I agree with everyone else.
Pope & Young Poll - Legalize Lighted Knocks?
- Thread starter gil1
- Start date
Poleaxe
Well-Known Member
No offense to the ones that do but I think that if they allow bucks in that were killed with a crossbow then a little thing such as a lighted knock should be allowed. Like I said no offense to the ones that do.
Re: Pope & Young Poll - Legalize Lighted Knocks?
Gil-If they celebrated the animal, they would not post the hunter's name. If they did that, they would have about six members. The original purpose was to celebrate the animal, that went by the wayside many years ago. Would you have written the check if your name was not listed?
If there was no hypocrisy, they would not put an * by the deer killed with compounds with more than 65% letoff (maybe they don't any more). So if they celebrate the animal, what difference does it make what sort of bow it was killed with? Why did they consider, (maybe did) publishing a seperate book for traditional archery? Is that animal different?
Many good friends of mine are past presidents and on the board. It was, when I first became a member, an organization that I felt did good work. Then, as technology began to blossom in archery, they became a somewhat bitter, totally ego driven, hypocritical organization in which it is impossible to move into the upper levels until some old man dies.
For nine years, I payed my dues, knowing I could never live long enough to become a senior member. I did so because I believed in what they were doing. That changed with their kicking and screaming stance against the 65% letoff deal. It may well be, one would have to know what went on to understand that. In my resignation letter to Glenn, I dared him to publish it. Of course he did not. For the membership to even consider voting on allowing animals killed with 65% or more letoff, the board had to bring it to as vote. That would not have happened had the industry not applied pressure. Of course, when it came to a vote, it was approved.
Having no choice, the board then decided to make that animal a lesser animal by saying "yes but..." by placing an astrisk * by the listing. That hypocritical move is when I jumped ship despite urgings not to by several board members.
If they were an organization that really did celebrate the animal, I would be a member in a heartbeat and would register all of the 19-animals I have killed that qualify.
gil1 said:
Gil-If they celebrated the animal, they would not post the hunter's name. If they did that, they would have about six members. The original purpose was to celebrate the animal, that went by the wayside many years ago. Would you have written the check if your name was not listed?
If there was no hypocrisy, they would not put an * by the deer killed with compounds with more than 65% letoff (maybe they don't any more). So if they celebrate the animal, what difference does it make what sort of bow it was killed with? Why did they consider, (maybe did) publishing a seperate book for traditional archery? Is that animal different?
Many good friends of mine are past presidents and on the board. It was, when I first became a member, an organization that I felt did good work. Then, as technology began to blossom in archery, they became a somewhat bitter, totally ego driven, hypocritical organization in which it is impossible to move into the upper levels until some old man dies.
For nine years, I payed my dues, knowing I could never live long enough to become a senior member. I did so because I believed in what they were doing. That changed with their kicking and screaming stance against the 65% letoff deal. It may well be, one would have to know what went on to understand that. In my resignation letter to Glenn, I dared him to publish it. Of course he did not. For the membership to even consider voting on allowing animals killed with 65% or more letoff, the board had to bring it to as vote. That would not have happened had the industry not applied pressure. Of course, when it came to a vote, it was approved.
Having no choice, the board then decided to make that animal a lesser animal by saying "yes but..." by placing an astrisk * by the listing. That hypocritical move is when I jumped ship despite urgings not to by several board members.
If they were an organization that really did celebrate the animal, I would be a member in a heartbeat and would register all of the 19-animals I have killed that qualify.
gil1
Well-Known Member
Poleaxe said:
They don't allow animals taken with a crossbow because crossbows don't fit the (or their) definition of a bow. I am a big fan of crossbows in every way, but I agree that crossbows don't fit in that category.
gil1
Well-Known Member
bowriter said:
I agree with some of your opinions but not others.
You said they changed their celebration from the animal to the hunter, but they haven't. They always listed the hunter's name. I think you can still put the hunter's name and celebrate the animal. Like you said, nobody would sign up otherwise.
John, what I failed to mention before is that they also celebrate bowhunting. They have to preserve order as to what constitutes a bow while also changing with the times. Those two philosophies are hard to mix. I think the let-off deal was a mistake, but hypocrisy is a strong word, and you haven't proven tome that there is one iota of it here.
I know it's a stretch of an analogy, but it's sort of like moving the three point line a few feet in and awarding 2 1/2 points. The new bows with higher let-offs make it a little easier to shoot, so I assume they didn't want to give full credit to those who had an easier route. One of the problems is that that will never stop. Technology will always come up with a better hunting weapon. I'd call it extremely awkward and even a mistake, but hypocrisy doesn't fit in my book.
As far as tough to move up until someone dies, I'll take your word on that. I have no idea.
I like the background, though. I admit I don't have your knowledge of the history. I'm just interpreting what I see in the present.
As far as tough to move up until someone dies, I'll take your word on that. I have no idea.
Gil- They only allow so many senior members. To ascend to that status, one of the current sr members must die or resign. Then you move up in order of who is next in line. If someone say, 45-yrs old becomes a member, they would never live long enough to become a sr. member. Unless they have changed that. I have not given the organization any attention since I resigned. At that time, I would have been physically impossible for me to ever become a sr. member.
Gil- They only allow so many senior members. To ascend to that status, one of the current sr members must die or resign. Then you move up in order of who is next in line. If someone say, 45-yrs old becomes a member, they would never live long enough to become a sr. member. Unless they have changed that. I have not given the organization any attention since I resigned. At that time, I would have been physically impossible for me to ever become a sr. member.
gil1
Well-Known Member
bowriter said:
I was curious and looked it up. One thing it says is "The number of Senior Members will be unlimited in quantity." Now, I have no idea how they work things, but it seems to me it would be difficult to get the required 90% of the 420 senior members who vote on senior membership to vote folks out until someone dies or leaves. Just sayin...
You are probably the biggest proponent of bow hunting I can think of. Maybe you should rethink it, get to know the club again, and put in for senior membership. If you have the gumption, you would be a strong voice for the organization and could affect change. If you have attended two of their conventions, you would immediately qualify.
SENIOR MEMBER
Requirements:
1. There will be no automatic advancement (i.e., after a certain number of years) of a Regular Member to Senior Membership.
2. The advancement from Regular Membership to Senior Membership can occur after eight (8) years as a Regular Member, provided the longstanding �hunting� requirements (animals) are met AND additional participation criteria are met AND the candidate is approved by vote.
3. An applicant for Senior Membership will be required to:
a.) Attend at least two biennial conventions, AND
b.) Exhibit sufficient Club involvement (i.e., measurer, committee member, volunteer, etc.), AND
c.) Exhibit sufficient participation in at least two (2) of the following categories:
1.) State/local bowhunting organization
2.) Mentoring
3.) Conservation activities
d.) Have taken, with a bow and arrow, at least four (4) different species of North American big game
e.) Have at least three (3) different species listed in the P&Y Records Program
4. The vote of new Senior Members, by the Senior membership, will be a �Yes or No� vote (i.e., no �abstain� option). The applicant will need to receive �Yes� votes totaling at least 90% of the returned ballots to be accepted as a Senior Member. If an applicant receives less than the required 90% �Yes� vote, he/she may reapply in three years.
5. The number of Senior Members will be unlimited in quantity.
Procedures:
A Regular Member must apply for Senior Membership by requesting and completing an application. A Senior Membership Committee (made up of existing Senior Members) will review the application to ensure minimum participation requirements are fulfilled. Once the time requirement has been met, the candidate�s name is sent on to the existing Senior Members for vote.
Membership Totals (as of 1/2/2012)
Associate Members 6,204
Lifetime Associate Members 162
Regular Members 170
Senior Members 420
Youth Members 3
As I said, they may have changed it.
HOOK
Well-Known Member
I'm an official P&Y scorer. Last year, I had to tell a guy who used lighted knocks to kill a 135 net .
FIRST all I didn't know you could kill a deer with a knock.
Second all who really cares what P&Y thinks...It's a jacked up scoring system.
FIRST all I didn't know you could kill a deer with a knock.
Second all who really cares what P&Y thinks...It's a jacked up scoring system.
gil1
Well-Known Member
Re: Pope & Young Poll - Legalize Lighted Knocks?
Very constructive.
HOOK said:
Very constructive.
