I’m of the opinion that the “tech/no tech” debate
is illustrative of a greater problem in the hunting tradition.

We sportsmen and women have to be careful not to put up any dividing lines
between an already divided and threatened tradition. For that reason, I feel
that hunters need to be careful not to belittle or cheapen the method of one
hunter in contrast with another’s. To expand on this, calling one form of
hunting “un-sportsmanlike” while elevating another onto a pedestal as
the “pure” way to do it is a dangerous game of intellectual gymnastics. The
compound bow is just as much a technological advantage over prey as is the
rifle, albeit with different specifics. Things like compasses, GPSs and other
gadgets are simply facilitators of an already “unfair” (tech-wise) pursuit. A
hunter can use as many gizmos as he or she wants, but in the end the ultimate
deciders of whether or not a hunt is successful are luck, skill and
determination.

Hunters must be careful not to take a reductionist approach
to the sport. Look at it this way: Bow hunter B calls rifle hunter R a
non-purist for his “unsportsmanlike” use of a rifle on a deer hunt. Rifle
hunter R fires back that bow hunter B is just as guilty, as the use of a tool
like a bow against a deer who, after all, lacks the mental capacity to
understand that he should build himself a ghillie suit to better conceal
himself, is just as much a technological advantage. They keep going and going
and get to the point where they decide spears are the only pure way to hunt
-  but that introduces its own problems,
as after all the spear is a human artifact (and thus a piece of technology, as
primitive as it may be) as well. They finally arrive at the conclusion that any
such kind of “assisted” hunting is not pure – the only acceptable practice is
tooth and nail. But that raises its own problems, as a deer is probably going to
outrun a human chasing him to get at him with his hands.

Humans are then relegated to doing what many anthropologists
and biologists hypothesize our species did before we became more organized –
scavenge and survive off the leftovers of species more well adapted to pursuing
and killing their prey with what they’ve got on their body.

What I am getting at here is that the very practice of
hunting in and of itself is an artifact of human nature and is likely
intrinsically “unfair” and “impure” according to the most strict naturalist
definitions, so any attempt to deem one strain of hunting impure and another
pure is a waste of thinking power and breath. This raises its own questions of
what is natural and what is artificial, especially if an artifact of human
behavior is used to give us a “natural” (biological) advantage, but that is
beyond the scope of this question.

Of course we can say that there are certain aspects of the
hunt that we can collectively agree must be practiced or prohibited – a quick
and humane kill and not torturing the animal, wildlife conservation and
protection versus depletion and so on. But the imagined barriers we toss up
between the different disciplines of the same craft harm us more than help us.
The tradition and practice of hunting requires solidarity and criticizing each
other back and forth for “doing it wrong” is a distraction.

I think you need to find your joy in hunting. Rather that is as simple as photographing an animal or harvesting it with whatever. I also think a lot of folks like to dial up the difficulty factor as they get more experienced and taking an animal gets easier. The harder I worked for whatever, the more appreciative I am of it and the stronger the memory is for me. I also get a lot of enjoyment out of all the icing on the cake stuff that comes along with chasing a particular animal. Sit in a tree stand and watch a hawk get a squirrel or have a chickadee land on your leg as you sit there quietly. Letting an animal walk by as opposed to harvesting it because it came by. Having a huge buck inside of your shooting range and not feeling good about the shot so you don’t take a marginal shot. There are so many aspects of hunting that make it special no matter how you go about it. I think inside the hunting community we need to accept that basic ethics may be a lot less stringent than our self imposed ethics . As long as things are done in a sportsmanlike manner then it’s all good. 

I have thought about this subject for years…ever since I read Aldo Leopold’s low opinion of “the gadgeteer” in A Sand County Almanac (“Wildlife in American Culture). Had he been able to foresee the high-tech gadgetry we buy, sell, and employ today, he might have had a stroke. Still, his was one man’s opinion, as is mine. I tend to keep it simple, by choice and because I couldn’t afford too many tech toys anyway. I find it amusing that most of the bucks on our club lands have been photographed, head-on and in profile, and given names. My bottom line: tolerance is essential; techo-sportsmen are here to stay. I’m happy as long as no one insists that I put a scope on my muzzleloader. 

Ha, I’ve thought on this topic off and on myself over the last several years. In fact I think I just published an article on this topic 2 wks ago in a Colorado paper. Here’s a few of my thoughts. I fish from Alaska to La. and yet the best fishing trip I ever had was when we were in college. We borrowed a few cane poles out of the garage below our garage apartment. With literally the change in our pockets we bought some hooks, worms and wts and hit the local lake. We.
caught a mess of bluegills and whatever else. One of the guys found a blackberry patch. We picked berries and went home and had a feast. It cost us the change in our pockets but we had a blast that day.

Now when I go outdoors I’ve got a ton of product to test and include in my pictures. For instance last summer my daughter went on a backcountry flyfising trip w/ me for the 1st time.
I was supposed to test 2 flyrods, backpacking meals, mosquito reppelants, sunscreen, boots and on and on. All I wanted was to be w/ my daughter. I write for a living but sometimes I just want to go out and forget the world.

Like a couple of weeks ago me and 2 buddies jumped on their horses and rode them up to the top of a mountain. We got up on top and built a fire, cooked a lunch and fired up a pot of coffee. We saw 49 deer but didn’t even get a shot at a wolf which is what we were after and yet we had the best trip I’ve had in weeks.

It wasn’t much different than what we’d of done when we were 16 yrs. old except this time I’m older and smarter and wore enough clothes so I didn’t freeze. To me this is what getting outdoors is all about. Sometimes we can get caught up in all the new gear and gimmicks. I think they’re all fine. Just don’t forget why you go outdoors. I think we go outdoors to go back in time to a simpler lifestyle, see God’s creation, be w/ your buddies and have a good time. I don’t know, I’m not a clinical physcologist. I just know it makes me feel good when I’m outdoors. I can’t tell you all the reasons why.

But back to answer the original question. It seems like we always try to make improvements. Look at the long bow you used as a kid compared now to your compound bow. Or my first 4x fixed power Leupold I bought 45 yrs. ago compared to the VX-III Leupold I now use.

So, do I end up having all the newest toys? Seems like it but I don’t have to have them to have to have fun.