I don't think that it should be legal! The whole point of bow hunting is getting closer to the game, and making the perfect shot!
Exactly. The effective range is the same for the pod and without. I would still shoot at the same distance as I would with a broadhead without scoline. There is always the risk of injuring the animal at long distances even with the pod. Scoline just provides confidence that you will find your deer even if you made a poor shot.
Equating poison-tipped arrows, to a scoped rifle is ridicuous!
The argument was that it would encourage people to shoot further (shooting over their limit), thus causing them to wound the animal. Charlie used this same argument with the pod, but it is a weak argument since it doesn’t encourage people to make Hail Mary shots.
A scope improves aiming, and most people shoot far better with a scope, than with open sights!
And some people don’t check their zero for next season, ergo injuring the animal.
By the way, compare your above statement with this one:
“The whole point of bow hunting is getting closer to the game, and making the perfect shot!”
In other words, open sights encourage hunters to get closer to game (making the perfect shot) than do riflescopes, therefore decreasing the number of wounded game. I am using your own arguments against you.
On the other hand, a good, sharp, broadhead will do its job very well, without the aid of poison!
I agree, but what if you screw up, and wound it? Scoline will put the deer down quicker, thus increasing your chance of recovering it (that’s the crux). You’re arguing that the pod will increase the number of injured deer because people will become lazy (which is an unfounded statement); however, I’m arguing that the number of wounded deer will decrease and the recovering rate will increase.
No, a compound is just an improvement on a design to launch an arrow faster and more accuratley.
Hence giving the feeling that recurves and longbows weren’t adequate enough for deer hunting (lethality). Thank you, for acknowledging the fact that the compound bows improved the design just as the pod improved upon the arrow (lethality). Broadheads do the same!!!
Hevi shot, bismuth and tungsten were introduced as alternatives to lead when lead was outlawed (just though I'd fill you in, in case you didn't know).
No, steel was introduced as an alternative first (the feds began ordering the change in the 1980's), then the others (Bismuth was the first non-steel non-toxic shot). Anyhow, Hevi-Shot, bismuth, and tungsten replaced steel giving the impression that steel wasn’t adequate enough for goose and duck hunting i.e. leading the public to believe that the conventional equipment wasn’t effective enough to use without the aid of the non-toxic shot. Likewise, Hevi-Shot, Tungsten-Matrix, etc. give the impression that lead isn’t adequate for turkey hunting. 3 ½" magnums give the impression that the other shells are not adequate enough, etc.
If you didn’t notice, I used the same argument as the one below!
“Another issue is that use or legalization of the pod on a widespread basis would lead the public to believe that our conventional bowhunting equipment is not effective enough to use without the aid of drugs.”
Besides, this is a groundless assertion.