I've seen on his forum and others the statement that if an innovation makes us a more efficient hunter (more lethal) then we should use it because we will have more humane kills and less loss of wounded game. But we have to draw the line somewhere or hunting ceases to be a sport. Compound bows, in-line muzzleloaders, magnum rifles with night-vision scopes, they all add to the lethality of the user. How about a heat seeking broadhead on a lazer guided arrow with a little JATO rocket attached? Ridiculous, yes, but where do you draw the line? Do we allow the individual to decide for himself the level of challenge involved in his hunting or do we regulate technological advances to level the playing field?

So far I have drawn the line with electronic devices...anything with batteries other than a flash light for emergencies. Rangefinders, laser sights, GPS, electronic calls etc.

With my ranging skills though...I'm thinking of blurring the line soon

I would have to say everyone needs to draw their own line. I dont like the sofisticated stuff. The less moving parts the better. Lighted sights, red dot scopes, and stuff like that I dont get into either. But hey, as long as its legal in your neck of the woods, use whatever you feel comfortable with.

Personally I am a techno weinie. But I won't use anything that gives me an unfair advantage on game. What is unfair? In my book, night vision, Infrared anything, Electronic calls, Robo decoys and even hunt drives. I want to know that I succeeded because I was lucky or I was good enough to antisipate the actions of the game and be in the right place at the right time. I also hate to carry anything heavier than a knife so avoid stuffing gadgets in my pack.

Yeti

It all comes down to personal satisfaction on issues such as these.

If you use a certain piece of legal equipment, and you feel good about using it, then that's all that matters.

If another hunter chooses to only use a spear to hunt, and derives a lot of personal satisfaction from that, then that's OK too.

Now the issues of what should be legal, and what should be made illegal is a different topic, but suffice it to say that our Conservation Advisory Board here in Alabama doesn't take into consideration giving the animal a sporting chance considering the recent changes.

If the Conservation advisory board eventually legalizes land mines and law rockets, what can you do? Not much except not use them yourself, and PAY ATTENTION to who is using them when you're in the woods. :roll:

I'm sure some of you have heard of this device called the Draw-Loc. It enables a bow to be kept at full draw and all you have to do is pick it up and shoot. Now I'm all for people that are disabled in some way to use this device but all the advertising I've seen is people who are perfectly healthy. If you're disabled by all means use it. Other than that it should be illegal 8)

I don't use range finders or anything electronics... I know I won't use night vision goggles or heat dectors, that takes the fun out of hunting any kind of game....

I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with using rangefinders. I think that they help reduce wounded animals. That is my opinion. As far as electronic devices rangefinders are the only thing I have used. No lighted sights. What do you guys think about those lighted nocks?

Actually, in most states that I'm aware of, it is illegal. Certainly in the states I've hunted in recent years, the regs outlaw devices that keep a bow at draw. (Doesn't apply to a crossbow, but in my state only the medically approved can hunt with a crossbow).

For me, I agree with most about the techno stuff, and I don't carry or use any of those things, with two exceptions. I do use range finders for the very reason that if I think I can take the shot, I will. But if I'm off in my ranging, I can end up with a wounded / lost animal. Ranging doesn't just tell me the yardage so my shot is based on fact and not a guess, but it tells me on occasion that the shot is beyond my self-imposed limit - so I don't shoot. Bigger animals can seem closer than they actually are.

The other is gps. I get into new territory sometimes, and I often head for camp after dark. I don't want search & rescue wasting valuable time and resources looking for me because I got turned around and into the wrong drainage because of inclement weather or my own blunder. And when making multiple trips to pack out meat, I don't want to lose track of the kill site in dark timber. But neither of those pieces of technology directly increase my advantage over the quarry. They protect me and help keep me safe and sensible. (They probably do assist in some indirect ways, however, but I can live with the trade off for my own safety and peace of mind.)

First of all, I think this is a great topic, especially for people who are torn between their decision, like me. I hope this gets a lot of responses to hear the pros and cons from everyone.
I have given this a lot of thought over the years. I think there are many questions we need to ask ourselves. To which none I have a solid answer to.

With technology, are we steering away from all our efforts of conservation?
If yes, have we seen harvest statistics increase?
Are we putting the game population in danger with technology?

Many thoughts run through my mind trying to figure out where I stand on the subject. I agree with most of you when you say that it is personal preference and we need to set our own standards. As humans we have been given a brain that has the capability to develop and evolve. This making us the most dominant creature and sitting on top of the food chain. However, the brain works in more ways than one. It also gives us the capability think morally. It is both fortunate and unfortunate that we know what is right and wrong. Our species much like other species are very competitive. There are more hunters year after year. I can very much see why these products are being made, and even more, being used. I deffinately think that GPS is a great item to own. It has saved me from being lost more times than one. But I can see where it might help one in pursuing and harvesting an animal. As far as motorized decoys, rangefinders, Walkers Game Ear and everything else, I don't know where I stand. I am eager to hear what you all have to say.

Here in Oregon it is illegal to have a device attached to the bow that will hold the bow at full draw. The law also states that no electronic devices may be attached to the bow or arrow. I'm assuming that would include lighted nocks.

Its not exactly a question of putting game populations in danger by overharvesting using advanced technology, its more a question of being allowed fewer days afield to keep the harvest within biologically acceptable limits. In some states overharvest is not a problem, hunters can, and probably should, use every advantage to keep the population in check. In those situations it should be the hunters decision. Here in Oregon its a different matter, in the past Oregon has actually sold more elk tags than it has elk, now that is pressure! Just for the sake of argument, what do you think would happen if we outlawed scopes on centerfire rifles, outlawed compound bows, and only allowed flintlock muzzleloaders? I'm guessing the harvest would plummet and our seasons could be twice as long. Just something to think about.

If that is the way it went I would go with it. I have only shot four deer and two elk and until this years cow my longest shot was @ 50'. The cow I shot this year was @ 250-300 yds across a canyon. If I didn't have the 300 win mag with a quality 3x9 scope I would not have shot. There is no way I could have gotten withing reasonable range for BP.

I think it would be really cool to take an elk with a vintage 1886 in 45-70 and a tang site. That is actually on my things to do list. I will use whatever they give me to hunt, just as long as they let me hunt.

Yeti

I understand your point Ricochet. Every year I wish that the seasons were longer. I have never thought of it that way before. Deer and elk hunting I have done relatively the same since I was legally able to carry a rifle. And that is just flat out hunt for em'. I don't track big buck sign with my GPS. I don't use automatic feeders, or trail cams. I just go hunt, and hopefully I get lucky. The only technology involved is a certerfire rifle, a scope, good boots, and a 4X4 to get me there.
The way I relate to this topic most is mainly waterfowl and the controversial robo duck. It was outlawed in Oregon last year. There is no doubt in my mind that the robo duck increases opportunities to harvest ducks. I own one and have proof by numbers. However there was not one time while hunting over it that I limited on ducks. I guess I am just torn to believe whether it is a good idea to outlaw certain technolical gadgets and let others go.

Hi, Good topic. Let's face it, each year new gadgets will emerge on the market, aimed more at getting your money than your praise. Unless they are deemed illegal, it's just a matter of personal choice, personal ethics. Hunting is an individual sport, for the most part. And the choices we make, as individuals, are just as personal as the ways in which we hunt. What seems ok to one, might disgust another. That's just the way it is.
-Jim

arrowstinger-
I never realised that wanting to hunt more made me a bad father. I don't know about the other stuff, I quit being a husband years ago, and I have no friends, so you must be right. :shock: I just started this discussion to see where everyone else stood, its been fun. Its not always about turning back the clock, we hear a lot about the challenge of hunting but most people aren't willing to handicap themselves more than the next guy. How many longbow or recurve shooters do you know? Oregon has a mule deer area that has historically produced some whopper bucks. It has unlimited tags for archers willing to use traditional bows, no compounds allowed. Last year less than 80 hunters had that tag as their first choice. So maybe its not so much about the challenge as it is about having a reasonable chance to harvest game.
Before someone jumps my case about being some holier-than-thou purist, let me say I use a Bowtech Liberty during archery season, a Ruger 77 in 300 Win. Mag. with a 3X9 Leupold scope during rifle season, and a T/C Renegade if I draw a muzzleloader tag. Not exactly throwbacks to some forgotten era. I'm as guilty as the next guy when I talk about the challenge of hunting, its about accepting some level of difficulty but if it was purely about challenge, then I'd be using rocks or a spear. I would hate for us to get so efficient at harvesting game due to the use of technological advances that deer season is from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on some Wednesday in October. :cry:

Intriguing question, elkchaser. I think I'll design a couple of polls around your question.

arrowstinger-
I think its healthy for all of us to stand back once in awhile and reassess our priorities. But having longer seasons doesn't REQUIRE you to go, you still have the option of spending that time with friends and family. Available hunting time varies greatly from state to state, I remember reading years ago about bear season in Pennsylvania being one day! Oregon has some rifle elk hunts that last only four days. Some of the southern states have deer seasons that last for months so opportunities for time afield can vary immensely depending on where you hunt.
I have to admit I don't use my bow to hunt elk for the increased challenge, the success rates for archery and rifle are pretty similar in Oregon, I choose archery for the timing of the season (the rut), and the extra season length. So in a broad sense I am trading the use of a less technologically advanced weapon (the bow) for additional time afield.
You are right- the bow vs. rifle controversy rears its ugly head from time to time. I've heard rifle hunters complain about our longer archery seasons, but few will pick up a bow and give it a try. If they want a longer season, they have that option. As sportsmen we need to stick together, fighting amongst ourselves only gives the anti-s more ammo to use against us. I once had a dedicated fisherman tell me how inhumane he thought trapping was. I pointed out that a coyote in a leg-hold trap probably suffers a lot less trauma than a trout pulled out of its element by a hook in its mouth. Point being, as sportsmen we need to support each others regulated use of our wildlife resources, not selfishly guard our own interests and ignore, or even vote against, others sportsmen's ways of using our wildlife.
I understand what you're saying about being bored with rifle hunting, I too got to the point where going out and shooting the first legal buck was no longer enough of a challenge, so I started trophy hunting. Once again, its about looking for a challenge and finding a level that allows some success while increasing the satisfaction by doing it the hard way. I once passed up forty five legal bucks during a two week muzzleloader hunt, I had a blast! I have a friend who finds it virtually impossible to pass up a legal deer, that's his choice. We all come from different places with different experiences and abilities and I don't think we can say there is a definitive line to be drawn as far as technology in hunting is concerned. We just need to remember that for every step forward in lethality that technology grants us we may have to pay a price in either time afield (shorter seasons) or lower tag numbers to keep the harvest within acceptable limits.

ricochet, I totally agree with you. Good post. I'm always saying we need to stick together. Particularly in the sport of archery. We also need to involve, support and encourage the next generation or the future will be bleak.

I was going to weigh in on this earlier but we moved this week and I have been busy, to say the least. But, I'm back, and hope to stay in a little better touch. I suspect it was one of my comments in another thread that sparked this so I wanted to reply. Even if not, I still want to weigh in.

As for using gadgets in hunting, I'm not sure there are many that really give us an advantage over the animals we pursue. Hunter success rates are not shooting up, are they?

If we are going to question the use of inline muzzleloaders, magnum rifles, etc. etc., let us also question the use of scentlok clothing, hearing assistance devices, camouflage, etc. I don't see those things questioned very often, but what are they for? Are they not for the purpose of trying to gain an advantage over the animal? Or, if we are going to compare advantages gained by certain equipment and have some folks questioning others and what they use, let us line up bowhunters on one side and yell at the rifle hunters on the other, who can shoot their animal at 10 times the distance bowhunters can. Obviously this is going to serve no good use.

My take on this is fairly simple. If you think something you are using is giving you an unfair advantage over the animal, then don't use it. If it is illegal (bow-lock devices are everywhere I've ever hunted) then obviously don't use it.

My original comments were in regard to rangefinders. I fail to see how a rangefinder provides any advantage whatsoever over the animal. If anything, using one denotes respect for the animal. Now, instead of, Yeah, he's close enough.....BOOM! only to find out he's not, I can say, no, he's 100 yards too far out, I need to get closer.

Seems to me that if something gives you an advantage over an animal, it then reduces the skills needed to take the animal. I do not see how a rangefinder does that. It only tells you whether you are close enough; it does not help you get closer.

There was a day when I would have poo-pooed anything modern in hunting. However when I realize that we need to maintain as good a reputation as we can as hunters, especially among non-hunters, in addition to just respecting the animals we pursue, seems to me it can only help to use legal devices that really help us be better, more responsible hunters. True, many new inventions are gimmicks, but some are pretty helpful. I think we should be open to using them if they help make us better.

trcass-
Its not really about gaining an advantage over the game, its about shaving off a little of their advantage over us in sight, hearing, and sense of smell. When we use the argument that if its legal, its ok we are loosing sight of the fact that most, if not all, of the methods and equipment now outlawed were once legal. Spotlighting, fully automatic weapons, baiting, and, more recently, robotic decoys were once legal in most states. But sportsmen or game biologists decided they were unsporting, or maybe just too effective, and they crossed over to the prohibited side. Being legal doesn't guarantee that its sporting and some of today's gadgets will eventually become illegal. Think about it, the whole concept of sport as it pertains to hunting is about effectiveness. When something, be it a device or method, makes it too easy to harvest game, it becomes unsporting. So we have to remember that the concept of what is sporting is subject to change. We also must remember that individuals differ in their willingness to accept the challenges that hunting has to offer. Some people just want to fill their tag and get home to watch football while others use whatever method they're comfortable with to extend their time afield. That can be archery, holding out for a trophy, or whatever makes success more difficult for them. That's why some highly skilled hunters seldom harvest an animal and some others (who haved crossed over to the dark side of poaching, spotlighting, etc.) always have venison in their freezers. Success, no matter how tainted, is all-important to some, to others, its about how you got there.
In the last few years we have seen a real increase in technology and a corresponding increase in gadgets that have been deemed unlawful and therefore, by definition, unsporting. I don't expect it to end anytime soon.
That's why I posed this question to begin with, we all have our personal limits. Its interesting to see where certain individuals draw the line and how they justify it.