Pods

[Nutterbuster]

This argument could be used to iso banning traditional archery, compounds, xbows, muzzleloaders, all the way up the food chain until you’re debating what is the best caliber to reduce suffering. This could be extrapolated even further into dictating where you’re allowed to shoot game.

And that's a bad thing?

Here's an article that summarizes some of the studies they've done on lethality:

Do Crossbows Wound More or Less Deer? - Petersen's Bowhunting

How do crossbows stack up against compound bows when it comes to wounding rate?

www.bowhuntingmag.com

.

Do you think pods would help or hurt that 50% figure? Do you actually want to reduce suffering and make hunting less cruel, or do you just want to send that signal and keep things comfortable and familiar?

I've met you. You're smart. You're a good guy. Removing public perception from the equation, and assuming you're talking to somebody who has no prior experience with hunter culture, can you explain to them how is a pod any different than a heavy arrow with a single bevel broadhead? You can argue that both are tech used to allow sloppy shots that hunter should know better than to take, or that both are tech used as a failsafe when things go wrong. One is universally embraced. One is controversial. Why?

 

[NMSbowhunter]

Until we have a unit of suffering, like a unit of measure that is scientifically measurable, repeatable and standardized across the board, the idea of suffering is purely speculative. For instance, a gram is a gram is a gram, here or in France or China or anywhere else. If someone says 3 grams, we all can determine what this is. We don't have an ounce of pain, a gram of anguish, etc. Even in pain management the doctors ask you to rate on a scale of 1 to 10. I's all purely subjective since a 3 for me may be an 8 for you and vice versa.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

I wonder if a parallel can be drawn to Ashby heavy arrow plan b vital v foc stuff.

People are spending oodles of time money and focus on a very narrow scope of hunting efficacy. And one could argue that the results are way more missed wounded and unfound deer.

Not only is this behavior accepted, it’s lionized.

And yet, the argument against pods is that people might shoot worse. When that’s happening before our very eyes with heavy arrows.


Why is it ok to attempt to pursue more business end of shot efficacy, resulting in poorer shooting with heavy arrows, but not the same wjth pods?


I don’t think it will have this effect, but I’m willing to entertain the argument. We’ve got to get past this bump first though…

The whole point of the Ashby studies is to promote arrow lethality. Who is shooting poorer with heavy arrows? If they are making poor shots then they are shooting too far. People trying to be a bow sniper is the culprit there. Keep your shots inside 25 yards (20 better) and learn WHEN to shoot deer.

 

[kyler1945]

The whole point of the Ashby studies is to promote arrow lethality. Who is shooting poorer with heavy arrows? If they are making poor shots then they are shooting too far. People trying to be a bow sniper is the culprit there. Keep your shots inside 25 yards (20 better) and learn WHEN to shoot deer.

The point of the Ashby studies was to prove that a properly placed razor sharp broadhead will kill animals dead quick. And that properly placed broadheads can be placed properly with the right technique and delivery system. So that he could shoot exotic species in Africa.


People shoot worse for two reasons:

first is trajectory. It’s objectively true that in huntjng scenarios, you’re going to be less precise with an arrow shooting 200fps versus 330fps. If that’s debatable we need a whole separate conversation.

Second is they’re spending oodles of time and money on a very narrow project, and our time and money is finite. They’re neglecting other parts of the system (equipment, strategy, technique, practice, etc) that impact the outcome negatively in regards to shot precision.


I’m not advocating shooting fast light arrows wjth mechanicals.

I’m pointing out the double standard being created here.

 

[Nutterbuster]

Until we have a unit of suffering, like a unit of measure that is scientifically measurable, repeatable and standardized across the board, the idea of suffering is purely speculative.

Horse hockey. The fact that it isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it's purely speculative.

An infant human can't prove that it's really in the same type of pain an adult is in. Heck, you can't prove that you're really capable of experiencing the pain I know I'm capable of suffering. Sure, you have a similar nervous system and are exhibiting the same types of behaviors I'm exhibiting...but couldn't you be aping the behavior just to avoid harm? A clever machine or a philosophical zombie? I don't have a machine I can hook you up to to establish how many units of oh-crap-make-it-stopigrams you're offputting.

If you don't believe animals can suffer, let me kick your dog in the head with my work boots.

There are way more reasons to believe mammals with central nervous systems like ours feel pain and suffering comparable to ours than there are reasons to not believe it. Either you care about it or you don't. I honestly didn't care for a long time, and was told that I should. Now I do, and I'm told I shouldn't.

 

[kyler1945]

The point of the Ashby studies was to prove that a properly placed razor sharp broadhead will kill animals dead quick. And that properly placed broadheads can be placed properly with the right technique and delivery system. So that he could shoot exotic species in Africa.


People shoot worse for two reasons:

first is trajectory. It’s objectively true that in huntjng scenarios, you’re going to be less precise with an arrow shooting 200fps versus 330fps. If that’s debatable we need a whole separate conversation.

Second is they’re spending oodles of time and money on a very narrow project, and our time and money is finite. They’re neglecting other parts of the system (equipment, strategy, technique, practice, etc) that impact the outcome negatively in regards to shot precision.


I’m not advocating shooting fast light arrows wjth mechanicals.

I’m pointing out the double standard being created here.

And if anyone is wondering why I might think people hunt to make people like them….


Spending hundreds of not thousands of dollars to perfect a heavy arrow setup is no different in CONCEPT from rolling on a pod. They both are in pursuit of the exact same objective. Unless…..unless of course your objective is not to produce a more lethal setup. Now what could possibly explain all that time and money spent pursuing that 650+ grain single bevel fly like darts thump the target bone smashing arrow that you can explain in excruciating detail on a huntjng forum?

 

[NMSbowhunter]

The point of the Ashby studies was to prove that a properly placed razor sharp broadhead will kill animals dead quick. And that properly placed broadheads can be placed properly with the right technique and delivery system. So that he could shoot exotic species in Africa.


People shoot worse for two reasons:

first is trajectory. It’s objectively true that in huntjng scenarios, you’re going to be less precise with an arrow shooting 200fps versus 330fps. If that’s debatable we need a whole separate conversation.

Second is they’re spending oodles of time and money on a very narrow project, and our time and money is finite. They’re neglecting other parts of the system (equipment, strategy, technique, practice, etc) that impact the outcome negatively in regards to shot precision.


I’m not advocating shooting fast light arrows wjth mechanicals.

I’m pointing out the double standard being created here.

I agree people shoot worse because of trajectory and by that, I mean they shoot farther than their bow shoots flat. Inside of 20 yards dang near all bows shoot flat.

Practice is the most important part of bowhunting from an equipment side. Get a bow, any bow, and determine where you can put all your arrows in 3 inches at whatever range. That is your max range. If that is 10 feet, fine. Work on getting with ten feet of the deer and forget the bow. But remember, the animal also gets a say in things. That is why the plan B arrow is there, so when things go sideways the arrow has the best chance of hitting the vitals.

 

[Nutterbuster]

That is why the plan B arrow is there, so when things go sideways the arrow has the best chance of hitting the vitals

Wait...are we calling the pod plan B now?

 

[kyler1945]

I agree people shoot worse because of trajectory and by that, I mean they shoot farther than their bow shoots flat. Inside of 20 yards dang near all bows shoot flat.

Practice is the most important part of bowhunting from an equipment side. Get a bow, any bow, and determine where you can put all your arrows in 3 inches at whatever range. That is your max range. If that is 10 feet, fine. Work on getting with ten feet of the deer and forget the bow. But remember, the animal also gets a say in things. That is why the POD is there, so when things go sideways the arrow has the best chance of ENDING THE DEER’S LIFE.

made a couple edits ^

 

[NMSbowhunter]

Horse hockey. The fact that it isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it's purely speculative.

An infant human can't prove that it's really in the same type of pain an adult is in. Heck, you can't prove that you're really capable of experiencing the pain I know I'm capable of suffering. Sure, you have a similar nervous system and are exhibiting the same types of behaviors I'm exhibiting...but couldn't you be aping the behavior just to avoid harm? A clever machine or a philosophical zombie? I don't have a machine I can hook you up to to establish how many units of oh-crap-make-it-stopigrams you're offputting.

If you don't believe animals can suffer, let me kick your dog in the head with my work boots.

There are way more reasons to believe mammals with central nervous systems like ours feel pain and suffering comparable to ours than there are reasons to not believe it. Either you care about it or you don't. I honestly didn't care for a long time, and was told that I should. Now I do, and I'm told I shouldn't.

And see, here is the problem. We may not feel pain either. It may just be in our heads. For instance, from my own personal viewpoint stepping on a nail might hurt. If I see you step on a nail, I can imagine what that might feel like and empathize, but I can't feel it. In certain situations, like with a spinal cord injury, the body may be severely damaged, but the individual may feel no stimulus of pain from the damage. People who have amputated limbs will report phantom pain and tickling from fingers or toes that are no longer there.

If pain is a real thing, it has mass and energy. Life has existed of Earth for at least 3 billion years. Where does 3 billion years of past pain reside?

 

[kyler1945]

And see, here is the problem. We may not feel pain either. It may just be in our heads. For instance, from my own personal viewpoint stepping on a nail might hurt. If I see you step on a nail, I can imagine what that might feel like and empathize, but I can't feel it. In certain situations, like with a spinal cord injury, the body may be severely damaged, but the individual may feel no stimulus of pain from the damage. People who have amputated limbs will report phantom pain and tickling from fingers or toes that are no longer there.

If pain is a real thing, it has mass and energy. Life has existed of Earth for at least 3 billion years. Where does 3 billion years of past pain reside?

There’s a real problem in physics right now. Mass and energy are just the best units we have right now to describe the world around us. But there’s a very compelling argument to be made right now that the usefulness of those units is not much different from the units we use to describe information like pain or consciousness.

Brave new world.

We’re getting down to some really low turtle shells this morning. I like it!

 

[gcr0003]

Speculative.

Which part specifically?

 

[CooterBrown]

"Sure, you have a similar nervous system and are exhibiting the same types of behaviors I'm exhibiting" ...............well maybe not the exact behavior or even close LOL

 

[Plebe]

Did you know that only 3 of John Eberhart's (50?) MI book bucks did't have wounds from prior hunter encounters, and some actually had several.

Does this information support or refute pods? lol.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

There’s a real problem in physics right now. Mass and energy are just the best units we have right now to describe the world around us. But there’s a very compelling argument to be made right now that the usefulness of those units is not much different from the units we use to describe information like pain or consciousness.

Brave new world.

We’re getting down to some really low turtle shells this morning. I like it!

Yes, I've tried to follow physics and new breakthroughs. It is all really fascinating. I also suspect that a lot of what we think may be correct may not end up being right. For instance, the inability to come up with a Grand Unified Theory in physics. We have good theories in regard to the very large scale and we have very good theories for the very small scale, but they can't make them mesh. I also suspect they are off with dark matter and dark energy, but the math is way above my pay grade, lol.

 

[elk yinzer]

Did you know that only 3 of John Eberhart's (50?) MI book bucks did't have wounds from prior hunter encounters, and some actually had several.

Does this information support or refute pods? lol.

I have a really, really hard time believing this. Coming from a man who makes a lot of outlandish claims this one stands out.

 

[kyler1945]

Which part specifically?

That the incentive structure will remain the same if pods are introduced, and that that would result in poorer outcomes across the board, specifically because people underachieve.


I would definitely believe that would happen, if I believed that people hunted for all the reasons most people say they hunt. But because I think people hunt “because they want to” which is the only reason that squares with biology/evolution, I think there’s a very good chance the incentive structure changes. And it might be “cool” to hunt with pods and anyone who doesn’t is an outcast.

It’s unpredictable at best.

 

[Buckhole75]

Do y'all remember when guys were gonna start using crossbows and wipe out the deer herd Didn't happen The use of pods would be no different Guys that are trigger happy are still gonna take questionable shots with or without it Maybe if they found more of em they would back off a bit Some would Some would not I dont really care either way but if it improves recovery rate as drastically as claimed I say let it happen Dead is dead when it comes to killing animals whether you shot him with a pod A 800 grain Fairy Tard special or a hand grenade.... Those people that oppose what we do are still gonna be opposed to it I just dont see how anybody thinks this will really change those folks views that dramatically.Their views are rooted by the people who raise them and educate them.Not by this board or any television show.They aint watching or reading as a general rule Only people like us are For me all of this philosophical mess gives me a headache and ends with simplicity Animals were put on earth for me to eat So i plan to kill em Hell maybe since it is a muscle relaxer it will make the meat more tender LOL What say you Mississippi boys?

 

[gcr0003]

That the incentive structure will remain the same if pods are introduced, and that that would result in poorer outcomes across the board, specifically because people underachieve.


I would definitely believe that would happen, if I believed that people hunted for all the reasons most people say they hunt. But because I think people hunt “because they want to” which is the only reason that squares with biology/evolution, I think there’s a very good chance the incentive structure changes. And it might be “cool” to hunt with pods and anyone who doesn’t is an outcast.

It’s unpredictable at best.

I think the affects of lowering the bar or standards can be seen in many aspects of our own lives and throughout history from test scores to government subsidies. Blue ribbon participation trophies come to mind. When everything is equally attainable the majority of people don’t need to and won’t try harder. I think if anything my thoughts are a very accurate extrapolation of human nature wrt work ethic or personal responsibility applied to hunting. All of which could be supported by data and facts.

 

[Nutterbuster]

"Sure, you have a similar nervous system and are exhibiting the same types of behaviors I'm exhibiting" ...............well maybe not the exact behavior or even close LOL

Let's play a game. Human or Deer.

• Infant young exhibit stress markers when separated from their mother. Distress vocalizations common.
• Maternal units exhibit stress markers when separated from their young. Distress vocalizations common. Frequently attempts to reunite with young despite risk of injury to themself.
• In response to severe stress, eye whites expose. Salivation increases. Breathing becomes labored and creature pants. Pupils dilate. Adrenaline surges. Organism will attempt to remove itself from source of stress or attack it.
• In response to a potential threat, individuals will look to any nearby members of the same species to read body language and take cues on the perceived severity of the threat. Subordinate animals typically defer to more dominant individuals.
• Young animals raised in isolation from members of other species become developmentally retarded socially and typically never fully integrate into groups when introduced in adulthood.
• Young animals shadow older members of the same sex and mimic their behavior.
• Individual reactions to novelty diverse, but trending to more interest exhibited in the younger individuals than the more elderly.
• In response to captivity and isolation from other members of the same species, individuals commonly exhibit signs of depression such as listlessness, lethargy, compulsive behavior, and food fixation or avoidance.
• During times of high resource availability, individuals more tolerant of unfamiliar individuals. During times of low resource availability, reduced receptiveness to unfamiliar individuals.

If you guessed "human" on all of the above, you're right! If you guessed "deer" on all of the above, you're also right.

We share something like 80% of our genes with ungulates, and genes are kinda rare in the first place. Most of the observable universe doesn't seem to be organized that way at all. We're way more alike than not.

I understand that on some level it can be an uncomfortable idea. On another it's incredibly wondrous and uplifting. It definitely requires reworking some norms once you accept it though.