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.
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.