http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-7648%28197823%296%3A3%3C142%3ABWDWSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&size=SMALL&origin=JSTOR-reducePage
2007-09-09 02:05:32 · 7 answers · asked by Tina 4 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
With use of bow and arrows in a pod
2007-09-09 02:06:19 · update #1
The meat is not ruined by the SCC. The deer runs about 120 yards and the muscles around the heart constrict causing the deer to die. Has been cases where only small amounts only entered the blood stream and the deer died the next morning which acually saved the meat from spoiling.
2007-09-09 08:00:47 · update #2
JD were there any tests that were run that proved the meat had harmful residue? I've eat plenty of deer meat that was harvested with SCC. I've also done research back in the early 80's. You do make some great points. Can you give more details on the effects of SCC on the food (meat)?
2007-09-09 08:14:13 · update #3
Good point whyus
2007-09-09 10:51:24 · update #4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suxamethonium_chloride
2007-09-10 02:20:32 · update #5
NO WAY...
Mississippi tried it for a short period back in 1973 as an answer to reduce the number of wounded Deer during Archery Bow Season. In fact, the was a study done that showed that the wounded Deer "problem" did not truly exist to begin with, and the existing "problem" greatly exaggerated.The results were the use of Succinylcholine, was a DISMAL failure.The fact that the poison left no harmful residue that would harm humans or other animals was also questioned. In fact within days of being made available, it began to be abused. Poor shots attempted on Deer resulted in death each and every time. Deer that normally would have survived the wounds were dying. The majority of the legitimate hunting community felt it a violation of basic sportsmanship.Mississippi's "Poaching" percentages using this drug went up 822% in just one year!
Personally with the technology of today the term "Primitive" in terms of a style of hunting is a falsehood within itself. Historically, Bowhunting goes back hundreds of years to when it was in fact "primitive", but that tag hardly applies now as the equipment, and techniques have totally evolved past any such stage. The whole idea was dropped like a hot potato. In years since the hunting community hasn't had to deal with the issues any more.
Curiously, the drug Succinylcholine is the drug of choice for drug induced homicide's now, as it leaves no traces in the human body after being injected, and is virtually impossible for Forensic Pathologists to trace. If we allow ourselves to go backward, the results will just be additional abuses.It would not be a good thing.
Based on this research I vote a heartfelt NO........
2007-09-09 04:15:35 · answer #1 · answered by JD 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
That is an extremely interesting article. I think they need to test for its effects on the environment or other organisms living in the area before they just open the door to it. What happens to the deer not recovered that were shot with an S.C. arrow? Are they in turn eaten by the local coyote and if so does the coyote receive any ill effects from the drugs? What about birds of prey that scavenge a deer carcass, do they die if they eat an S.C. killed deer? Can you still eat a deer that is killed with the drug? These are all qustions that should be answered before it is used in my opinion.
I am all for it if it helps the hunter, does not give the hunter an unfair advantage, does no harm to the other animals that may or may not come into contact with the drug and if it has been thoroughly tested and proven safe to use. Go ahead and use it, but make sure you know all the possible outcomes of adding such a variable into the equation.
2007-09-09 04:02:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure but it seems like the non-hunting crowd would have a hay day with this
I know some tribes in Africa and other parts of the world use poison on arrows and darts to kill game but theirs is more life and death (if they don't kill it they don't eat) than our situation here in the US
so i am not sure if I am for or against this idea
2007-09-09 11:36:13 · answer #3 · answered by crazy_devil_dan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jake m using poison gives the hunter an unfair advantage??? this just doesn't make any sense to me when I you or anybody else who hunts can get a gun and shoot the deer from 300 yards away
Giving the deer a fair fight for their life would be to chase it down and stab it
2007-09-09 08:58:53 · answer #4 · answered by whyus?? 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes
2007-09-09 02:08:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I love the idea and think we should let pilots carry it in case islamofascists try to hijack more planes.
2007-09-09 14:40:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no it gives an unfair advantage to the hunter hunting is about making a fair game between the hunter and the hunted. plus if you poke your self w/h it your in trouble
2007-09-09 02:14:43 · answer #7 · answered by jake m 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋