We live in an interesting time. The electronics revolution has been going on for about 40 years. I remember being in awe when I got to move from a slide rule to an HP 35 calculator. Then personal computers. Then portable phones. Now tablets, smart phones, GPS, trail cameras and a whole bunch of stuff that has changed the way we work, play and communicate.
I think part of the problem is the 'written rules' are about 10 years behind the rate of change of the technology. Historical measures of 'good' or 'bad' don't apply in quite the same literal way they used to. Here's an interesting example. I won't name the state or the game warden, just sharing the conversation I overheard.
Basically, two gentlemen were having a lively discussion about whether or not the use of walkie talkie types of two way radios should be legal to use while hunting. The debate took place at a deer check in station, so when the game warden showed up for his routine check, he was asked to join in. He replied they were still illegal, but if one needed to speak to his or her buddies, they should feel free to use their cell phone since there were no written rules regarding cell phones. He laughed and said to be careful and not use any cell with 'push to talk' capability since that would be considered a two way radio.
In a very serious vein, he went on to say the local DNR was struggling with all the new tools such as trail cameras, rangefinders, cell phones, lighted sights, lighted nocks, etc. Which of these would eliminate 'fair chase' standards that have been used for years to assess hunting options. He felt strong arguments could be made, pro and con for each of the new 'tools'. Cell phones can be used like radios so moving folks around to intercept deer could be easily done and violate 'fair chase'. But they were also a great aid in safety and are used many times each year in the areas he patrols to help folks who are injured, sick, lost, or having trouble pulling a deer out of the woods. He likes trail cameras for the population studies he does (more reliable than the postal carrier talking about the number of deer seen while delivering mail), but he could also see trail cameras taking some of the 'woodmanship' or basic scouting skills out of the equation.
I think groups like P&Y are well motivated, but their 'absolute' rules can come across as arbitrary since the principles used are not clearly stated or understood. Saying no electronics on a bow or arrow draws a pretty wide line in the sand. I understand saying no to lighted nocks is keeping with this rule, and any variation gives rise to the concern about moving to a slippery slope and harming fair chase. But I also understand it can help in determining how good a shot was, and aid in locating the down deer. There is a big difference in lighted nocks vs. lighted sights, to me. Others may may not see the same distinction.
Topic: Lighted Nocks and Pope and Young (Read 655 times)
