Pods

[kyler1945]

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?

This is sort of important to the larger discussion too. Unfortunately we can’t really have it effectively because everyone is entering at their own level of abstraction. It’s also why I think “ethics” don’t belong in a pragmatic look at the topic.

It may be that the best thing for people, and deer, and insurance companies, and the universe, is for us to fling every arrow we have at every opportunity, regardless of odds of success.


So i was trying to keep my scope rather narrow, just teasing out the efficacy of pods for deer recovery in hunting situations.

It’s a losing effort.

 

[GCTerpfan]

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.

If the ability to shoot a deer anywhere increases the number of deer shot by 12%, which judging from @BTaylor's experience seems like a reasonable assumption, then the number of unrecovered deer starts to look a little different. At that point we aren't decreasing suffering we are simply making it easier on hunters.

 

[krub6b]

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

Neither one is a cold hard fact IMO. they are easily manipulated numbers to give credibility to a point of view. That's the whole basis for 93.7896545387% of statistics being made up on the spot. Statistics can add a very valuable impartial perspective to a report, and they can also be twisted and manipulated to sound like they support anything in the world based on the sound byte they are played in.

 

[skydoc]

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?

You sure seem to have a real desire for pods to be the next best thing. I hope you find what youre looking for because obviously I cant give it to you. If ya have that much problem with deer running off, take some time this off season and practice up…. or are you saying all the people who make ethical shots with a quick kill and recovery are full of crap.

 

[Nutterbuster]

You sure seem to have a real desire for pods to be the next best thing. I hope you find what youre looking for because obviously I cant give it to you. If ya have that much problem with deer running off, take some time this off season and practice up…. or are you saying all the people who make ethical shots with a quick kill and recovery are full of crap.

Kyle doesn't have a personal problem with deer running off. Or practicing.

Unrelated and not aimed at anybody, statistics are like fire. A true game changer if you understand it. Best left alone if you don't.

 

[Jay_Disarray]

I have little stake in the game here, as I believe they are illegal in MN, and I've never looked too much into pods.

However, I think with all of the modern advantages we are given,(modern speedy compound bows and arrows, broadheads that are sharper and deadlier than ever, rangefinders allowing perfect distance measurement, etc etc) I wonder how many additional advantages we need to put in our favor.

I've wounded and never recovered deer before, with liver shots or rain washing the blood trail, it's not fun. It is an learning opportunity that every hunter should experience at least once. It's what keeps my respect of the animals life in check, That fear or repeating past mistakes.

 

[BTaylor]

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 cant speak at all to clinical application or dosing, etc so maybe you wouldnt mind shedding a little light on such when considering field application in the form of pods. Most of the pods that I was familiar with would easily carry 1/2-3/4 teaspoon of powder. How would that compare to clinical dosing? I get a good bit of the physiology of a bow wound and blood running out, but I would think with a powder deployed through tissue a fair bit would be picked up by capilaries and veins and carried through the system. The question is how much would be required for a critter to be immobilized.

 

[Plebe]

Neither one is a cold hard fact IMO. they are easily manipulated numbers to give credibility to a point of view. That's the whole basis for 93.7896545387% of statistics being made up on the spot. Statistics can add a very valuable impartial perspective to a report, and they can also be twisted and manipulated to sound like they support anything in the world based on the sound byte they are played in.

50% on a test vs 75% on the make up test = 50% increase in score

That sounds impressive, but it's still only a C. Which value goes on record?

Percentage change is also known as relative change and relative difference.

18% unrecovered to 16% unrecovered = 11% decrease
16% unrecovered to 18% unrecovered = 12.5% increase
82% recovered to 84% recovered = 2.44% increase
84% recovered to 82% recovered = 2.38% decrease

Either way, there is a 2 of every 100 difference in unrecovered deer.

 

[Jay_Disarray]

I'm not completely opposed, I just think emphasis should be more on good woodsmanship.

Stealth, taking good shots and passing bad ones, not taking 100yd bowmar style shots, respect for the animals, and skill and intimate knowledge of your weapon and its shooting abilities are skills that are lacking today, and being made up with by equipment and tech. I know more people than I can count on my fingers that only pull the bow or gun out in the fall, on opener morning and think that's perfectly fine. To me, any skill needs a lot of work perfecting and maintaining

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a purist, I won't go to a stick and string like my ancestors, but they killed uncountable animals with only skill and woodsmanship.

 

[skydoc]

I cant speak at all to clinical application or dosing, etc so maybe you wouldnt mind shedding a little light on such when considering field application in the form of pods. Most of the pods that I was familiar with would easily carry 1/2-3/4 teaspoon of powder. How would that compare to clinical dosing? I get a good bit of the physiology of a bow wound and blood running out, but I would think with a powder deployed through tissue a fair bit would be picked up by capilaries and veins and carried through the system. The question is how much would be required for a critter to be immobilized.

Im not sure what concentrations of powder folks would be using. Active ingredient in the amount of powder. It will pick some up in the blood. Just pointing out that powder is not the optimal delivery method. To get a required mg/kg youd have to ask a vet or wildlife biologist im sure.

 

[Plebe]

Im not sure what concentrations of powder folks would be using. Active ingredient in the amount of powder. It will pick some up in the blood. Just pointing out that powder is not the optimal delivery method. To get a required mg/kg youd have to ask a vet or wildlife biologist im sure.

I've read by several accounts that folks who switched from needles and solution to pods saw much much poorer efficacy.

One such account:

"Pods are useless.Needles are effective"

 

[Weldabeast]

I'm not completely opposed, I just think emphasis should be more on good woodsmanship.

Stealth, taking good shots and passing bad ones, not taking 100yd bowmar style shots, respect for the animals, and skill and intimate knowledge of your weapon and its shooting abilities are skills that are lacking today, and being made up with by equipment and tech. I know more people than I can count on my fingers that only pull the bow or gun out in the fall, on opener morning and think that's perfectly fine. To me, any skill needs a lot of work perfecting and maintaining

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a purist, I won't go to a stick and string like my ancestors, but they killed uncountable animals with only skill and woodsmanship.

They also pushed large herds of critters off cliffs
If they had a poison that made.animals die faster they would have for sure used the heck out of it

 

[Nutterbuster]

They also pushed large herds of critters off cliffs

Yeah, primitive societies past and present don't hunt deer mono e mono with primitive tools and feed themselves. Our local Indians ate the freshwater clam population to near extinction and ran fishing nets. They barely fooled with deer. And when they did they used dogs and fire on islands.

 

[Jay_Disarray]

They also pushed large herds of critters off cliffs
If they had a poison that made.animals die faster they would have for sure used the heck out of it

They also had woodsmanship that is unmatched in modern times. They knew when and where animals slept and fed, how the weather affected them, how to move silently through the woods without being seen, which game trails were most active etc.

 

[kyler1945]

They also had woodsmanship that is unmatched in modern times. They knew when and where animals slept and fed, how the weather affected them, how to move silently through the woods without being seen, which game trails were most active etc.

Animals were significantly more tolerant of their presence, given that they all had to live together, because we didn’t yet cluster in cities.

Your statement is very hard to prove. And has a lot of evidence to refute it.

Mine is backed up by a lot of comparables and data.



The noble savage lives on.

 

[Nutterbuster]

They also had woodsmanship that is unmatched in modern times. They knew when and where animals slept and fed, how the weather affected them, how to move silently through the woods without being seen, which game trails were most active etc.

Did they?

I love Native American history, and have artifacts literally in my backyard. I also know that we've romanticized them to death out of self-loathing and guilt.

I don't get the feeling they knew more about deer than we do now. Maybe they knew more about deer and the land than 18th century farmers, but I'm pretty sure anybody who pays attention today knows exponentially more about deer biology and ecology than any primitive hunter did.

 

[PEEJAY]

They also had woodsmanship that is unmatched in modern times. They knew when and where animals slept and fed, how the weather affected them, how to move silently through the woods without being seen, which game trails were most active etc.

unmatched? hard to make that claim with any certainty. i can "tell" people my grandpappy was the ultimate woodsman and no one in history has ever come close. and people might all believe me and spread it around. doesnt make it a fact.

 

[Jay_Disarray]

Animals were significantly more tolerant of their presence, given that they all had to live together, because we didn’t yet cluster in cities.

Your statement is very hard to prove. And has a lot of evidence to refute it.

Mine is backed up by a lot of comparables and data.



The noble savage lives on.

Wow a lot of pushback here for simply stating that people who spent their entire lives in the woods were more in touch with nature. I also never mentioned native American people, I said my ancestors

 

[Plebe]

They also had woodsmanship that is unmatched in modern times. They knew when and where animals slept and fed, how the weather affected them, how to move silently through the woods without being seen, which game trails were most active etc.

Hence cameras, drones, and Spartan Forge.

 

[PEEJAY]

Wow a lot of pushback here for simply stating that people who spent their entire lives in the woods were more in touch with nature.

Yea... surprised?

It sounds nice but its a fairy tale.