Pods

[LAKY]

Just dart the deer with a sedative, include a tracker, take pics, then wake the deer up. Catch and release. Bring your ticket to a tofu store, and exchange for the meat equivalent and flavor packets.

 

[Nutterbuster]

Because one of the argument for pod ethicality is that the animal die faster and less painful. But from the anecdote of Mr. Bear and this research experiment saying that it does not block out the pain receptors and the animals are dying a painful death. Does that not counter it own argument that its more humane? One of the argument for having the sharpest broad head as possible is that a clearer cut been argued to be less painful. That deer don't feel a lot of pain after the initial damage. If given the choice between a longer painless suffocation by a collapsed lungs or 20 minutes paralysis AND painful nerve damage, I would pick the collapsed lungs.

First, I'm not sure what Bear was using, but my understanding is it was not an anectine pod. And it's one data point.

Second, I think it's a big assumption that a 2" broadhead through your ribcage is always painless. I've seen deer that didn't seem to experience pain, and those that did.

Third, you're comparing best case double lung shots to worst case scenario pod shots. How does it look comparing best case pod shots to worst case shoulder shots?

 

[BTaylor]

I mostly skipped science classes, can someone, in layman terms, equate the difference between 10mg and a half a teaspoon? The dosing difference between field research (10mg) and hunting (full pod) has a big impact on speed of immobilization and death. Is it 270 vs .308 or 270 vs 50BMG?

 

[CooterBrown]

I have read every post on this topic and best I can tell no one has changed their mind on how they feel about them.

 

[krub6b]

I work with high pressure piping and valves all day. I know why Skydoc takes a position that throwing powder in a wound won’t lead to good introduction to the circulatory system. Pressure is pushing out, not in…

This is why I was trying to get him to war game with me on how that doesn’t square with lots of experiences.

I suspect part of that is that some parts of the circulatory system are pulling and some are pushing. And part of it is the mind blowingly small dose required to immobilize a deer. And other factors were not considering.

I’m fully open to rednecks being full of crap. But I remain skeptical.

Veins pull, more precisely capillaries connected to veins pull. this is why chest seals and packing wounds are used, hold the blood in and let the body recirculate it until there's a controlled environment with more blood to replace what comes out. leaving a powder in a muscle group with capillaries allows for it to be picked back up

 

[HuumanCreed]

First, I'm not sure what Bear was using, but my understanding is it was not an anectine pod. And it's one data point.

Second, I think it's a big assumption that a 2" broadhead through your ribcage is always painless. I've seen deer that didn't seem to experience pain, and those that did.

Third, you're comparing best case double lung shots to worst case scenario pod shots. How does it look comparing best case pod shots to worst case shoulder shots?

1- Unless there are resource saying otherwise. From different accounts, he used SCC.

Fred Bear and poison arrows?

www.archerytalk.com

2- I did not say always. I said some argued. And I will add my own personal experience with internal injuries. I was in a car accident at 19. Another car T-bone my car. I felt an initial shock, but other then that, I felt fine and even walked away thanking God that I was not more hurt, didn't even tell 911 that I was hurt when I reported the accident. But luckliy one of my neighbor was an EMT who witnessed it. He called 911 again, forced me to lay down. Turn out I had internal bleeding, that my spleen was torn by my seatbelt buckle gut punching me from the impact. They had to stitched up my spleen or else I would of died. I was honestly not in any pain until I woke up after surgery with a giant 7 inches scar down my belly button. But I was drowning internally.

3- I would argue that this make it more important to be the best bowmen you can be and do your best when it come to deciding if you should take the shot. Is there such a thing as a worst case double lungs? I have VERY minimal success, so what is a worse case double lungs? Not being smartass, serious question. I'm not overly religion, but there is a saying, "God does not ask you to be perfect. But the fact that you try to be the best you can is what pleases him". Don't we in general want everyone to try the best, and not take the path of least difficult? I would personally want anyone to try their best without the idea in the back of their mind saying 'even if its a bad shot, the pod will cover my mistake'.

 

[Jammintree]

Let’s be clear: the development of pods as a product to be used in hunting is not an altruistic pursuit based on ethics. It’s capitalism, consumerism and marketing with a design intent of making us all feel that we have a moral obligation to purchase this item.

 

[krub6b]

1- Unless there are resource saying otherwise. From different accounts, he used SCC.

Fred Bear and poison arrows?

www.archerytalk.com

2- I did not say always. I said some argued. And I will add my own personal experience with internal injuries. I was in a car accident at 19. Another car T-bone my car. I felt an initial shock, but other then that, I felt fine and even walked away thanking God that I was not more hurt, didn't even tell 911 that I was hurt when I reported the accident. But luckliy one of my neighbor was an EMT who witnessed it. He called 911 again, forced me to lay down. Turn out I had internal bleeding, that my spleen was torn by my seatbelt buckle gut punching me from the impact. They had to stitched up my spleen or else I would of died. I was honestly not in any pain until I woke up after surgery with a giant 7 inches scar down my belly button. But I was drowning internally.

3- I would argue that this make it more important to be the best bowmen you can be and do your best when it come to deciding if you should take the shot. Is there such a thing as a worst case double lungs? I have VERY minimal success, so what is a worse case double lungs? Not being smartass, serious question. I'm not overly religion, but there is a saying, "God does not ask you to be perfect. But the fact that you try to be the best you can is what pleases him". Don't we in general want everyone to try the best, and not take the path of least difficult? I would personally want anyone to try their best without the idea in the back of their mind saying 'even if its a bad shot, the pod will cover my mistake'.

worse case double lung would be a high double lung from the ground that doesn't bleed well externally. the deer will die but how far it runs before hand is going to be variable and could be as little as 25 yards if not alert before the shot broke to as far as miles if it was on edge and alert

 

[ThereWillBeSpuds]

Im super late to the game on this thread but when I tell non hunters I bow hunt the overwhelming majority of them have a reaction that indicates to me that they see it as more ethical not less ethical than gun hunting. Sure it's just the romantic aspect that makes them think that, but I don't see a reason to disillusion them.

Sent from my SM-A516V using Tapatalk

 

[Jammintree]

If one were to develop effective pods that reduced the suffering of bow shot animals, wouldn’t that require a tremendous amount of experimentation? And wouldn’t that experimentation likely resulting in a great deal of wounding - causing pain and suffering to those animals?

I’m going to stick to lots of practice with my bows, super sharp broadheads and low risk shots - Afterall this method has been used successfully for almost all of human existence.

 

[thedutchtouch]

Haven't read every page, sorry, so this is likely redundant. Hasn't ever stopped me before lol.

Paralytics and muscle relaxers do not affect nerves, generally in surgery you give a human a paralytic AND an anesthetic/analgesic so they don't move and don't feel. There's some surgery horror stories about getting only the paralytic(it's obvious when they get only the analgesic, because they still move/muscle cells twitch and contract when cut) so if you have a paralytic/muscle relaxer the animal is feeling everything normally, but can't move. But then the flip side is a paralytic will paralyze the diaphragm so the animal would asphyxiate to death potentially more rapidly than bleeding out. It's all about lack of oxygen after all, the blood is just the mechanism to move the oxygen around. You can make your own ethical decisions about that, as we all do, each time we decide to loose an arrow (or anything) at a living thing.

That all to say that it seems to me that this is not about the animals suffering. It's about your perceptions of the animals suffering. If you don't want it to suffer, don't hunt it and go vegan. I accept that animals suffer and die for me to eat them. That's their purpose.

My personal opposition to pods personally remains not wanting to eat meat that was killed with chemical assistance, regardless of if it's "$afe" or not. A big reason I started hunting in the first place was to get away from all the crap that gets fed/pumped in to our grocery store meats.

Agree that this thread appears to be another one of multiple pages of nobody changing their opinions. Isn't that the point of forums lol

 

[kyler1945]

If one were to develop effective pods that reduced the suffering of bow shot animals, wouldn’t that require a tremendous amount of experimentation? And wouldn’t that experimentation likely resulting in a great deal of wounding - causing pain and suffering to those animals?

I’m going to stick to lots of practice with my bows, super sharp broadheads and low risk shots - Afterall this method has been used successfully for almost all of human existence.

I’m pretty sure this could be done without adding any additional suffering. It won’t. But it could be. It sort of already has, with poor data collection.

Also, why do you think that people 1000, or 10,000 years ago practiced a lot, used super sharp broadheads, and took what you perceive to be low risk shots? What evidence do you have to support that notion?

 

[CooterBrown]

Just a reminder that vegans are animal killers also. (63) Ted Nugent "Vegans kill more animals than non Vegans" - YouTube

 

[kyler1945]

Let’s be clear: the development of pods as a product to be used in hunting is not an altruistic pursuit based on ethics. It’s capitalism, consumerism and marketing with a design intent of making us all feel that we have a moral obligation to purchase this item.

This is why I’m interested in the efficacy of pods, and that alone, right now.

I want to shoot deer and bring them home with me. I want to reduce the number of animals I don’t recover.

I’m viewing the entire situation from there.


If pods help me do that, without the perceived externalities, I see no reason to prevent someone from using them.

I’ve been trying to see what externalities might be real, and which might be perceived. I don’t have a high degree of confidence in any being real at this point.

 

[Nutterbuster]

Just a reminder that vegans are animal killers also. (63) Ted Nugent "Vegans kill more animals than non Vegans" - YouTube

Ted's initial statement is a little oversimplified and disingenuous. Perhaps consciously so for theatrical benefit.

Lots of smart people have crunched the numbers on using arable land to grow crops and then having humans eat those crops vs growing crops and feeding them to livestock and then eating the livestock. No surprise, it's more efficient to just eat the crops and cut the middle man.

After a lot of thought I'm at the point where I don't buy animal product for my own consumption. I will kill and eat game because I believe for me, at this point in time, that's the most sustainable and least cruel way to feed myself.

If for some reason I couldn't hunt as effectively as I can now, and take 5-10 deer a year plus small game and fish without travelling or spending large amounts of money...veganism would be the next best thing.

I'm under no delusion that we can eliminate all suffering. But I'll throw my hat in the ring suggesting we minimize it, especially if it can be done at small personal cost.

 

[CooterBrown]

Ted's initial statement is a little oversimplified and disingenuous. Perhaps consciously so for theatrical benefit.

Lots of smart people have crunched the numbers on using arable land to grow crops and then having humans eat those crops vs growing crops and feeding them to livestock and then eating the livestock. No surprise, it's more efficient to just eat the crops and cut the middle man.

After a lot of thought I'm at the point where I don't buy animal product for my own consumption. I will kill and eat game because I believe for me, at this point in time, that's the most sustainable and least cruel way to feed myself.

If for some reason I couldn't hunt as effectively as I can now, and take 5-10 deer a year plus small game and fish without travelling or spending large amounts of money...veganism would be the next best thing.

I'm under no delusion that we can eliminate all suffering. But I'll throw my hat in the ring suggesting we minimize it, especially if it can be done at small personal cost.

What proof do you have?

 

[Nutterbuster]

What proof do you have?

Personally? None. Feel free to Google it up. People will argue about the particulars, with folks on each side inflating or deflating the number depending on which side of the argument they're on, but you lose calories on livestock because they burn them themselves to live and lose some as waste. The info is readily available, and you won't find people arguing you gain calories directing them through an animal's digestion tract.

Technically, if the animal eats stuff we can't eat, there's a "gain" in our favor. But we can't really feed 8 billion folks on grass-fed beef or free range chickens. Or hunted deer.

 

[Reagan H.]

I mostly skipped science classes, can someone, in layman terms, equate the difference between 10mg and a half a teaspoon? The dosing difference between field research (10mg) and hunting (full pod) has a big impact on speed of immobilization and death. Is it 270 vs .308 or 270 vs 50BMG?

10 mg is 1/500th of a teaspoon, so 1/1000th of half a teaspoon. The 10 mg compared to 500 mg (I think that's what's considered a full pod in the study), is basically a .22 to a .50 BMG. How it's applied and injected is also really important to keep in mind (plus whatever concoction they use with the sedative).

 

[HuumanCreed]

Haven't read every page, sorry, so this is likely redundant. Hasn't ever stopped me before lol.

Paralytics and muscle relaxers do not affect nerves, generally in surgery you give a human a paralytic AND an anesthetic/analgesic so they don't move and don't feel. There's some surgery horror stories about getting only the paralytic(it's obvious when they get only the analgesic, because they still move/muscle cells twitch and contract when cut) so if you have a paralytic/muscle relaxer the animal is feeling everything normally, but can't move. But then the flip side is a paralytic will paralyze the diaphragm so the animal would asphyxiate to death potentially more rapidly than bleeding out. It's all about lack of oxygen after all, the blood is just the mechanism to move the oxygen around. You can make your own ethical decisions about that, as we all do, each time we decide to loose an arrow (or anything) at a living thing.

That all to say that it seems to me that this is not about the animals suffering. It's about your perceptions of the animals suffering. If you don't want it to suffer, don't hunt it and go vegan. I accept that animals suffer and die for me to eat them. That's their purpose.

My personal opposition to pods personally remains not wanting to eat meat that was killed with chemical assistance, regardless of if it's "$afe" or not. A big reason I started hunting in the first place was to get away from all the crap that gets fed/pumped in to our grocery store meats.

Agree that this thread appears to be another one of multiple pages of nobody changing their opinions. Isn't that the point of forums lol

Hmm...does it count if I did not even know about the topic before this forum? Which is apparently a lot of the people here. I feel it at least served the purpose of education and opening dialog.

Can we change the poll to ask if you ever heard of pods before, and did anything anyone said here changed your mind after the initial first impression. I would say I have been enlighten by this thread, but no, I would not personally use pods.

 

[Nutterbuster]

People have said nobody's minds have changed. I'll be a sport and admit mine has.

Knowing more about how much powder is in a pod, I'm slightly more concerned about the potential for hunter injury than I initially was.

I also wasn't sure of the effectiveness of a gut shot with a pod. I'm more of the opinion now that it's not a great odds improver for that particular scenario.