Pods

[Nutterbuster]

Here ya go @kyler1945.

I'll start.

I'm in favor of pods as a way to make deer hunting more ethical. In the reports I've seen, published by hunters who have a bias towards undererporting this number, a fair amount of arrows released result in wounded deer that are not recovered. Pods turn shoulder hits, brisket hits, leg hits, etc into high-recovery rate hits.

"But nutterbuster," you say, "unethical sportsmen will use this tool to shoot deer at 246 yards with their crossgun and know they don't have to make a heart/lung hit. Whatever happened to woodsmanship and marksmanship and The Spirit of the Wild?"

Sure. Sure they will. Some people will misuse laser rangefinders, heavy arrow setups, expandable broadheads, fiber optic pins, crossbows, magnum cartridges, and bloodhounds. I counter your sacred cows of tradition and sportsmanship with the sacred cows of consumer-driven free markets, minimal governmental oversight, and personal accountability.

If you take your average bowhunter, who aside from ethical concerns has a pragmatic desire to kill an animal that doesn't take too much effort to recover...and you give that bowhunter pods...I think at the end of the day fewer deer end up eaten alive or starved to death several days or weeks after a marginal hit.

As far as public image, it's pretty simple to explain to reasonable people that the popular bias against poisoned arrows is largely a holdover from the times we fought peoples who would smear arrows in filth and let conquistadors die of sepsis. Pods that use compounds that paralyze the diaphragm of game are about as far removed from that thing as x-rays are removed from bloodletting and drinking mercury. The people who can't be reasoned with don't like hunting anyways.

I see no downsides other than making an arrow even more expensive to lose in the bush and aggravating people who are already perpetually aggravated.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

 

[GCTerpfan]

it's pretty simple to explain to reasonable people

And here is where you lost the argument. It would take exactly 0 seconds for the perpetually aggravated people to get a legislators ear about "poison arrows" and laws would be put in place to stop the practice that would most likely bleed into other restrictions on our sport. Unfortunately, our "sacred cows of tradition and sportsmanship" are the only thing that keeps the middle 80% of the nation on our side, or at the least indifferent to our sport.

 

[gcr0003]

Here ya go @kyler1945.

I'll start.

I'm in favor of pods as a way to make deer hunting more ethical. In the reports I've seen, published by hunters who have a bias towards undererporting this number, a fair amount of arrows released result in wounded deer that are not recovered. Pods turn shoulder hits, brisket hits, leg hits, etc into high-recovery rate hits.

"But nutterbuster," you say, "unethical sportsmen will use this tool to shoot deer at 246 yards with their crossgun and know they don't have to make a heart/lung hit. Whatever happened to woodsmanship and marksmanship and The Spirit of the Wild?"

Sure. Sure they will. Some people will misuse laser rangefinders, heavy arrow setups, expandable broadheads, fiber optic pins, crossbows, magnum cartridges, and bloodhounds. I counter your sacred cows of tradition and sportsmanship with the sacred cows of consumer-driven free markets, minimal governmental oversight, and personal accountability.

If you take your average bowhunter, who aside from ethical concerns has a pragmatic desire to kill an animal that doesn't take too much effort to recover...and you give that bowhunter pods...I think at the end of the day fewer deer end up eaten alive or starved to death several days or weeks after a marginal hit.

As far as public image, it's pretty simple to explain to reasonable people that the popular bias against poisoned arrows is largely a holdover from the times we fought peoples who would smear arrows in filth and let conquistadors die of sepsis. Pods that use compounds that paralyze the diaphragm of game are about as far removed from that thing as x-rays are removed from bloodletting and drinking mercury. The people who can't be reasoned with don't like hunting anyways.

I see no downsides other than making an arrow even more expensive to lose in the bush and aggravating people who are already perpetually aggravated.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

What is the typical lethal poison on these things? Do they bust on impact or are they dipped and/or laced on the broadhead itself. What lethality of issue would it posed to a human nicking themself or exposing themself to it. It sounds like it doesn't effect the meat and just shuts down the organs? I need more information on what it is before I can say I agree or disagree with it.

 

[HuumanCreed]

Hmm....I know nothing about it. First response was 'poison'??? Meat??? But a simple Google-fu about the topic and reading a little. I'm going to think hard about it and response with care. But here is an article that made me walk back my initial internal opinion about it.

Poisonous 'Pods' Are Still a Problem in Bowhunting

Louisiana poachers were caught using pods—illegal arrows tipped with potent muscle relaxers. Pods were once endorsed by Fred Bear.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[gcr0003]

Hmm....I know nothing about it. First response was 'poison'??? Meat??? But a simple Google-fu about the topic and reading a little. I'm going to think hard about it and response with care. But here is an article that made me walk back my initial internal opinion about it.

Poisonous 'Pods' Are Still a Problem in Bowhunting

Louisiana poachers were caught using pods—illegal arrows tipped with potent muscle relaxers. Pods were once endorsed by Fred Bear.

www.outdoorlife.com

wow a 2023 article and this is the first time I have even heard of this... Interesting stuff, muscle relaxers, and they are DIY

Still legal in Mississippi the article claims, have at it @kyler1945 and @Nutterbuster

 

[Mengle]

What is the typical lethal poison on these things? Do they bust on impact or are they dipped and/or laced on the broadhead itself. What lethality of issue would it posed to a human nicking themself or exposing themself to it. It sounds like it doesn't effect the meat and just shuts down the organs? I need more information on what it is before I can say I agree or disagree with it.

I believe nicotine is used quite often and is very effective. I could be wrong. I just remember a fella telling me about it a year or two ago.

 

[gcr0003]

“… if we don’t do something to clean up our ranks the time will most surely come when we will be unmasked, the impotency of our weapons revealed, and we will stand there with bowed heads faintly mumbling, yes, you are right,” Bear wrote to the P&Y officers. “…no archer, no matter how good he is, except under certain circumstances, can be sure of hitting an animal where he wants to hit him at bow shot distances. What is wrong with Killing what you Hit?” -Fred Bear

Dang, how true is this still today? Sounds like the argument you are making @Nutterbuster

 

[Swampwalker]

I could be wrong, most often am, but I think near the end of the debate Fred came of mind that ultimately it wasn't a good thing. As I recall. Wasn't there.

 

[Nutterbuster]

And here is where you lost the argument. It would take exactly 0 seconds for the perpetually aggravated people to get a legislators ear about "poison arrows" and laws would be put in place to stop the practice that would most likely bleed into other restrictions on our sport. Unfortunately, our "sacred cows of tradition and sportsmanship" are the only thing that keeps the middle 80% of the nation on our side, or at the least indifferent to our sport.

I disagree. The fact that over 90% of the population eats and otherwise exploits animals on the daily keeps them indifferent. "I get my meat from the store where no animals are harmed" is a facebook meme. People are dumb, but they're not that dumb. The majority of voters have been polled repeatedly to show that they support hunting, with a few asterisks. They generally have mixed feelings about trophy hunting of rarer animals, predators, and babies. They don't love trapping or running dogs, but they generally don't actively oppose any of it.

Hunters are a fringe group (4% of population) vs a fringe group (hard-core animal rights activists make up a similar percentage of the US population.) The general public finds the more vocal and extreme members of each pole pretty much equally irritating. Hunters have an edge because condemning legal, sustainable hunting of low-risk species opens a can of worms about the whole food supply.

And by "perpetually aggravated people" I mean the hardcores on both sides of the divide. Some hunters and animal rights activists (and i specifically mean the people who have wrapped their identity around an otherwise harmless and even laudable thing) would both be unhappy if pods were legalized. But both groups are generally unhappy with the way the world turns and aren't willing to look at the problem honestly.

Pods are very effective. A deer hit with one is either dead in minutes or has sustained a boo boo so minor as to be unlikely to cause it more than an inconvenience until it scabs over.

If I knew folks were gonna shoot at me, I'd want a pod on that arrow. Eliminates the possibility of me dying a slow, fever-ridden death while a coyote eats me anus-first.

 

[Swampwalker]

Here ya go @kyler1945.

I'll start.

I'm in favor of pods as a way to make deer hunting more ethical. In the reports I've seen, published by hunters who have a bias towards undererporting this number, a fair amount of arrows released result in wounded deer that are not recovered. Pods turn shoulder hits, brisket hits, leg hits, etc into high-recovery rate hits.

"But nutterbuster," you say, "unethical sportsmen will use this tool to shoot deer at 246 yards with their crossgun and know they don't have to make a heart/lung hit. Whatever happened to woodsmanship and marksmanship and The Spirit of the Wild?"

Sure. Sure they will. Some people will misuse laser rangefinders, heavy arrow setups, expandable broadheads, fiber optic pins, crossbows, magnum cartridges, and bloodhounds. I counter your sacred cows of tradition and sportsmanship with the sacred cows of consumer-driven free markets, minimal governmental oversight, and personal accountability.

If you take your average bowhunter, who aside from ethical concerns has a pragmatic desire to kill an animal that doesn't take too much effort to recover...and you give that bowhunter pods...I think at the end of the day fewer deer end up eaten alive or starved to death several days or weeks after a marginal hit.

As far as public image, it's pretty simple to explain to reasonable people that the popular bias against poisoned arrows is largely a holdover from the times we fought peoples who would smear arrows in filth and let conquistadors die of sepsis. Pods that use compounds that paralyze the diaphragm of game are about as far removed from that thing as x-rays are removed from bloodletting and drinking mercury. The people who can't be reasoned with don't like hunting anyways.

I see no downsides other than making an arrow even more expensive to lose in the bush and aggravating people who are already perpetually aggravated.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

In this case I'd call it "meh" talk.

 

[HuumanCreed]

I could be wrong, most often am, but I think near the end of the debate Fred came of mind that ultimately it wasn't a good thing. As I recall. Wasn't there.

Apparently this was also debateble because Mr. Bear got so much backlash for his position and it was hurting his name brand so much, he had no choice but to 'change' his position.

Still reading about all aspect of the topic, its actually fascinating.

 

[krub6b]

People are dumb, but they're not that dumb.

Not sure about the rest of the topic yet, but people are that dumb as individuals, and worse when they get together.

 

[thedutchtouch]

Honestly I'd never heard of this before so my first reaction is: do I want to eat meat that has those drugs in it (to some level)?

I'd have to know more before making decisions, but don't like the idea of my food getting contaminated, by my own shot or the last guys that wasn't actually lethal. Perhaps this opinion goes away when I become more informed about the biology/chemistry going on post shot in my pile of future dinner.

 

[elk yinzer]

I've literally never given this a thought in my life and yet I've seen it brought up on two forums in the span of a week. What's going on?

Reflexively, I don't like it. I don't particularly like crossbows for able-bodied people in archery season, or GPS sights, or cell cams either, so I'll play along. I get the ethical argument regarding recovery rates. It's a difficult point to refute. I'd say from a risk management/public perception perspective, archery lives pretty high on the hog, but the recovery rates are potentially problematic should bowhunting come under the microscope.

Before passing judgment I need a few points of clarification:

1) How/why are they 100% edible after being poisoned? No safety concerns at all, zero, as far as the meat is concerned?
2) How does recovery work? ie. do they drop right on the spot, or run off and die?
3) What is the history of it being illegal? Why does poison = bad and what is the route to overcome that from a PR perspective?

 

[gcr0003]

I disagree. The fact that over 90% of the population eats and otherwise exploits animals on the daily keeps them indifferent. "I get my meat from the store where no animals are harmed" is a facebook meme. People are dumb, but they're not that dumb. The majority of voters have been polled repeatedly to show that they support hunting, with a few asterisks. They generally have mixed feelings about trophy hunting of rarer animals, predators, and babies. They don't love trapping or running dogs, but they generally don't actively oppose any of it.

Hunters are a fringe group (4% of population) vs a fringe group (hard-core animal rights activists make up a similar percentage of the US population.) The general public finds the more vocal and extreme members of each pole pretty much equally irritating. Hunters have an edge because condemning legal, sustainable hunting of low-risk species opens a can of worms about the whole food supply.

And by "perpetually aggravated people" I mean the hardcores on both sides of the divide. Some hunters and animal rights activists (and i specifically mean the people who have wrapped their identity around an otherwise harmless and even laudable thing) would both be unhappy if pods were legalized. But both groups are generally unhappy with the way the world turns and aren't willing to look at the problem honestly.

Pods are very effective. A deer hit with one is either dead in minutes or has sustained a boo boo so minor as to be unlikely to cause it more than an inconvenience until it scabs over.

If I knew folks were gonna shoot at me, I'd want a pod on that arrow. Eliminates the possibility of me dying a slow, fever-ridden death while a coyote eats me anus-first.

I did get a kick out of the article where they were talking about a hunter allegedly going with Fred Bear where he shot a mule deer with a pod in the rump to see the affects. The person said it had to watch a gruesome 20 minute death. Pushing back a little here, which is better or worse? A 20 minute death from a rump shot w/ a pod, a 4-12 hour death from a gut shot, or leaving the animal with a non-lethal arrow stuck in it for days, weeks, or months that may disable it from escaping from predators, disable it from foraging for food, and or it getting infected and leading to its long and eventual death? I don't see how this doesn't quickly lead to the, "well bows and arrows lack lethality, therefore they should be banned," argument from groups that want to end hunting.

 

[Bigterp]

I've literally never given this a thought in my life and yet I've seen it brought up on two forums in the span of a week. What's going on?

Reflexively, I don't like it. I don't particularly like crossbows for able-bodied people in archery season, or GPS sights, or cell cams either, so I'll play along. I get the ethical argument regarding recovery rates. It's a difficult point to refute. I'd say from a risk management/public perception perspective, archery lives pretty high on the hog, but the recovery rates are potentially problematic should bowhunting come under the microscope.

Before passing judgment I need a few points of clarification:

1) How/why are they 100% edible after being poisoned? No safety concerns at all, zero, as far as the meat is concerned?
2) How does recovery work? ie. do they drop right on the spot, or run off and die?
3) What is the history of it being illegal? Why does poison = bad and what is the route to overcome that from a PR perspective?

^^^^^^^
these are basically my issues as well. Never in my life heard of this & therefore have nearly zero knowledge outside of google today.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I don't see how this doesn't quickly lead to the, "well bows and arrows lack lethality, therefore they should be banned," argument from groups that want to end hunting.

What if I told you that I'm not necessarily against that if it's really the case? If modern archery equipment, including pods, has an unacceptable mortality rate and hunters are part of making that call...shouldn't it be banned?

Before you answer, keep in mind we've almost unanimously agreed that a .22lr can kill a deer, but has an unacceptable rate of wounding.

Regardless, any way you slice it, pods increase mortality and reduce suffering assuming responsible use.

Edit: I think being honest about lethality and being willing to change methods in order to reduce suffering is probably the best thing you can do to demonstrate to the nonhunting public that we're not bloodcrazed backwoods degenerates. If we do that thing and the fringe animal rights people just have the feelz, that puts us in a really good spot.

 

[elk yinzer]

I'll be the first to admit I've always struggled to feel bad about non-lethal archery shots. I know we're told by the hunting media folk we're supposed to shed tears and take a long introspective look at whether we even can muster the desire to hunt again, but I just can't get there over giving a deer a sore back or shoulder. Nature is a cruel s.o.b. and in the scheme of a deer's life shedding a half pint of blood and laying around healing for a couple days just doesn't apparently trigger my emotions the way it is supposed to, idk.

Gut shots are an entirely different scenario. Those I am not good with.

 

[gcr0003]

What if I told you that I'm not necessarily against that if it's really the case? If modern archery equipment, including pods, has a unacceptable mortality rate and hunters are part of making that call...shouldn't it be banned?

Before you answer, keep in mind we've almost unanimously agreed that a .22lr can kill a deer, but has an unacceptable rate of wounding.

Regardless, any way you slice it, pods increase mortality and reduce suffering assuming responsible use.

Well first I would say, like I've been saying a bunch lately, you've really changed! Then I would say how does that not turn to whoever wanting to ban gun hunting next? Plenty of people lose, gut shot, etc deer every year with guns as well. What is stopping them from banning hunting altogether then? Hunting has the risk of injuring an animal and I don't think any regulation is going to minimize that enough because you still have human error as well as the complexity of the game doing who knows what as youre trying to kill it.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I'll be the first to admit I've always struggled to feel bad about non-lethal archery shots. I know we're told by the hunting media folk we're supposed to shed tears and take a long introspective look at whether we even can muster the desire to hunt again, but I just can't get there over giving a deer a sore back or shoulder. Nature is a cruel s.o.b. and in the scheme of a deer's life shedding a half pint of blood and laying around healing for a couple days just doesn't apparently trigger my emotions the way it is supposed to, idk.

Same. I have almost 0 ability to empathize with non humans. I've put down 2 family pets and have slit a lot of throats and bitten a lot of heads.

I acknowledge that as a defect. I recognize that most people do empathize with other sentient animals, and I hope my kid has more of that than I do, even if it keeps them from hunting.