Has Modern Hunting Technology Gone Too Far?

Modern hunting technology has changed nearly every part of the hunt, from the weapons we carry to the clothes we wear, the optics we trust and the apps we use to find our way back to the truck. Some of those changes make us safer, more comfortable and more effective. Others raise fair questions about where useful tools end and unfair advantages begin.

Hunters have always used the best equipment available to them, even when that equipment looked primitive by today’s standards. The real debate isn’t whether technology belongs in hunting. It’s how much is too much, and who gets to draw that line.

In the movie “Jeremiah Johnson,” the title character accidentally stumbles upon the frozen corpse of one Hatchet Jack who, being of sound mind and broke legs and recognizing the hour of his demise was at hand, saw fit to script his last will and testament upon a scrap of buckskin, wherein he “leaveth” his bear rifle to whatever finds it, further proclaiming “It is a good rifle, and kilt the bear that kilt me.” That film helped spark a revival in so-called primitive weapons and, ultimately, special hunting seasons for their use.

It wasn’t long before most states had special seasons wherein mountain-man wannabes could head for the hills with their genuine replica Hawken rifles and relive the days of old. Some became so infatuated with their new old weapons they began to demean those who opted to use modern weaponry and other contrivances.

Then Tony Knight touched a match to that simmering powder keg by introducing the modern inline ignition system.

We’ve gone a step further today with Federal’s self-contained FireStick loads that pack just the right amount of powder in a watertight shotshell-like cartridge.

Today’s muzzleloaders are capable of 1-inch groups out to 100 yards and beyond, but modern hunting technology doesn’t stop at firearms.

Modern hunting technology now touches bows, arrows, broadheads, centerfire guns and ammo, clothing, optics, trail cameras and electronics, all designed to make us more efficient hunters.

Some think we’ve gone too far with gear, gadgets and technology, while others find modern contrivances quite useful. Who’s right?

Modern Hunting Technology Started Long Before Electronics

Let’s be honest. If you drew a once-in-a-lifetime tag to hunt trophy elk in New Mexico or bighorn sheep in Arizona, would you choose a bow or a rifle? Okay, there are probably a respectable number of you who still might opt for a bow just for the extra challenge.

But what if you were heading into the Rockies for an unspecified period of time with the dual objective of generating a year’s income solely from hunting and trapping while also remaining alive long enough to do so. Would you dress in buckskins and carry a caplock muzzleloader?

I expect not. I’m betting old Hatchet Jack wouldn’t either.

The real mountain men carried steel knives and hatchets when they could have used stone. They used Hawken rifles because that was the best technology available at the time.

Technological advancements are hardly restricted to firearms. Some bowhunters are quick to malign gun hunters for taking unfair advantage of modern weaponry. They need only look in their bow hand to see the hypocrisy.

Few are carrying hand-hewn sticks strung with a length of sinew and loaded with a hand-shaved cedar shaft, itself fletched with quills from a wild turkey and tipped with hand-knapped stone.

Nay, their carbon-riser bow is strung with twisted synthetic fibers wound through a maze of laser-machined wheels and cams. Attached to that is a lighted nock at the end of a precision-made carbon shaft tipped with an aircraft-grade stainless steel expandable broadhead.

Do these advancements offer an unfair advantage or take away from our experience in the field?

In the case of both gun hunters and bowhunters, the principle objective is to make a quick, clean kill. Whether you carry a flintlock muzzleloader or an autoloader, whether you shoot a recurve or a crossbow, you still have to do everything necessary to create a shot opportunity. Then you have to make the most of that opportunity. In the meantime, you might as well enjoy comfortable concealment.

Better Hunting Gear Doesn’t Always Mean Less Tradition

Nobody knows who first thought military surplus camouflage clothing might offer advantages for hunters, but it was a good idea that caught on quickly.

We do know it was Jim Crumley who, in 1972, took that idea a step further and launched both a revolution and a multi-million dollar industry when he produced Trebark, the first camouflage pattern designed specifically for hunting.

Today there are dozens of companies that produce hundreds of different camo patterns. Some are universal; others are specific to certain environments or seasons. All can be effective, but are they necessary?

Maybe, and maybe not. Since he first learned to walk upright and hurl sharp, pointy objects, man has been sneaking up on deer. It’s only the last couple generations who have been donning apparel designed to better blend into their environment. Or is it?

Who hasn’t seen a painting depicting Native Americans slipping up on an unsuspecting deer, antelope or buffalo disguised under the pelt of either predator or prey? I’d venture they adorned themselves with natural vegetation from time to time, too.

Then there’s the North woodsmen of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. While the plaid pattern of their Woolrich jackets may have been designed for another purpose, it does an acceptable job of breaking up the human form. Camo pattern makers just took that a step further by coloring outside the lines.

Then there’s the North woodsmen of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. While the plaid pattern of their wool jackets may have been designed for another purpose, it does an acceptable job of breaking up the human form. Camo pattern makers just took that a step further by coloring outside the lines.

Modern Hunting Clothing Is About More Than Camo

Modern hunting technology isn’t always electronic. Sometimes it’s as simple as a better fabric, a warmer base layer or a camouflage pattern that breaks up the human outline.

Forget camo for the moment and let’s talk about material. Mountain men wore animal skins, but they and their native nemeses also wore wool because of its ability to insulate, even when wet.

Legendary deer trackers of the North woods still do, sometimes. But they and their less traditional cohorts have found alternatives, particularly when it comes to base layers.

I wasn’t around when buckskins were still in fashion, but I am long enough in the tooth to remember when underwear was either wool or cotton. As I found wool too scratchy, I opted for the latter and suffered for it. Once wet, cotton stays wet and literally sucks heat from your body.

In addition to pet rocks, mood rings and disco, the 70s also introduced the polyester suit, a fashion faux pas that would later be repurposed into one of the greatest innovations in outdoor apparel, the synthetic base layer.

Now, instead of staying wet and drawing valuable heat away from your body, your base layer fabric actually sucks moisture away while continuing to insulate, like wool without the itch. Polyester fabrics don’t get heavy when wet, and they don’t absorb odors.

The latest versions are even better at all of the above, and they’re treated with anti-microbial solutions to inhibit human odor. Now you can be more comfortable, less malodorous and less susceptible to the number one killer in all of the outdoors: hypothermia. Why would you wear anything else?

Do Illuminated Scopes and Lighted Sights Cross the Fair Chase Line?

Let’s go back to our weaponry for a moment. I have a Hawken rifle with open buckhorn sights. I can hit the broad side of a barn from the outside and, on a good day, a stationary whitetail that’s within 75 yards. But I’m not ashamed of the fact that all my other deer guns, at least the centerfire models, have magnified scopes. Why leave anything to chance?

When Quigley went down under, he didn’t use open sights. He had a calibrated peep sight on his Sharps. And when Josey Wales sent Captain Terrill and his Kansas Red Legs on a Missouri boat ride, he used a scoped Sharps.

If you want to play around with open sights, that’s your prerogative, but where I live I’m very lucky to get one quick, fleeting opportunity per season to shoot a buck. If I want to put venison on the table, I don’t have the luxury of self-imposed limitations.

Perhaps a better case can be made against things like illuminated scope reticles and lighted archery sight pins. They might seem excessive, largely because they’re electronic. Basically, they give us a few extra minutes of visibility at the beginning and end of the day.

I don’t use them, primarily because I end my bowhunting day when I can no longer make out twigs and limbs large enough to deflect an arrow, which always occurs before the end of legal shooting hours.

Having said that, I harbor no ill will toward anyone who chooses to light up their sights.

RELATED: Nocpix BOLT L35R: A No-Nonsense Thermal Scope for Hunters

Calls, Scents and the Original Hunting Tools

Calls and lures are not a modern contrivance, either. We’ve merely substituted an acrylic tube and a plastic reed for a length of bone or a blade of grass. As for electronic calls, the only difference is they make the sounds instead of you, but they’re the same sounds Plains Indians made with their mouths before white men set foot on the North American continent.

And if you don’t think Native Americans, Daniel Boone and Kit Carson cut the tarsal glands off deer and removed their bladders for use as a cover scent, you’re mistaken.

Trail Cameras, GPS Apps and the Hardest Ethics Questions

I already noted a few examples, but electronics seem to be the most objectionable contrivances to traditionalists.

Railing against technology is a slippery slope that pulls increasingly downward as new and better electronics come along. Smartphones are a safe and practical way to communicate with other hunters, so long as you’re just letting them know where you are, when you’ll be home or if you need help. But what about communicating the location of game to another hunter? Is that ethical?

Trail cameras provide a means to scout when you can’t be in the woods. It used to take days to get results in the form of printed photographs. Digital photography significantly reduced that time, and now you can get real-time photos and video clips delivered to your phone or computer.

Is that an unfair advantage? As with guns and camouflage, you still have to go out and get within range of the critters to seal the deal.

How about smartphone apps and handheld GPS devices? What the latter do, you can do with a paper map and a compass, if you know how. The GPS just makes it easier, which is not a bad thing. It certainly cuts down on time, money and effort spent on search-and-rescue operations.

Smartphone apps are now so numerous and varied that it would take an entire article just to dissect each one to decide which, if any, step over line of fair chase.

The Real Test for Modern Hunting Technology

The real test for modern hunting technology isn’t whether something is new, expensive or easier to use. It’s whether it helps hunters make ethical decisions without eroding fair chase.

Perhaps one of the best examples is AR-platform rifles. Some say we don’t need them for hunting. Since when has need been the defining criteria for whether or not a certain item should be allowed?

We don’t need camouflage. We don’t need elevated treestands, telescopic sights, carbon arrows or razor-bladed broadheads. But they do help us more easily achieve our goal of making a quick, clean, humane kill, all without compromising the fair chase ethic or endangering the long-term viability of wildlife populations.

I don’t doubt that if given a choice between his beloved Hawken or a Bushmaster AR-15, old Hatchet Jack would choose the latter without batting an eye. And he might never have ended up froze to a tree.