So you're unsure about this:
"If I understand you correctly, you don't seem to have any problem with pod usage personally. You haven't indicated that you feel it's inherently "unsportsmanlike" or that it would actually lead to increased suffering of deer."
but good on this:
"It seems your sticking point is negative public perception being used to politically harm sportsmen. You feel that the average person has a thought in their head that, "poison arrows are cruel" and that, "hunting is ok, i guess, as long as it's not cruel." And you feel that it's low hanging fruit for antis to jump on legalization of pods, and that the average person, who doesn't really care to learn and who already has that negative bias, would be prone to agreeing and potentially taking action against hunting, or at least not actively support it. You feel that any potential positives realized are offset by that potential, and that given the technology we already have, there's no reason to add pods to the arsenal."
For what it's worth, I agree with you on some points. There's a popular conception that poison arrows are cruel. People do oppose cruelty. "Antis" do play on emotions to get people on their side. And most people don't like to think any harder than they have to unless it's on their terms.
I think where we diverge is which way the nonhunting public generally leans, and how people react to information.
First, I'd argue that the nonhunting public leans heavier towards hunting than against it. Like I said, most people eat meat and wear/use animal products, and they don't particularly cotton towards individuals screaming at them about being murderers. There are plenty of video games, shows, fiction books, movies, etc...that portray hunters in positive lights. And there are comparatively less where the vegan is the hero. The Joe Rogan Experience is the world's most popular podcast and while I don't really care for him, he's pro-hunting. Trophy hunting is kinda ebbing, and you can see that even in hunting ranks, but people who traditionally have been "meh" on hunting are getting interested in the idea of non-GMO, free range, pesticide and steroid free venison. I don't think we're teetering on the edge of having hunting banned because of public opinion. I think the bigger threat is it becoming unfeasible given the people and acreage we have, but that's for another day.
But poison arrows is still a nasty word. So don't use it. Call it what it is. It's an anectine pod attached behind a broadhead. A fast-acting muscle relaxer that paralyzes the diaphragm, causing death to the brain due to lack of oxygen. It does the same thing a broadhead does, and it does it roughly as well. If a deer takes a step, or an arrow deflects slightly, and the arrow catches a shoulder or hits a bit far back...an anectine pod prevents a deer dying hours later. It's like how slaughterhouses slit throats directly after using a stun bolt. If for some reason the bolt doesn't do the job...the knife prevents undue suffering.
Now, the "antis" are going to scream and wail and use the nasty poison word and try to play people's heartstrings. Not arguing there. But...faults aside...we're increasingly more educated and more fond of at least claiming to have facts and science on our side. If a nonhunter sees/hears a PETA add with Celine Dion weeping about the poisoned arrows, and mentions it to a hunting friend or family member who can tell them, "Actually, it's anectine, and it's used in conjunction with a broadhead and acts in minutes if not seconds" that's the type of knowledge that people like to repeat around the water cooler. We feel good when we can "well, actually" somebody who clearly isn't as informed as we are. But for sure that information has to be the first thing that pops up when you google it. I don't think that's hard. Antis have plenty of more pressing concerns on their plate.
If anything, I think responsible hunters can make the argument to anybody with an inclination to understand that pods are an additional expense voluntarily incurred in order to prevent suffering. Slap that on the package. Make it part of the DNR digest the year they're legalized. Talk about it on the podcasts and shows and in the articles. Interview veterinarians and surgeons who can testify to the effectiveness.
I think negative bias could be overcome, and if it was, the gains in actual vs perceived cruelty could be huge. How many threads have we read about just this year where an otherwise ethical hunter shoulder shot a deer and didn't recover it, or recovered the deadhead? This prevents a lot of that.
