Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: BOG props #60/61 making compound bows illegal in archery only hunts??

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    10

    Angry BOG props #60/61 making compound bows illegal in archery only hunts??

    Proposal 60- 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Clarify legal type of compound bow. The bow derives its propulsive energy solely from the bending and recovery of two limbs. It's already in the regulation book:" but may be derived from the mechanical advantage provided by the wheels or cams so long as the available energy is stored in the bent limbs of the bow."
    Issue:According to most modern compound bows they do not store the available energy in the bent limbs of the bow. The limbs on a modern compound bend very little if at all. The energy comes from the wheels and cams, allowing the shooter to hold a longer and steadier aim.

    Proposal 61- 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Modify the requirement for a legal bow.
    Change regulation back to the way it used to be: Bow must shoot 1 oz arrows with a distance of 175 yards.
    Issue: Regulations for legal bows for hunting. Compound bows do not store energy within the bent limbs of a bow. The limbs on many bows hardly bend at all. That is why they have cams and cables.


    Somebody help me out here. Is this an attempt to make compounds illegal for archery only hunts? I don't know about the claim that compound bows limbs don't bend. Is this true? I'm always looking at my target, not my limbs. Is the author of these 2 props out to lunch or is this correct? Is this an attempt to fracture bowhunters between trads & compounds?

  2. #2
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepfreak View Post
    Proposal 60- 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Clarify legal type of compound bow. The bow derives its propulsive energy solely from the bending and recovery of two limbs. It's already in the regulation book:" but may be derived from the mechanical advantage provided by the wheels or cams so long as the available energy is stored in the bent limbs of the bow."
    Issue:According to most modern compound bows they do not store the available energy in the bent limbs of the bow. The limbs on a modern compound bend very little if at all. The energy comes from the wheels and cams, allowing the shooter to hold a longer and steadier aim.

    Proposal 61- 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Modify the requirement for a legal bow.
    Change regulation back to the way it used to be: Bow must shoot 1 oz arrows with a distance of 175 yards.
    Issue: Regulations for legal bows for hunting. Compound bows do not store energy within the bent limbs of a bow. The limbs on many bows hardly bend at all. That is why they have cams and cables.


    Somebody help me out here. Is this an attempt to make compounds illegal for archery only hunts? I don't know about the claim that compound bows limbs don't bend. Is this true? I'm always looking at my target, not my limbs. Is the author of these 2 props out to lunch or is this correct? Is this an attempt to fracture bowhunters between trads & compounds?
    Pulleys, wheels, and cams are devises that provide mechanical advantage and are used to multiply (compound) energy. Pulleys, wheels, and cams do not store energy. Energy is stored in the limbs of the bow.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  3. #3
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    It's worth noting that (unfortunately) a large proportion of the proposals put in by the public in any given year serve little purpose other than to take up time and space in the BoG announcements. I can't imagine that this one is going to get any traction with the Board - nor can I even tell from what is posted what the proposal is asking for, for that matter.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Girdwood
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheepfreak View Post
    Proposal 60- 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Clarify legal type of compound bow. The bow derives its propulsive energy solely from the bending and recovery of two limbs. It's already in the regulation book:" but may be derived from the mechanical advantage provided by the wheels or cams so long as the available energy is stored in the bent limbs of the bow."

    Issue:According to most modern compound bows they do not store the available energy in the bent limbs of the bow. The limbs on a modern compound bend very little if at all. The energy comes from the wheels and cams, allowing the shooter to hold a longer and steadier aim.

    Proposal 61- 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Modify the requirement for a legal bow.
    Change regulation back to the way it used to be: Bow must shoot 1 oz arrows with a distance of 175 yards.
    Issue: Regulations for legal bows for hunting. Compound bows do not store energy within the bent limbs of a bow. The limbs on many bows hardly bend at all. That is why they have cams and cables.


    Somebody help me out here. Is this an attempt to make compounds illegal for archery only hunts? I don't know about the claim that compound bows limbs don't bend. Is this true? I'm always looking at my target, not my limbs. Is the author of these 2 props out to lunch or is this correct? Is this an attempt to fracture bowhunters between trads & compounds?
    Thanks for sharing - Page 105. I'm not supportive of those two proposed regulations.
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...ofgame2012.pdf

    For Proposal 61 -The statement, "Bow must shoot 1 oz arrows with a distance of 175 yard" does not make sense. A yahoo search did not help. Perhaps they intended to say, shoot an arrow with a minimum weight of 1 oz arrow a distance of not less than 175 yards. Assuming such an interpretation:
    1) According to some on-line conversions -1 OZ = 480 grains.
    2) Current big game regulations regulations for mountain goat, moose, elk, brown/grizzly bear, and bison require the bow have a minimum peak draw weight of 50 pounds, the arrow be more than 20 inches in length and the arrow weigh not less than 300 grains.
    3) I'm not sure my arrows weigh or how far they can travel... but it seems the 1 oz weight and 175 distance requirement is likely more excessive than currently legal.

    Additionally, In the context presented ... the proposers mis-inform the readership of their proposal on how bows store and release the energy. Wheels and cams are rigid and store little energy when compared to compared to the energy stored and released by the limbs. Generally speaking - The limbs on a compound bow are fairly stiff ... when compared to those of a traditional bow. The wheels and cams more or less affect the rate that the energy is transferred to the arrow.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Thanks for the replies.
    Hopefully the BOG will be able to see thru this & I will have gotten my polypropolyene in a bunch for nothing. Keep an eye out just in case.

  6. #6
    Member Steve H.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Moose Pass, AK
    Posts
    74

    Default

    I read it a while back and my take on it was the author basically was saying as written currently, that technically compound bows are not CURRENTLY legal (because the wording was porrly done) and therefore they should modify ("clean-up") the wording.

    I probably should go back and read it agian.....

  7. #7
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve H. View Post
    I read it a while back and my take on it was the author basically was saying as written currently, that technically compound bows are not CURRENTLY legal (because the wording was porrly done) and therefore they should modify ("clean-up") the wording.

    I probably should go back and read it agian.....
    Looks like the formatting of the OP may have gotten askew which makes it tough to read. I went and cut/pasted it again here. I redacted the name of the submitter so as not to directly embarrass. It seems that the submitter although well intentioned, is mistaken in his understanding of basic physics and the functioning of a compound bow. Looks like the verbiage in the existing regulation is correct and appropriate, making compound bows legal. Thus no change is warranted. I don't see anything to worry about here. No doubt these two proposals will get tossed.

    PROPOSAL 60 - 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions. Clarify legal type of compound bow.
    The bow derives its propulsive energy solely from the bending and recovery of two limbs. Itís already in the regulations book: "but may be derived from the mechanical advantage provided by wheels or cams so long as the available energy is stored in the bent limbs of the bow."
    ISSUE:
    According to most modern compound bows they do not store the available energy in the bent limbs of a bow. The limbs on a modern compound bend very little if at all. The energy comes from the wheels and cams, allowing the shooter to hold a longer and steadier aim.
    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE?
    The continuous use of an illegal modernized compound hunting bow as a weapon.
    WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR THE PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? No
    WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those who follow regulations and use legal gear for hunting.
    WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Those who continue to use illegal weapons.
    OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED:
    PROPOSED BY:
    **********
    LOG NUMBER:
    EG051211489

    PROPOSAL 61
    - 92.085. Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions Modify the requirement for legal bow. Change regulation back to the way it use to be: Bow must shoot 1oz arrows with a distance of 175 yards.
    ISSUE: Regulation for legal bow hunting. Compound bows do not store energy within the bent limbs of a bow. The limbs on many bows hardly bend at all. That is why they have cams and cables.
    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Continued us of restricted weapons that are not legal.
    WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR THE PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED?
    No.
    WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Those who shoot legal bows.
    WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER?
    Those who shoot compound bows with ultra light arrowsOTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED:
    PROPOSED BY:
    **********
    LOG NUMBER:
    EG051211490
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    north pole
    Posts
    634

    Default

    OMG, I am not part of the BOG but I am sure there are alot more issues worthy of fixing or talking about then prpos 60/61. Roll with the times technology is way ahead of some rules or regulation. Instead of flying 175 yards, law should say something like fly 60 yards in a straight line or something to that effect.
    Hope I got my point across have to go to another topicc before i star to rant

  9. #9
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default

    Anyone who reads the proposal and has any knowledge of compound bows will not approve this. Whomever wrote it has no idea what they are talking about. Wheels and cams do not store energy.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  10. #10
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wiso_67 View Post
    Instead of flying 175 yards, law should say something like fly 60 yards in a straight line or something to that effect.
    That would ban all bows and guns, nothing shoots anything in a straight line over any distance.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  11. #11
    Member OHTroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    88

    Default

    There really is no way for a wheels and string to store energy. See attached link. Sounds like compound bows are legal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_bows

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daveinthebush View Post
    Anyone who reads the proposal and has any knowledge of compound bows will not approve this. Whomever wrote it has no idea what they are talking about. Wheels and cams do not store energy.
    The same person who proposed it continues in proposal #77 claiming that energy is not stored in the bow's limbs. He is worried that to many non-dedicated to archery people are taking advantage of the archery only hunts.


    Oh, and #98 is good for a laugh too.

    Good entertainment at least.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    north pole
    Posts
    634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daveinthebush View Post
    That would ban all bows and guns, nothing shoots anything in a straight line over any distance.

    Okay Ill bite and say shoot in a generally straight line, meaning having your equipment tuned, not shoot field points perfect then screw in your broadhead and have them left/right or up/down. Same could be said for bullets and I guess i should of been even more specific and say generally straght in relation to your target.
    The bottom line is no bow needs to shoot and arrow 175 yards to effectively harvest an animal. or needs to store X amount of energy to do the same effect. Shot placement and proficiency.

  14. #14
    Member MNViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daveinthebush View Post
    That would ban all bows and guns, nothing shoots anything in a straight line over any distance.
    Straight down or straight up?

    And you have apparently never seen my mom throw a wooden spoon and a mouthy child.
    Finally, Brad Childress is GONE!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •