Pods

[Plebe]

The same visceral moral outrage about certain “drugs” was commonplace 20-40-100 years ago.

Some of these “drugs” are legal now. And they are certainly viewed in a much different light than others these days.

Time can do magical things.

And yet other commonplace drugs are now restricted and/or being banned.

 

[kyler1945]

And yet other commonplace drugs are now restricted and/or being banned.

Time being the equalizer.

 

[CooterBrown]

There's plenty written in medical journals about succinylcholine chloride (aka SCC, aka anectine, aka "the pod"). It's commonly used to intubate people and animals and incapacitate wild animals for capture and study.

It's anecdotal, but here's a thread in another forum with folks debating the pod, including at least one old timer who used it firsthand and has a unique perspective due to living through the initial introduction of them:

Anyone remember pods?

The indian tribes in the Amazon dip their arrows in curare which paralyzes the central nervous system and diaphram so it is really nothing new.........It is just pretty sad that one would have to resort to this to take an animal. Evidently, they don't have much confidence in their shooting or...

forum.gon.com

Looks like everyone on that forum that posted was against it.

 

[Plebe]

Time being the equalizer.

And science and culture and an amazing number of other factors.

Some things are static over time, or seemingly so.

 

[CooterBrown]

So, it would kill the dog tracking business?

 

[krub6b]

You need to unroll the pod somewhere in the body where the powder can absorb into the blood stream. A nick won't cut it. A shoulder hit with low penetration will. A ham hit will. A neck hit will. I believe a gut shot will. A chest cavity shot...well...that's beside the point.

This is where it gets real unsavory for me, a ham shot will do it, that to me says it's going to be abused heavily. brush over the vitals? who cares, put a pod in the ham and go collect your trophy.

 

[cville_bowhunter]

You need to unroll the pod somewhere in the body where the powder can absorb into the blood stream. A nick won't cut it. A shoulder hit with low penetration will. A ham hit will. A neck hit will. I believe a gut shot will. A chest cavity shot...well...that's beside the point.

A deer heart goes lub-dub 40-50 times a minute when at rest. Each cycle pushes blood throughout the animals body. The faster the heartbeat (deer startled by shot, deer running away) the faster the substance works. All voluntary muscles are affected by anectine. I think @kyler1945 is actually wrong that the heart is affected, because it's involuntary. But the legs and diaphragm muscles are affected.

It turns basically any solid muscle hit into something very close to the lethality of a chest cavity hit. In both cases, you're killing a deer by disrupting the circulatory system and starving the brain of oxygen. How far the deer runs and what kind of trail it leaves, as we all know, is a crapshoot even with good shot placement. I've hit deer that didn't know they were hit and died almost in their tracks. I've hit deer that were on the verge of bolting who made it hundreds of yards in a matter of seconds.

It's not a guarantee that you find the deer. But your odds are WAY better with than without the pod. And the odds of that deer showing up on a camera days later emaciated with a gruesome wound are way lower.

Okay, so if I understand this correctly, the better the shot placement, the better odds that you will kill and recover the deer...? (I'm just teasing)

Seriously, though, what happens if you only have a partial deployment of the drug? You have bad penetration and you only get 3/4, 1/2, or less of the drug unrolled into the deer's circulatory system? Will it still kill? I am curious at one point it goes from being a tranquilizer to a lethal substance.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems more like overkill for killing shots than insurance for non-lethal hits.

 

[Nutterbuster]

Looks like everyone on that forum that posted was against it.

I found user Papalapin's posts most interesting:

We used the "sliding sleeve" as it was called. It was the one made with the top of a syringe. It was tapped to screw into the end of the arrow, and had a female end that the broad head screwed into. the shaft was milled down in the center with an o-ring on each end that kept the powder in place. When the arrow hit the deer, the base of the syringe end would be slid back on the shaft, releasing the powder. I never saw a deer hit that did not go down. 60 seconds if the deer walked away, 15 seconds if he ran. The key was to shoot for the kill zone. IF hit right, the powder would spill into the body cavity and have little effect, but the broadhead would do the job. If you made a bad hit into a meaty spot. The powder did the job. Of course, some guys just shot for a hip or butt shot.

Anectine-- SUCCINYL CHOLINE CHOLRIDE (SCC) is a chemical used in surgery. A slow drip will keep any voluntary muscle from moveing. The lungs are semi-voluntary muscle and SCC will shut them down. The heart however, is an involuntary muscle, is not effectred by the drug, and will keep pumping it through the system until the deer sufficates. First to go are the legs. The deer drops, next are the lungs. suffication is imminent. If the deer does not get enough of a dose, he will recover. The drug dissapates in about 45 minutes and leaves no trace. If the broadhead does not kill the deer, he will survive.

The meat is edible, SCC leaves not trace or effect after 45 minutes.

The POD was developed by a Mississippi doctor that pushed for legalization of it's use with SCC. The interesting thing was that it became legal to buy and use the pod, but it was illigal to buy or sell the SCC. However, if you had it, it was legal to use it. I heard just recently that it was still legal in MS, but that may be wrong.

Another short lived product was the hypo-arrow. It was actually a large bore hypodermic needle that screwd into the end of the arrow, and no broadhead was used. It also used SCC but in a liquid form that was injectible. You mixed the powder strongly in water. It had an even quicker effect than the pod since disolving time was not an issue.

Boy, this sure brings back memories of the good ole days. Sitting around the campfire arguing about if the pod was ethicle or not. :hammers:

It was a very humane way to put a deer down, and very quick, but very controversial and most bowhunting associations condemmned it to be unsportsmanlike. There were many articles written on it from both sides of the issue.

A lot of time has passed since it was introduced in the '60's, and lots of things have changed. Back then compound bows were illigal. The bow could not be "drawn, held, or released, by a mechanical device" Also crossbows were illigal. It is still illigal in most states (if not all) to hunt with poisoned tipped arrows. Who knows, one day that may also change. Whether it should or not be legal can open another very heated debate.

Right now a hot topic in Georgia is legalized baiting. Many states already have it. It is up for consideration in Georgia now, Many hunters will oppose it. Many will accept it. If it passes, some will bait, some will refuse to. No different with the pod. If it is considered for legalization in any state, some will oppose it, some will oppose it. Look at the crossbow situation in Georgia. Many bow hunters opposed them. Some of the opposer are now shooting them. Back in the early '70's it was the same with the compound bow. They were iligal for hunting and opposed by may bowhunters. Where are they now. Time, and acceptance, change things

Keep in mind that, at the time ,the pod was being conidered as a means of recovering, deer that would otherwie be lost, wasted, and die a slow painful death. It was supported by many ethical hunters. Just as in this thread, there were differing opinions on both side of the issue. I used it on two deer in Mississippi. One wa a good hit and the broad head did the job. On the other, the deer jumped the string and spun around. I hit it in the flank. He rand about ten yd and stopped, looked back to se what had hit him. Within 20 second his legs got wobbly, he took one step and his leg gave out. If I ha not had the pod, that deer would never have been found. WASTED!!.

I ask if you hunt with a compound. If you do, you would have been considered one of the most unethical, unsportsman bowhunters of the time. That was the view point back then. But, times change. If the pod had been legalized back then, by now, it would be considered a common thing now in everyday bow hunting.

It was not hunting ethics that kept it illigal. It was the fact that it was a controlled substance, and thought to be to dangerous to hunter in case of an accident. There were a few cases in Mississippi where hunters fell on an arrow and died, not from the broadhead damage, but from the effects of SCC.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect you for it. However, back then, and still now, there were, and are a LOT of hunters that pick up a bow, do not learn how to shoot it accurately and head for the woods with dull razorheads, and could not hit the kill zone from 5 yds. I would just as soon see these hunters using pods to be more humane to the deer. Have you ever seen a doe running through the woods with 6 arrow sticking out of her, none lethal hits, with three teenagers chasing after her. I have. Not a pretty site.

Should the pod have been legalized? Should it be now? Talk about a heated debate. You have never een one as hot as that one would be; agiain!!


He does mention some hunter accidents. That's a first for me.

This is where it gets real unsavory for me, a ham shot will do it, that to me says it's going to be abused heavily. brush over the vitals? who cares, put a pod in the ham and go collect your trophy.

Again, that's not really an ethical problem. A dead deer is a dead deer, and the ham hit deer wouldn't suffer any more than a double lunged one.

You're making @kyler1945's point. You're coming at this from how you and other hunters perceive it and comparing it against how you perceive another method of harvest. It's all the same to the deer. They don't care about sportsmanship. It's crossguns vs trad bows with a new skin for a new year.

 

[CooterBrown]

Of course, some guys just shot for a hip or butt shot.

 

[CooterBrown]

So, aiming for the hip is ethical? Just because a dead dear is a dead deer.

 

[CooterBrown]

Ethical is a subjective word.

 

[CooterBrown]

How would we convince the lawmakers that shooting for the butt of a deer should be ethical and legalize poison?

 

[krub6b]

Again, that's not really an ethical problem. A dead deer is a dead deer, and the ham hit deer wouldn't suffer any more than a double lunged one.

You're making @kyler1945's point. You're coming at this from how you and other hunters perceive it and comparing it against how you perceive another method of harvest. It's all the same to the deer. They don't care about sportsmanship. It's crossguns vs trad bows with a new skin for a new year.

Ethics aside, the optics suck from a hunters perspective and a non-hunters as well. For me it's not somehting I'll campaign for or against, but if it were legal and people I were hunting with employed it, I'd distance myself from them if I ever saw an intentional ham shot, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for reasons I can't wholly explain, but the "yuck" factor is too high for me to partake in it.

 

[Nutterbuster]

So, aiming for the hip is ethical? Just because a dead dear is a dead deer.

I kinda get the hangup.

As a hunter, you've been told and have told others for your whole career to aim for the vitals, because that's how you get a quick, clean kill. A ham shot is a low lethality hit with a high likelihood of wounding and suffering. If you hit a ham, either something went totally wrong, or you're totally ignorant, or you're just really incompetent or a careless person.

A pod changes that.

Having a yucky feel for it is understandable, but not sound. People had yucky feelings about smokeless cartridges and optics that let you shoot game at hundreds of yards away. People felt yucky about compound bows, fiber optic sites, rangefinders, etc.

We say not to take ham shots because they're low lethality/high suffering, and that makes them unethical. If they're not low lethality/high suffering, then why are they unethical?

 

[John 35]

I kinda get the hangup.

As a hunter, you've been told and have told others for your whole career to aim for the vitals, because that's how you get a quick, clean kill. A ham shot is a low lethality hit with a high likelihood of wounding and suffering. If you hit a ham, either something went totally wrong, or you're totally ignorant, or you're just really incompetent or a careless person.

A pod changes that.

Having a yucky feel for it is understandable, but not sound. People had yucky feelings about smokeless cartridges and optics that let you shoot game at hundreds of yards away. People felt yucky about compound bows, fiber optic sites, rangefinders, etc.

We say not to take ham shots because they're low lethality/high suffering, and that makes them unethical. If they're not low lethality/high suffering, then why are they unethical?

The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning isn’t really to make bow hunting more ethical it’s to get rid of it entirely. If it doesn’t matter where you hit the deer the pursuit of deer with a bow becomes pointless. The point of bow hunting is the chance of failure. It will always have a higher chance of wounding deer. I recall a video you made where you advocated for ending the separate bow season all together. Most guys on here are fairly obsessed with bow hunting and will reflexively object to the use of pods in defense of their past time.

 

[CooterBrown]

I kinda get the hangup.

As a hunter, you've been told and have told others for your whole career to aim for the vitals, because that's how you get a quick, clean kill. A ham shot is a low lethality hit with a high likelihood of wounding and suffering. If you hit a ham, either something went totally wrong, or you're totally ignorant, or you're just really incompetent or a careless person.

A pod changes that.

Having a yucky feel for it is understandable, but not sound. People had yucky feelings about smokeless cartridges and optics that let you shoot game at hundreds of yards away. People felt yucky about compound bows, fiber optic sites, rangefinders, etc.

We say not to take ham shots because they're low lethality/high suffering, and that makes them unethical. If they're not low lethality/high suffering, then why are they unethical?

Meat damage is one reason. Penetration is another.

 

[Plebe]

I think I will just stick to trying for good shot placement.

I don't think anybody on the pro-pod side is arguing for using the pod in the manner you're implying.

Hmmm....

I kinda get the hangup.

As a hunter, you've been told and have told others for your whole career to aim for the vitals, because that's how you get a quick, clean kill. A ham shot is a low lethality hit with a high likelihood of wounding and suffering. If you hit a ham, either something went totally wrong, or you're totally ignorant, or you're just really incompetent or a careless person.

A pod changes that.

Having a yucky feel for it is understandable, but not sound. People had yucky feelings about smokeless cartridges and optics that let you shoot game at hundreds of yards away. People felt yucky about compound bows, fiber optic sites, rangefinders, etc.

We say not to take ham shots because they're low lethality/high suffering, and that makes them unethical. If they're not low lethality/high suffering, then why are they unethical?

 

[Nutterbuster]

Hmmm....

I don't see the trap I think I'm supposed to be caught in here. Spell it out for me.

 

[Plebe]

I don't see the trap I think I'm supposed to be caught in here. Spell it out for me.

C-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n

 

[Nutterbuster]

C-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n

Gotcha.

What's good shot placement?