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.