Luminok Pro and Con Debate
September 2007
- Memo from MBA President Gary Carvajal
- Pro-Luminok, Paul Roush II
- Con-Luminok, Jason Tounsley
- Con-Luminok, Charles Culver
- Con-Luminok, Bill Skov
- Con-Luminok, George Withey
- Con-Luminok, Jeff Noble
Memo from MBA President Gary Carvajal
August 25, 2007
Re: Electronic Devices on Bows and Arrows in the Archery Seasons
The Board of Directors of the Montana Bowhunters Association felt this mailing to all members was important to give you the member a heads up on an issue that simply will not wait until the next newsletter.
The issue is Electronic Devices on Bows and Arrows in the Archery Seasons in Montana.
I will set the stage further in saying the MBA support on the prohibition of electronic devices during the archery season is longstanding and taken very seriously. We understand this issue may be highly charged and I do not want to see this become any kind of compound versus traditional argument, it is more than that. This particular device could be used by both. This device is a lighted nock, or one product name is spelled something like Luminok.
But, this device if legalized is guaranteed to open a Pandora’s box for other electronic devices to being used in the archery only seasons. This is not an issue of lighted nocks OK, all other electronic devices not OK.
Allow me to place the subject in context and try to dispel any rumors or misinformation that may be out there on this subject.
Currently during archery season in Montana, it is not legal to have any electronic or battery powered devices on bows or arrows. During the general or rifle season, there are no prohibitions keeping hunters from using electronic devices on their bows or arrows. If there is any question in your mind, please feel free to check the regulations, page 18 of the 2007 Regulations.
When the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Game Commission asked the Montana Bowhunters Association to advise them many years ago as to what legal archery equipment would be defined as, part of that definition included: “no electronic devices on bows and arrows”.
The prohibition on electronic devices was not to “try to keep bows and arrows primitive” as may be commonly heard. The Commission agreed with the MBA’s recommendation that those types of devices be classified as not legal in archery season to make it clear and easy to understand. It is as simple as that. As far back as twenty years ago, there were electronic devices that could be used on archery gear. The Commission, after considering all sides, did not wish to debate every season whether one product could be legal and then have to determine whether another product would not be legal for use. The decision was made to be clear and easy to understand for everyone, for bowhunters, game wardens, the public, everyone.
There is a movement by some bowhunters, not affiliated with and not sanctioned by the MBA, to get this lighted nock, an electronic device, to be deemed legal for use in the archery season. These people are going to try to get the FWP Commission to approve lighted nocks for the archery season.
While this device is already being sold by archery shops, through catalogs, and is being used by some bowhunters in Montana’s archery season, consider this:
There are laws that some people might break on any given day, right? How about driving over the speed limit, under the influence, or without a seatbelt? Some men beat their wives, girlfriends, or molest their children; some people steal from their employer, cheat on their taxes, and all other manner of transgressions.
Just because some people do it, does not make it right, nor should we accept or condone it for any reason.
The examples above are certainly more egregious than using an illegal piece of equipment on your arrow. However, once the line is crossed it is crossed.
Bow mounted laser range finders, GPS tracking chips for arrows, heat and infrared sighting systems, night vision sighting systems, and other like-type products are out on the market now. What will the market machine bring in ten years? Is this how you see bowhunting in the future or even now?
Read what other members of the MBA Board have to say in regard to this device and then I am going to ask each of you respond either by email or by letter to me at the address below, to the MBA office in Stevensville, or to Steve Sukut. The MBA will also be starting our Members Only Forums on the MBA Web site, if you would like to respond there. This feature is not currently running but we do expect it to be operational shortly. We would like your thoughts in writing, so we may if necessary contact you, so please take a minute to write after you have read this through.
The MBA is not going to alter our position on “No electronic devices on bows and arrows in the archery seasons” simply because some outside group wants them legalized. Let us know whether you still support the current position the MBA has on this issue.
If the MBA cannot stand on principle, then we don’t stand for anything. And the principle here is simple, no electronic devices on bows and arrows in the archery season
The MBA has worked for more than thirty years at keeping and expanding your bowhunting opportunities, and these guys want to put a light on an arrow, and endanger much of what we’ve worked to do. Just seems a little petty to me.
Thank you,
Gary Carvajal, President
Montana Bowhunters Association
Address your responses to:
Gary Carvajal
10800 Oral Zumwalt Way
Missoula, Montana 59803
Email: elkheartmt@bresnan.net
Montana Bowhunters Association
143 Log Cabin Lane
Stevensville, Montana 59870
Email: mtba@mtba.org
Steve Sukut, Editor
Email: sksukut@nemont.net
Pro-Luminok, by Paul Roush II
Luminok – What’s the big deal?
Over the last few weeks, the MBA Board of Directors has been in a big debate over the lighted nock system called the Luminok. It seems that over the years the board has talked about this before but had votes against the use of it during the state wide archery season. This year seems to be the year where everyone wants to use the new product on the market and wanted to know why we could not. So I went to the board with questions that I was being asked and we decided to come up with a pro/con on the issue and bring it to the membership and get your input on this issue. I was put in charge of doing the pro aspect of this device and here is what I have found.
The Luminok system is not a device to help you aim or pick a spot to shoot. It is for game and arrow retrieval. It is in no way a device to help you aim or shoot in dark conditions. The system was designed to help hunter see where they hit the animal and to help in the recovery of the arrow if you get a complete pass through on the animal you are pursuing. This will also aid in the retrieval of an arrow that may have otherwise been lost in the woods or a rancher’s field that could possibly harm his livestock. The light is designed to burn for up to 40 hours which makes a great locator if you had a marginal hit and had to return in a few hours to continue tracking your quarry.
The nock system is legal in 45 of our 50 states. The 5 that does not allow them are Montana, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota and Utah. But after some research and some conversations within those states, these regulations are very vague.
Just because one person may choose to use the nock and another doesn’t, does not make them an unethical hunter. We all should have the choice to use what equipment we feel will give us the most confidence to make a quick, clean kill. One hunter may feel running shots are unethical and another does not and takes them all day … do we make it illegal to take running shots because some think it is unethical? As it stands we are forcing people to use them illegally. I can tell you all that there are hundreds, if not thousands, being sold in Montana already. The majority of those purchasing them are the older generation. When I talk to them about being illegal they state that they would rather take the chance with the law so that their ageing eyes can see where their arrow hit the animal.
All archers make bad shots. If they know where their arrow struck prior to chasing a wounded animal, they have a much better chance of recovering it if they visually know they should wait.
Unethical equipment does not exist, the whole concept is based on opinion and therefore, highly subjective and totally indefinable.
I have talked with a lot of people about this and it seems that the number one reasoning for not allowing the use of these nocks are based on feeling and not fact. They talk about Howard Hill, Fred Bear and many more of the greats. Well, for one, Fred Bear was one of the most innovative bowhunters in the world. He was one of the visionaries of where archery was going. I will guarantee he would have been one of the firsts to help promote these new products that archery manufactures are coming out with to help bowhunters succeed.
The only point I want to make with this article is to keep an open mind. Just because there is equipment you may not like does not make it wrong to be used by another.
People also talk about how the archery industry is just about making more money. But do any of you know how much the industry pays in Federal Excise Tax to help promote and prolong the sport of archery? Over the last two and a half years they have paid close to $80 million to go towards the promotion of archery and bowhunting nationwide, from archery ranges to bowhunter education programs.
Just remember we are all Bowhunters and we are all after the same thing. We may not agree all the time, and if we did, how boring would life be. But we all must work together and not apart to keep our numbers united. We have our strength in numbers.
Con-Luminok, by Jason Tounsley
My parents gave me my first real bow for Christmas when I was 14, that was 20 years ago. For the most part during those 20 years, I have followed the trends in the industry and stayed on the leading edge of new innovations in the sport. From peep sights and overdraws, to laser range finders and expandable broadheads, I have always been willing to push the envelope. Because of this I have taken quite a bit of criticism over the years for some of the equipment I have chosen to use. Occasionally I find myself defending my equipment choices to another bowhunter, and every time I walk away thinking, "Who does this guy think he is telling me what I should hunt with." I believe it is each hunter's responsibility to choose the equipment that will best suit his style of hunting and best facilitate a quick, humane kill. Nobody should limit the choices of equipment as long as it is in keeping with the ethics of fair chase and the laws of the state in which you're hunting.
To you and I hunting is a way of life, but in recent years it has changed drastically. Hunting is no longer just a past time for the working class. It has become a multi-million dollar industry with literally hundreds of companies competing for your hunting dollars. Archery has benefited from this new found popularity. Straighter, more durable arrows, components made from lighter materials, and practically unlimited resources on any hunting topic at your finger tips via the internet are just a few things that come to mind. But there is also a downside to all this new technology. Not all individuals and/or companies are in this for the betterment of the sport. With this in mind, about ten years ago, FWP decided it was time to define what equipment would be legal to use during archery only season.
With the help of the MBA and bowhunters across the state, FWP came up with the guidelines we currently use for what is legal, archery only equipment. One of those guidelines reads, "The following are not considered a hunting bow or legal archery equipment during the archery only season or in an arch equip only area or hunting district: A bow sight or arrow which uses artificial light, luminous chemicals such as tritium, or electronics." This is very similar to the rules of fair chase set forth by the Pope and Young Club, "The terms of fair chase shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions... by the use of any electronic device attached to bow or arrow." For a weapon that is meant to be used in a primitive season these rules seem perfectly reasonable. After all, who would consider anything electronic to be primitive?
Now consider the battery powered, illuminated nock. There are individuals who would like to see the illuminated nock legalized, and it does seem harmless at first. After all it doesn't, in my opinion, give you an unfair advantage over the game you're after, and an argument can almost be made that being able to see where your arrow hits gives you an advantage for retrieving your game. But to me the skills involved in reading the sign left on your arrow and following a blood trail are just as much a part of the sport as the equipment we shoot. Sure it would be neat to see a little orange streak arc across the sky and disappear into the buck you have been chasing all season, but if you don't believe you have the skills required to recover that animal without the help of an illuminated nock, then maybe that's not a shot you should take.
To me it is plain and simple; an illuminated nock is a cool idea, but it just doesn't make any bowhunting set up more effective at humanely taking animals. Making it legal would open the flood gates to all the other electronic devices that are being marketed to bowhunters today, devices which are much more clearly harmful to our sport, such as laser sights and radio tracking devices for your arrow. These types of products would definitely impact the perception of our sport being primitive, not to mention open the door to all kinds of less then ethical hunting.
For this reason, among others, I do not believe that the illuminated nock should be legalized during archery only season. It just simply does not offer any advantages that would be worth compromising the rules that ensure our sport remains "primitive", and after all that is the reason we have the extra opportunities and seasons we enjoy.
Jason Tounsley
Con-Luminok, by Charles Culver
Technology: The Line in the Sand
These days bowhunters are faced with an increasing array of devices to more efficiently kill an animal. This is not a new concept as technology has been present since the most primitive bow was but and then improved upon. What is dividing contemporary bowhunters is a new level of technology using electronics.
Why is this divisive? Unlike past advances in the efficiency of archery gear, the use of electronics crosses a self-imposed barrier to many who feel that archery gear technology advances may not always make a better bowhunter. Additionally if they indeed make a more efficient bowhunter, is this necessarily good for the sport?
Enter “Luminous nocks.” This is a electronically illuminated nock that lights up upon release of the arrow allowing the archer to visually tack the flight of the arrow much like a tracer on military ammunition. Additionally a lighted nock may help in recovery of an animal following a shot. So far, so good, better tracking of arrow and increased chances of recovery. Why the controversy? Isn’t this what we ethical hunters want?
To understand the opposition to this addition to the archers quiver one has to ask t some probing questions.
- Why do I bowhunt?
- What will this device do for the future of bowhunting?
- Will this device actually make me a more efficient, thus ethical bowhunter?
- Will allowing the addition of illuminated nocks make it more difficult to legislate against technological devices that are clearly detrimental to our sport?
I will attempt to answer these questions as they apply to my beliefs.
Why do I bowhunt? I bowhunt for a variety of reasons, but the reason that pertains to this issue is, I bowhunt because I enjoy the increased challenge that is a result of hunting with a short-range weapon. “The need to get close to my quarry to enable a clean shot,” this is the challenge that beckons me to pick up a bow. I know this is not the most efficient way to kill an animal so I tend to concentrate on getting closer and being more accurate in my shooting. Given the distances I shoot I have no difficulty tracking an arrow in flight using properly crested slower moving arrows.
What will this device do for the future of bowhunting? It is my opinion that this is just another advancement in archery gear that makes it possible to shoot faster arrows at greater distances with what may ultimately result in more game animals taken. With the increasing effectiveness of bowhunters this can, if added to yet more archery tackle, lead to more restrictive or shorter seasons over time. Bare in mind that our present seasons were established with the idea that bowhunters take an insignificant number of game animals thus generous seasons can be maintained.
Will this device actually make me more efficient? Yes & No- to use an analogy; does the addition of four-wheel drive make a safer vehicle? Ask yourself, “What vehicles do I see in the interstate barrow pit on the first black ice of the season?" If you answer SUVs you may already know my message. The ability to have four- wheel traction usually just means you slide off the road at a higher rate of speed.
With the addition of better tracking of arrows one gets a sense that they can make those longer shots and /or make those marginal shots knowing they will have a better chance of recovery. The end result may well be no real improvement and maybe a regression in ethical shot selection.
Will the legalization of illuminated nocks make it more difficult to legislate against other technological devices clearly detrimental to our sport?” Montana FWP has adopted guidelines that prohibit any electronic devices attached to the bow. This is clearly a violation of the word and spirit of this regulation. This “line in the sand,” so to say, is easily understood and easily enforced. Were we to drop that regulation, it would require endless review and debate of the merits of any and all new electronic additions to archery tackle. I don’t think the FW&P is willing to tackle such a task, therefore they would likely just say “the heck with it!” let them have anything they want. Do we really want this? Use your imagination.
Charles Culver, Region 2 Rep.
Con-Luminok, by Bill Skov
The issue of using lighted nocks is simple for me. I do not feel that they should be allowed in the archery only season. If we allow the use of an electronic device it opens the door for more. This is not a traditional versus compound issue, this is a primitive or not issue. The idea that they will help you track game in my opinion is not very valid. With today’s compounds and carbons, the possibility of a pass- through or penetration so that the fletching is inside the animal is very probable. Traditionalists that shoot recurve, longbow or flat bow, also have the potential for the same results. As far as a missed shot, you should know where you are shooting.
The interesting point for me is you can use them to hunt with in the non-archery only seasons. This means that for turkey, bear and other big game seasons that are rifle seasons the use of electronics is permitted. If you choose to hunt with the lighted nocks they can be used, just not in our only primitive Big Game season.
FWP’s regulations say, ”A bow sight or arrow which uses artificial light, luminous chemicals such as tritium, or electronics is not considered legal hunting equipment.” It sounds cut and dry to me.
I think lighted nocks are something that would be fun at 3-d shoots to give me something to aim for, but out in the field hunting I don’t see where they belong. I think we need to keep electronics off of our equipment to stay primitive.
Bill Skov
Con-Luminok, by George Withey
I feel compelled to weigh in on the luminok issue. I'm entering my 29th year of bowhunting. In the fall my dad was a guide in the Bob Marshall. I grew up hunting from an early age. I killed an elk my first year of bowhunting. I was hooked from than point on. The hunt begins when you see the animal. It's been challenging to say the least, but that is why I continue to hunt with a bow.
Archery has evolved over the years, predominately with the design of new bows. Speed has increased and accuracy has improved. Equipment enhancements have continued to the point that bowhunting seems to have become more of a way of strictly killing an animal instead of a challenging way to hunt. If we have to rely on an electronic device to see if we hit the animal then we're taking questionable shots. Will this encourage questionable shots? I think so. I believe it will eventually damage our image as bowhunters and lead to animosity with the general non- hunting public.
The luminok issue is where I think the line has to be drawn. I can't buy any argument for allowing the use of electronic devices on a bow. This is a primitive sport. If killing an animal is what your idea of bowhunting is all about then you are truly misguided. One exception will lead to another. If illuminated nocks are allowed, then mounted range finders should be allowed, and then lighted sights, game tracking devices, etc.
The membership of the MBA is a very dedicated group of bowhunters. We are committed to preserving this sport and to holding bowhunters to high ethical standards. To allow electronic devices of any sort would diminish the image of bowhunting. Tracking skills are still important and always will be, that is why we supported the bowhunter education program. There is no substitute for good shot placement. If the shot is questionable, then don't shoot. The illuminated knock is a crutch. It is not needed and should be banned.
George Withey
Con-Luminok, by Jeff Noble
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on lighted nocks and other electronic gadgets:
Every bowhunter should strive to be as ethical, responsible, safety conscious and effective as he or she can possibly be. The animals that we hunt deserve it, and in order to preserve our bowhunting opportunities for our children and their children, we need to strive for these goals.
We should all work to become as effective as we can as bowhunters. Doing so requires that we take certain steps, including the following:
- Improving our archery skills to ensure clean kills;
- Learning as much as we can about the game we hunt, including their anatomy, habits, habitat, and effective hunting strategies; and
- Making sure our archery equipment is in good condition and working properly to make a good clean kill.
We all agree that razor sharp broadheads, a matched set of arrows, and a well-tuned bow are absolute necessities for bowhunting gear. There was a time, not too many years ago, when the debate over what constituted proper archery equipment ended there. However, with all the latest advancements in technology that we have seen in recent years, we are now faced with equipment options that were never imagined by Fred Bear, Howard Hill and other pioneers in our sport. Lighted nocks, battery powered illuminated sights, and even bow sights with built in electronic range finders were likely never even considered by Fred Bear, in my opinion.
There are some product improvements that we would all like to see:
- We would all encourage manufacturers to design and produce even better tools for sharpening broadheads;
- We would all like to see improved adhesives made in the future for arrow building; and
It is only human to consider taking this quest for better equipment another step further. Maybe we should try lighted nocks, lighted sights and such? Heck, I have certainly lost opportunities to take animals in the past because of low light conditions. Maybe these products really would make me a better or at least a more successful bowhunter?
The reality of the situation is this: there will ALWAYS be new technology coming down the road in the future to "improve" our sport. But, we must decide what is and is not acceptable for bowhunting equipment in Montana. If we do not draw the proverbial "line" some where, we will end up in the future with hunters carrying crossbows with lighted nocks and battery powered sights sneaking around the woods in camo believing they are bowhunters because some company that produces this equipment SAYS they are bowhunters. In my mind, and in the mind of most other Montanans, that type of equipment is NOT necessary (Howard Hill never shot lighted nocks), it will cause problems with our public image and endanger our seasons, and it is not bowhunting in the true spirit of the term.
In conclusion, while my family and I do own and use a variety of bows (including my son's 2007 Diamond Compound), along with a variety of carbon arrows and many different types of broadheads, I believe that we can not allow any type of electronic or battery powered devices to be used with or as bowhunting equipment. Simply put, that stuff does not belong in the woods in Montana during bow season. We need to protect our image and the future of our sport.
Jeff Noble
