Pods

[Reagan H.]

I throw this around a few times as a joke, but honestly I wonder if at some point technology would allow this and it become an accepted tool. Micro fiber attached to arrow strong enough for big game. Similar to bow fishing. If the arrow somehow wrap around the deer, its not going anywhere. Even if it didnt, if broadhead hit the tree, the damage from deer trying to escape the wire would be devastating. Or if not fully penetrated, the damage cause by the arrow being violently pull out as the deer run away would be massive too.

Why not adopt this if we want to never lose a deer?

Like this?

 

[Plebe]

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/008453s027lbl.pdf

 

[HuumanCreed]

More like this?

 

[BTaylor]

I got through a bunch of pages of this but finally just gave up and zipped to the end here to reply. I am personally aware of several hundred deer that were shot with arrows carrying pods. All of the animals were processed and eaten by the hunters and their friends and families. No one got sick or died from it. To my recollection, not a single deer that I am aware of travelled more than 60 yards from where they were shot without regard to location of hit, high shank to double lung and one in particular that was shot in the tear duct because only the deer's head was clear. That deer ran about 50. I had access to pods and carried one for a bit but never shot a deer with one. Finally stopped even carrying one in the quiver because I didnt see the need as I was killing every deer I shot at cleanly for a good long while.

Are they an effective addition to an arrow for animal recovery? Yes and it is not open for debate in my mind. Are they an effective tool for resource management? Again I say yes because the recovery rate would be higher than any other currently legal weapon. Significantly reducing the loss of mortally wounded animals would logically lead to increasing populations and I suspect more available tags. What is the public impact perception? My gut says overwhelmingly negative both in the hunting and non-hunting ranks. We all know where the anti's stand already.

My personal feelings are that the net good from a recovery and population standpoint should absolutely warrant their availability. At the same time, I think it opens the door to diminishing in a significant way public perception in the non-hunting ranks and it lowers the threshold for achieving success in the field and calls in to question where is the acceptable fair chase line drawn. The pros and the cons are both highly polarizing. What I am certain of is that I would not use them if they were legal.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I got through a bunch of pages of this but finally just gave up and zipped to the end here to reply. I am personally aware of several hundred deer that were shot with arrows carrying pods. All of the animals were processed and eaten by the hunters and their friends and families. No one got sick or died from it. To my recollection, not a single deer that I am aware of travelled more than 60 yards from where they were shot without regard to location of hit, high shank to double lung and one in particular that was shot in the tear duct because only the deer's head was clear. That deer ran about 50. I had access to pods and carried one for a bit but never shot a deer with one. Finally stopped even carrying one in the quiver because I didnt see the need as I was killing every deer I shot at cleanly for a good long while.

Are they an effective addition to an arrow for animal recovery? Yes and it is not open for debate in my mind. Are they an effective tool for resource management? Again I say yes because the recovery rate would be higher than any other currently legal weapon. Significantly reducing the loss of mortally wounded animals would logically lead to increasing populations and I suspect more available tags. What is the public impact perception? My gut says overwhelmingly negative both in the hunting and non-hunting ranks. We all know where the anti's stand already.

My personal feelings are that the net good from a recovery and population standpoint should absolutely warrant their availability. At the same time, I think it opens the door to diminishing in a significant way public perception in the non-hunting ranks and it lowers the threshold for achieving success in the field and calls in to question where is the acceptable fair chase line drawn. The pros and the cons are both highly polarizing. What I am certain of is that I would not use them if they were legal.

Man...that's all really interesting. If it's not something that's not cool to talk about...what was the background on witnessing that many pod-killed deer? Population control? Deer camp in the Mississippi delta back in the 70s?

Would you use them if they were legal and nobody would know? Or if for some reason you could only bow hunt small tracts?

Something I haven't brought up is that it's a certainty that if deer hunting survives, we'll be hunting smaller parcels...and smaller parcels aren't conducive to gun hunting while also requiring that you ground a deer quickly. Pods and crossbows to me seem the best way to hunt...say....a 40 acre parcel butting up to a subdivision. I've been hunting a few small parcels like that and that's part of the reason I had an ear to the ground a couple of years back to pick up on pods.

 

[BTaylor]

Man...that's all really interesting. If it's not something that's not cool to talk about...what was the background on witnessing that many pod-killed deer? Population control? Deer camp in the Mississippi delta back in the 70s?

Would you use them if they were legal and nobody would know? Or if for some reason you could only bow hunt small tracts?

Something I haven't brought up is that it's a certainty that if deer hunting survives, we'll be hunting smaller parcels...and smaller parcels aren't conducive to gun hunting while also requiring that you ground a deer quickly. Pods and crossbows to me seem the best way to hunt...say....a 40 acre parcel butting up to a subdivision. I've been hunting a few small parcels like that and that's part of the reason I had an ear to the ground a couple of years back to pick up on pods.

Some of the guys in the hunting club I grew up in were from MS and even after AR and other states banned them, we (the club) had access to the dope and everyone had plenty of pods. You have to keep in mind this club was formed in the early 60's as a bowhunting club. Most of the members in this club were also members in a club in MS too. They were all good to great deer hunters and had access to areas with high deer numbers, esp for the times. To clarify, I should have said I am aware of that many, I didnt witness all of them but when you're hunting with a group you ask about the details of successful hunts. I would say the number I was at camp for was over 100 for sure. Half of that group is already gone and the others are early to late 80's. Only 2 still hunt any at all.

 

[kyler1945]

I hadnt thought of that aspect but it could have some folks go down that thought process. Long story short, shooting into a deer versus putting directly into a vein, the onset of action is going to be extended if not non existent. Pods are gimmicky at best.

How many deer have you witnessed be shot with a pod full of anectine?

*assuming it’s not a bad idea for you to discuss on a public hunting forum. Not trying to be sweet, just trying to square your experience with the mountain of evidence that disagrees with it.

 

[skydoc]

How many deer have you witnessed be shot with a pod full of anectine?

*assuming it’s not a bad idea for you to discuss on a public hunting forum. Not trying to be sweet, just trying to square your experience with the mountain of evidence that disagrees with it.

Lol ive not seen a one. I have witnessed it given to many mammals. Im not a bleeding heart that is trying to stop all suffering of game animals. I dont oppose something that stops a deer quickly. We shoot an animal it suffers. Thats hunting. My opinion is that blood leaving a wound carries virtually nothing (drugs included) back into the vascular system. Thats why medicines are given in the vein and not the muscle when we desire a quick action. Im not upset with anyone over their desire to pod hunt. I think best case scenario it kills a deer in a few minutes just like a good shot does. Worst case scenario, it does nothing either way. Seems a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation on the mechanism of action is floating about. I wont use it, and not because of some moral high ground. I simply see no use for it. No reason for anyone to get upset over any of this. I doubt they will readily hand out paralytics to the camo mafia. Even with the “mountains of evidence”. If we really get to the point that we feel that pods are needed to recover a deer, then we should just wait til rifle season and drop them where they stand. Ive not lost a deer with a regular old arrow so far, so i guess ill just keep on using them.

 

[kbetts]

My thoughts (and they're just that, just mine and just thoughts) go like this.

Do we eat meat, knowing it is a relatively inefficient way of converting solar energy to calories for people and that it comes with side effects of cruelty to sentient animals and an impact to the overall ecosystem?

If no, hunting is obviously out.

If yes, then the question becomes how do we get the most meat with the least suffering and environmental impact.

I think hunting beats factory farming for sure. I'm not sure how it stacks with small-scale farming with the specific goal of reducing harm.

From there, I think the question is how do hunters reduce environmental impact and reduce suffering. I'd be for a hard look at a lot of atv use, species-specific management, supplemental feeding, travelling to hunt, trophy taking, and harvest methods.

I don't think we can currently in good faith eliminate hunting given how we get the bulk of our calories. But, I have a knee-jerk reaction against anybody who tells me there's a question I shouldn't bring up. Either it's fine, in which case there's no harm questioning the belief, or it's a bad belief, in which case it needs to go.

Put down the pipe.......

 

[kyler1945]

Lol ive not seen a one. I have witnessed it given to many mammals. Im not a bleeding heart that is trying to stop all suffering of game animals. I dont oppose something that stops a deer quickly. We shoot an animal it suffers. Thats hunting. My opinion is that blood leaving a wound carries virtually nothing (drugs included) back into the vascular system. Thats why medicines are given in the vein and not the muscle when we desire a quick action. Im not upset with anyone over their desire to pod hunt. I think best case scenario it kills a deer in a few minutes just like a good shot does. Worst case scenario, it does nothing either way. Seems a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation on the mechanism of action is floating about. I wont use it, and not because of some moral high ground. I simply see no use for it. No reason for anyone to get upset over any of this. I doubt they will readily hand out paralytics to the camo mafia. Even with the “mountains of evidence”. If we really get to the point that we feel that pods are needed to recover a deer, then we should just wait til rifle season and drop them where they stand. Ive not lost a deer with a regular old arrow so far, so i guess ill just keep on using them.

Sorry, I think we’re still getting “is” and “ought” conflated.

I’m not assigning any opinion or belief system or category to you.

I’m just trying to understand why thousands of people used pods thousands of times(when legal of course), and had dramatically different first hand accounts of what happened to deer shot with them, versus what you say will happen.

I’m trying to square your medical/professional experience and opinion of how they’ll function, with that of people who have literally put a pod full of anectine on a bunch of arrows, shot a bunch of deer, and watched a bunch of them go down very very quickly, regardless of vital hit or not.

I’m not trying to suss out with you specifically the moral, ethical, and legal details.

You say you’ve given anectine to a bunch of mammals. Have you given it to a deer? I would assume not, because A, that would be weird, and B, your experience differs greatly with those that have (hunters using pods).

Leaving aside what we ought to do… do you have any ideas why you think (or know, you choose the wording that fits best) pods wont be effective at making deer fall over in sight on non vital hits, when there’s a lot of first hand accounts that say they do just that?

I’m being serious, and asking jn good faith.

 

[Shapeshifter]

Seems like just more Ammo for the Anti and all the Peta folks out there. It's getting hard enough to defend this sport that we all love so much. Why give them any more reason to try and crusify us even more.

 

[Plebe]

Sorry, I think we’re still getting “is” and “ought” conflated.

I’m not assigning any opinion or belief system or category to you.

I’m just trying to understand why thousands of people used pods thousands of times(when legal of course), and had dramatically different first hand accounts of what happened to deer shot with them, versus what you say will happen.

I’m trying to square your medical/professional experience and opinion of how they’ll function, with that of people who have literally put a pod full of anectine on a bunch of arrows, shot a bunch of deer, and watched a bunch of them go down very very quickly, regardless of vital hit or not.

I’m not trying to suss out with you specifically the moral, ethical, and legal details.

You say you’ve given anectine to a bunch of mammals. Have you given it to a deer? I would assume not, because A, that would be weird, and B, your experience differs greatly with those that have (hunters using pods).

Leaving aside what we ought to do… do you have any ideas why you think (or know, you choose the wording that fits best) pods wont be effective at making deer fall over in sight on non vital hits, when there’s a lot of first hand accounts that say they do just that?

I’m being serious, and asking jn good faith.

I'm finding accounts showing more varied results than you suggest, from what I've seen online. None of that is official scientific data, much like our many pages of discourse.

 

[skydoc]

Sorry, I think we’re still getting “is” and “ought” conflated.

I’m not assigning any opinion or belief system or category to you.

I’m just trying to understand why thousands of people used pods thousands of times(when legal of course), and had dramatically different first hand accounts of what happened to deer shot with them, versus what you say will happen.

I’m trying to square your medical/professional experience and opinion of how they’ll function, with that of people who have literally put a pod full of anectine on a bunch of arrows, shot a bunch of deer, and watched a bunch of them go down very very quickly, regardless of vital hit or not.

I’m not trying to suss out with you specifically the moral, ethical, and legal details.

You say you’ve given anectine to a bunch of mammals. Have you given it to a deer? I would assume not, because A, that would be weird, and B, your experience differs greatly with those that have (hunters using pods).

Leaving aside what we ought to do… do you have any ideas why you think (or know, you choose the wording that fits best) pods wont be effective at making deer fall over in sight on non vital hits, when there’s a lot of first hand accounts that say they do just that?

I’m being serious, and asking jn good faith.

anectine is in powder form and reconstituted with sterile water to administer. From the stuff ive read im getting the gist its still in powder form in these pods. A lot of folks saying their way works is not new in hunting world. Sometimes is does, sometimes it doesnt. Hell I may be surprised and see that it is great to drop a deer in less than a minute. A substance being left as projectile hurls through and animals cheat cavity and out the other side, is likely not to have much of an absorption rate. Post some videos of the evidence you've seen. Id love to be see the effects vs the experiences ive had.

 

[BTaylor]

anectine is in powder form and reconstituted with sterile water to administer. From the stuff ive read im getting the gist its still in powder form in these pods. A lot of folks saying their way works is not new in hunting world. Sometimes is does, sometimes it doesnt. Hell I may be surprised and see that it is great to drop a deer in less than a minute. A substance being left as projectile hurls through and animals cheat cavity and out the other side, is likely not to have much of an absorption rate. Post some videos of the evidence you've seen. Id love to be see the effects vs the experiences ive had.

Off the top of my head, I have seen deer that were hit in the hips, texas heart shot, tear duct, front leg at the brisket(not chest cavity), neck, flank and double lung. I dont recall being told of or being on the recovery of one that went more than 60 yards. Those may sound like bad shots but they were not if viewed in the context of using pods. Those deer were all shot where the hunter had a clear open hole to get the arrow to the deer and they knew the pod would put them down quickly. They were not concerned about the deer having unobstructed vitals, just a clean shooting lane to meat.

No video from back then either, outlawed here before videoing hunts was even a thing. Might be some video of hunts from MS though, I have never looked for it though.

 

[kyler1945]

anectine is in powder form and reconstituted with sterile water to administer. From the stuff ive read im getting the gist its still in powder form in these pods. A lot of folks saying their way works is not new in hunting world. Sometimes is does, sometimes it doesnt. Hell I may be surprised and see that it is great to drop a deer in less than a minute. A substance being left as projectile hurls through and animals cheat cavity and out the other side, is likely not to have much of an absorption rate. Post some videos of the evidence you've seen. Id love to be see the effects vs the experiences ive had.

As BTaylor pointed out, video evidence will be hard to come by.

I’m also fully aware of the remembering self having a much rosier view of past events than the experiencing self. So I’m with you that objective evidence is the best option.

What we’re left with, unfortunately, is a whole bunch of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd hand experiences from 1960-present, with anything in the last couple of decades likely not going to be shared in a public forum.

Having said that, we can still play in the sandbox.

I’m not asking you to concede that thousands of hunters have had a very different experience with efficacy of anectine in their very narrow scope of use, compared with your much more recent(I think) and broad scope of use - that didn’t include a deer, or an arrow.

What I’m asking you to do, is use a little imagination. For better or worse, you’re the best shot we have at an objective, but informed subject matter expert. So let’s PRETEND that those hunters have had a very different experience than you.

Taking that prior on board, lets assume for the purpose of this exercise that it is indeed true that many many many deer were shot with pods in all kinds of places that would not cause death in less than 30 seconds(being generous here for sake of the exercise), and many many many deer did indeed become incapacitated in less than 100 yards of shot site.

Assuming that were true, just for a moment, and assuming you have no good reason to make up your experience(I have zero evidence to suggest you’d do that, so easy assumption)…………

What could explain the difference?

Again, I’m not asking you to concede what is true, or fact, or be wrong. I’m just asking to try and see if we can figure out what might explain the large gap in experience.

 

[Plebe]

You may be looking for stuff like this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3781879

 

[kyler1945]

You may be looking for stuff like this:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3781879

Anyone have access?

 

[Plebe]

"People don't really use drugged arrows for "ethics" but use them to make deer hunting easier."

Quote from another forum discussion.

 

[LAKY]

https://seafwa.org/sites/default/files/journal-articles/Pedersen-31-34.pdf

So, comparing these two research papers, with pods vs without pods recovery rate would be 84% vs 82%.

 

[kyler1945]

https://seafwa.org/sites/default/files/journal-articles/Pedersen-31-34.pdf

So, comparing these two research papers, with pods vs without pods recovery rate would be 84% vs 82%.

For a moment, I’ll ignore lots of details in setup, and data collection of both studies, and take them on faith.

Saying what you just said another way, “pods reduce wounding/unrecovered rates by 12%”.

That’s an enormous change, assuming it extends outside of margin of error, and replicates.