Pods

[krub6b]

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.

wouldn't that be a 2% reduction? or is there some other numbers we are refrencing?

 

[rrogers31]

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.

How many of those shots may not have been taken if they didn't have a pod such? Im a newish deer hunter but and am extremely ethical in any shot I take. However, knowing you had a pod how much more likely is someone going to be willing to take a poor shot knowing the animal will die even on a marginal hit? Not a measurable probably but just a thought.

 

[kyler1945]

wouldn't that be a 2% reduction? or is there some other numbers we are refrencing?

18% unrecovered rate, versus 16% unrecovered rate.

16% unrecovered by pods, divided by 18% unrecovered no pods, equals 12% reduction in unrecoverable(wasted, maimed, unusable, insert your adjective here) deer rates.

 

[kyler1945]

How many of those shots may not have been taken if they didn't have a pod such? Im a newish deer hunter but and am extremely ethical in any shot I take. However, knowing you had a pod how much more likely is someone going to be willing to take a poor shot knowing the animal will die even on a marginal hit? Not a measurable probably but just a thought.

Extremely Ethical compared to what?



And the assumption, based on the preview, is that the pod using hunters took same shots as without. You pointed out a very important detail - this would be nearly impossible to quantify with that small of a study, and no video evidence to support it.

But let’s take it on faith it was true, it would result in a 12% reduction in wounding rates.

Now let’s pretend it’s not true, and that hunters in the pod study actually took (by non pod standards) lower percentage shots knowing they had anectine on their side. The 84% recovery rate looks very different.

What you can safely assume, is that hunters did not become MORE conservative for the Pod study. They either took exactly the same shots, or took more low percentage shots, than they would without pods.

 

[kyler1945]

18% unrecovered rate, versus 16% unrecovered rate.

16% unrecovered by pods, divided by 18% unrecovered no pods, equals 12% reduction in unrecoverable(wasted, maimed, unusable, insert your adjective here) deer.

This is the math done from the deer’s perspective. Or the resource management perspective.

Mostly, pointing out 82 v 84 was an attempt to make the difference in pods and no pods seem insignificant. I’m pointing out that you can use a statistic to tell a story.

 

[Plebe]

18% unrecovered rate, versus 16% unrecovered rate.

16% unrecovered by pods, divided by 18% unrecovered no pods, equals 12% reduction in unrecoverable(wasted, maimed, unusable, insert your adjective here) deer.

Does percentage change really work like that when your values are percentages already? I like subtraction myself.

 

[skydoc]

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.

Yes my experience is at least weekly and spanning over a quarter of a century. Sometimes 2-3 times in a day. I use multiple different paralytics, with succinyl choline (anectine) being the first line. The mechanism of action is the main problem with the tales of paralyzing a deer in a hunting situation. A few old tales of hunters who used them bragging about the efficacy is hard for me to buy. The blood carrying the medication has to be carried back to the heart (in the veins…. not being distributed to the muscles at all) and then pumped back out via the arteries. The anectine works by paralyzing the diaphragm, thus stopping the breathing of a deer. High doses will paralyze skeletal muscle but is severly slowed via intamuscular injection. Studies have shown a deer can run 85-120 seconds with just the oxygen already in its blood. An anectine injection intramuscular will take about a minute to have onset of action (best case scenario) So now you have a deer running 145-180 seconds. Deer can run at about 35mph (about 15 meters per second) Hard to believe a deer will only go the reported 20 yards in that time. An itramuscular shot works by creating a pocket of medication to be absorbed. That medicine has to be in a form that can be readily absorbed. Powder is not the most easily absorbed. Bleeding from a pass through shot, which most of our high powered bows will create, will serve to evacuate the medicine from the wound. If MS is the new proving grounds, surely some evidence rather than word of mouth exists. This isnt the movies where being shot with a medication immediately drops the target. Dexter is fake. Even being placed immediately into the vein, it wont immediately paralyze the subject. Passing through the chest cavity will not provide much absorption at all. Yes i know “deer are more sensitive ”. That is why dosing is different. The medication is weight based in humans. Humans are getting a higher dose. Its just not going to make a bow stop a deer like a gun. Not much point in getting too worked up over it. Its been outlawed for years in most places and likely to remain that way.


Ive attached a picture of my homemade Pod arrow, I shoot it with a rubberband and two paper clips. Dropped a 140” mule deer in eastern KY this morning with it. It never took a step. I dont have any video though. But its better than a well placed shot any day!

 

[skydoc]

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.

84-82=12…. sound like a solid assumption to me.

 

[kyler1945]

Does percentage change really work like that when your values are percentages already? I like subtraction myself.

1000 deer not recovered without pods, when 5555 are shot.

When 5555 deer are shot with pods, 888 are not recovered.

12% less unrecovered deer

 

[krub6b]

18% unrecovered rate, versus 16% unrecovered rate.

16% unrecovered by pods, divided by 18% unrecovered no pods, equals 12% reduction in unrecoverable(wasted, maimed, unusable, insert your adjective here) deer.

Awww, the part of statistics that every politician loves, 2% is now 12% for the sound byte. Regardless, the hard numbers wouldn't be a significant increase for population control models but could create a little more predator pressure due to a lack of easy meals left by hunters. Using Missouri's 2022 archery numbers, with 56,525 deer reported and an 84% recovery rate that gives us a total of roughly 67,500 deer shot and killed with a bow this year. using pods would increase the recovered number to 58,050, an increase of 1,525 deer. That's more than zero so maybe it's a viable option, but how many additional deer will be harvested because the kill zone is now deer size not dinner plate size? on another front there were 3,779 reported deer and vehicle collisions( with at least one not being reported by myself) so if the waste from hunters is unacceptable, should cars be outlawed?

 

[LAKY]

Only 84% recovered when shot using pods.

 

[kyler1945]

Fellas, I’m making a point.

You can say that recovery rates improve by 2%, if you want to make the point that pods don’t help much.

You can say that unrecovered deer rates drop by 12% with pods, if you want to look at it from the deer’s perspective, or a resource management perspective, or basically, any perspective that isn’t “I don’t like pods and people who talk about them, so I want to show they’re dumb”

 

[kyler1945]

Awww, the part of statistics that every politician loves, 2% is now 12% for the sound bite.

Why is 12% a sound byte, and 2% is cold hard fact?

 

[Plebe]

1000 deer not recovered without pods, when 5555 are shot.

When 5555 deer are shot with pods, 888 are not recovered.

12% less unrecovered deer

I was thinking percentage points.

11% it is

 

[rrogers31]

1000 deer not recovered without pods, when 5555 are shot.

When 5555 deer are shot with pods, 888 are not recovered.

12% less unrecovered deer

The difference in unrecovered deer may be 12% by that but the recovery rate increase is still only 2% when comparing the entire sample size. 1000-888 is 112 and 112/5555=.02 so a 2% increase in deer being recovered. So by this study if you shot 5555 with pods and then 5555 without pods youd theoretically have a 112-count increase with pods or a 2%

 

[kyler1945]

The difference in unrecovered deer may be 12% by that but the recovery rate increase is still only 2% when comparing the entire sample size. 1000-888 is 112 and 112/5555=.02 so a 2% increase in deer being recovered. So by this study if you shot 5555 with pods and then 5555 without pods youd theoretically have a 112-count increase with pods or a 2%

Yup. If I want to say that pods suck, I say recovery rate improves by 2% using pods.

If I want to say pods rule, I say unrecoverable rates drop 12% using pods.

I didn’t point out the statistic to bolster the case for pods. I pointed out the statistic in response to someone else using a statistic like a charlatan.

It also brings to light the difference in perspective. Most people view things from their own perspective(how something impacts THEM). The ability to look at the other side of the coin might inform the conversation/decisions made, and should most definitely be included in policy making.

 

[Plebe]

Yup. If I want to say that pods suck, I say recovery rate improves by 2% using pods.

If I want to say pods rule, I say unrecoverable rates drop 12% using pods.

I didn’t point out the statistic to bolster the case for pods. I pointed out the statistic in response to someone else using a statistic like a charlatan.

It also brings to light the difference in perspective. Most people view things from their own perspective(how something impacts THEM). The ability to look at the other side of the coin might inform the conversation/decisions made, and should most definitely be included in policy making.

I just like easy math lol.

A 2 deer difference per 100 deer taken each method.

What was the data from the mechanicals vs coc broadhead study? I want to post the percent change in the thread: The Who snorted the Fairy Dust

 

[kyler1945]

Yes my experience is at least weekly and spanning over a quarter of a century. Sometimes 2-3 times in a day. I use multiple different paralytics, with succinyl choline (anectine) being the first line. The mechanism of action is the main problem with the tales of paralyzing a deer in a hunting situation. A few old tales of hunters who used them bragging about the efficacy is hard for me to buy. The blood carrying the medication has to be carried back to the heart (in the veins…. not being distributed to the muscles at all) and then pumped back out via the arteries. The anectine works by paralyzing the diaphragm, thus stopping the breathing of a deer. High doses will paralyze skeletal muscle but is severly slowed via intamuscular injection. Studies have shown a deer can run 85-120 seconds with just the oxygen already in its blood. An anectine injection intramuscular will take about a minute to have onset of action (best case scenario) So now you have a deer running 145-180 seconds. Deer can run at about 35mph (about 15 meters per second) Hard to believe a deer will only go the reported 20 yards in that time. An itramuscular shot works by creating a pocket of medication to be absorbed. That medicine has to be in a form that can be readily absorbed. Powder is not the most easily absorbed. Bleeding from a pass through shot, which most of our high powered bows will create, will serve to evacuate the medicine from the wound. If MS is the new proving grounds, surely some evidence rather than word of mouth exists. This isnt the movies where being shot with a medication immediately drops the target. Dexter is fake. Even being placed immediately into the vein, it wont immediately paralyze the subject. Passing through the chest cavity will not provide much absorption at all. Yes i know “deer are more sensitive ”. That is why dosing is different. The medication is weight based in humans. Humans are getting a higher dose. Its just not going to make a bow stop a deer like a gun. Not much point in getting too worked up over it. Its been outlawed for years in most places and likely to remain that way.


Ive attached a picture of my homemade Pod arrow, I shoot it with a rubberband and two paper clips. Dropped a 140” mule deer in eastern KY this morning with it. It never took a step. I dont have any video though. But its better than a well placed shot any day! View attachment 80055

I appreciate the more in depth look at your experiences. They’re valuable.

I’m really trying to land this conversation plane. It doesn’t seem like I’m going to get you to play ball, and offer up some possibilities for the differences in experiences, other than rednecks being full crap.

I’ll take one more anectine free stab at it - your position is that there’s simply no way that all the stories and experiences can be true? It’s just cold hard fact that use of pods/anectine will not result in significant decreases in the distance and time a deer spends running away from the shot site, thus significantly increasing recovery rates? And I’m taking this position, all of those people who say they’ve experienced this are flat out wrong?

 

[rrogers31]

Yup. If I want to say that pods suck, I say recovery rate improves by 2% using pods.

If I want to say pods rule, I say unrecoverable rates drop 12% using pods.

I didn’t point out the statistic to bolster the case for pods. I pointed out the statistic in response to someone else using a statistic like a charlatan.

It also brings to light the difference in perspective. Most people view things from their own perspective(how something impacts THEM). The ability to look at the other side of the coin might inform the conversation/decisions made, and should most definitely be included in policy making.

I'm not arguing either way. I see both sides and as a mostly gun hunter I still strive to take precise heart shots so ethical shots are vital to me heck im tore up when I wound a duck much less a big buck. I'm just saying math is math and the overall difference is only 2% which is the stat I think you have to use in this instance since. To say its 12% is kinda misleading especially since a 12% increase in anything is somewhat game changing.

 

[PEEJAY]

wait...its full of potent muscle relaxers and i dont need a prescription??

in the news next week...

A redneck hippy in central MD was found sleeping on his porch with a "poison arrow" in his foot. It appeared the gentleman "accidentally" shot himself. He seemed fine and had a smile on his face as he laid there unconscious with Ted Nugent and Grateful Dead cassette tapes blasting in the background