For years, the Pope and Young Club, has had a rule that wouldn't allow for the entry of animals taken with the aid of electronic devices attached to a bow. Lighted nocks were lumped in with lighted sights and other doodads "they" deemed of questionable ethics.
Most bowhunters looked at lighted nocks as a tool to help in determining the placement of the shot and how to track the animal afterward. It really doesn't help you close the distance to animals, but it does help you track the flight of your arrow and ultimately find the arrow-shot game.
The Club finally heard enough positive comments and voted to change the rule. It makes sense to me. Are there other rules, regulations and laws out there that need reconsideration? Here are a few that could use another review.
As more states debate the benefits of suppressors, the argument grows stronger to make them legal for hunting. Suppressors are already common across Europe for hunting. It makes sense to the Europeans to be quiet while hunting, so why not here?
There is currently a stringent and expensive federal process in place to own and use a suppressor in the United States. Is there really any reason not to allow their use? It saves your hearing. It keeps the already noise-polluted countryside quieter. It can aid in your follow-up shot with recoil reduction. You have a higher chance of a follow-up shot on unsuspecting game.
On the flip side, one of the main debates against their use is that suppressor use could make it easier to poach game. But if you're that type of person, a suppressor isn't going to drive you to break the law. Currently, 39 states allow you to legally own a suppressor and 32 allow you to put those to use during hunting season.
Is it time to make them legal for hunting in every state?
Hunting has its risks, and one is that you'll wound game and never find it. There are different products out there to help you trail wounded game, but another is currently outlawed in many states: the use of blood-trailing dogs.
Today, the Old World tradition of trailing wounded deer with leashed dogs has hit the shores of America, and its effectiveness has many questioning why more states don't allow its use. Mistakenly called blood-tracking dogs, well-trained tracking dogs can quickly differentiate the smell of the wounded deer from the rest of the herd. And because the technique requires the dog to be leashed, there's no chance of the dog disappearing in pursuit of other deer.
That's the main debate against the use of dogs—unleashed dogs running amuck in our deer herds. So, if the standard is to use leashed dogs, and many times smaller breeds are preferred for this technique, then what's the beef?
There are approximately a dozen states that still don't allow dogs for tracking wounded deer, but why not all of them?
In all but a handful of Eastern states and several Canadian provinces, you can hunt on Sundays. So why not allow Sunday hunting in all states? The argument has been to keep one day of the week sacred. Plus, some argue that farmers and ranchers appreciate a day without being bothered by hunters in the field.
This law dates back centuries and does have merit in helping the moral compass of our country. But can't you go hunting and go to church on the same day? And what about the economic impact of weekend hunting, including the jobs it creates? The country is in need of jobs right now according to all of the recent employment data. Isn't hunting a personal choice including the day you want to partake of the activity? Sunday hunting bans had their place in history, but don't you think it's time to change history?