer.
So it will let you shoot in low light conditions past shooting hours & also if you hit the animal. I guess it would depend on who's hands it's in? I don't think they are needed & promote a false sense of ability. (If I get one arrow in them I'll just track it to get a better shoot. When they should of passed in the first place)
Ok still no one has said how a lighted nock can help your aim in low light conditions. I myself have never thought of using them. I also try not to watch or fallow my arrow to the animal. after releasing I just keep eye on animal and usually see arrow go through my line of sight. At times when my wife or kids shoot, and I am not right there with them, it would be nice to find there arrow to see the blood color and or is the arrow has an odor. ok back to subject How do Lighted nocks help in low light conditions?
ya, I don't see how they could help the shot in any condition, just following it.
Ok people lighted nocks only help you find your arrow which is quite helpful because your arrow can help show where you have hit the animal... these dont help you shoot in low light conditions at all.
they will not come on until after the shot, I really would like them legalized.
Why not a gps tracker in the arrow? I will repeat what I have said above:If I get one arrow in them I'll just track it to get a better shoot. When they should of passed in the first place!
RDH, if that was the case, people wouldn't use a lighted knock to do just that, they most likely already do that. I don't think people should put down the idea that would help a bow hunter be able to locate the arrow shot so he/she could examine it. I don't know how many arrows I shot and didn't or couldn't find that I would have been able to if I used a lighted knock. I don't know how many people have shot at an animal and missed only to not be able to find their arrow in the woods/brush ect.. and if they had used a lighted knock, chance`s are allot better finding said arrow, and it wouldn't matter if it was a compound shooter or a traditional shooter,
On and on it goes. More stuff we just "have to have" in order to be a better, and of course, more successful hunter. Really? How about having to improve our hunting skills and woodmanship skills? How about doing this so we can get closer to our prey so we don't need all this stuff? If you don't want to do this there is always rifle season. You can shoot at them from 500 yds away...oh, maybe we need tracer bullets too.
thanks to snag for showing everyone why people don't like to post much here anymore....
Geez, thought is was ok to voice opinions on here...guess not.
If you can't see that good maybe you shouldn't be hunting. Or you could hunt on the east coast they like to use all the bells and whistles there.
Ok was not saying for or against lighted nocks. Just that people seemed to be saying they would help shoot in lower light conditions. Just can't see how they could help. I try not to watch my arrows in flight, just keep eyes on target as much as possible. I just shoot better that way. For me The lighted nock would cause me to try and watch the arrow, then mess up my form, and cause a bad shot. Just me others may not have a problem with it.
Would hunters purchase a lighted nock just to slightly increase the likelihood of recovering an arrow? I would assume a few people would. Would hunters take riskier shots because they believe that an animal, with a lighted nock attached to an arrow in a ham could be recoverable? I think so for a few people. Like Gangster, I rarely see my arrow in flight, so the prospect of seeing it in low light situations does not relate to recovery of the animal. Taking a quality shot with a good follow through, is what I rely on for ethical kills. I do not need lighted nocks to be successful. I will continue to depend on a well tuned bow and arrow, and quality shooting practice.
I`m not saying to watch the arrow in flight, I never take my eye off the target to watch my arrow, it would be nice to be able to find it after the shot, say after a complete pass thru ect..
This has been an interesting discussion so far. I will add that the initial post on this thread is the first question I usually hear at every 3-D shoot I attend anywhere in Oregon -- "why won't ODFW let us use lighted nocks? They don't help us shoot any better." Also, I'm hearing more and more bowhunters say that they use lighted nocks regardless of the regulation prohibiting them. Unfortunately, wrong as that is, that's what happens when a regulation makes no common sense to the substantial majority of bowhunters!
That is an interesting argument WB. I suppose it explains why the prisons are full and we employ such a large police force. Maybe I should consider my next elk tag a Wenaha Elk Tag. I've tried long enough. Humm?
Since an issue has been raised about my condoning illegal hunting in the Wenaha, let me please be clear. I condone no such action, and have no thought that I will ever hunt the Wenaha, even if it were legal. My post above was simply intended as a retort to Craig's comment that, "When things don't make common sense people ignore them". WB said he has heard more and more bow hunters say they are going to use lighted nocks, regardless of their legality. How many has he cautioned against that? It sounded like he sympathized with their position. If as an executive on the board of OBH, he is broadcasting and giving cover for this kind of illegal action, where is the line. I am a senior citizen. I will never draw a Wenaha tag. All I was asking rhetorically was "where is the line? Apparently what is being portrayed as lacking in common sense, is lost on a lot of us, including P&Y, Traditional Bow Hunters of Oregon the Oregon Game Commission and others including myself. Craig is a good law abiding man and an excellent officer for OBH. In my opinion he is just wrong on this debate. My 2 cents.
"wrong as that is, that's what happens when a regulation makes no common sense to the substantial majority of bowhunters!"
I don't see in here where he sides with them.
reading between the lines is always a bad idea.
When you say that the reason someone does something illegal, is because the regulations make no common sense, you are making an excuse for the law breaker. I would have no problem if Craig had said it is wrong to use lighted nocks until the law is changed, then advocated for bow hunters to petition for a change. Saying that the reason someone is violating the law is due to someone else's actions is to place the blame on the law maker and give cover to the violator. With all due respect, that is not reading between the lines.
I agree with you swede nothing can replace a well tuned bow and arrow, and quality practice. I also try to hit a few 3-D shoots for more practice. And then practice some more. As for the lighted nocks. There was a law many years ago, I learned of it in the 80's. We could not use any electronically devices on our bows, so really there is nothing new about the law on lighted nocks. Mechanical broadheads, I read something a couple of months ago, and not sure how truthful it is, but it said mechanicals loses 20% of its energy to open the blades. So to me the hunters that would benefit the most from the flight of mechanicals (beginners and or youth's with low poundage bow). would lose to much of the arrow energy when opening the broadhead, to make a good clean kill. I tell my kids to get a good quality broadhead and try to tone it, and your bow as best you can. If it just does not work try another and do the same, until you feel confident in your set up.
Swede,
I'm sorry that you apparently can't (or aren't willing to) see that I wasn't suggesting that anybody should violate the ban on use of lighted nocks for hunting in Oregon -- in fact, quite the opposite. I was merely stating the facts of what I'm hearing and seeing in my contacts with bowhunters from around Oregon. And, yes, I do remind folks who mention using lighted nocks that it is currently illegal in Oregon to do so.
I get that you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, but I don't think it's fair of you to misrepresent what I wrote. My point was merely that the substantial majority of Oregon's bowhunters believe that legalizing lighted nocks makes common sense. I don't believe that making that statement demeans anyone who isn't of the majority viewpoint or gives anyone cover to violate the current ban on use of lighted nocks. I'm sure that those, like you, who oppose legalizing lighted nocks believe that their view is common sense just as those, like me, on the other side issue do.
I fully recognize that you aren't part of the substantial majority that favor legalization of lighted nocks for hunting in Oregon, but, ultimately, I think that the majority view will prevail and lighted nocks will be legalized. To me, the only question is how long it will be before it happens!
Craig
PS to Swede or anyone else out there who opposes legalizing lighted nocks:
I believe that wounding loss by bowhunters is a significant problem both because it wastes our precious game resource and because it gives bowhunters a bad name. I understand and agree with the arguments presented in this thread that being selective about the shots we take is most important, but we all too frequently see news coverage of game animals with arrows sticking from them. I support legalizing lighted nocks because I believe they have the potential to help reduce wounding loss. I'd like to hear from those who oppose legalizing lighted nocks the arguments for why wounding loss isn't a significant issue for bowhunters to be concerned about or why lighted nocks don't offer any potential for reducing wounding loss.
Craig: I appreciate the dialog on this issue and thanks for your rebuttal. I certainly was not trying to misrepresent what you wrote. I was simply pointing out how your post struck me. I will leave the matter there. You contend that lighted nocks will reduce big game loss due to wounding. I don't want to read too much into what you wrote above, but it appears you believe arrows protruding from injured animals, will not be as big a problem if we have lighted nocks. Other States allow lighted nocks. Have you read of any studies that support your contention? I have not. Everything you have claimed as a virtue or benefit for lighted nocks appears to be based on your definition of "common sense". My common sense does not agree. I do not think lighted nocks will significantly reduce wounding loss. I believe much more could and would be gained by bow hunters being more proficient with their archery gear, and being more selective with their shots. BTW: Some States and Countries require bow hunter education. This State allows every hunter that did not draw a rifle tag to buy a bow the evening before the archery season opens, and to go out hunting. Before we try some gimmick like lighted nocks, lets clean up this matter. I know the bow shops will howl, but it would do more for the image and reputation of the bow hunters that you are concerned with. Before we go to lighted nocks, we can use white arrow shafts and bright or florescent fletching. Regardless of how the lighted nocks issue turns out, my common sense tells me that hunting slobs, who take excessive risks of wounding animals, will still be slobs. Good hunters will continue to have a very low wounding rate. My common sense tells me that wounding rates will not change but hunters will believe those lighted nocks will make it easier to find wounded animals. I have shot quite a few deer and elk over the years. Only a small minority of the nocks are attached to the animal when I recover them. I cannot think of a case where a lighted nock would have effected game recovery. I know this is antidotal evidence, but that is where I get my common sense.
Swede,
I agree with most of what you wrote except, of course, the part where you suggest that lighted nocks won't make any difference with wounding loss. I obviously wouldn't expect that lighted nocks would completely eliminate wounding loss by bowhunters -- that would be too much to hope for in any event. I haven't read any studies that confirm my view that lighted nocks would help in that regard, but I haven't read any studies that confirm your view either. Bottom line -- neither of us have any proof for our views.
I particulary agree with you that many bowhunters aren't as selective as they should be in their shot selection and some probably don't even care that they might wound and lose an animal. Those folks will likely make only a cursory check, if that, for blood and hair and look for their arrow. If they don't find anything quickly, they likely suspect they missed and move on to try putting an arrow in another animal. If they were using a lighted nock, they might see that they hit the animal and it might cause them to spend more time trying to recover it. Or, hit or miss, it might help them find their arrow. Either way, the lighted nock could be a benefit.
I also agree with you that Bowhunter Ed should be made mandatory in Oregon and I suspect most archery pro shop owners would agree, too. I'll tell you what -- you work on ODFW to get mandatory Bowhunter Ed and I'll continue working on them to get lighted nocks legalized.
Fair enough Craig. You are a gentleman and I truly appreciate the work you do for Oregon Bow Hunters. It is good to have you out there standing up for bow hunting. Your arguments are well thought out and articulated.
Like I mentioned above about locating the arrow after the shot with a lighted nock, I myself do not think it will prevent a poor shot or make the shot better for anyone who shoots enough and practice enough will know you do not watch the arrow when you shoot it, that will allow a great margin for error of the path of the arrow. Lighted knocks in my opinion will only help out to locate the arrow after the shot to exam the arrow or if it is still in the animal you will hopefully will find it better/ easier while still following the blood trail. A lighted nock will not or shouldn't take away your ability/skill to track a shot/wounded animal. If anyone thinks that using a lighted knock will improve your shot better rethink that. Like I said, I would like to use a lighted nock only as a after shot locator.
Want to see where your arrow hit? Change the color of your nocks and fletchings, use brightly colored arrow wraps. No need of lighted nocks.
I like lighted nocks because it makes the arrow flight beautiful. That said, I hunt with trad. bows and would fully support tech limitations or let's say rewarding those who voluntarily limit their tech. How? By giving those who hunt with longbow or recurve one bonus point in their draw. Simple, easy to enforce, and a mild way to encourage tech limitation.
And a mild reward to those bowhunters who on average will be hunting closer and have a harder time success wise. More hunting less killing and I just think everyone eventually wins including higher quality hunting (bigger bucks and bulls surviving).
I also favor similar when it comes to muzzleloaders which have become 500 yd. single shot rifles. It's become ridiculous.
